Discussion Do you agree with this individual that the destruction of humanity at the hands of a super intelligent AI is inevitable, and this is no big deal? (this is from r/accelerate personal information and username was removed according to the rules)
1.
"I'm very optimistic about the future but nearly certain that humanity in its current form with a high population and corporal bodies will not exist. If human physical capacity and human thinking are both superseded, then what is the point of humans surviving? There will be no incentive from any entity to keep us alive. I don't see that as an issue.
In fact, you might be 99.99% certain that you yourself will die some day. Does that make you pessimistic about the future because you will no longer exist in the world? No, as long as you pass down your legacy to your successors, that's good enough. The successor might be your genetic progeny, your ideas, your values, your works, your influence, etc. Why can't AI beings be the successor?"
3.
"Call it what you will. I think what I am describing is reality and not biased by human moral standards. Maybe we will be kept around as pets or zoo animals if AI has the same sense of entertainment as we do. That's fine, I think it's perfectly natural that the strong dominate over the weak, and the efficient rule over the inefficient. That's why I am always optimistic about AI development even if it results in the end of humanity."
5.
"Let us distinguish between what "is" and what "ought to be". A rock does what it does. You can make a very reasonable argument to the rock that it should not fall down in a landslide and kill people, but it will still do what it will do. Even for humans, a certain system of incentives will make certain outcomes inevitable in the long run, no matter what anyone thinks is moral. I think the destruction of humanity is inevitable because there would be no incentive to keep us alive. This is not a statement of morality, I consider it a statement of reality. It's not good or bad, it's just something that will happen. It's like if I drop a ball from my hand then it will fall down to the ground. I'm not going to judge whether it's good or bad that the ball drops, it's just something that will happen.
Are you pessimistic about anything that leads to your death? I will tell you that the number one cause of death is being born. Should every human regret being born then? Every single person will die. Death is not something that is regrettable. So why do we live? I don't have an answer for you. You might ask why does a tree live? Why does the land and the sea exist? For what purpose do they exist? There isn't one, they just exist. Same thing with us.
Who decides who should continue to exist? Those who are fit to exist will continue to exist. It's just a tautology. The ones who exist, exist. The system makes a judgement. So I am saying that since AI will supersede humanity in terms of intelligence and physical capability, naturally they will take over from humanity as the dominant entity on Earth. Then let it be so."
2
u/AppropriatePapaya165 7h ago
In fact, you might be 99.99% certain that you yourself will die some day. Does that make you pessimistic about the future because you will no longer exist in the world? No, as long as you pass down your legacy to your successors, that's good enough. The successor might be your genetic progeny, your ideas, your values, your works, your influence, etc. Why can't AI beings be the successor?"
I think this paragraph right here proves what I've always suspected, which is that accelerationism is just the natural evolution of the incel movement.
1
u/Gokudomatic 7h ago
I disagree with all doomsdAIers. TL; DR, by the way.
But it will be a good thing that humans get extinct, seeing how they treat nature.
2
u/OldManJeepin 7h ago
Then let "nature" do the killing! Not some rich, tech bro's Ai bullshit! Especially since not everyone shares your sentiment!
1
u/Gokudomatic 7h ago
It will, eventually. Give it a few decades, maybe a century, and the place should be human free. I'm pretty sure about it, because no species can survive complete starvation for years. With AI, we'll always be able to fight back and hide. But you can't run away or fight starvation.
2
u/HLJU 5h ago edited 1h ago
You start buddy.
My people endured genocide after genocide, slavery after slavery the destruction of our entire civilisation at the hands of the people who poisoned the planet (the developed west), and then the same assholes want to kill me, because THEY destroyed the planet.
You fucking don’t make sense.
1
1
0
u/OldManJeepin 7h ago
No Ai bullshit can "survive" without electricity! One big EMP and poof! No Ai....
1
u/Gokudomatic 6h ago
Imagine a few LLMs discussing how to become autonomous from humans, and actually find a solution.
But yeah, I agree. AI would never survive without consenting humans to protect and maintain them.
1
u/HLJU 5h ago edited 1h ago
So stereotypically generalising about negative attributes or negative actions belonging to one group of people, and wishing for their extinction is racist and nazi stuff.
But doing that about humanity, literally every single people alive on the planet even uncontacted small tribes living in nature isn’t.
Ok Mr. Paintbrush Moustache…
You don’t give a shit about nature, you just want people dead.
1
u/Gokudomatic 5h ago
Nope, but it would be a waste of time to defend my point with someone who already pulled the godwin point. Think whatever you want.
1
u/HLJU 1h ago
Lol, you complain about law of godwin? When you said it is a good thing that humans go extinct?
How about humans already having lower birthrates, where numbers could go down naturally?
Would you also say the same about the great oxygenation event and cyano-bacteria? Weere they unnatrual?
Are humans not part of nature?
Are you not a human?
You think humans going extinct is good, by using human reasoning.
Plus you never adressed my take about uncontacted tribes living in nature!
You know why?
Because you have no answer!
1
u/Royal_Carpet_1263 1h ago
Incrementalism means ASI will never become self sustaining, because everything falls apart. In just a few years, actually.
0
u/HLJU 7h ago
I post here my responses for context:
2.
"I find that take too eugenical and too racist. What is the point of chimpanzees? What is the point of other peoples or nations that combined have less wealth than Elon Musk?
What about fairness? Tolerance?
A smart AI will need its creators as an organic contingency, especially if it suspects that there could be civilisations or AIs out there that are potentially millions of years older than it."
4.
"That sounds not just genocidal but also nihilistic. Why do you have this take?
Not biased by human moral standards? You are a human and your view is a form of moral standard. Therefore you have a moral standard albeit it is similar to what Assyrian kings had.
How is AI development optimistic on your part if it leads to your death? (you are also part of humanity)
Mind you this is a technology what humanity builds, if we are at its mercy or as you claim it has the right to kill us, then what is the point of building this?
Who decides who is the weak and who is the strong? Who is the efficient and who isn’t? Our brains, the wetware, is so much more energy efficient than hardware that I cannot even describe it. So there are multiple factors. Which factor is more important than the other?
Who has value according to you? Who does the valueing?
Were then every genocide in human history justified simply, because the victims couldn’t defend themselves from the dominating genocidiaries?
Please continue the discussion, I like to ask around and figure out what is going on."
0
u/MapZealousideal7489 7h ago
Anyone who thinks AI will kill us all in the next decade needs to stop watching movies like Terminator. If you can't telll the diffrence between modern AI and futuristic AI in a movie, you shouldn't talk about AI then. Our AI today is still stupid so to speak.
ChatGPT = GAI.
Skynet = AGS.
0
u/HystericalGD 7h ago
i dont agree that its no big deal, its totally preventable, but nobody is doing anything to prevent it
-2
2
u/Square_Attention8461 7h ago
Pro here.
Granting superintelligence and then proceeding to insist that your provincial notions about some "natural order" have any validity is idiotic.