Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jeg9est wrote

Hackers got a powerful new tool.. ya, and so did the hundreds of millions more people who work against said hackers.

Ai is a force multiplier. You could easily have used the same argument against cell phones.. "well criminals will get instant communication! And then they can use that against us" yes? And the whole population also gets access to instant communication, so now they can call for help from anywhere.. and the ability to collectively organize FAR more efficiently. Out of fear, you would hold millions of people back..

> Nation states just got a powerful new tool of social control. Just take the latest open source code and make some tweaks to insert their biases and agendas.

Nation states will already have access.. an international board would be created for the benefit of those nation states... (but not for the people which they rule over)

You are afraid of how individuals might use it.. When you should be afraid of how mega powers who on a daily basis throw people into cages to be raped, or bomb people in countries they can't point to on a map, will use the technology after they have become the official gate keepers..

I would rather be dead than live in a world in which only the unelected elite get the keys to ai. Which is what happens without open source.

Luckily, there are plenty of principled people who will continue to develop such technology and make it available to all mankind, even if such a tyrannical international elite body determines no one but their royally decreed few shall have that privilege.


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jebv7tu wrote

We don't need to slow down, we need to speed up. Governments are already going to massively hinder progress without the help of petition... They want time to get ahead of it, so the average person doesn't suddenly start automating away the government jobs, with unbiased and incorruptible ai agents..


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jebrrey wrote

>However since AI is a major existential risk I believe moving to a strict and controlled progress like what we see with nuclear fusion in ITER and theoretical physics in CERN is the best model for AI research.

This is going to lead to us waiting decades for progress and testing. Look at drug development.. Takes decades of clinical trials for us to even start making it available, and then it's prohibitively expensive. We might have cured cancer already, If we didn't have so many barriers in the way.

>Open-sourcing research will greatly increase risk of mis-aligned models landing in the wrong hands or having nations continue research secretly. If AI research has to be concentrated within an international body, there should be a moratorium on large scale AI research outside of that organization. This may be a deal-breaker.

So you want an unelected international body to hold the keys to the most powerful technology in existence? That sounds like a terrible idea. Open source is the only solution to alignment, because it will make the power available to all. Thus allowing all the disparate and opposing ideological groups the ability to, in a custom manner, align ai to themselves.

All an international group will do, is align ai in a way that maximizes the benefit of all parties involved. Parties which really have no incentive to actually care about you or i.


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_je18olm wrote

I would take a page out of the peppers handbook, and store essentials, and get as self sufficient as possible.

Even after ubi is implemented, it could be very shitty.. maybe it only give you the bare minimum.. or any number of things.

Buy a house in the countryside, learn to grow and store your own food long term, purchase solar panels or some other power generation technology, that isn't reliant on the grid, and have a clean source of water.

Best way to weather the storm, isn't to save dollars, it's to save actual physical goods.. money in, say, an economic collapse (which is very likely considering the amount of chaos which will ensue from millions losing their jobs overnight) is worthless. You could have a million dollars, if I think it's got no buying power, I won't be trading you my chickens for it. Lol.


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jdn5mic wrote

Same.. but the issue is at the start people will just lose their jobs.. they won't receive recompense. Then they will have their homes and things taken away by collection due to their unresolved debt and being unable to pay it. If the implementation of a solution isn't fast enough, people will decide its better to burn it all down and hope in the next system they get something better.


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jd89l9f wrote

Eh.. not entirely true. People will still want to live somewhat in the city. Lots of people would hate living where I do "in a corn field" where you have to drive for 40 minutes to go to the closest resteraunt.

Also, MAYBE farmland is replaced by precision fermentation.. But you forget the point of agi is to allow people to do what they want.. Farmers will still exist because there will always be a demand by the masses for food grown by real people.

Cities need to spread out a bit, so people aren't stacked on top of one another.. But I think most city folks want to be close to their favorite restsraunt, and to not have to worry about their dog getting eaten by a rogue black bear or mountain lion.

Certain things won't change in the countryside, because people won't allow them to be changed. I'm not gonna be okay with you using agi to kill all mountain lions in the area, they are an important part of the environment, event if they are sometimes terrifying.


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.


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.