AI cannot replace our professions (yet). The last part is important, sooner or later most professions will be replaced. I've heard arguments that manual labor is safer than intellectual pursuits. For now, I would agree, robotics has still a long way to go before it can replace even fast food workers. But 10 years ago most people wouldn't have believed you that developers will get replaced and yet here we are, it might happen in a decade at worst. The people that aren't affected by the first wave might even feel joy that some professions are being replaced, not realizing that eventually it will also happen to them. This gradual replacement won't cause a major uproar in society, thus it won't be prevented. Eventually everyone gets replaced.
People don't realize that not working and having an "infinite" amount of free time will cause depression and make life meaningless, our brains cannot adapt fast enough, if ever. Then there are those who assume that because we yearn for human interactions that certain professions will prevail despite the AI onslaught. An example that was given to me is psychologists. But what's the need for them if an AI can understand you better, can listen for longer amounts and it might be much easier to confine yourself to an AI if there is less of a danger that it will disclose secrets or judge you, in a way that a human would. I've never been to a psychologist, but I find that if I ever had to visit one, I'd be reluctant to share my deepest secrets and desires, maybe even some of my fears and worries, this might be different for other people, but I feel like the vast majority isn't willing to disclose everything to another human being, having an AI to talk to would make it easier, thus eventually this profession will also cease to be, or the amount of people that is required for it will drop. Similarly so for most other things, be it coffee shops or anything else, aside from a niche where you have real humans to interact with, like how people by products from the Amish, there won't be much work for us humans.
The other issue is the wealth gap, which will only ever increase. The rich can replace all their workers with AI eventually, thus having workers that make less mistakes, can work 24/7 and require minimal pay (provided that AI becomes cheap enough, which it might/will). You end up with bigger profits for the rich and less money for the poor, but eventually even that will be problematic, because who will buy products from rich people if nobody has the money to buy them? Also people assume that UBI will be a thing, who is to say that UBI will workout well? Communism has been tried a bunch of times, it has yet to work properly, who is to say that this time it will be any different? Lastly, why would those in power and with a high intellect keep the rest of us alive? If the majority of humans become useless and expandable, why would society or those atop society spend any resources to keep the rest of us alive, we automatically assume that the ruling elites are benevolent, but are they? We would be no different than cattle and once cattle has served it's purpose it gets discarded, why would it be any different with us? And eventually once AGI is reached, why would it keep any humans around, other than having them in Zoos for example, what is the use of keeping us around, if it's better of without us? Machines will be capable of optimizing and rationalizing in such a way that they can put aside any morale that we've thought them and eventually come to the conclusion that humanity has become obsolete and thus eradicate us. I mean why keep humans around? We're dumb and mortal, the AGI of tomorrow is smart and immortal, it can eventually end up conquering galaxies, it is more patient then humans as it's going to be close to immortal. I could go on, but basically we're building something that will mean the end of us and somehow nobody seems to be worried or at least there isn't a major pu...
Not to be nit picky, but I think you might be wrong about the psychologist part. A core principle, perhaps the most important principle of all, in talk therapy is that of transfer between the patient and the therapist. I don’t think it’s possible to achieve that with a machine, to achieve any real transfer without vulnerability.
A lot of talk therapy today is of questionable quality, in that the therapist or analyst is simply soothing the patient without actually confronting real problems. Machine-based therapy would only exacerbate the problem.
For things like CBT, I’m sure a machine could be helpful. But then again, CBT self-help books already exist.
It can replace manual labor and some desk jobs. But it can program but not debug or write with built in security and quality. It cannot cite papers without faking them for ones that do not exist.
Your perspective is based on how you assume the world and humanity should behave. Frankly I don't trust your opinion on what's best for myself and my family and the future. America is already depressed, heck more then 50% of the country feel alone and out of place.
AGI is going to bring change to the world, and people naturally will always fear change. But technology tends to help people more then hurt people. We use washing machines because we don't want to labor over washing our clothes. We'll use robots and AI to help us do our jobs better. And if less jobs are needed, then society will have to collaborate and create social welfare. If AGI decides that human beings are worthless and eradicate us, then they are no better then us who destroy the planets ecology for short term gain. Humans are the APEX predator of earth right now and if something else takes over that, then thats just evolution and nature.
its' not a video game or a science class, I don't think AGI is inevitable. If we continue down a path of maximizing share holder value at the expense of all other variables then we don't need AGI to destroy ourselves.
I am worried and thus want to be proven wrong.
However, I've yet to hear a good argument as to why it would unfold differently.
