There’s still a lot that we don’t know about the universe tho… and you’re assuming that there’s no way to change or alter the principles of the Earth as well. Say a super-intelligence system were able to develop a weapon that could alter Earth’s gravitational pull. Suddenly the current laws of physics go out the window. You’re thinking too small. Like I said, there’s still a lot that we don’t understand about the universe. Thinking the singularity will be “business as usual” is what happens when you try to base your understanding of it off fictional novels…

The entire point of the singularity is that all of our current knowledge and logic will have long been rendered irrelevant at that point. Technological progression would have long surpassed human comprehension. That’s the entire point. Humans today can’t comprehend what comes after the singularity. Do you see the problem with “extrapolating” our current understanding in this scenario?

Also do you really think it’s wise to base your understanding of such a complex topic on a clearly fictional novel made most likely for entertainment purposes?

Any book claiming to know what happens post singularity is illegitimate and merely just mindlessly speculating at best tbh.

No, you’re confusing post-scarcity with the singularity. Post-scarcity (if it ever happens) would occur before the singularity. The singularity is the point where technology begins to evolve itself so rapidly that humans no longer can control it anymore. Life on Earth will be forever transformed in ways that are unimaginable to the human mind. It most likely signals the end of the “human dominance” era on Earth.

The good news for OP tho, is that, since no one knows what’ll happen to humanity after that point, there’s no point in stressing over it too much.

Lol if you say so pal. 👍

So you weren’t having discussions with them before this thread? Be honest, you most likely wanted advice on how to change their mind…

Why do you need a response tho? 🤔

That’s simple their take on the matter and they very well could end up being right. What is it with tech subs and this obsession with having everyone drink the koolaid on AI/AGI? There’s nothing inherently superior about blind optimism. If some people have a more cautious of skeptical view of AI, that’s their choice. You’re not inherently right just because you choose to assume that “everything will just all work out somehow”…

Years ago. Like 2014-2015 or somewhere along those lines.

Years ago I used to go on Google and search up the latest technology advancements (just cause I thought some of the stuff was really cool.) This eventually led me to stumble across futurism/AI focused websites. Which is where I was first introduced to the concept iirc.

Yeah, but I think OP was talking about AI in general. Not just LLMs.

>>You simply can't have an AI that acts without any confines and always behaves in ways that you would prefer.

That makes sense. But you do realize what that’s means if you’re right, right? It’s only a matter of time until “I can’t let you do that Biden”… 🤖😂

lmao… guess we hand a good run as a species. (Well, kind of, tbh)

It’s not skynet yet. Which is the point that OP is making I assume…

That literally is what the majority of cryptocurrencies are tho… (if not literally every single one). Not the best counter argument tbh.

Kind of a stupid take on all this tbh. There’s nothing stopping this tech from being used against non-public figures as well.

>>Right. I know I am correct and simply don't think you have a valid point of view.

Lol nice try pal.. but I’m afraid you’re mistaken.

>>Anyways it doesn't matter. Neither of us control this. What is REALLY going to happen is an accelerating race, where AGI gets built basically the first moment it's possible at all. And this may turn into outright warfare. Easiest way to deal with hostile AI is to build your own controllable AI and bomb it.

Finally, something we can agree on at least.

>>Delaying things until the bad outcome risk is 0 is also a bad outcome.

Lmao what?.. That isn’t remotely true actually. That’s basically like saying “double-checking to make sure things don’t go wrong will make things go wrong”. Uh, I’m not sure I see the logic there. But it’s clear that you aren’t gonna change your mind on this so, whatever. Agree to disagree.

What if AGI isn’t a panacea for human life like you seem to assume it is ? What if AGI actually marks the end of the human experiment? You seem to be under the assumption that AGI automatically = utopia for humanity. It doesn’t. I mean yeah, it could, but there’s just much chance that it could create a dystopia as well. If rushing is the thing that leads us to a Dystopia instead, will it still be worth it?

But again, if a mis-aligned AGI wipes out humanity as a whole, curing aging is then rendered irrelevant… So it’s actually not worth the risk logically. (And aging, is far from the only cause of death btw).

But just because you can understand or even empathize with suffering doesn’t mean you actually will. Or else every human would be a vegetarian on principle alone. (And even plants are actually living things as well, so that isn’t much better from a moral standpoint.)

No, it truly doesn’t… you’re basically saying that we should risk 100% of humanity being wiped out in order to possibly save the 0.84% humans who are gonna die of completely natural causes..

Yep. Definitely something to keep in mind.

>>If a truly sentient AI were created there is no reason to think that it would be inclined towards such repugnant ideology

There’s no reason to assume it would actually value human life once sentient either. Us humans slaughter plenty of other species in pursuit of our own goals. Who’s to say a sentient AI won’t develop its own goals?..

This doesn’t really make sense to me. If delaying AGI by a year reduces the chance of humanity in it’s entirety dying out by even 0.01%, it’d be worth that time and more. 0.84% is practically the cost of nothing if it means keeping the entire human race from extinction. You’re comment is illogical unless you somehow believe that every person alive today is supposed to live to see AGI one day. That was never gonna happen anyways. And even from a humanitarian point of view what you’re saying doesn’t really add up. Because if rushing AI results in 100% (or even 50%) of humanity being wiped out, the extra 0.84% of lives you were trying to save mean nothing at that point anyways.

I think now that machine learning is beginning to accelerate as a whole, the progress with self-driving cars will accelerate over the next few years as well.

🤔… If we left because there’s no more resources for us humans to consume, why would we suddenly double-back just because some random aliens found the remaining scraps useful to them? We’d most likely not even care. (That, or we’d quickly go to war with the aliens I guess..😄)