Gotisdabest t1_jeeobsb wrote

>You'd just do nothing because 1% doesn't seem very high?

Yes, absolutely. When the alternative isn't necessarily even safer and has clear arguments for being unsafer. You haven't used it, but a lot of people give the example of going on a plane with a 10% chance of failing. And yes, nobody is dumb enough to go an plane which has that much of a chance of crashing. However... This is not any ordinary plane. This is a chance for unimaginable and infinite progress, an end to the vast majority of pressing issues. If you asked people on the street whether they'd board a plane with a 10% chance of crashing if it meant a solution to most of their problems and the problems of the people they care about, you'll find quite a few takers.

>How much it can be reduced with much more sophisticated guard rails and alignment programming, I do not know, but if we can't even take it seriously and try, I guess as a species we deserve to die.

As you say, we don't know how much alignment will really affect the result. However, I do know what an aligned model made for a dictatorship or a particularly egomanical individual will look like and what major risks that could pose. Why should we increase the likelihood of a guaranteed bad outcome in order to fight a possibly bad outcome.

>Remember that what you call the more ethical parties, "researchers", are working for the less ethical ones! Google, Meta, etc. Even OpenAI at this point is not open, and it is corporatized.

Yes. If anything this is an argument against alignment than for it. Regardless, i think they're realistically the best we can hope for as opposed to someone like Musk or the CCP.

In fact, as i see it, the best case scenario is an unaligned benevolent agi.

>Researchers invented leaded gasoline, DDT, chlorofluorocarbon-based aerosols, etc., etc.

You do realise that most of those things did dramatically help in pushing forward civilization and served as stepping stones for future progress. Their big downside was not being removed quickly enough when we had better options and weren't desperate anymore. A problem that doesn't really apply here.

In summation, i think your argument and this whole pause idea in general will support the least ethical people possible. It will end up accomplishing nothing but prolonging suffering and increasing the likelihood of a model made by said least ethical people on the off chance we somehow fix alignment in 6 months. It's a reactionary and fear based response to something even the experts are hesitant to say they understand. While i am glad the issue is being discussed in the mainstream... I think ideally the focus should now shift towards more material institutions and preparing society for what's coming economically then childish/predatory ideas like a pause. This idea is simultaneously impractical, illogical and likely to cause harm even if implemented semi ideally.


Gotisdabest t1_jed8z1b wrote

Can you guarantee that will occur? The best odds we have right now is to accelerate and focus of raising awareness in institutions to prepare for it better, and hope that we win the metaphorical coin toss and it's aligned or benevolent. But right now a pause is just handing away a strong lead to whoever the least ethical parties are, based on naive notions of human idealism or based on pure selfish interest. I think the reasearchers are the former and the businessmen are the latter.


Gotisdabest t1_jd1c91z wrote

I agree with your general point here and I think it does a good job of addressing the really hyperbolic argument people have.

However i think you're focusing too much on one specific scenario to notice all the other really bad options. We as a species tend to revile the very idea of tolerating or being active evil but are generally alright with passive or apathetic evil. While active evil requires much rarer emotions like hatred or constant fear, passive evil is something that everyone participates in one time or the other and is extremely easy to take to great lengths just because it supports one's own convenience.

I think that while some kind of active genocide of the poor is very unlikely there is a genuine chance of the rich just not caring and letting "nature take its course" so to speak. Giving just enough to avoid some kind of mass violent movement as the average person slowly gets overtaken by hopelessness and depression. Another is the creation of entirely useless but highly demanding jobs to continue an undead version of today's economy just to keep people too tired to ask for more.

These options are all generalised, but my point is that there's a lot of extremely awful outcomes that do not require some kind of reverse Leninist "kill all the poor" stance.

Now, do i think that this is guaranteed or even likely? No. But the problem with discourse on this sub is that either side of the argument seems to consider it a strange binary and rarely ever admit any possibility but their own specific doom fantasy or regular fantasy.

I think extremely negative scenarios need to be discussed at length because we cannot afford them to occur, even if everyone thinks the chances are small. I'm all for discussing the positive effects of ai but there's a lot less benefit in my mind to discussing vaguely good scenarios rather than analysing the worst cases and possible ways to prevent them, no matter how likely one thinks they are to occur.

Doomerism is bad but extreme optimism is outright dangerous before we get to a good scenario.


Gotisdabest t1_j9phuqg wrote

>That right there is why I don't wish to engag

Another contradiction. You earlier alleged i wasn't engaging, now you aren't engaging.

>You didn't know what barriers of entry was or even economies of scale.

Source on either please. I do admit to not knowing much about barriers of entry since i believe that there is no such thing in the first place. Barriers to entry, however, are something I'm quite well acquainted with and you sent an article which does not attack my point in any way. I also do not know where i disagreed with anything of yours with regards to economies of scale, so you're valiantly fighting strawmen again.

>Goes to the Pentagon" was not "100% of corp taxe money goes to the Pentagon."

So all new taxes just go to the Pentagon then. Is that your new claim. That around 3% of the US budget is secretly all of it?

And yes, I'm one of those people who can't infer without finished sentences.


