I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. This entire thing is just hand-waving and sci-fi sensationalism that seemingly forgets what the "fi" part stands for: FICTION.<p>The worst part of AI rapture self-suck is that it distracts people from actual problems society faces as a result of AI. We're far more likely to see a catastrophic economic depression, or depletion of regional water supplies. Let's focus on problems based in reality, please.
Not particularly moved by this. Either AI advances to the point we achieve a post scarcity society, or 99% of humanity becomes economically irrelevant and dies a slow death either way. I'd rather see humanity as a whole wiped out than live in a future where superintelligent AIs somehow decide to be subservient to CEOs instead of just replacing them outright.
(2025) <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250306164451/https://intelligence.org/the-problem/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250306164451/https://intellige...</a><p>> If <i>anyone</i> builds ASI, everyone dies<p>Unless I’m mistaken, it’s the same message as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Anyone_Builds_It,_Everyone_Dies" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Anyone_Builds_It,_Everyone_...</a>
Blah blah blah.<p>Here's my theory.<p>There is no such thing as "general intelligence." Only "skills."
If artificial intelligence is achieved to that degree, it will be effectively alien to us.<p>This is navel gazing at its most linty.<p>Already, assuming the intent of other <i>humans</i> is fraught with problems. Even when outcomes are disastrous, we cannot completely assume the instigating human intended for that outcome.<p>But here we are, assuming the intent of a hypothetical future intelligence that we have defined as more intelligent than us.<p>I’d be flabbergasted at the hubris if they’re conclusion wasn’t the standard variation of “so let us do what we want and restrict everyone else”.
Given the infinitude of possible “wishes” this AI can develop we are hoping, praying, believing it will somehow align with a version of wants and needs that are compatible with us.<p>The argument is that it doesn’t matter what particular likes it develops; the chances of it being compatible are vanishingly small and moreover there is no limit: we or it can develop more and new ones endlessly. We are here hoping they will all somehow magically keep aligning with us.
Lots of people quibble about this and the details, but the general outline of the argument is simple and given enough time seemingly inevitable. I don’t see an easy way to attack this. Claims like “it’s not so bad”, “LLMs ain’t it”, “AI can be good” lack substance and come across as “copium”. This is fundamentally about intelligence itself and how we can control it. Not “hope for the best” or “give it our best shot”, but really nail it down like we nail down mathematical proofs. We got <i>one shot</i> at this, just the one. You blow it, it’s over. Ash and silence forever. Once you realize this it can be quite sobering.<p>IMO the only real counter argument I came across came from Joscha Bach which basically boils down to: we are doomed already, AI is literally the only realistic shot we have at outliving the next couple centuries, say. It’s also sobering but a but more optimistic.