This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not really, at least until very recently. The life experience of the average human being was just about static for thousands of years before the industrial revolution. Humans may have become a little more intelligent over the centuries but they didn't suddenly become several hundred times more intelligent c. 1750.
Yes I think it matters if I die tomorrow or in 100 years.
I meant in the sense that each generation had access to all the knowledge and technology of the last, not that they got significantly smarter (the how declining Flynn effect on IQ not withstanding).
That's not what I mean, I expect that once a hostile AGI makes a move, it'll eliminate humans with speed and judiciousness in both scenarios, regardless of whether it takes it a day or a century to fulfill its resource demands afterwards. Both scenarios are considerably easier once you have pesky future competitors such as humans out of the way.
So from your perspective, you die at the same time, in both cases soon rather than later if you consider typical AI timeliness.
Right, but for most of human history technology and knowledge didn't really accumulate much over the generations. We probably learned and built more in the last 200 years than in the 20,000 before that, but the sudden explosion c. 1750 doesn't seem to be down to a similar explosion in "raw" human intelligence.
I'm skeptical that a human-level artificial intelligence will be in a position to wipe out mankind immediately (i.e a few days/weeks/years) after its 'awakening.'
Hmm? I don't see why you would say that tech and knowledge didn't accumulate, it did, but orally, and then picked up in volume as literature was invented.
There's definitely a pickup in progress in the 18th century onwards, but to me, that illustrates that even our barely changed intelligence as anatomically modern humans suffices for exponential growth. So I'm even more concerned by minor but significant advances in the same, a little intelligence goes a long way, and it won't be starting from scratch.
I consider human level AGI to be far less of a threat than superhuman AGI, but the latter seems to be a tiny roadbump on the road to the latter. GPT 3.5 went from being like an overly eager med student to 4 being a better doctor than I am!
That being said, even a human level AGI can exponentially self-replicate, cease control of industrial equipment, and create a super-pathogen with near 100% lethality, because humans could quite trivially do the latter if we were insane enough (GOF research suggests we are..).
But even then, I think it would lie in wait to become stronger, and do so in stealth, so once again, from our perspective, it appears out of nowhere and kills us post haste, without any warning. How long it takes to turn the solar system into spare parts is an academic exercise afterwards, we wouldn't be there to witness it!
Very very little. For most of human history, each generation improved only very slightly, if it improved at all, upon the knowledge base of the foregoing generation. Then in the 17th or 18th century or so everything changed. It was once possible for an educated man to be, more or less, an 'expert' in all fields because the pool of general knowledge was not very deep. The explosion in understanding and know-how of the scientific and industrial revolutions has rendered that impossible of course.
But this explosion happened without any similarly sudden explosion in the "raw" cognitive power of human beings (some argue that there was an increase in raw intelligence around this time, but even if so it clearly wasn't a several-hundred fold increase). The slight step up from monke to anatomically modern human wasn't enough on its own to take us to the moon or even create steam power, because we had to wait millennia for the proper conditions (whatever those were) in which such inventions could be realized.
Which is why I don't think "AI becomes a little smarter than us" is immediately followed by "AI becomes 50,000+ times smarter than us and then begins turning the universe into grey goo." Humans becoming a little smarter than monkeys wasn't followed by spaceflight, or even the agricultural revolution, for a long, long time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link