Politics aside, I find it curious how "homosexual people" rates higher than "homosexuals". I would have expected it to be the other way around, since the latter phrasing makes the property sound like the defining characteristic of the person, making it arguably more stereotype-y.

America has collectively blinked at the NSA's shenaniganry an awful lot by now. How much more do you expect from us in the blink-at-them department?

>Will we become hypersensitive to minor flaws rather than appreciative of excellence?

That was already the status quo before ChatGPT came along.

See, the problem is the top echelons of society have their wealth in an indestructible unobtainium vault. Not even governments are powerful enough to break into that vault – there are too many layers of defenses keeping intruders out.

People can vote to tax the rich, but the government is simply physically unable to carry out the taxation.

If you want to be precise you can probably call it poisoning the well instead.

It could, but why would it, when it could just kill you and have done with it?

Deploying standard anti-mind-virus.

Roko's Basilisk's threat is null because there's no reason for the Basilisk to follow through with it. If it doesn't exist, it can't do anything. If it does exist, it doesn't need to incentivize its own creation, and can get on with whatever it was going to do anyway. And if you are an AGI developer, you have no need to deliberately configure your AGI to resurrect people and torture them – an AGI that doesn't do that is no less eligible for the title of Singleton.

I wouldn't have expected this subreddit of all things to get sidetracked talking about Undertale, but here we are.

That's supposed to be "universities", I'm guessing that's a speech-to-text blunder

Everyone else in this thread spent so long wondering whether you could that they never stopped to think if you should.

It currently matters little who makes AGI, because nobody knows how to make one that won't kill us all. The question of when AGI gets made is more impactful; the later we get AGI, the more time we have to figure out the alignment question.

From the bottom of my heart I kindly ask you to find something else to do with your time than join the mob in poking the doomsday bomb with sticks.

I think the people who would use full dive VR to hide from reality are already hiding away from reality using their phone or computer.

Do you really understand what exactly you're asking for...?

>replace every occurrence of AI in your statement with child and maybe you will begin to see/understand

I could also replace every occurrence of AI in my statement with "banana" or "hot sauce" or "sandstone". You can't just replace nouns with other nouns and expect the sentence they're in to still work.

AI is not a child. Children are not AI. They are two different things and operate according to different rules.

>this is a nature/nurture conversation, and we are as much machines/programs ourselves

Compared to AIs, humans are mostly hard-coded. A child will learn the language of the household he's raised in, but you can't get a child to imprint on the noises a vacuum cleaner makes as his language, for example.

"Raise a child with love and care and he will become a good person" works because human children are wired to learn the rules of the tribe and operate accordingly. If an AI does not have that same wiring, how you treat it makes no difference to its behavior.

Except AI is much more snowbally than humans are thanks to ease of self-modification. A power equilibria between AIs is much less likely to stay stable for long.

There are other advantages that computers inherently have over people that aren't captured by IQ. For instance, speed, and direct thought-access to calculators and computational resources, and an ability to run at full capacity 24/7 without needing time to sleep or unwind.

Probably not instantly, but I wouldn't guess it'd take too too long. Maybe a few years at most.

Hrm... that sounds to me like a bit of an oversimplification. A building is derived from its blueprint, but once the building is constructed, changing or destroying the blueprint doesn't do anything to the building, you know?

Remember that this entity is something we're programming ourselves. In principle, it does exactly what we programmed it to do. We might make a mistake in programming it, and that could cause it to misbehave, but that doesn't mean human concepts of fairness or morality play any role in the outcome.

A badly-programmed AI that we treat with reverence will still kill us.

A correctly-programmed AI will serve us even if we mistreat it.

It's not about how we treat the AI, it's about how we program it.

Merging doesn't save us either, alas. Remember that the AI will constantly be looking for ways to modify itself to increase its own efficiency – that probably includes expunging us from inside it to replace us with something simpler and more focused on the AI's goals.

On the bright (?) side, there won't be an eternal despotic dystopia, technically. The universe and everything in it will be destroyed, rearranged into some repeating pattern of matter that optimally satisfies the AI's utility function.

In reality the malware put out by the AI won't immediately trigger alarm bells. It'll spread quietly across the internet while drawing as little attention to itself as possible. Only when it's become so ambivalent as to be impossible to expunge, only then will it actually come out and present itself as a problem.

Not sure how that relates to what archpawn said?

See though, the way I see it, it doesn't really matter whether the singleton was programmed by the US, by China, or by someone else. Nobody knows how to successfully imbue their values into an AI, and it doesn't look like anyone is on pace to find out how to do so before the first AGI goes online and it's too late.

Whether the AI that deletes the universe in favor of a worthless-to-us repeating pattern of matter was made by China or the US is of no consequence. Either way, you and everything you ever cared about is gone forever.

I fear that making a big deal about who makes the AI does nothing but expedite our demise.

Quality of thought generally wins out against quantity of thought. You don't discover general relativity by having a thousand undergrads poke at equations and lab equipment; you discover general relativity by having one Einstein think deeply about the underlying concepts.

A war between AIs implies that the AIs are somewhere in the ballpark of 'evenly matched'. I don't think that's likely to happen. Whichever AI hits the table first will have an insurmountable advantage over the other. Assuming the first AI doesn't just prevent the rival AI from even entering the game in the first place.

Every day that passes we're one step closer to the sweet release of death!