This is a very good point, and I've never heard people discuss this before.

Basically, human intelligence augmentation will let anyone that wants to, turn into a supervillain.

It's much harder though. It is likely we will have AGI before an augumented supervillain.

Maybe. We run on prehistoric instincts and drives which can lead to all kinds of bad things. Maybe augmentation will mean the rational side of ourselves wins out and we can improve things like willpower/self reflection/empathy.

Why is it assumed that increased intelligence leads to violence, or going rogue?

Every person I have met with a extremely high IQ is the exact opposite.

It the lower IQ that use violence and are unable to understand why they don't get the results they want.

The super smart, super villain is fiction. Being a villain is not a smart way to achieve a goal.

Goebbels was very intelligent. Intelligence and ethics are not the same thing. Whether you can create Frankenstein's monster with HIA, IDK. But I think HIA is less developed than AI. However, with AI able to reason about proteins, one day pills could be made that can give us near genius abilities. Imagine giving the pills to an army. Suddenly every conscript could become a Napoleon. I think that this scenario is more likely than what you describe.

I don't agree. Having terribly good AR glasses with customized sensors and a custom LLM/LVM that's pretty competent (not necessarily AGI) is enough to become a supervillain, especially in poor countries.

A person with low IQ can use tools made by people with high IQ to make smart plans to achieve evil goals though.

It will also allow others of us to transform ourselves into guardian angels, the real kind. If I get super intelligence I'm going to use it to protect (and give freedom to) as much sentient life as I can, for as long as I am able. I mean it. I hope others will do the same--I think they will.

The lack of political knowledge in this sub is crystal clear, as you seem to misunderstand that peace, good, bad, violence... Aren't agreed concepts.

What is good for you can be bad for me.

I mean, that’s assuming they’ll still have such ambitions once they’re posthuman (See Jon Osterman/Doctor Manhattan)

Anecdotally I agree however the ability to empathise is key.

Your comment is arrogant, and displays a lack of ethics and morals.

Causing suffering is wrong. Oppressing other people is wrong. Taking people's freedom and liberty is wrong. Peace is always preferable to war, and violence in service of anything other than self-defense is wrong.

You will get your ass beaten up if you try anything like that in a poor country. Don't be stupid. No matter how smart you think you are you aren't smart enough to beat a lot of people especially not a country. Unless you are fully superhuman you will get assassinated no matter how cool your glasses are

What I'm saying is that "suffering", "oppression", "freedom", "liberty", "peace", "war", "violence" and "self defense" are subjective terms without consensus in our societies.

I'm shocked I'm having this discussion. Don't you watch the news? We're literally having a war in Ukraine and nobody agrees what is good or bad, what is self defense or what is peace.

There're Philippines guys with broken English on Tinder scamming people from Norway every week and you say a person enhanced with LLM/LVM and enhanced sensors can't commit crimes?

Russia attacked Ukraine unprovoked. They are in the wrong.

You are correct that some people do not understand what right and wrong are. That does not mean that right and wrong do not exist. Sometimes there are gray areas, and in these we need to be judicious in balancing competing interests, but that does not mean that we cannot tell right from wrong, and by pushing that narrative, you are advocating for the very type of moral ambiguity that you are pretending to decry.

I'm not decrying anything, I'm literally saying "I'll do good, I hope everyone does" doesn't stop wars, violence, crimes or anything like that. Because they're empty words without meanings in this society.

"Some people don't understand what is right" lol, okay, explain that to the criminal while he's shooting you thinking he's doing good.

Scamming people is not becoming a supervillain

I don't know what is a supervillain to you, but if people with low IQ and slow internet can commit crimes, imagine someone with enhanced capabilities that can create fake audios, videos, images, fake proofs of everything just blinking twice to the AR glasses.

You're not being very clear about the points you're trying to make. I do not know if that is by design, or because your thoughts on this topic are still under construction.

The only point I'm making is that you're saying AI could do good because of people doing good. What I'm saying is that people doing good can mean people doing bad to others.

The difference between a supervillain and a guardian angel is null. Different people have different meanings.

"AI could make people do good", sure, the type of good that is killing people on Ukraine and billions of people are supporting?

That's what I mean. You can't do that without getting noticed. Even if you did you will get killed very quickly.

You underestimate how foggy real life events tend to be. You can't predict with certainty and no amount of intelligence can help you.

The only way this can be harmful is if you are already in a position of power. But if you are already there you can do things without AI as well.

For most people it's impossible to be a supervillain with almost anything. They simply lack the moves and position to accomplish it

Yes, oppressors do get awfully upset about not being able to oppress other people, and definitely think that having their ability to cause harm curtailed is a bad thing. They are wrong. (EX: homophobes who think their rights are being violated because gay people have been allowed to marry. Their rights have not been violated, merely their ability to oppress other people curtailed.) The difference is not null.

To them, a gay is a villain, to you, the homophobe is a villain. As simple as that. They'll both use AI to do "good". One to be gay, other to be homophobe.

A gay person existing cannot possibly be villainous. Thinking otherwise is a complete logical fallacy. Anyone seeking to oppress another person on the basis of this logical fallacy, is committing wrong. Their intellectual failings don't change the objective truth.

And they'll say the same of your thinking.

Yes, but they would objectively be incorrect. That's the difference.

