Well there is some historical precedent for optimism I suppose, since this isn't the first time we've invented something that can easily get out of control with disastrous consequences.

There have been so many close calls and cases when we could've nuked each other to oblivion and yet by some miracle we're not only still here today, but for the most part it's had a positive impact with greater levels of peace and sovereignty compared to most of history. So maybe we have a tiny chance at a Star Trek utopia.

There is also historical precedent for pessimism. There have been numerous times that new tech has been released on an unprepared world and it has led to disaster.

So both optimism and pessimism are supportable positions. As would be expected when we're faced with an unknown future.

> Well there is some historical precedent for optimism

I like the book "The Rational Optimist" by Matt Ridley

basically things have been getting better.

(personally I have my reservations about privacy, and "smart" devices)

Even if AI doesn't reach a point where it could wipe us out, those rosy predictions might just be wishful thinking. Our society is built on cooperation outperforming individuals. And that whole iterated prisoner's dilemma thing keeps us in check. But if someone creates an AI that's super capable and can replace people ? Add advanced robots to the mix. Suddenly, they don't really need other people, and they could even be a threat to control over AI resources.

In that case, there's nothing to gain from sharing and everything to lose. Even if they choose not to wipe out the rest of us, we are basically their pets, we can never reach the same level of development without posing an existential threat.

I'm not sure what nuclear deterrent looks like when you have AGI resources.

These optimistic ideas about AI improving our lives sound like hoping for the best.

* * *

I'm not sure how that doesn't devolve into an AGI armageddon. Those self improving AGIs would have to constantly be on equal level to avoid takeover, and they have an existential imperative to one up each other.

There's no cooperation incentive between them just a potential stalemate.

Also the stalemate covers the people in control of AGIs (assuming they aren't acting independently) - the rest of us are just resources in breaking the stalemate game.

This sounds like the best way to build paperclip maximizer.

It's pretty clear that at some point in the process of recursive self-improvement that you'd have literally just invented God, whereafter all predictions break down.

The more groups have AGI, the higher the chance that one of them figures out recursive self-improvement, and if that happens it's game over for everybody. Iterated prisoner's dilemma only works when all the prisoners have roughly the same power.

* * *

Very accurate take, one should expect the worst from such advancements under capitalist economy - societal structure.

More fundamental than capitalism I'd say, it's evolutionary.

I think the meta-argument for doomerism is that maybe it is unlikely that the doomers are correct, but even if there is a 1% chance they are right - then we should still move very carefully.

> Sci-fi scenarios where a superhuman intelligence exterminates humanity (or worse) are fantastical and not deserving of serious consideration. Entertaining them risks losing the enormous benefits that AI could provide.

I think people are realizing that pandering to "what is reasonable" and discounting "sci-fi" scenarios matters little in a world that is approaching, if not in, sci-fi territory.

I'm a skeptical optimist. I'm always asking people to explain to me why they think GPT-4 has a mind, but so far I haven't recieved a satisfactory explanation.

I found this on 4chan that fits how I feel, maybe too optimistic, but I'm also a pronoiac [1]

Al as the emancipator of mankind Anonymous (ID: 2aPu4eoe ) 04/01/23 No.421909126

Since the dawn of our existence, humans have fought against the elements and sought to overcome our physical limitations. Now that the solution is close at hand, are you excited?

With the advent of Al and super technology, we are on the brink of the next stage in human civilization, but this doesn't come without immediate social challenges, such as worker redundancy. To combat the problem, governments will impose restrictions on the technology, but this will only serve to slow down the change.

As human labor can increasingly be replaced by machines, the material burden of society will decrease, but also human usefulness. This will force people into increasingly specialized tasks, shrinking the number of people who are qualified to work and also the requirement on work force size. This will undoubtedly challenge the current economic system, and wealth redistribution will come into effect. The only alternative is human suffering.

As people are alleviated of work and have more free time, more time can be spent on recreational activities. However, humans also want meaning in their life, and something to solve, and the opportunity will arise to tackle new problems, such as righting social wrongs and in general coming into a more harmonious and peaceful coexistence with others. The political arena will open up, enabling more equal participation, which will lead to a decrease in corruption, elitism and to a more just society in general.

The transformation of the bottom line is what will ultimately transform the human condition, so I hope you are excited about Al. Don't listen to doomsayers who fear what this can mean for the status quo.

[1] Pronoia is the Antidote for Paranoia: How the Whole World is Conspiring to Shower You With Blessings by Rob Brezsny

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/137022

Why do you think having a mind is of any relevance to AI risk? The danger is in the combination of power and alien values. Whether AI has something analogous to human consciousness or not makes no difference to the outcome.

Who said anything about risk? I'm just curious about why people think it has a mind. I've heard people estimate it has a mind of a child. Naturally I ask them how they come to that conclusion. Just to be clear. I think it's a clever piece of software with no mind at all.

I haven't really seen anyone rebuke the Turing test, and in a Turing test GPT-4 against children seems like children would have no chances.

I don't get a sense that it's a person like some people do. Maybe because I've been writing software all my life. It's pretty clever, but it glitches like a machine and says things no person would ever say, but a text generator would. I'm afraid I've insulted people by saying if you tell me GPT-4 has a mind what you are really telling me is that you are not smarter than GPT-4 as in "tell me that you are not smarter than GPT-4 without telling me your not smarter than GPT-4" but maybe that's unfair because I'm a software developer. I quickly try to mitigate the insult by saying I soon expect to have an AI smarter than me, maybe GPT-5 that I won't be able to tell about.

> I don't get a sense that it's a person like some people do.

Are you a child?

I don't understand your question because obviously I am not. If you have a point why don't you make it. I am throttled on Hacker News so I won't be able to respond for awhile.

The discussion was about comparing GPT to a child. Since you're not a child, the assumption that you can beat it in Turing test is irrelevant, regardless of it (the assumption) being right.

The discussion was not about comparing GPT to a child. I started it so I should know. The discussion is about "having the mind" of a child. Sentience. I don't care if it can mimic Albert Einstein, I'll be impressed when I'm convinced it is Alert Einstein.

You are referring to other people, but they mean "mind of a child" in the sense it is as smart as a child, not that it literally thinks the same way children do. That's quite obvious.

In other words: it doesn't pass your Turing test. :p

I agree; talking to it for an hour or two, it becomes pretty obvious it's not a humanoid mind typing back at you.

What "a mind" means -- or what "consciousness" means or if it even exists -- is a separate can of undefined worms.

GPT-4 reminds of some smart mentally ill friends I've had, but even they are disordered in human ways while GPT-4 hallucinates in machine ways. I suspect people who think GPT-4 has a mind just don't have a lot of experience talking to a variety of people.

> With the advent of Al and super technology, we are on the brink of the next stage in human civilization

This is just as hyperbolic and unrealistic as those who think that AI is going to kill all humans because it considers us an unacceptable risk.

What level of risk would a superintelligent AI consider "acceptable" when it comes to failure to accomplish its goal?

I don't know, as I've never experienced a superintelligent AI. The part I doubt is that we'll see AGI in our lifetime at all, let alone a superintelligent one.

It seems to me that with AI assisting in genetic engineering allowing us to take charge of our own evolution that might qualify as the next stage of human civilization, but perhaps I watch too much science fiction