This could be true, but I think it amounts to wishful thinking. The human empowerment phase of AI is transitory and brief. Once you get into RSI and AGI the human is increasingly left out and disenfranchised. The multiplier of your personal effectiveness directly proportional to how much the AI is doing relative to you. Being 2x more effective is great - AI does half the work. 5x, 10x, 100x? When the AI does 99% of the work you maybe start to worry - the bottleneck to 'your' productivity is now you and you are going up against much faster and more powerful entities than yourself. This mindset is rooted in a short term gain that risks a long term loss.

▲

tern a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, I agree, but the relevant debate isn't "pro vs anti-AI." That's a fight only one side can win.

The relevant debate is: "human empowerment vs disempowerment".

It's still a long-shot, but at least there's a specific target that a majority may be able to agree on.

(Not saying you were specifically saying either.)

▲

blululu 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s a fair framing. I like the idea that the two debates could be separated. Personally I find it hard to believe that a super intelligence would not completely disempower humans over any reasonable time frame (50 years), but you are right that there is a chance. There are some optimistic scenarios either way but the odds are indeed long. You can approximate things reasonably well by framing the priority as whether you think P(take off can be stopped) is higher than P(survival post take off).

▲

justonepost2 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think his point is that “human empowerment vs disempowerment”, in the long term, is itself a fight that only one side can win.

▲

tern a day ago | parent [-]

I mean, fair—it's a possibility. But what are we to do with a point of view that admits no positive outcome?

	▲	justonepost2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I would guess that our near future includes mass suicide on an unprecedented scale. I have a spot picked out, at least.