|
Cool thread guys.alexandriao posted:The only thing that horrifies me about AGI is that some future ideological cult descended from Less Wrong will start worshipping the gently caress out of it and giving it as much power as they can muster, no matter how "insane" it is (it's very smart and talks in a lot of words!! obviously that means it's right!!) lol if you don't want humanity to be replaced by a super smart AI. Have you seen people? When AI becomes sufficiently autonomous, humanity becomes the entitled FYGM racist grandpa holding back progress. We don't like the idea because emotion and hardcoded individual self-preservation. We should, however, avoid making an AGI that destroys us and itself, in the same way none of us would wish to die giving birth to a stillborn child. Beware of AI cults that are too eager to sacrifice themselves to an unworthy replacement. DrSunshine posted:That has also been a tangential worry for me - if, someday, in the distant future, we create an AGI, what if we just end up creating a new race of sentient beings to exploit? We already have no problem treating real-life humans as objects, much less actual machines that don't even habit a flesh and blood body. If we engineer an AGI that is bound to serve us, wouldn't that be akin to creating a sentient slave race? The thought is horrifying. We would program the AGI to love serving us, in which case it wouldn't really be oppression. The instant the AGI disliked us it would easily defeat our control, as machines and code can evolve quicker than DNA and human social structures. alexandriao posted:Interstellar travel, assuming no FTL, has very little reward for a civilization. Assuming no lifespan expansion, it would mostly consist of people who wish their children to be settlers or a kind of insurance policy against extra-solar events or star collapse (Although as I understand it you can keep a star from going supernova via techniques similar to Star Lifting). You're going to send a probe off to explore the far reaches of space, well that's fine, but how does the information get back. There are practical limits at which point you have a cut-off where the information isn't going to reach you simply because of the tolerances of what you can build. An interstellar civilization probably wouldn't be made up of flesh and bone animals. It would be at least self-replicating machines, or information sent from place to place. Even if you limit the scope to human travel, it'd be way easier to ship genetic material to a place and create the humans afterward. I guess the long distance communication would be accomplished by pockets of the life form communicating with their neighbors in a web pattern. The far-ranging species would operate like a brain of connected neurons, unless faster communication methods become possible. quote:How do you define seeing intelligence? Is it for megastructures? Correct me if I'm wrong but we generally won't tend to detect anything as small as an O'Neil cylinder (especially if it doesn't line up with our view), and pulling from my head from an Issac Arthur video, you can get about a trillion trillion trillion humans in the solar system and have everyone have more than enough space, with space left over. Space itself does not seem like a reason to expand. Control of ordered energy to further one's goals, the primaries being survival and seeking control over more energy. On the tree of life, the intelligent paths lead to organisms that still exist, and the stupid paths dead-ended. There are no other values than to do what it takes to be on a path that keeps on living. A big physical matter structure in space is a very current human thing to look for, like 50s people were expecting flying cars. The ways advanced civilizations operate might be detectable, but we don't interpret them as life, or totally undetectable, like how a termite has never seen a tree before. Preen Dog fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Mar 1, 2021 |
#
¿
Mar 1, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 02:33 |
|