Submitted by sonderlingg t3_ybh3k3 in singularity
Comments
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itgys81 wrote
When has society gotten worse after rapid change, typically society changes for the better and this can be shown by things like the agricultural and technological revolutions.
dreamking__ t1_ith3ijg wrote
Didn't the industrial revolution turn farmers into proletariat? Technological progress will never make the working class's life better if it is not accompanied by social progress.
ParryLost t1_itjef6p wrote
And agriculture turned happy bands of free, egalitarian hunter-gatherers into generations of miserable dirt-farming peasants toiling away for the glory of various dictatorial leaders.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_ith426i wrote
Can you tell me what you mean by social progress ? Also you can say there was a negative from an industrial revolution, but I’m saying overall they were highly favorable. For example things like better and more accessible transportation technology have been a huge help in combating poverty, which mind you has been decreasing at an incredible rate due to things like the internet
dreamking__ t1_ithc5up wrote
>Can you tell me what you mean by social progress ?
Improving the living conditions of the working class.
>For example things like better and more accessible transportation technology have been a huge help in combating poverty, which mind you has been decreasing at an incredible rate due to things like the internet
As I said, they have been a huge help when employed for it. Tech advancement by its own it's neither good nor bad, it's just a tool. Look at what social media has done to us in the name of profit.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_ithmm9s wrote
Well that’s pretty tautological, you’re saying that social progress is needed to improve worker class living conditions, and then you are defining social progress as anything that improves working class living conditions. What I’m saying is that technological advancement rapid or not enhances/enables or quickens social progress
dreamking__ t1_ithwclr wrote
>and then you are defining social progress as anything that improves working class living conditions.
Right, what I mean is public housing, food security, zeroing unemployment, decent working legislation (securing existing rights and improving upon them).
I'm not sure how things are where you are but my country is struggling with high unemployment due to failed neoliberal policies and a lot of folks are now stuck in the gig economy enabled by delivery and ride apps. Their living conditions are inhumane and way worse than what delivery folk and cabbies used to have prior to the apps.
Pepperstache t1_itj6nkl wrote
Just as how humans completely ignore Thorium as a fuel source despite being cleaner, because it doesn't produce Plutonium as a byproduct. Government and corporate-owned ASI will almost certainly form cartels, and just like the Phoebus cartel, keep the most efficient and useful things from becoming actual solutions. They already openly told us that we'll own nothing in the future and be happy.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ithm3kl wrote
The singularity is not just more "rapid change". It's not like the Industrial Revolution or the Information Revolution or the Internet. All of these things were still under the control of merely human minds.
Beings of mere human intelligence will be like animals after the singularity, compared to the vast and cool intellects in charge of the world. Asking a human about what it will be like is like asking a dog or a raccoon about the Industrial Revolution.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_ithmtpt wrote
Our intelligence will be similiar to what we are to dogs but I don’t think there’s enough reason to believe we will be treated as we treat dogs
ArgentStonecutter t1_ithpv6n wrote
Pekinese maybe. One of those terrible mutants with the crushed sinus.
TheSingulatarian t1_itiai7f wrote
Depends on where you are in the world as to how dogs are treated. Some are treated very well, some have medical experiments conducted on them, some are euthanized, some are eaten. How ASI will regard humans remains to be seen.
DukkyDrake t1_ithplg5 wrote
Agricultural and technological revolutions were not rapid uncontrolled change.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_ithq40b wrote
Not quite singularity level but they were quite rapid , and you said that these changes have been historically universally bad. But if not even a industrial revolution counts as such I don’t get where you’re getting you’re opinion from. Change can be good or bad, when it comes to technological change it has almost always been universally good for humanity, except for things like something like a nuke , but even then it could be argued nukes ultimately benefited humanity.
DukkyDrake t1_itj280d wrote
I think you need to brush up on singularity theory, you're comparing very different things and timelines.
I bet you don't have a nuke in your basement, what if you could and it would cost you no effort or money.