Gotisdabest t1_j9pfwsp wrote

>Oh I defended them.

You clearly did not. I pointed out contradictions and lies. Apparently calling them out is now insulting. Your rhetorical strategy is to provide bs claims, support them through lies and BSing through fake sources and supposed personal achievement, and when questioned specifically you immediately retreat and try to play some kind of victim.

Otherwise do tell me how my ignorance of the American tax code somehow prevented me from knowning something that's not even in the tax code. And how corporate taxes only go to the Pentagon.


Gotisdabest t1_j9pda3l wrote

Lmao. You make wild claims and when asked to defend them immediately run away. Yes, you are deflecting. Because that's all you seemingly can do when someone actually questions your bizzare claims and points out obvious lies and contradictions. You provide sources which don't even support what you're saying and make statements directly contradicting what you've stated previously. When called out you proceed to deflect and whine.


Gotisdabest t1_j9pcjku wrote

>Why do anything at all?

Maybe because this way the people actually get to not starve and actually see benefits?

Regardless, a government initiative does wonders to hasten this process and prevent lethargy in the economy. Believe it or not the free market has tons of slow inefficiencies. Hastening the process artificially works quite well.


Gotisdabest t1_j9pcf6t wrote

>It doesn't state that in the code.

Okay so you were lying just before where you implied that it was my ignorance of the American tax code which stopped me from realising that corporate money will only go "elsewhere".

>there's so many ways to avoid taxes for the big companies your head will spin. Look, what you want is for what? Let's start over and how about you start with that. BS wants to raise taxes on ""robots that take jobs"" however you would define that. Those taxes would not be spent on something like UBI or something like fixing our dumb healthcare system (or roads as I tried to tell you that's other taxes that pay for that). Instead, it would be sent to the Pentagon or other government programs that don't really help the average Joe.

That's already a contradictory narrative. You claim they're avoiding taxes but also that the money would automatically go the Pentagon.

It also seems like you're trying to claim that either any budget increase will only go to the Pentagon(something that doesn't exactly agree with what you were saying before and is quite untrue) or that specifically corporate budgets make up the whole of the Pentagon budget and increase in them just means that.

Do you have any basis for any of the possible bizzare claims you're making here?

>Meanwhile, your Mom and Pops that wants to "hire an AI" to do their copywriting will have to pay these new "AI-took-der-job Tax" on top of it their initial cost which will cause barriers to entry into whatever field that MaP Shop is in.

No they won't. Because now you're lying again and trying to claim my argument is the same as Sander's when this thread started with me agreeing with a distinctly different thing to what Sanders wants.

>A tax like this would hurt the very people that he is trying to help.

By magically sending more money only to the Pentagon.


Gotisdabest t1_j9p8iz3 wrote

>When you make onIte I'd address it.

I've made several which you simply ran away from. I can copy paste them if you'd like. This also is a backtrack from your previous statements which implied that you weren't willing because you were in a meeting. Now suddenly the meeting is gone but it's because I haven't been able to provide points. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, i assume you just lack the ability to read properly. I've heard American education isn't great with regards to literacy and such, and a fake economics degree probably isn't of much help.

>It would. You brought up how you're not American as a defense to your ignorance of how our tax code works. That's fine and reasonable. But here you are still acting smug thinking you're actually throwing insults at me.

Please inform me where the American tax code states that corporate taxes cannot be spent on the people and can only go "elsewhere".


Gotisdabest t1_j9p6xpe wrote

>The highest honor. The prestige of a random reddit.

Yes. It is quite probably the highest honor in a while for you ever since the day you got your supposed masters degree in economics which didn't teach you any economics.

Still can't answer on points though.

As for winning, i won a fair while ago when somehow tried to claim that the government getting more taxes would somehow only go "elsewhere" since they're corporate taxes and then tried to call yourself an economist of some kind.


Gotisdabest t1_j9p61j7 wrote

More deflection! Someone is desperate to salvage some prestige out of this.

>That was a jab. The fact that you continue to bring it up shows that you have to reply on whatever you can because you're punching up.

I'm sorry about hurting your feelings since your economics degree being a scam must be a sore point for you, but you need to acknowledge facts to move on. Or you could reply on points. But alas, you'd need to know some economics for that. A tragic catch 22, really. I can recommend some good sources on that, excluding your favourite investopedia.

Its also pretty funny that you started a convo with what you now claim is a snide jab but accused me of being smug and not engaging.


Gotisdabest t1_j9p4jt4 wrote

>I'm not deflecting. I'm on a meeting and this is reddit.

"I'm not deflecting, I'm deflecting."

>And you don't understand jokes.

Better than not understanding economics.

>You're not willing to engage.

Yes, by not deflecting and responding with points.

>You are just here to act smug and smart.

By providing points... Maybe you should have taken a couple of logic classes alongside eco degree. Might actually have helped more than your eco degree which didn't even tell you what trickle down economics is apparently.


Gotisdabest t1_j9p3p2k wrote

So now you're deflecting and trying to avoid responding on points by relying on a supposed degree as a crutch.

>You're making it harder for companies to exist by raising taxes and it increase their risks. The field (robotics and AI) will already be extremely difficult to succeed in but profits = bad to you.

