Cloud computing will soon make compute-as-service cheaper than anyone ever imagined. It will be much cheaper to use cloud computing than to have your own super computer. It’s only logical to imagine that the huge, high-compute experiments that crack AGI will be performed with cloud computing. Shutting down the internet is very feasible and would significantly increase the cost and difficulty of performing experiments. Large super computers are all owned by large and well known corporate and academic entities and therefore shutting down all supercomputers through regulation is feasible. With these two coarse measures, we would buy ourselves enough time to implement more broad and subtle solutions. Yes, this seems insane but we are confronting certain existential doom. It would be worth it to at least try.
> There is zero possibility of surviving AGI proliferation
You're spreading unsubstantiated FUD. In another post from your account you suggest it's unethical to have children because AGI will be so bad.
The vast majority of experts do not support any of these beliefs. Most experts believe we are not anywhere near close to AGI, and/or that we are missing fundamental components required to create it. Even when/if we do create it, most organizations recognize AI safety and policy as an important area that is actively worked on already.
If you want to be concerned about AI, be concerned about military weapons technology, unethical profiling and tracking, or methods for invading privacy. These are concerns that actually have a basis in real technology.
There are two parts to my argument: the substrate for AGI to spring from is basically here or around the corner. Human level ai is fundamentally incompatible with human society. Pick the one that you think is wrong and tell me the chain of logic that proves I’m wrong.
It is obvious to anyone that AI has the potential to be more dangerous than anything humans have ever encountered or created. We can come back from viruses and nuclear bombs and colliding with interstellar columns of gamma radiation. AGI is the first thing ever to pose the threat of truly wiping out humanity. And then there is the question of how the economics would play out of it didn’t destroy us, which I have shown informally to not work out very well. At the bare minimum, this demands caution and proactive, defensive measures. The burden is on YOU to prove it’s safe. So please save your “fud” and anything else that does not address the core of the matter.
Read this story as a possible alernative:
http://m.nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/the-last-invention-of-m...
You're making many scary claims about AI with no evidence to support your theses, along with a unrelated reference to natural selection. Both of the key arguments that you pointed out, 1) "the substrate for AGI to spring from is basically here or around the corner", and 2) "Human level ai is fundamentally incompatible with human society" were presented without any evidence and are unsupported by nearly all major experts in the field. FUD was not a distraction from your argument but a title for what it is: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
But, in case you want to read up, here are some experts contradicting your first claim:
1: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608911/is-ai-riding-a-one...
2: https://www.quantamagazine.org/machine-learning-confronts-th...
3: https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-w...
And here are some experts contradicting your second claim:
1: https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/positively-shaping-a...
2: https://medium.com/@deepmindsafetyresearch/building-safe-art...
3: https://openai.com/blog/ai-safety-needs-social-scientists/
4: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-intell...
5: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602410/no-the-experts-don...
What do you really care, ask yourself will you recognize humans in 1000 years? Why do you prefer there be one kind vs another kind of far more intelligent thing in 1000 years? If atheism is true then who really cares?
This is a reference to Oppenheimer:
“However, it is my judgment in these things that when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb. I do not think anybody opposed making it; there were some debates about what to do with it after it was made. I cannot very well imagine if we had known in late 1949 what we got to know by early 1951 that the tone of our report would have been the same.”