Ex:
>Molecular manufacturing raises the possibility of horrifically effective weapons. As an example, the smallest insect is about 200 microns; this creates a plausible size estimate for a nanotech-built antipersonnel weapon capable of seeking and injecting toxin into unprotected humans. The human lethal dose of botulism toxin is about 100 nanograms, or about 1/100 the volume of the weapon. As many as 50 billion toxin-carrying devices—theoretically enough to kill every human on earth—could be packed into a single suitcase. Guns of all sizes would be far more powerful, and their bullets could be self-guided. Aerospace hardware would be far lighter and higher performance; built with minimal or no metal, it would be much harder to spot on radar. Embedded computers would allow remote activation of any weapon, and more compact power handling would allow greatly improved robotics.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itked5f wrote
As I said earlier you’re only focusing on selective negatives, im saying it will be overall positive, but there will likely be negatives as well. Like with smartphones how there is many negatives and positives, but the positives outweigh the negatives. I can’t say anything for certain I’m just saying that based on the past it is more reasonable to assume it will be positive
DukkyDrake t1_itktg3q wrote
I'm saying it's the rate of societal changes that is usually bad, nothing to do with specific technologies. When it comes to specific tech being bad post singularity, history has no lessons to teach. A smart phone being bad or good doesn't quite relate to every random person on the planet getting access to tech that could end human civilization. Better smartphones or whatever is no good to anyone if they are not alive to enjoy it. It's completely unreasonably to equate the singularity with anything that came before.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itkuws2 wrote
No it’s is reasonable because it refers to the point in which technological advancement becomes unimaginably quick, this says nothing of the rate that social progress will move, but typically quick technological change usually means social change will be quicker. I disagree that quick social progress has been bad, I think that society will change at whatever rate is necessary, that’s the way society works, there’s no “we can’t keep up with technology so we fall as a society scenario” in no way does very very quick technological progress mean very very quick social progress, however it can be reasoned that there will most likely be a lot of social progress and it will happen quite quickly.
DukkyDrake t1_itnn0dn wrote
When I say societal changes, I refer to the large societal level structures that enable society to function. If the supply chain for food stuffs stops working, how long do you think you could survive after the shelves at your local supermarket goes empty. That sort of thing.
If changes occur in days or weeks and not on decadal or centuries timescale, parts of your society could stop functioning before the tech that permit some workers to walkaway reaches everyone. That's why fast societal level changes destabilize society and endangers its ability to support its populational. It's almost always bad, the only sorts of thing that causes fast societal level changes are usually actual revolutions/wars. Industrial revolution wasn't quick, that played out over the course of almost a century. Collapse all those changes down to a week or 2 and you might be closer to the mark.
That's also why there can't be a Ubi before AI replaces most job, the desperate low way wage workers could just walkaway resulting in civilizational collapse.
>I think that society will change at whatever rate is necessary,
Society isn't a monolithic thing, it's a bunch of individuals doing their own thing. It's structured in such a way where there are only a few degrees of freedom that allows one to survive easily. Basically, get a job, earn money, buy food and shelter. Increase those degrees of freedom with tech that allow survival independent of society, most people would walk away. Tech never spreads uniformly and instantaneously. You need society to survive until you reach a state where you no longer do, transitioning from one state to the next is fraught with peril.
>this says nothing of the rate that social progress will move
The Technological Singularity has everything to do with that rate of change on human society, else no one would really care. The Singularity isn't a future point where companies are simply selling new fancy consumer products faster and faster, this event won't be in the control of baseline humans.
>is a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization
> "centered on the accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue"—John von Neumann
>The concept and the term "singularity" were popularized by Vernor Vinge in his 1993 essay The Coming Technological Singularity, in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itnsvge wrote
The main problem with this is that you are assuming all change is bad. Which mind you, the thing up for discussion is whether this change will be good or bad. I’m saying it is more likely to be good than to be bad. I don’t see how you’re jumping from fast technological progress to society stopping. It seems like you’re saying that there will be a time difference in between when the first workers start to get “replaced” and the last workers do. However this is something that will most likely happen Far before the technological singularity.
It just seems to me that we are not actually getting to the root of the argument which is whether it is more likely to be positive or negative for society, historically the industrial revolutions and things of that nature which are a type of scaled down singularity have been extremely positive for society
DukkyDrake t1_itnwmz5 wrote
> The main problem with this is that you are assuming all change is bad.
No, I just never worry about the good cases. The good case is the default state, one only need concern themselves with the bad cases.
>I don’t see how you’re jumping from fast technological progress to society stopping.
How can you not see that pathway. The biggest is fast technological progress creates a super intelligent agent and it accidentally kills everyone.
>which is whether it is more likely to be positive or negative for society
One cannot predict what the world looks like after the singularity, hence the name.
One can theorize about the kinds of tech the avg person could get their hands on, just about anything permitted by physics, and what would do with it. It would take just 1 person to make that choice.
>historically the industrial revolutions and things of that nature which are a type of scaled down singularity have been extremely positive for society
Did those past events, which played out over decades, provide each human on earth access to superhuman competence & labor?-No.
There is no point considering any good when superhuman competence & labor could allow an endless number of maximally bad events. Some prankster is bound to create that suitcase containing 50 billion flying insect bots 200 micron in size, each carrying a 100 nanograms payload of botulism toxin.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itkv5mc wrote
But sure it could just be a coincidence that in the last 100 years we have had vast global social progress which seems to coincide with our standard of living increasing, poverty decreasing and overall connectivity
TheSingulatarian t1_iti9zog wrote
Short term: Mass unemployment, social dislocation, revolutions, strife.
