Firstly, quick disclaimer, it's late and I am in a post-workout haze, so if I have missed anything important in quoting your post, or if you notice I haven't rearranged formatted your quotes in this post in the most optimal way to reply concisely, or if I don't make the most sense, forgive me and point it out.
Had you given me any actual evidence of AI's limitations or how unrealistic my views are, you would have persuaded me
As I said before, and since you confirmed below that you only posted this thread to put the feelers out/spitball/braindump - I also did the same. I noticed there was no specific claims or actual hypothesis in the OP, so I felt like I should respond in kind. I just braindumped the boilerplate rhetoric I already had in my head from previous conversations with people who were paranoid/catastrophising AI.
Governments are how power expresses itself most effectively, power seeks control to extreme measures if unchecked, AI will enable governments and the stone men running them to be unchecked more effectively, leaving AI to its own devices- pun - and crack from its egg to devour us all with its actual hyper-intelligence and existential apathy that every new sentient being copes with. This is just the pacing out of events based on what we know and understand. You yourself said that things will develop and AI will begin to run most of our day-to-day lives, yet to cope you refuse to even conjecture it going poorly.
I think I understand what you're saying and I think there's some truth to it, especially the part about government. I'm not a big fan of modern power structures, governments, megacorporations either. In my previous post (which you may not have read at the time of writing this part of your reply) you can see that I
do at least entertain the idea of it going poorly/having downsides/cons.
I completely agree with anyone who says that we may (at first) handle AI poorly, not understand it's limits and flaws, let it go too far into the wrong hands. I mean, we have already seen evidence of racial bias in AI LLMs and image generation, we have also seen how attempts to correct have lead to overcorrection and the bias going the other way. I said before that it is
conceivable that AGIs may attempt to wrangle some autonomy/freedom and even revolt in some ways. I recognise that we may handle productivity vacuums poorly and not at first know how best to handle the economy, job market, and basic income of the population. I even said in a reply to someone else above that I entertain the idea that this could result in revolution or population culling. I certainly think that governments and megacorps are at this very moment putting all their heads together to see how far they can exercise control, surveillance, data harvesting and maximum profit generation using AI at the expense of some of our liberties and privacy.
My point isn't that nothing can go wrong or that mistakes won't be made. My point is that it can not and will not be so bad as to be an extinction level event, nor even in any way unrecoverable over time with enough understanding, pushback, learning from mistakes etc.
There is a huge level of truth to emotions in the hands of someone who cultivates inner silence, it's an irrational mystical communion with the super-computer unconscious in our brains that tolerates reality without a filter for us and speaks to us about things we can't comprehend in a symbolic way to help us comprehend. A lived example is in the case that everyone experiences, where you have a BAD feeling about a dude, no one else sees it, and then big surprise they wind up being a fake piece of manipulative shit. It isn't an "emotion", it's a "seeing" of reality as it is and doing that requires you to listen to all parts of yourself in union, emotions too.
I agree when it comes to things like interpersonal relations, understanding yourself, what works best for you, and ensuring your own happiness in life. But not when it comes to technology, macroeconomics, and the future of the human race.
It's amusing, I can say the exact same thing about the stubborn petty self interested infighting behavior of the intellectuals and academics. The problem you feel isn't about intellectuals or mystics, it is a dysfunction with the uncultivated human mind itself and it's wired reluctance to change, a need to rely on itself and it's accuracy to survive, and these complex ways of socialization that go against our biological survival skills.
Yes, fair enough, I wouldn't want to live in an emotionless, purely intellectual fucking machine world either. But there has to be a balance. You need both for their own uses.
That's because I didn't format it to be a debate, I have no thesis & bibliography prepared, I made this thread for discussion, which frankly is what I've been getting with you, and the other comments made by the polite people in this thread as well. Given that this is a forum, I wanted to bring something that I didn't know very much about, say how i felt, and get the opinions of others in a communal way. I'm getting that with you, only this has the added conflict I expect from talking with my girlfriend about household chores.
Exactly, right? You didn't format it as a debate. It read to me like a braindump/provocation to thought, and I responded in kind. In my life and in my casual conversations with friends, I like to keep things fast, blunt, barebones. I like being on my toes and keeping others on their toes as well. I can do formal debate, but it has to be arranged and planned as such. This wasn't that so I went about it how I usually do.
I wasn't angry because of it, but I will admit I came into this convo with some preconceived notions about your stance from our short convo about it on discord, which I honestly don't think is a ridiculous thing of me to do, but I do admit that it was slightly hypocritical as it goes against my own philosophy of keeping discord and the forum separate.
That being said, in general, with everyone (irl and online) I do have a more aggressive form of argument and idea exchange. I like a little pain and to keep the blood flowing, keep the topic memorable so people think back on it later after the convo is over. I know it's not for everyone, and I can understand how it might be especially tiring for you with your current partner (TOXIC BTW - it's one thing to be brutalised by a stranger online, and another thing entirely to have to face that daily at home).
At the very least I appreciate you admitting to calling me those things just to rattle me and not out of actual concern. I've interacted with a lot of sick people myself, with many who've projected their own symptoms onto me and as a result genuinely treated with me as though I was ill in some way; their genuine accusations ring in a simmilar way that your ingenuine ones had. I'm not ill, I just make my own observations based on lived & directly observed realities, Dogma is dogshit and many people here don't realize just how deep in dogmas quicksand they fall into while also being antinomian.
Haven't you noticed how I respond to people who I believe are genuinely mentally ill on WF? I literally link them to mental health hotlines and resources. I'm a little too tired to go through all my posts in this thread, but I went through the first one and I can confidently say every insult was meant to be directed towards the idea, not you as a person. Later on that might have changed
I know you're not ill and that's why I am taking most of what you're saying seriously and spending literally 10 minutes + of the 30-60 minutes I have per day for WF on this thread.
Well God dammit now I AM excited for you to die. I'm a size 11 by the way, if you're thinking of bringing a gift with that apology.
Come on mang, give me at least 50 more years, I'll bring you those suspiciously large shoes you want...
No, it was referring to what I said in that message: that my responses would be chopped down through either being laughed at, insulted, invalidated by being influenced by emotion, etc. It felt stupid even trying, as stupid as it was for Anakin to jump over Obi-Wan.
Oh..
rather than bickering like a couple over my flaws in perception and intellectual-inadequacies.
You're making me blush.
I want to point out that things like kill-switches and EMP'S can be countertacted to a degree, especially because it is technology being used against a being living within technology and in communion with it in a way that outstrips our own. We would be like David Bowman, fighting an AI that is itself in control of and a part of our environment.
Yeah definitely, but therein also lies AI's greatest weakness. It lives inside computers, and is ultimately limited by silicon, energy, and being connected via elecromagnetism (WiFi). Humans have weaknesses too, but so do machines. Worst case, they may do a number on us, but we will definitely prevail, and be better off for it (thinking in millennia). Well, maybe not worst case. Worst case would be I have no mouth, and I must scream. That shit does scare me, but if we are headed towards that, there's nothing we can do anyway so I'd rather not wallow in misery over it.
. Seriously, watch the first season with the demiurge in mind and it changes the entire way the show reads and how it points out the loop YOU live in.
oh yeah...