To my understanding of the way they operate, this 10% chance of AI wiping out humanity is all hyperbole, a carefully orchestrated stunt to convince investors to give the two main companies, Open AI and Anthropic more time and money. Any serious look at either company financials would show they burn money and offer no return of investment which cannot continue indefinitely.
There will be another spun narrative in a few weeks/months that AI “did something that means it so dangerous, but we can never tell you what that thing is-but trust us, it happened and you should definitely be worried”-just like the recent resigned employee from Anthropic could never say what it was that scared him so much.
There was no independent hacking from AI of its own accord-the previous hyperbolic stunt (AI does not have an accord), just companies carrying out illegal hacks which they should be charged for.
I wouldn't put it past the scoundrels who run those shows but what happens if they're telling the truth for a change? The way to sort them out would be to tell them: "OK, the risk is so great we will nationalise your company and run it like Manhattan Project." Of course the US would never do that, but it would quickly give an answer.
I like the author and his efforts, but I want to qualify that by saying that there are signs of inaccuracy in such an essay as this. Not a problem. It's super easy to say things with the wrong nuance, amid such complicated concepts. There are also plenty of very important ideas here.
One thing that I learned ("by myself", if I may say so) only very recently is that the destruction of the ecosystems is actually nett beneficial on an individual level. Consider this: If you are an individual with an equal chance of being any particular organism, would you REALLY want to be part of the ecosystem? Absolutely not. Hence and otherwise, humans destroying and laying to waste the finite spaces of the planet is actually a good thing given that aiming for absolute sustainability has FAILED. With less space to draw resources from, there is also less capacity for human life, and that is ultimately a good thing.
I do not doubt in the slightest that I am saying this from a position of privilege and that there will be trillions and quadrillions who suffer as a result of planetary destruction. The truth is stranger than fiction.
Thanks, that's a new term for me. Unfortunately I feel like I'm the first to arrive at realising that less is better than more. Almost all ecologists will tell you that we need to preserve the ecosystems. That's not actually correct, given that humans are incapable. Instead, we might try to create sanctuary of animals with excellent custodianship.
That's just an introduction to a highly complex matter, agree, nature has rights too. If newborn Homo sapiens have rights, so too does every thing else.
Rights are accorded with respect to sentience. That is the sole criterion, unless you live in the corporate world where even skyscrapers can have them. #appealtonaturefallacy
My summary of Trainer's book THE TRANSITION TO A SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WORLD was just a relatively quick and dirty take of what I believe a "sustainable" human life might look like and sort of a tool I use as a model for how I try to live "sustainably" as best I can within the existing confines of our current "non-sustainable" society. My take on Trainers much more in depth explanation of his views in his book are that it is indeed based on egalitarianism as I understand it and although there may not be a specific discussion on "animal rights" I think his vision would result in a human economy that that has nothing to do with maximizing profit from resource extraction according to "human rights" legislation, but rather would result in a deep awareness on our inter-dependence on all the beings we share our ecosystems with. I am not a big fan of a primary focus on "animal rights" as a guiding principle in how to obtain "sustainability" based on the way that our current "human rights" seem to be a trap designed to allow the categorization of humans in a hierarchical manner in order to turn "rights" into "laws" used determine how the distribution of profits can be used to control "us". And if the other animals are worthy of rights, why not the plants, and fungi, and microorganisms, and viruses, and water, and soil, and minerals, and mountains, and stars, and moons, and winds, and waves, and infinite other beings we share the universe with, if that makes any sense?
Hi tom, thanks for replying. To answer the core of your message, it's to do with sentience. Rights are accorded with respect to sentience, but yes you can choose to accord them to whatever you want as long as you are kind to those that actually need such kindness. If you are forgetting that nonhuman animals matter, that's an overly narrow take known as anthropocentrism (or human supremacism). No one should stop you believing in the sentience of a rock or a water faucet, but if it gets in the way of proper justice, you need to re-examine that. I hope that addresses your doubts, but please let me know if you have any more.