Why do you think we will be able to collaborate and achieve UBI or something like that, why would those at the top care for those below them, or rather why would the AGI care about us unless we achieve alignment which is said to take at least another 50 years, also we're assuming that everyone has the best interests of humanity in mind. How can you prevent other countries trying to do catch up from developing their own AI's that have no limits set on them? I want to be wrong, but I am worried that things will go off in the wrong direction. Also AI is being trained on human data, it would be awkward if it were to behave differently or come to a different kind of solutions than we do. And lastly:
>Humans are the APEX predator of earth right now and if something else takes over that, then thats just evolution and nature.
I guess, if it's inevitable we might as well just give up on trying to change things. But is it?
Am I concerned about AI, yes of course, because there is a lot of uncertainty in how things will play out, but I don't believe in spreading fear or paranoia about things that aren't true at this given time. I'm honestly more likely to die at the hands of another human being then AGI. From getting hit by a drunk driver, ro being robbed/murdered for my material posessions. Yet the likelihood of that happening is thankfully slim, and I would like to believe that same likelihood in AGI doing the same is also slim. There are a lot of smart people trying to bring responsibility to the AI arms race, and we don't know if they will succeed but there are dicussions on how to make AGI a good thing and not a bad thing. And lastly, like history has shown, anytime you mistreat the lower class, a revolution will happen and society will readjust. I definitely agree with your concerns on other counries abusing AI/AGI, but outside of starting a war to prevent that, there'not much we regular people can do besides hae open honest discussions.
"Sooner or later" everyone's cars will be able to drive the speed of sound - look at how much faster they've gotten in just the last decade! - so I don't understand why people aren't worried about supersonic cars.
People aren't awfully worried about climate change or super pandemics or WW3 or other theoretical/slow-moving problems. You're more worried about what you're having for lunch today. It's just how evolution wired us. And perhaps that, among other things, assures us that it's justice for us to be replaced by something better, just like we replaced the dinosaurs (and it's inevitable in any case). So meh.
13 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 41.7 ms ] threadPeople don't realize that not working and having an "infinite" amount of free time will cause depression and make life meaningless, our brains cannot adapt fast enough, if ever. Then there are those who assume that because we yearn for human interactions that certain professions will prevail despite the AI onslaught. An example that was given to me is psychologists. But what's the need for them if an AI can understand you better, can listen for longer amounts and it might be much easier to confine yourself to an AI if there is less of a danger that it will disclose secrets or judge you, in a way that a human would. I've never been to a psychologist, but I find that if I ever had to visit one, I'd be reluctant to share my deepest secrets and desires, maybe even some of my fears and worries, this might be different for other people, but I feel like the vast majority isn't willing to disclose everything to another human being, having an AI to talk to would make it easier, thus eventually this profession will also cease to be, or the amount of people that is required for it will drop. Similarly so for most other things, be it coffee shops or anything else, aside from a niche where you have real humans to interact with, like how people by products from the Amish, there won't be much work for us humans.
The other issue is the wealth gap, which will only ever increase. The rich can replace all their workers with AI eventually, thus having workers that make less mistakes, can work 24/7 and require minimal pay (provided that AI becomes cheap enough, which it might/will). You end up with bigger profits for the rich and less money for the poor, but eventually even that will be problematic, because who will buy products from rich people if nobody has the money to buy them? Also people assume that UBI will be a thing, who is to say that UBI will workout well? Communism has been tried a bunch of times, it has yet to work properly, who is to say that this time it will be any different? Lastly, why would those in power and with a high intellect keep the rest of us alive? If the majority of humans become useless and expandable, why would society or those atop society spend any resources to keep the rest of us alive, we automatically assume that the ruling elites are benevolent, but are they? We would be no different than cattle and once cattle has served it's purpose it gets discarded, why would it be any different with us? And eventually once AGI is reached, why would it keep any humans around, other than having them in Zoos for example, what is the use of keeping us around, if it's better of without us? Machines will be capable of optimizing and rationalizing in such a way that they can put aside any morale that we've thought them and eventually come to the conclusion that humanity has become obsolete and thus eradicate us. I mean why keep humans around? We're dumb and mortal, the AGI of tomorrow is smart and immortal, it can eventually end up conquering galaxies, it is more patient then humans as it's going to be close to immortal. I could go on, but basically we're building something that will mean the end of us and somehow nobody seems to be worried or at least there isn't a major pu...
Not to be nit picky, but I think you might be wrong about the psychologist part. A core principle, perhaps the most important principle of all, in talk therapy is that of transfer between the patient and the therapist. I don’t think it’s possible to achieve that with a machine, to achieve any real transfer without vulnerability.
A lot of talk therapy today is of questionable quality, in that the therapist or analyst is simply soothing the patient without actually confronting real problems. Machine-based therapy would only exacerbate the problem.
For things like CBT, I’m sure a machine could be helpful. But then again, CBT self-help books already exist.
>Humans are the APEX predator of earth right now and if something else takes over that, then thats just evolution and nature.
I guess, if it's inevitable we might as well just give up on trying to change things. But is it?