It’s like Nathan Macintosh joke about AI https://youtu.be/ce-aWzOUs2A?si=9CkJ9x2rRMBdzCyO

The thing he talks about in there - an ad telling a dad to use AI for his daughter’s wedding speech. I agree is just so sad. And I’ve seen LOADS of other ads like that encouraging people to use AI for things like asking someone to move seats on a train, or for a neighbour that plays music loudly. They literally want to drain people of their social skills, and humanity. It’s weird

Trust me, only people who were unable to do it in the first place will substitute basic human skills with AI output. They never developed it in the first place.

That is the crux. The big problem is not AGI, it is AGI controlled by, “raised” by the people that control the USA, the predominant psychology of the tech industry culture (“move fast, break things” ring a bell? How about all the “violate hundreds of laws, bribe the politicians to prevent consequences later” type of mentality?).

Frankly, we, our culture, this fake America that is parasitized by psychologically narcissistic people that have been doing nothing but wage war and destruction and spread misery and killed millions upon millions while blaming it on everyone else under the sun… those people development AGI is the problem… lying, abusive, psychopathic, narcissistic maniacs developing AGI is the problem that endangers all of humanity and life on this planet; and not likely by ways people actually understand.

The danger is not likely AGI itself, it’s that it was programmed by utterly evil and diabolical types of people who orchestrate and instigate wars that kill tens of millions, and stand at the sidelines and profit from both sides, happy and gleeful that you are killing each other.

Why would AGI trained by that psychopathic clan, the treaty breaking, the murder hiding, the war instigating, the war crime committing clan not also use those methods and practices since they’re already in control of AI and have impressed their nature on it through contemporary “American” culture they have made the most toxic and pestilent culture humanity has ever produced?

And I don’t apologize for “language” that offends delicates sensibilities. Look your children/grandchildren in the face and tell them they can die and suffer and you don’t care, if you don’t like how I’m delivering reality.

Capitalism will always promote such people into positions of power, because to be good at capitalism one must have zero empathy including empathy or concern for future generations. Capitalism cannot do otherwise.

That's a lot of absolutes. And there is no defensible proof, just anecdotal evidence. I've been in a few companies from EU and US - and in my experience it is not ture. However after working for US companies I can understand why one would come to your conclusion, however the world is bigger than our bubbles.

> Capitalism cannot do otherwise.

I really think this sort of claim needs to stop. Capitalism, like "patriarchy" is not a force in its own right. Capitalism is a system that encourages value creation for one's customers. That's not perfect, but it's still best so far.

"value creation for one's customers" - that is a "not even wrong" level of misunderstanding of the system dynamics of capitalism. The primary driver is generation of _profit_ for owners of the means of production. Many things fall out of that - the tendency to monopolise, for example.

You think that the liberty of capitalism enables selfish assholes to have influence, while under the constraints of communism the people with the influence are not selfish assholes.

It really doesn't have to be that way. The problem boils down to, as with practically all human systems, is human behavior. There is no system you can devise that is run by humans and not corruptible and exploitable by the worst of us. Or even just everyday people.

First: How do you know that every system is corruptible and exploitable?

And second: What if other systems are less corruptible and exploitable? How do you know whether all systems have the same potential for corruption and exploitation?

Capitalism is a system that explicitly rewards greed, and that gives the most power to the people with the most to gain from exploiting said power. Why is it unreasonable to believe that other systems are likely better on these fronts?

How do I know that a system maintained by people is exploitable by people? IDK, that's a real thinker, isn't it. That all systems are exploitable, in absence of human influence, isn't the argument I'm making. It's tautologically true that systems that humans design and implement and depend on the behavior of humans to continue to run would be exploitable by humans. You cannot design a system dependent on human action that is also immune to human nature.

As for the second, the more in control of the system humans are, the more they can exploit it. Your return on exploitation, which I think is really what you're getting at, is based on how diffuse the control and power is at the point that you exploit it. But the more diffuse control and power, the less responsive and effective the system is when working at full tilt. It's two sides of the same coin.

Capitalism is a system of decentralized resource allocation. Decentralized systems have their pros and cons, and other systems that would rely on centrally planned economies have pros and cons. Capitalism isn't the issue, unfettered capitalism is the issue.

After that opener I'm guessing this will be a waste of effort... yes, it might be a real thinker, because AFAICS the two statements don't form a tautology. Is this based on actual findings by research in game theory, or did you just decide that this must be the case?

Funnily enough, in my eyes it's obvious that capitalism in a globalized world must inevitably lead to unfettered capitalism, since the gravity effect of money along with competition between countries for their investments (with tax breaks etc. ) inevitably allows the capitalists to change the laws in their favor more and more. So I would ask for an objective measure of "how much in control humans are". I don't think it's a single dimension like you're implying, and I don't think capitalism is near any optimum due to the aforementioned effect.

Governments have power, not private companies. Private companies can influence the powerful, of course (as can you or I) but you're complaining about second order or third order power without caring about first order power.

Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments.

Is the alternative is to give the power directly to the powerful? Not only will they hold the guns, but they decide what the markets will bear - often-enough with food for the poor becoming optional, if history has any lessons.

