realce

I had forgotten the stem of this, thank you!

Abstraction is the opposite of precision.

Eventually we will pull the black ball out of the urn. It is the responsibility of those currently alive to assess the possible harm their creations might cause.

This cynical invincibility complex is becoming a tacit allowance of extreme danger. It's not some annoyance for people to act responsible, and not all technological achievements are the same as ones previously produced.

John C Lilly had a concept called the "bad program" that was like an internal, natural, subconscious antithetical force that lives in us all. It seduces or lures the individual into harming themselves one way or another - in his case it "tricked" him into taking a vitamin injection improperly, leading to a stroke, even though he knew how to administer the shot expertly.

At some level, there's a disaster-seeking function inside us all acting as an evolutionary propellant.

You might make an argument that "AI" is an evolutionary embodiment of our conscious minds that's designed to escape these more subconscious trappings.

> And there is no reason to think that AGI would have desire.

The entire point of utilizing this tool is to feed it a desire and have it produce an appropriate output based upon that desire. Not only that, it's entire training corpus is filled with examples of our human desires. So either humans give it desire or it trains itself to function based on the inertia of "goal-seeking" which are effectively the same thing.

The problem with your analogy is that these babies are HUMANS and not some distinctly different cyber-species. The basis of "human alignment" is that we all require basically the same conditions and environment in order to live, we all feel pain and pleasure, we all need food - that's what produces any amount of human cooperation. What's being feverishly developed is the seed of a different species that doesn't share those restrictions.

We've already found ourselves on a trajectory where un-employing millions or billions of people without any system to protect them afterwards is just accepted, and that's simply the first step of many in the destruction-of-empathy path that creating AI/AGI brings people down.

It's time to put an end to this fashionable and literal anti-human attitude. There's no comparative advantage to AI replacing humans en-masse because of how "stupid" we are. This POV is advocating for incalculable suffering and death. You personally will not be in a better or more rational position after this transition, you'll simply be dead.

> Return Of The Living Dead Part II (1988, Zombie Horror Comedy, 5.7)

My favorite zombie flick, if you've not seen it you need to!

So what year was reddit not described as a far-left echo chamber? When was this golden age?

These 5 people are our employees. We pay them with our tax dollars to assist in delivering services to ourselves and our fellow citizens. Unless secrecy is a distinct function of the service they deliver, I expect their names to be public. Transparency and accountability is owed to the taxpayer, if that's not acceptable to people then they are free to lend their talents to the private sector instead.

Doing business in, or running, a marketplace without established legal regulations opens you up to undefined consequences. Without laws to bind you, there are no laws to protect you.

The comment you replied to referenced "multiple teenagers" - the very people that liquor stores cannot sell alcohol to since they're not recognized as mature enough to be freely allowed to drink.

SR allowed children to buy addictive poison without any regulation whatsoever, and Ross profited off of those transactions.

These are not comparable institutions.

"Wouldn't be surprised if " is speculation. Nobody should be surprised if a pirate has buried treasure.

The article is about insurance company malfeasance, but this boils it down to mis-aligned consumer expectations about living forever in total bliss. That feels like a strange disconnect.

What a wild and disconnected assertion.

> The main takeaway is that this is inevitable

No, the main takeaway is that this might be ATTEMPTED. Success is not inevitable and to take such guarantees from those most motivated to sell AI is foolish.

> For example today, SaaS tools exist for so many things you’d have had to hire for in the past. Thanks to SaaS you can get started really easily - take payments, get a storefront, send email newsletters..

By definition, SaaS is something you hire a company to do - you're paying for a service

> it will be a net good on a scale we can’t imagine Why?

> megaliths of today also have more market power than optimal, hence so much anti-consumer shenanigans

Are you suggesting that large corporations will shrink market-share because they can all increase automation? How would that work?

> do they? Yes, it's plainly obvious that some people feel some guilt for eating meat.

Regular hunters != industrial-level slaughtering. There are plenty of "regular hunters" who only eat meat they kill themselves. This is like saying if I cut down a single tree on my property I should also support the clear-cutting of the rainforest.

> going against every bit of our human evolution, without guilt-tripping the rest of us for doing what nature designed us to do

If nature designed for this, then why do people feel any guilt at all?

Is there any possible technology that could make labor, mastery, or human expirence obsolete?

Are there no limits to this argument? Is it some absolute universal law that all new creations just create increasing economic opportunities?

Eventually you draw the black ball, it is inevitable.

> It is a symptom of an overly financialized economy. We should distinguish these cynical scenarios from genuinely profitable value creation.

1000% agree, thanks for the thoughtful reply

> Who cares what any of us imagines anyone else thinks?

Since you're responding and we're having a conversation about each other's opinions, I'd say it actually is relevant.

"Value creation" is not the same as the monopolistic paradigm of a winner-take-all 100m race. Hyperscaling is a system where potentially profitable businesses are destroyed because they weren't profitable ENOUGH for some singular VC investor class.

I agree with you that profitable businesses add value to everyone's lives, but there's a maximalist limit to the relationship where they start extracting value and opportunity overall.

> That doesn't seem in any way relevant to the point about survivorship bias.

To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have.

> Nor to the US, whose system has if anything produced far too much food for its citizens.

Where people still starve, where people are still homeless, where people still live in poverty. What's your point here?

The 100m is not a sustainable model for a nation or world's economy. Everyone needs to eat, not just the single individual who runs fastest.

lol that's amazingly incorrect

What does indistinguishable even mean here?

If a fish could write a novel, would you find what it wrote interesting, or would it seem like a fish wrote it? Humans absorb information relative to the human experience, and without living a human existence the information will feel fuzzy or uncanny. AI can approximate that but can't live it for real. Since it is a derivative of an information set, it can never truly express the full resolution of it's primary source.

That's an oddly paranoid statement. My agenda is what - to promote an admiration of Nazi Germany and the USSR's literacy rates?