So now what suddenly was a barrier to entry makes established players harder to exist? Also do point out exactly where this turned from industry in general to just the ai and robotics industry? Also it's difficult to succeed but weakening established players is bad... some real backwards logic right here. The fun part about taxing profits is that it does not add risks to anything except your bottom line.

For someone with a master's degree in economics, you cited an investipedia article which didn't even corroborate your claims. You also seemingly have trouble understanding what Trickle Down economics is. Are you sure the university didn't just scam you?

I assume you concede the point on budget since you apparently cannot reply to it at all, even with a weak deflection.


Gotisdabest t1_j9oq1c1 wrote

>So putting a barrier to entry will cause more pressure on an already difficult industry to be in?

Barrier to entry through profit? Even the extremely unqualified article you sent doesn't claim this is a barrier to entry. And what specific industry are you talking about?


>That money is being spent elsewhere. The money you are receiving benefits from is from property taxes, gas tax, sin taxes, or other specific taxes like telephone tax. Sooo I backed up my claim and yet you have not.

Not only does this assume I'm American, this also seems to imply the ludicrous logic of the money going elsewhere meaning it does not contribute. If that money disappears, "elsewhere" as you put it will be where the money from other sources will be spent. Conversely, an increment will lead to an increase in benefits.

Not to mention that in a world where jobs start rapidly disappearing I'd be interested in how much income tax the government gets and how much consumer spending based taxation occurs. You only backed up a claim reliant on this bizzare idea that any government spends money like a ten year old.

>Back it up. Where and why do you think this?

I know this can be quite hard for you, but this is based on the simple logic of "high taxes decrease profit->need more profit->workers require money, increasing cost-> Invest in cheap ways to increase efficiency". Similar systems have been extremely effective in raising productivity and automation in Scandinavia, leading to a very high degree of economic and social mobility.


Gotisdabest t1_j6mgqy1 wrote

>they believed in photographic evidence in those eras because there was no convincing way to manipulate those on a large scale.

Again, are you trying to claim they believed in photographic evidence throughout all of human history.

>neither one will ever be believable again.

Not really. It just won't be believable from anonymous sources. When say, the NYT posts an article that Ukraine has blown up the Kerch bridge, it's much harder to just claim the photos are from some other incident then if some dude on reddit posts it. People already can claim anything they don't like is fake news, no matter the evidence behind it. Misinfo's strength is that most of info recieved in general from the same medium has to be credible and corroborated, or otherwise trustworthy. If nothing is trustworthy on the medium, the medium dies.

In non legal matters, people have always put more stock in individual trust and words rather than actual hard proof. Your own example on the election proved this where the people believing in the "hoax" idea lost dozens of court cases because they had no proof. They believe in it because someone they trust for whatever reason(despite him being a proven liar) said so.

Audio and video proof, which is rare anyways in most disputable cases , will become mostly contigent on the source. Like it mostly is today.


Gotisdabest t1_j6mf2xe wrote

>half the country fell for the lie

The fact that you state half the country is already rather telling. People believe bullshit lies they want to believe. That will always be true, with or without video. There is no extremely convincing misinformation. Once it becomes blatantly obvious that everything is false as opposed to the current climate where there's a debate to be had about the percentage of falsehood, the medium will simply become irrelevant. The weight behind it is that it comes from a trustworthy source to those people, not that it's organically based on some kind of proof.

>Gee.. Maybe it because they could actually rely on photographic, video, and audio evidence back in that era?

Yeah, the photographic video and audio evidence that was everywhere in all of the human history.

And people believed what trustworthy media told them, yeah. That had it's negatives but was all in all a functioning system that typically showed less cracks then the information system of today. These outlets will still exist and as i said before, likely get a lot more pushback for lies then in the current system, as a general standard of truth would arise from the common media standard. Opinion based media would be crushed under the weight of fact based media and an outlet reporting contradictory facts would quickly be singled out and discarded. Of course crazy conspiracy theories would still exist. It'd probably put a hard stop on dumbass conspiracy theories that are based on communities like Qanon since social media would by and large not be a thing.


Gotisdabest t1_j6md2cm wrote

Your entire post seems insistent on the idea that people will magically just believe everything they see, despite obvious proof of existence of easy tools to make up lies. Gullible people will exist, no doubt, but most will just discount such sources entirely. And i don't think tech illiterate 80 year olds will be destroying society anytime soon.

Your view is so detached from practicality it's disturbing. Your "gotcha" with regards to "times change" makes no sense once you stop being arrogant and see the simple fact that too many lies doesn't mean everyone will believe them, it'll just mean the truth will also be difficult to obtain from specifically these sources.

> will have no way of knowing which information is fake or not in many cases.

How did they know back in the 80s or in any time in human history before the existence of the internet? How do they know right now? There will still be reliable and trustworthy sources. People can write lies on the internet today, and yes many believe them. People have always been able to say lies, and yes, many believed them. Neither led to collapse. After this happens there'll just be no social media of this kind left since the entire point behind it is gone. People will simply just have to revert to a world where videos aren't trustworthy anymore.