That won't stop the bullet.

But like anything that is excessive can be harmful. Having unlimited empathy, willpower , and being completely rational all have pros and cons. There was a study I believe in which people who felt little to no emotion had a hard time deciding on anything. Because everything is more or less just as valuable as everything else. The only thing keeping them alive is survival driven.

Did you hear me say somewhere that I thought that being in the right was impenetrable armor against someone doing something awful? I didn't. I sure do wish that it was though, that would be very nice.

No, a smart villain knows how to apply violence effectively. He becomes wealthy, bribes politicians to have the state deal with his enemies.

>If I get super intelligence I'm going to use it to protect (and give freedom to) as much sentient life as I can, for as long as I am able. I mean it. I hope others will do the same

To me, this is inviting others to trigger the gun, then you'll cry because it's "bad" that they tried to do good using AI. But hey, this thread is getting nowhere. I appreciate your responses, really. But I have 10000 things to do.

Your reply honestly does not make sense. Have a good rest of your day.

Same to you. As there is no such thing as objective morals, which is what you seem to imply.

More me, that's good because having a lot of supervillans is an unstable society.

Morals aren't objective.

Being a supervillan means being to affect society negatively at large. That scaming person is just a regular villain.

We need augmented humans in order to prevent an SAI takeover

This will be dangerous... Akin to having guns and knives... Bad actors will do bad things...

We will need augmented police officers to combat augmented bad actors...

We could theoretically change the brain to force people to not commit crime... But this has ethical challenges...

There's going to be chaos no matter what... Thats my opinion

Without enhanced abilities.

A purely rational human would stop doing anything until they died of dehydration. Doesn't seem great to me. And of course empathy can easily turn people into tools. Willpower would be great though.

[deleted]

I'm more thinking more of posthuman nutjobs off in the asteroid belt occasionally committing sick crimes and acts of terrorism.

It could result in all sorts of "delusional" beliefs. For example, unlimited empathy might lead an individual to become convinced that all lesser beings are actually a part of it's mind.

I think what we perceive as a normal identity is incredibly specific to the human brain and is far from a universal truth.

What makes you think augmented humans will even identify as human?

Thats not important for centuries we have had police enforce order... In a world full of chaos...

We have tragedies like murder, robberies and rape... In the future we will have these things... The criminals will become more advanced and we will need advanced police to keep the order...

If not they will fall behind and our world will become a scifi wild west

This subreddit heavily underrates how predictable humans are, and reading minds isn't a hard task for a good AI system as well.

We're walking meat. We'll be heavily manipulated by AI in the next months, AI supervillians are going to exist by 2024-2025.

A rational person would drink from a survival standpoint but by itself it was irrational.

Superintelligence could create groups of super smart assholes. Imagine what those mass shooting sad dudes could make if they were 100x smarter.. lol they would nuke a city with a hydrogen bomb while streaming it on twitch

Why would they drink? There's no rational reason to avoid pain or death. That's just our instincts driving us.

Reason and logic are just tools to help you fulfill your irrational desires.

[deleted]

You don't need to be a supervillain to nuke a city. Just decent engineering, a few kilos of plutonium, few grams of tritium and some other slightly exotic parts.

Rational is following reason and logic. Which are in turn simply problem solving abilities. They are the best tools for getting a desired effect. But to have desire in the first place takes an irrational mind.

Ask Google the definition and look at the top bullet.

I strongly disagree. I would vastly prefer a superintelligent toddler to a superintelligent alien.

Soo me being a petty asshole is logic nice 🙂

Depends on your goal. If you want to piss people off or drive them away. Yeah. I'd say being a petty asshole is the logical choice.

Definitely worth thinking about. AI lacks the inborn survival instinct, and might not react to threats against its existence nor might it not take preventative measures for self preservation.

i disagree with the premise. I think a human with normal intelligence and control of an egoless superintelligence is the most dangerous. But I am also extremely skeptical of the concept of egoless, general, superintelligence being a thing.

in fact I would go further and say my conclusion seems obvious. and that using a human as a seed value for a superintelligence would if anything be more likely to result in superintelligence which was "aligned" with our values (although I doubt it makes much of a difference)

I agree and I've always thought this. And think about the self selection of people who would want to go to great lengths to augment their intelligence in the first place. I'd be more afraid of a power hungry individual like that than I am of AI. I think it would be easier to align an AI to the goals of general society than it would be an augmented human.

A smart enough person would realise that making the world a worse place - by bribing, stealing, etc - would make his own life worse as well: whether that's because he needs to spend more on security to guard himself from the people he's stealing from, or by society not having enough resources to develop medical treatments that may one day save him in some way. There are many ways in which poor actions can come back to bite you.

So if we augment everyone's IQ to be very high, then do you believe that there will no longer be any violence?

Noooooooo, I want to write 10 manifestos a second supporting posadism😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

[deleted]

With examples like Genghis Khan, I worry that in some circumstances violence is optimal (perhaps if done in secret or in a clever way) as a means of gaining or protecting power, for example. It would be concerning if violence is not actually directly inversely correlated with IQ, but rather a different quality or set of qualities.

How in the world is that assertion self-evident? You can’t just say something like that without reasoning it.

It's simple. What rational reason is there to avoid pain and death? There is none. You simply want to avoid them out of animalistic instinct.