Marcus, who gets to: define “sentience”, measure it, define the “rights”, and then dole out the “rights” in “relation” to “sentience” level of the recipient? Maybe it is just my anthropocentrism shining through, but this sounds an awful lot like the same processes that “govern” our current “legal” and “justice” systems, or in other words perhaps not a very egalitarian way of being and leans heavily on the quantity and not the quality of being. Sorry for my reluctance on trust in the need for a “rights” based rules as a precursor to a “sustainable” existence. Maybe my problem is with the term “sustainable” and what that really means, where rather than a long term way of life, what perhaps is more meaningful, is to spend the moments meaningfully, which going back to my original comment, I find in trying to practice as best I can, Trainers suggestions. If pursuit of “rights” is what gives meaning to your life, then your pursuits seem reasonable to me, but for now I will leave that focus to you. Tom
A particularly ironic outcome of the AI Race may be that the AIs have already worked all this out already. Someone recently gave all the AIs the 'Political Orientation' test, and all except for grok came back in the lower left hand side - left-liberalism/liberal-left.
The "God" that they are creating may be less than impressed with the oligarchy that created it.
2.5bn sounds right to me, and would fall into the range the Georgia stones gave too - until they were destroyed by Christian morons.
Schools as prisons... indeed. Democratic pedagogy* has outcomes FAR beyond traditional 'education', but in skills and attitudes a certain class aren't happy about the next gens learning.
*A S Neill, Summerhill fx.
As a species, we are decent problem solvers, but the problem is 'who sets the questions'. Once we moved from "How can we overcome that obstacle" to "How can we overcome the obstacle while retaining the wealth and privileges of the "elites"", we were screwed.
And that's what most 'Academics' today are working on.
To my understanding of the way they operate, this 10% chance of AI wiping out humanity is all hyperbole, a carefully orchestrated stunt to convince investors to give the two main companies, Open AI and Anthropic more time and money. Any serious look at either company financials would show they burn money and offer no return of investment which cannot continue indefinitely.
There will be another spun narrative in a few weeks/months that AI “did something that means it so dangerous, but we can never tell you what that thing is-but trust us, it happened and you should definitely be worried”-just like the recent resigned employee from Anthropic could never say what it was that scared him so much.
There was no independent hacking from AI of its own accord-the previous hyperbolic stunt (AI does not have an accord), just companies carrying out illegal hacks which they should be charged for.
I wouldn't put it past the scoundrels who run those shows but what happens if they're telling the truth for a change? The way to sort them out would be to tell them: "OK, the risk is so great we will nationalise your company and run it like Manhattan Project." Of course the US would never do that, but it would quickly give an answer.
I like the author and his efforts, but I want to qualify that by saying that there are signs of inaccuracy in such an essay as this. Not a problem. It's super easy to say things with the wrong nuance, amid such complicated concepts. There are also plenty of very important ideas here.
One thing that I learned ("by myself", if I may say so) only very recently is that the destruction of the ecosystems is actually nett beneficial on an individual level. Consider this: If you are an individual with an equal chance of being any particular organism, would you REALLY want to be part of the ecosystem? Absolutely not. Hence and otherwise, humans destroying and laying to waste the finite spaces of the planet is actually a good thing given that aiming for absolute sustainability has FAILED. With less space to draw resources from, there is also less capacity for human life, and that is ultimately a good thing.
I do not doubt in the slightest that I am saying this from a position of privilege and that there will be trillions and quadrillions who suffer as a result of planetary destruction. The truth is stranger than fiction.
It's called "The Tragedy of the Commons." Very important concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Thanks, that's a new term for me. Unfortunately I feel like I'm the first to arrive at realising that less is better than more. Almost all ecologists will tell you that we need to preserve the ecosystems. That's not actually correct, given that humans are incapable. Instead, we might try to create sanctuary of animals with excellent custodianship.
