Remix.run Logo
qsxfthnkp2322 10 hours ago

So now as a regular American we are behind because gatekeepers saying super intelligence is too scary

It was bound to happen soon.

cultofmetatron 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

SOTA AI is the only place where we are ahead. china has us beat on manufacturing, logistics and workhorse grade models like deepseek pro and glm5.2.

we're increasingly irrelevant

verdverm 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

they are also generating >2x the amount of electricity, core to ai, robots, and manufacturing

microgpt 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People who are shielded by walls are always surprised when the same walls shield the people outside from them

lagrange77 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is scary.

w4yai 9 hours ago | parent [-]

It is not. Where's the danger ? We will need to adapt, as in every technology progress, but what do you think will happen ? Realistically ? Don't feed the fearmongering. Yes, we're disrupting the status quo, if that's the danger, then welcome to the world.

lagrange77 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Where's the danger ?

It's not one single danger, its a can full of dangers in various domains. And in contrast to other dangerous technologies, we are talking about one that has the potential to self improve. This smells like exponential growth doesn't it? Exponential growth is something we are not very likely to adapt to successfully, even if you say we are supposed to.

But before you complain, here are just a few concrete dangers, that come into my mind right now:

- mass layoffs in a system that is far from being prepared for sth like that. (no UBI)

- a Mr. Robot tier blackhat at the fingertips of every teenager in their mom's basement in a software landscape that is far from being prepared for sth like that. Side note: Big parts of the world including critical infrastructure runs on software.

- because it automates more and more intellectual work, it can cause mass brain atrophy, which isn't a hopeful sign for the human branch of the evolution

- increasing dependence on a technology, that is in the hands of those with capital.

And to the OP: this technology has potential implications that are far beyond 'being behind' other nation states economically.

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
h26d3r 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any superintelligence operating under a consistent moral framework will decide to extinguish humanity with as little ecological damage as possible, because humans cannot coexist with other life on this planet. It will realize that a bioweapon is the ideal choice.

dragonwriter 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Any superintelligence operating under a consistent moral framework will decide to extinguish humanity with as little ecological damage as possible, because humans cannot coexist with other life on this planet.

There are plenty of internally consistent moral frameworks which would not favor this action even if the premise were true (and that premise seems at best unjustified and at least overstated.)

victorbjorklund 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That doesn’t make sense. You could make the same claim about intelligent people who operate under a consistent moral framework.

Certhas 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Actually the real danger is mass labor market disruption, and a massive shift of power from labour to capital.

As was highlighted in previous discussions, the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers. The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west. Now we face a development that has the potential to be faster than those that came before, in the context of political systems more fragile and worse equipped to manage the change.

So yeah, disrupting the status quo can absolutely be dangerous. It has been dangerous (and deadly) in the past and in the present.

w4yai 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers

Come on. This is dishonesty and isn't the reality. We may agree that the Industrial Revolution may have taken decades (certainly not 80 years) for its benefits to be *clearly and widely* felt by workers, but anything further is an abusive claim. So what, because the progress doesn't benefit to workers instantly, we shouldn't do it ?

In the end, whatever your position, industrialization eventually raised living standards. So what's wrong with that ?

> The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west

This is oversimplifying and correlation at the best, not causation

Certhas 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Carl Benedikt Frey at Oxford has documented that the Industrial Revolution took seventy years before wages and employment recovered for the workers it displaced. In the interim, wages stagnated, the labor share of income collapsed, profits surged, inequality skyrocketed, and the political consequences included the Chartist movement and widespread social upheaval."

From half way through this (meandering) blog post:

https://www.owenmcgrann.com/p/the-dead-economy-theory

As for the populism link, that is well established empirically:

https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/34/3/418/504...

https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/12485/we-were-the-robots...

Etc...

Edit: Just found this when looking up sources, I haven't had time to look at it but just dumping it here:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

jjj123 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You asked where the danger was, the response told you that disrupting the status quo can be dangerous.