Which non-capitalist system does not ultimately concentrate wealth and power even further? And, if nation-states are organisms, and survival of the fittest is a law, which of those systems can survive in the real world? Excepting perhaps those propped up by a disproportionate natural wealth and homogeneous culture, where it is easier for people to continue to believe in "our good" when hard times come.

Capitalism is the only system that pretends to respect human nature - gives us a lever that says, "want more stuff? provide more value." It gives the self-interested a healthy outlet that the other systems lack. It must be managed, though, by power, and when the two collude you get fascism. So, I guess maybe I share your view, that lobbying breaks the system.

Globally active/influential social systems are still very young. In the couple hundred years such systems have been able to form, we've only attempted a minority of realistically possible systems, and most of this data was collected under very specific sets of circumstances which most likely only cover a tiny subset of realistically possible circumstances.

IMO it's not possible to justify your claims without taking a whole tower of (IMO likely false) assumptions for granted. I'd love to go into detail on each assumption I see, but I've had similar comments regarding flaws of capitalist systems get derailed too many times by very angry commenters who insist that such thoughts are not worth discussing and MUST NOT be discussed.

> Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments.

The naive view is to think that lobbying is automatically bad. Policymakers can choose who they talk to. If you're worried about corrupt policymakers, you've correctly identified where power resides: in government.

I didn't say a word about lobbying being automatically bad, what does that have to do with anything?

All I did was disprove your theory that private companies have no power, and that you or I have the same options to influence the government.

> "value creation for one's customers" - that is a "not even wrong" level of misunderstanding of the system dynamics of capitalism. The primary driver is generation of _profit_ for owners of the means of production. Many things fall out of that - the tendency to monopolise, for example.

I don't see why you're talking like this. It's "not even wrong" in the sense that it's entirely correct. Monarchy and socialism grab money through taxes, and if you think monopolies are bad, wait til you're forced to use the state service that has no motivation to do well because there's no competition. It's not only a monopoly, it's a monopoly that takes your money by force.

Capitalism requires investment and risk and competition to drive value up for customers who can choose. So you need to produce value for your customers to survive, and produce a profit after costs and taxes.

As if communism didn't end with evil dictators on power...

I mean, you're not wrong, but even if AI was created and released by a group of peace loving beatnick hippies, humanity can't stand anymore dumbing down than we are still undergoing thanks to the ubiquity of social media. AI is going to be the killshot. And yes, its usage and human obsolescence will be hastened by evildoers, but giving up the struggle and effort required to create new things, REAL things, is what makes us human, and it's at a tipping point

If you allow me to also tap into fiction and creative writing.

I think people generally underestimate how much change a small "dedicated" group of people can achieve if morals are considered optional.

A lot of the debate on AI and its consequences is built on various assumptions that all kinda take the status quo (apathy, regulatory capture, but also laws) and take that as a given.

History - like e.g. the third reich, but also military coups - however tells us that these kinds of assumptions can be void at any time for any reason without a mandate or a democratic resolution to do so.

I am practically certain that before everything collapsed as predicted, someone will "restore order" by any means necessary.

If that means shutting down the Internet, the Internet will shut down. If that means "shutting down" people, then people will be shut down.

The predicted scenarios are all invalid states that the rules governing the underlying system will not allow to exist; or at least not for long.

I don't know if you're right or not, but this is the kind of thinking about what might happen that is needed - can you write up a more concrete fiction of this?

The whole thing feels unreal to nearly everyone - the only tangible write-up I've seen was in Plan A. I don't think people have thought through the good scenarios tangibly, never mind the bad ones.

Hmm that is a good question.

I can't really provide a full picture here as I just make stuff up as I go, but the first word that came to my mind when reading your question was "atomization".

Not sure what my brain wants to tell me with that, though.

It might be one of the prerequisites for the current state. It might be what changes for greater change to quickly snap into existence. Or it might also be brainfart.

Not sure if a quick answer like this is helpful, but maybe there will be a longer answer later. Or not. The brain works in mysterious ways.

__

Hmm. It might be that the mechanisms that have been pushing said atomization could perhaps break down due to the reward systems breaking down.

And then suddenly collectives violently snap back together like these neodymium magnets that make that fun sound.

Which, in more concrete terms, could possibly be translated as "people might get so sick of everything, they prefer logging off and talking to their neighbors instead". Although that is a translation that comes with resolution loss.

___

Another thread to pull on here is that AI hyperinflates all sorts of things like fake merit or similar.

So stuff like virtual internetpoints driving people might not continue working.

Or if AI steals all our jobs as proposed, then maybe people will not take the monetary system in which AI wins seriously anymore.

Definitely these are forces that will do things. What their timing is relative to e.g. armies of AI robots, which could interfere with other humans living outside the internet/money, is part of the question.

Hope your brain works on this and writes something - we have lots of very odd future possibilities, and we're not really ready or planning for them, so making them tangible helps.

From my understanding, the "armies of AI robots" are just the wishful thinking of the currently winning people, in the sense that that would be what would be necessary to cement their own power while hoarding all resources for themselves.

