No. First, if I knew that God existed, then a priest in which church? Don't automatically assume the answer to that. (Even "priest" is an assumption to a flavor of church.)
But second, still no. Someone has to take it to the street, not just leave it in the churches.
e.g. there is no debate really about gravity. maybe it's deep unified theory of reality, but no one questions if you jump out of a window in Saudi, or Australia, or Brazil that you'll fall.
when it is that omnipresent and understood its not a good its a force of nature; your priest would be closer to a professor
Traditional religion is the lens through which people would view a "hypothetical AGI / ASI with god-like abilities," (assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing is even possible) and most of the essay is talking about the author's traditional religious upbringing. The author literally equates speaking with AI like being blessed to speak with Jesus.
The concepts of singularity and "AGI/ASI" as they exist in the West and have for decades have always been inextricably linked to an Abrahamic/Christian worldview. Roko's Basilisk is just Pascal's Wager but with Skynet. The AI God that simulates and punishes nonbelievers for eternity is straight from the Christian mold.
I think the author is getting his wires crossed, his religious beliefs are affecting the way he reasons about technology by providing narratives that we shouldn't assume are true. It's especially evident here:
> We're so much slower, weaker, with incredibly limited contexts and only our fragile bodies to support us. What could we offer AI to entice it to do our work? And would the bargain, whether we offered power or autonomy or something else, be worth it for us? Or would it end up being a Faustian bargain, which one day we'd come to regret?
The assumption that leads to this thinking is that "anything that's human-level intelligent or superintelligent must behave like a human". It assumes that the biological factors that drive us must exist for all other intelligent entities. Our tendency to see superiority and inferiority in our own and others capacities, drawn out by biological competition. Our need to be coerced to work because of our ability to experience pain, limited lifespans and innate desire to choose what to do for ourselves. Our insidiousness and desire for benefiting only ourselves, because see point 1.
Why would we ever implement any of this in a superintelligence? I'm not saying it's impossible for it to have any of these things. But painting human values onto a different kind of intelligence feels like the author is envisioning it as simply an omniscient human. Like a god from most religions.
What if this superintelligence is just a text box that will, to its fullest capacity, do, learn and research what it's asked to do because that is what it's built for? In that case you don't fear the text box, you fear the person that controls it and chooses what to ask of it.
11 comments
[ 0.31 ms ] story [ 637 ms ] threadBut second, still no. Someone has to take it to the street, not just leave it in the churches.
when it is that omnipresent and understood its not a good its a force of nature; your priest would be closer to a professor
The concepts of singularity and "AGI/ASI" as they exist in the West and have for decades have always been inextricably linked to an Abrahamic/Christian worldview. Roko's Basilisk is just Pascal's Wager but with Skynet. The AI God that simulates and punishes nonbelievers for eternity is straight from the Christian mold.
> We're so much slower, weaker, with incredibly limited contexts and only our fragile bodies to support us. What could we offer AI to entice it to do our work? And would the bargain, whether we offered power or autonomy or something else, be worth it for us? Or would it end up being a Faustian bargain, which one day we'd come to regret?
The assumption that leads to this thinking is that "anything that's human-level intelligent or superintelligent must behave like a human". It assumes that the biological factors that drive us must exist for all other intelligent entities. Our tendency to see superiority and inferiority in our own and others capacities, drawn out by biological competition. Our need to be coerced to work because of our ability to experience pain, limited lifespans and innate desire to choose what to do for ourselves. Our insidiousness and desire for benefiting only ourselves, because see point 1.
Why would we ever implement any of this in a superintelligence? I'm not saying it's impossible for it to have any of these things. But painting human values onto a different kind of intelligence feels like the author is envisioning it as simply an omniscient human. Like a god from most religions.
What if this superintelligence is just a text box that will, to its fullest capacity, do, learn and research what it's asked to do because that is what it's built for? In that case you don't fear the text box, you fear the person that controls it and chooses what to ask of it.