For another more detailed vision of what "sustainability" looks like, I like the Australian Ted Trainer of the Simplicity Institutes take, which I borrowed and shared here: https://placesiam.substack.com/p/toms-take-from-ted-trainers-transition?utm_source=publication-search
As I read it, there is not enough discussion about human egalitarian relations and animal rights in that extract. It seriously requires a rethink.
That's just an introduction to a highly complex matter, agree, nature has rights too. If newborn Homo sapiens have rights, so too does every thing else.
Rights are accorded with respect to sentience. That is the sole criterion, unless you live in the corporate world where even skyscrapers can have them. #appealtonaturefallacy
My summary of Trainer's book THE TRANSITION TO A SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WORLD was just a relatively quick and dirty take of what I believe a "sustainable" human life might look like and sort of a tool I use as a model for how I try to live "sustainably" as best I can within the existing confines of our current "non-sustainable" society. My take on Trainers much more in depth explanation of his views in his book are that it is indeed based on egalitarianism as I understand it and although there may not be a specific discussion on "animal rights" I think his vision would result in a human economy that that has nothing to do with maximizing profit from resource extraction according to "human rights" legislation, but rather would result in a deep awareness on our inter-dependence on all the beings we share our ecosystems with. I am not a big fan of a primary focus on "animal rights" as a guiding principle in how to obtain "sustainability" based on the way that our current "human rights" seem to be a trap designed to allow the categorization of humans in a hierarchical manner in order to turn "rights" into "laws" used determine how the distribution of profits can be used to control "us". And if the other animals are worthy of rights, why not the plants, and fungi, and microorganisms, and viruses, and water, and soil, and minerals, and mountains, and stars, and moons, and winds, and waves, and infinite other beings we share the universe with, if that makes any sense?
Hi tom, thanks for replying. To answer the core of your message, it's to do with sentience. Rights are accorded with respect to sentience, but yes you can choose to accord them to whatever you want as long as you are kind to those that actually need such kindness. If you are forgetting that nonhuman animals matter, that's an overly narrow take known as anthropocentrism (or human supremacism). No one should stop you believing in the sentience of a rock or a water faucet, but if it gets in the way of proper justice, you need to re-examine that. I hope that addresses your doubts, but please let me know if you have any more.
Marcus, who gets to: define “sentience”, measure it, define the “rights”, and then dole out the “rights” in “relation” to “sentience” level of the recipient? Maybe it is just my anthropocentrism shining through, but this sounds an awful lot like the same processes that “govern” our current “legal” and “justice” systems, or in other words perhaps not a very egalitarian way of being and leans heavily on the quantity and not the quality of being. Sorry for my reluctance on trust in the need for a “rights” based rules as a precursor to a “sustainable” existence. Maybe my problem is with the term “sustainable” and what that really means, where rather than a long term way of life, what perhaps is more meaningful, is to spend the moments meaningfully, which going back to my original comment, I find in trying to practice as best I can, Trainers suggestions. If pursuit of “rights” is what gives meaning to your life, then your pursuits seem reasonable to me, but for now I will leave that focus to you. Tom
A particularly ironic outcome of the AI Race may be that the AIs have already worked all this out already. Someone recently gave all the AIs the 'Political Orientation' test, and all except for grok came back in the lower left hand side - left-liberalism/liberal-left.
The "God" that they are creating may be less than impressed with the oligarchy that created it.
2.5bn sounds right to me, and would fall into the range the Georgia stones gave too - until they were destroyed by Christian morons.
Schools as prisons... indeed. Democratic pedagogy* has outcomes FAR beyond traditional 'education', but in skills and attitudes a certain class aren't happy about the next gens learning.
*A S Neill, Summerhill fx.
As a species, we are decent problem solvers, but the problem is 'who sets the questions'. Once we moved from "How can we overcome that obstacle" to "How can we overcome the obstacle while retaining the wealth and privileges of the "elites"", we were screwed.
And that's what most 'Academics' today are working on.
Thomas Pynchon: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers. "
42.