Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jczsoal wrote

They, wouldn't use ai and a robot army to do any of this. The logistics of a culling would be quite elementary if you weren't using robots.. There are several viable ways.

A highly transmissable virus, or pathogen with a long dormant phase, and a near 100% death rate. By the time symptoms start popping up from the contamination of say, corn syrup, or any food staple, the overwhelming majority of the world would already have been exposed.

Or one could introduce chemical agents designed to sterilize over long periods of consumption, or to initiate incurable disease early in life. (The long game)

A robot army is infinitely more work, and more complex, and provides significantly less reward.

Ai has already unlocked an unimaginable amount of new proteins and chemicals.. it will soon unlock the downright cornucopia of genetic engineering... Imagine mosquitos that reproduce every time they bite someone. Eggs enter the circulatory system, hatch, and grow inside the body. Nothing is stopping this, except resources and intelligence, both of which will be available aplenty post agi.

You're right that there is little incentive to do this, but you only need it to happen one time. Perhaps 99.9999999% of the elites or people in general won't seek such an outcome, but all it would take is 1.

Hopefully I'm just a negative Nancy, with an overactive imagination.


IluvBsissa t1_jczxlxb wrote

Pretty sure public researchers from hundreds of different countries (who are far from being rich) will notice their "long game" scheme before it's too late.


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jd1uyjv wrote

Would they start noticing large increases in cancer rates traditionally only found in the elderly, suddenly being found in younger and younger populations? Or a massive decrease in, say, fertility rates?

Lol. You have a lot more hope in humanity than I do. I think that anyone who brought such a scheme to light would be silenced by social pressures.

I don't know much about the politics of science, but I imagine that the individuals who actually did bring such a scheme to light would become a pariah in the community, and they are smart enough to realize it. Most people just go along to get along, they aren't going to take the risk that they're wrong and be known as the crazy conspiracy theorist for the rest of their career.

But maybe you're right. I suppose it depends on whether you think society values truth more than popularity. Many people fear social rejection more than death, sometimes even seeking death as a solution to social rejection... If the social pressure says "keep your mouth shut, and don't question xyz" the extreme majority will not question it and even go out of their way to shut down others who do.


Because fitting in is human nature.

When our ancestors saw the rest of the tribe running from something, the ones who stayed behind to see whether running was the right decision or not were removed from the gene pool.


Eleganos OP t1_jczw5a1 wrote

I did address how bioweapons would be a far more plausible way this all could go down, though I didn't want to dig into it since this was a focused rebuttal specifically against the sudden influx of people I've been noticing who insist that It'll be the murder bots who do us in.

I would also say that in the example you gave of the one elite doing it, it also stops being 'the rich will cull us!' And becomes 'one psychopath who happened to be rich rldecided to murder us all for the funsies'

In that scenario I would again point out though that, with a population of 8 billion, there would be a hell of alot of one in a million chances swirling around. Heck, in the event of 1 vs the world, you'd get eight one-in-a-billion chances. If nothing else I feel like one of those miracles would lead to people surviving, even if it was just a perfect combination of genes to make them resistant to the bioweapon. And some of whom would probably be rich of government individuals themselves. And hence would have the resources along with motive to give the murderous monster their just desserts.

So while it would still be a doomsday scenario, I don't see it working out for the instigator. And with the help of AGI, whoever was left would be able to rebuild.


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jd1wpsa wrote

I somewhat agree.

But fun fact, CEOs and senior executives are disproportionately more likely to exhibit psychopathic traits.

Also, I agree that not everyone would be killed in such a scenario. Someone would get lucky. There are people who only eat food they grow themselves. An extreme minority, but they would survive. There are also tribes of humans which receive very little contact with the outside world. Plus, plenty of people have bunkers, and are prepared for, at least, some of the scenarios, and some might just be immune.

>And hence would have the resources along with motive to give the murderous monster their just desserts.

This is dependent upon it being just one person. What if it's a large cult? A rogue nation. They don't need to wipe everyone out, if it's anywhere near 90%, and they aren't affected? They just outright win all future conflicts. Just picking up all the bodies would take years.. Let alone getting things like food production and other essentials going. Not to mention the loss of human skills.

Agi could accelerate a recovery dramatically, but the rogue group would also utilize it.