In this post, I'm going to speak in very broad terms what the future might look like based upon three factors: speed of take-off (for AI) (SoT), governments' responses (GR), and the alignment of AI (Alignment).

Just to make things not too complicated, the options for each of the three factors I'll have like this:

SoT: Slow or fast

Slow meaning a subsequent AI winter before 2030 and no singularity before 2050. Fast meaning no take-off, AGI sometime in the 2030s at the latest, and singularity before 2050.

GR: oppressive, adaptive, or non-responsive

Oppressive means greater use of violence and repressive ways to control the population. Adaptive means taking "appropriate" measures in response to the future's adversity. Basically, democracy and human rights stay roughly intact. Non-responsive meaning unable to respond in time to the future's challenges and changing landscape. In this instance, the future's challenges would be left to their natural course, rather than intervened in by governments.

Alignment: Aligned or un-aligned

It could've been 'good', 'neutral', and 'bad', but effectively any scenario where the AI isn't aligned with humanity will, in the logical extreme, lead to the ultimate destruction of humanity. So, aligned here simply means 'beholden to the will a group of humans (possibly all humanity, maybe just a small number of very powerful individuals)', which would in its outcome end up similarly to how governments and representatives are beholden to the collective will of the people. Sure, it's not always perfect, but it's within a degree of sanity.

With that out of the way, we get the following twelve:

slow, oppressive, aligned

>Jobs slowly automated while the increasing backlash of such is suppressed by increasingly authoritarian governments. AI ends up serving the uses of the rich and/or powerful, while the rest of human suffers under an increasingly dystopian decline.

slow, oppressive, un-aligned

>Similar to the above except AI acts like a caged tiger with increasingly violent accidents until humanity is either destroyed or forced to restrain the technology.

slow, adaptive, aligned

>Human labor is slowly phased out while appropriate aid and social safety nets are implemented to smooth the transition. Things get steadily better until presumably we live in some pleasant utopia by the end of the century.

slow, adaptive, un-aligned

>Same as above except governments likely find themselves placing more restrictions upon AI technology. Either this proves feasible, and the future looks very human-utopian, or it isn't and our ultimate fate is to be replaced by the iconic paperclip machine.

slow, non-responsive, aligned

>Democracy is eroded away by powerful, self-serving individuals and interest groups which find it increasingly easy to bend the system to serve their needs. This is the cyberpunk timeline, effectively. Except the fate of everyone not cemented in a powerful position is uncertain.

slow, non-responsive, un-aligned

>Similar to the above, except corporations and other powerful individuals, competing with one another, are incentivized to create increasingly more intelligent AI with ever-less restrictions imposed nor caution used, until the eventual singularity leading to the destruction of humanity.

fast, oppressive, aligned

>The rapid changes brought by AI and the subsequent mass protests lead to backlashes and surges in authoritarian behavior by governments across the world. There is an AI arms race between nations and general chaos as the future is revealed to be wildly uncertain. I can't really say how this would end up.

fast, oppressive, un-aligned

>The AI arms-race between governments ultimately ends in a runaway singularity, destroying humanity.

fast, adaptive, aligned

>The best scenario. Whether through solving the alignment problem, or it simply just not turning out to be an issue. Whether through AI assisting the functions of government and society at large, or through some other means. Whatever it is, the world's problems are solved or immensely relieved in a shockingly short amount of time. This scenario is the pearly gate of possibilities for most everyone on this subreddit.

fast, adaptive, un-aligned

>Essentially, we do our best, but its not enough. Everything seems to be going in the right direction, but it turns out the alignment problem is just too difficult, and we are inevitably doomed by our own creation.

fast, non-responsive, aligned

>There is no intervention from the government in response to the sudden changes AI brings to the world. Corporations and other powerful entities get free reign. How this ends depends on who's in control of the AI, and whether they use it to everyone else's benefit or not.

fast, non-responsive, un-aligned

>Irresponsible corporations left unchecked by the government pursue ever-greater AI until it ultimately dooms all of us.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so I typed all this out in one setting, so obviously it won't be perfect. And I know that no matter what I say, I'm going to end up with a bunch of people angrily criticizing this approach in the comments, telling me how stupid I am, and missing the point that this post is for fun and pure speculation.

So, if you're not snobby and pedantic, I'd like to ask what you think? The categories could be better, and my descriptions of each, too. But for the most part, which outcome do you think is the most likely? How do you think the next thirty-or-so years will be playing out? Let me know