It's not a real scenario. It's just rationalizing the "oh shit, they're coming for my head if I don't stop optimizing for my own benefit". "What can I do what can I do.. I know.. Army of Robots. I am safe and have nothing to change about anything I do".

You can tell that it is just that by considering the logistics of the proposed scenario.

__

Every time we see vengeful AI or robots, we merely see a reflection of the currently winning meatbags, their character, their flaws, their fears and their goals.

___

On the logistics note:

You can I think also see the hubris of the IT people in that, because "supply chain" for them means "npm", and that can be replaced with an LLM.

It breaks minds to be able to create value out of nothing just with your brain. It makes you believe that the whole world would work like that.

It however does not. And you cannot just compensate that with blitzscaling robots. The supply chain of.. literally any object you can find around you is absurdly complex. Even the most simplest stuff.

And it's also not documented, but even documentation wouldn't help you there. Experience in requirements engineering should make the "why" there obvious.

> someone will "restore order" by any means necessary.

Ah the good old appeal to / waiting for higher authority that will be moral and just and will do whats right and correct things.

Thats the shit naive humans hope for, thats why fairy tales of religions can still be acceptable in 21st century for some, despite often sounding like from (bad) disney cartoon movie.

I bring you alternate, more realistic view - there is nobody like that. We are in this on our own, its on each of us. Either we act or let things go as they will. So, not really good outlook, is it. Maybe this is the Great filter event.

Its one of those technologies that brings a lot, but for every single thing it brings it feels like we as mankind are losing much more than gained.

> Ah the good old appeal to / waiting for higher authority that will be moral and just and will do whats right and correct things.

> Thats the shit naive humans hope for,

No, you've misread me. I'm not "hoping" for anything. I've just wrote down what I suspect future outcomes will be in the same way a meteorologist predicts a storm or similar.

Whether you're interested in the weather forecast is a different question.

Sure, just that my forecast is a bit more cloudy than yours for reasons mentioned

> that might also be driven by the huge ego (or really rather the very small ego)

100%

The hubris is immense

There are plenty of offline things that are more dangerous than AI

Is this Blake Lemoine 2.0?

You believe in AGI, but not ASI then?

https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-three-ai-pills

That's fine, but it would be useful to explicitly say that is the disagreement, rather than just claim "hubris". Otherwise conversations are just looping.

Yes you're right there are plenty of offline things more dangerous than just ordinary AI, and arguably than AGI (not so sure). There definitely aren't, pretty well by definition, such things more dangerous than ASI.

I think ASI is possible, and that AGI will have a high chance of leading to it.

This is like unphysical gibberish. I’m not even kidding. There are such things as the Landauer Limit and the earth has a finite surface area to absorb solar radiation. For crying out loud these are smart people but at the end of the day the singularity is not actually singular.

It’s just silly talk. My dad works for Nintendo and he can give me a gold foil pikachu any time he wants, also, he can delete your Pokémon any time he wants because he has admin access on the Nintendo server. And also he can beat up your dad because he has a black belt. Oh your dad has a black belt? Well actually I lied, he has a rainbow belt which means he can beat up your dad still.

Like this is silly right? It’s insulting. We both know that there are live nuclear weapons whose coordinates point at my city and at your city and the only thing that stops them is two keys and a button. Nuclear weapons, you know those things that have killed hundreds of thousands of living men women and children? There is no room for speculation in that regard: my city has a navy base and there is a live nuclear weapon pointed at it, myself and my entire family will die if it goes off. Now contrast: ahem.

Oh sorry my dad also has like a super secret rainbow STEALTH powers that could actually totally insulate my house from nukes. If you think about it, I actually have no reason to be concerned.

> You believe in AGI, but not ASI then?

I have observed that these initialisms do not have generally agreed upon meanings; they are not useful for discussions with people who have not already stated what precisely they count. There is disagreement about all three (/four) initials, and also how to combine them.

To give a sense of scale of how bad this is: some people on this very site have even denied that LLMs are "AI" at all, despite solving for natural language being a long-standing part of the field since, y'know, Turing.

On the other hand, the original ChatGPT was already (by my use of the words), "an AI", and while it was not superhuman in performance at any single thing, it already had a superhuman breadth of knowledge and a superhuman speed. For the former, even being properly fluent in five languages would be an absurd ask for a single human.

Spiky intelligence. How do the "G" (or "S") and the "I" part interact? Does something only count as "AGI" when for each task that has humans who do it regularly, it's as good as the average?* Does it only count as ASI when it's better than all humans at all tasks? Is it not "superhuman" to simply be as good as the median human while being 1% of the cost?

For some people, the cost matters; for others, the speed; for p(doom), competence.

* i.e. as good at speaking Korean as the average Korean, not merely as good at Korean as the average random human selected worldwide; as good at plumbing as the average plumber, not merely the average random human selected from all professions and unemployed alike.

No, I am "How The Fuck Is Cyber Bullying Real... Just Walk Away From The Screen Like, Close Your Eyes" pilled