- Long term: If humanity survives the short-term effects, expect a golden age for humanity.
guru_florida t1_itgsdt7 wrote
IMO this poll is missing an option “some good, some bad” or “some good but also misused” because isn’t that the way all tech advances have gone since the atomic bomb including computers, smart phones, social media, automation, etc etc
Heizard t1_itgibrm wrote
Positive. There could be only improvement from the Singularity in the world where Capitalism collapses the biosphere of the planet and kills all life.
If this is not a proof enough, I don't what is:
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-wildlife-populations-fallen-years-wwf.html
​
We need Singularity ASAP, more intelligence not less!
RavenWolf1 t1_ith73t2 wrote
It will lead to Matrix like virtual realities!
ladder598 t1_ith7otn wrote
I hope we can reach the singularity in our lifetimes. I have germaphobia. I also have negative thoughts from the past that still popup in my subconscious mind or mind/brain most of the time. I did take lots of supplements and lots of bud and for some weird reason most of the supplements didn't work for me. my language skills were a bit off. I don't know why. I wrote a similar post to this on another question.
My brain knew a regiment but for some weird reason when I went to college I had no self awareness and I was too busy pleasing college friends that I wasn't thinking about my mental health. And I wasn't thinking straight. One last thing, hopefully something comes out soon that can help people like me.
I am 30 years old at the moment so hopefully I can make it to the singularity but I really don't want to be like 55 or 60 years old when the singularity arrives. Hopefully the Singularity can be like what Ray Kurzweil predicted it would be and I hope the singularity can come by 2028 or 2030. I am waiting lol but still live life guys, eat good food, spend time with family and friends, workout or go for long walks everyday for an hour a day and when the singularity does arrive, all of us will be ready. I voted as well. I hope everyone can have access to good technology that can help things like cure cancer, and more. Sorry for the rant once again and I wish everyone here the best:)
hducug t1_ith7tv9 wrote
The only way I can see the singularity have a negative impact on humanity is when it comes in the wrong hands.
AsheyDS t1_ithikse wrote
There are a lot of hands on this planet...
Emsizz t1_itiz5uf wrote
Extremely naive people answering this question.
[deleted] t1_itgh73l wrote
[deleted]
MallSweet t1_ith7umm wrote
If there were such a thing as real Intelligence, it is absolute value.
If there weren't it can be horrible.
[deleted] t1_ith8790 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ith98l7 wrote
[deleted]
Superduperbals t1_itheo8f wrote
That depends on where the 'power' of AI ends up being held. If by governments, and corporations, and a technocratic elite, then inequality and the balance of power in society will be worse.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ithlnj7 wrote
If it's actually the singularity the only answer is "we can't know". That's what makes it the singularity.
Sarujji t1_ithrheu wrote
I think it all depends on who has it happen first.
sheerun t1_iths6zu wrote
I want to say it will have negative impact, but then I remember world is already shit
Traditional-Job8568 t1_ithwpvv wrote
Even if its positive I belive a lot of chaos will come along with it unless worlds nations prepare and create contingencys against what ir can bring then being the goverments they will not
Skullmaggot t1_iti6dq0 wrote
Like any technology or scientific discovery, it creates potential, and humanity has shown that it puts that potential towards both good and evil.
Astropin t1_itiiysr wrote
"I'm not sure" is the only possible correct answer here. No one can know if this will be good or bad for humanity. We can cross our fingers and hope...but that's all we can do.
cy13erpunk t1_itilz0c wrote
its technology
what effect has the discovery of fire had on humanity? positive/negative ; how about the wheel? yes/no ; or electricity? yay/nay
XD
stop trying to force a false dichotomy
m00nwatcher11 t1_itixi7i wrote
Rebirth.
Mental_Slide9867 t1_itj8zrl wrote
Neutral, because everything is
sunplaysbass t1_itjam4f wrote
We’ll make great pets
ftc1234 t1_ith2w59 wrote
We have some pretty amazing technology right now. Does that mean that people can afford homes, cars, relaxation or raising a family? It’s the other way around. If we achieve singularity it will come with a winner-takes-all situation. It’s not good for society in general.
PrivateLudo t1_ith9te5 wrote
Human nature is at fault, not technology. Greed for money/power, geopolitical issues, cultural issues all stems from human nature. The tool itself is amazing
ftc1234 t1_ithbon7 wrote
Every system, organic or synthetic, is imperfect. What are the imperfections of singularity? Would it kill other species for its own existence?
Traditional-Job8568 t1_ithx0q4 wrote
Opposite probably faster advancment of technology would bmean more green nuclear energy and renewavles instead of fossilf fuels the real danger is the human death tools if the change process becomes chaotic
DukkyDrake t1_itglbj1 wrote
>The technological singularity—or simply the singularity—is a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.
There is no way to predict what the world would look like after the singularity event, but any system that quickly undergoes uncontrollable changes have historically been almost universally bad in the short run for anything that depends on that system for its survival.
If the singularity is fueled by a super intelligent monolithic agent, extinction of all life could be the result.