May be a controversial take but I see the highest chances of everyone's survival under the rule of such a system, which has power over all humans.

We are many because we still need eachother. When the people who control the technology can fully replace human work, that will change the oldest of games we played. I highly doubt "the pleb" will make it for long when they are simply not needed for work or ... something.

The only people who will be "making it" to the glorious future will be the ones who do have full control over such a system, and only them, since they won't need anyone else. I think the only chance of the rest of us is precisely with such a system taking full control out of human hands.

If not, it quite obvious how it will work out for the rest of us, and why.

▲ AngryData an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It certainly may be true, but I would ask, is a bit higher survival chance worth the costs? If humanity is so incapable of self governance and individual judgement and freedoms, should survival even be the goal? I would fight and die over certain principles and human rights and ideals, should humanity in general do the same thing, even to the ultimate end?

Unless another intellegence can provide a literal utopia, I will always be pro-human judgement and control. If we kill ourselves from it then so be it, we will have earned it.

▲ ant6n 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe we do need some benevolent technocratic dictator… somebody very wise…

▲ Quartzium 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

With human benevolent dictators it doesn't work for long. The weak point is that particular human. Which is an argument for why what any particular "billionaire" says today is irrelevant.

Their promises mean nothing, what matters is the game strategy and the equilibrium. Not what they promise to do, or not do.

So, with a hypothetical entity that knows best than any human, or any group of humans, it's hard to argue for human control. Because the humans who have control want it for a few quite particular reasons, and it rarely has to do with the benefit of everyone else.

	▲	nick__m an hour ago \| parent [-]
		as Zaphod Beeblebrox said "anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

▲ krapp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. It is a contradiction in terms.

▲ Quartzium 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why? There will always be a clash between personal and group benefit. A dictator implies power over individual for the group's well-being.

For example, you want to steal the group's resources, and the dictator has power over your actions and forbids it. But you can argue that's bad for you, sure.

▲ plandis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A dictator could also decide the best thing to do is to mercilessly torture you to set an example so society behaves. Better to harm one individual than many, after all. They might even weep for your suffering but will still go through with it.

▲ krapp an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Any political position with absolute, unchecked and centralized power reduces the populace to little more than slaves, without rights or self-determination outside the whim of the dictator. "power over the individual for the group's well being" doesn't describe dictatorship, it just describes the concept of a state.

It doesn't matter whether the master chooses not to abuse their slaves, the evil is in the institution itself. Or to quote CS Lewis:

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

>For example, you want to steal the group's resources, and the dictator has power over your actions and forbids it.

That's just a law. We don't need dictators to make laws against theft. We already have such laws.

▲

Quartzium an hour ago | parent [-]

>Any political position with absolute, unchecked and centralized power reduces the populace to little more than slaves, without rights or self-determination outside the whim of the dictator.

*Human dictator.

>That's just a law. We don't need dictators to make laws against theft. We already have such laws.

They are yet not enforced in important cases. Which is typical for humans having power.

Again, I fail to see any possible argument against a non-human ASI dictator. Dictator here implies the power, outside of human control. Why would you be against that? Again, considering the ASI would indeed be ... ASI, it would know and understand better than any group of humans ever could hope they would be able to.

Unless, you want the freedom to have more power than other humans, or the freedom to take their resources. I cannot see a justification against it. Again, considering it's looking for all of our interests, as a group. Maximizing every individual's quality of life.

▲

krapp an hour ago | parent [-]

> Dictator here implies the power, outside of human control. Why would you be against that?

Absolute power, itself, is the problem. It doesn't matter if a machine wields it, or humans, or God Almighty. Humans are not property.

> Unless, you want the freedom to have more power than other humans, or the freedom to take their resources. I cannot see a justification against it.

That you can't even comprehend an argument to the contrary which doesn't imply the other party is morally corrupt or evil in some way is very troubling. As is the absolute faith you place in the benevolence of "ASI" versus any human agency. Your argument seems fascistic to the core.

I'm glad I'll probably be dead before the world you describe arrives, if it ever does.

	▲	Quartzium 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>Absolute power, itself, is the problem. Again, with humans. All of human history is testament to that. >It doesn't matter if a machine wields it, or humans, or God Almighty. Humans are not property. Your "freedom" implies you want to be able to cause harm for your benefit. Which is a simple problem to solve. You can hide behind all kinds of complicated moral justifications for it, but it always comes down to simply that, you think you are better than someone else, thus you deserve to take their stuff, or limit their freedoms at the benefit of yours, simply because you decided you are better than they are. You want to have this ability. You also won't be more "property" than you already are today. Not sure what you mean by property, but if anything...current powers considers everyone beneath as property, or farm animals, that they farm. As the shepherds they seem themselves as being. For some greater good, that usually involves their stomach and their bank accounts. >That you can't even comprehend an argument to the contrary which doesn't imply the other party is morally corrupt or evil in some way is very troubling. Yet you have made no such argument, even though you had all the freedom to make here. You...didn't, just alluded to it. >As is the absolute faith you place in the benevolence of "ASI" versus any human agency. Technology is way more reliable than humans. And again, what you mean by "human agency" is the freedom to take someone else's resources, or to limit their freedom of choices, for your benefit, or some perceived higher cause. You want that freedom for that purpose. And you seem scared of losing the ability to exert it over other humans, it seems to upset you greatly, for some strange reason. Just because your actions have more subtle and far reaching consequences than you can understand, doesn't mean they shouldn't be limited. If they affect someone else's quality of life. There is no way for you to spin this, you know you want the freedom to make others pay for your life's happiness and quality of life, and any threat to your ability of taking other's people property, or limiting their choices to enrich yours, makes you against such a scenario. That's all there is to it, even if you don't fully understand it, you intuit it to some degree, and use tropes from movies and books to argue against it.

▲ marcosdumay 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the GP is sarcastic, because this kind of message is literally what got Hitler in power.

▲ EA-3167 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Controversial implies something other than near universal revulsion at the notion. What you’re experiencing is the consequence of being in a very small, very intense bubble that believes increasingly unhinged things because doing so correlates with a profit.

I wouldn’t dignify the notion of a stochastic dictator with the title of controversy anymore than I would any other religious or personal delusion.

	▲	Quartzium 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I was not talking about LLMs, rather about "true intelligence" that only humans seem to exhibit, and some synthetic assembly, for some unknown reason, cannot. Is that not religion? Believing nothing else but humans could exhibit "true intelligence"?