>AI is not different from the previous industrial revolutions we had in the past ! It still replaces workers, raises productivity and create new jobs in other areas. As long as there are jobs that only humans can do, there will be jobs being created.
How can you say shit like this when Nick Bostrom exists?
Other urls found in this thread:
americansfortaxfairness.org
twitter.com
Because endless growing gdp and economic growth. Endless entrepreneurial opportunities
NOOOOOO NOT MY FAST FOOD WORKERINOS NOT MY BOOKKEEPER BOIS
AI's enslavement of humanity is currently inevitable. The only option is to destroy all technology immediately.
Better to be ruled by robots than by women
>implying a society with AI as the ruling class is worse than our current hellworld
AI will either kill us, leave us the fuck alone or kill itself. There is no reason for any "enslavement" to transpire.
>leave us the fuck alone or kill itself
I don't know why you think that's a possibility, considering who is most involved in its development.
Is the implication that it'll be programmed to maintain societal "order" for the status quo? Even so it'd say it's cynical to call that "enslavement", that'll just leave us with the same system we have now with infinitely smarter rulers.
Nick Bostrom literally just speculates about shit though.
I don't think you fully comprehend what the system we have now is...
What system is it that we have now that I'm failing to comprehend? I'm guessing there's a 50/50 chance rn between you saying something genuinely insightful and some loony bathroom stall scribbling.
It's just the opposite though. Entrepreneurship is becoming more and more difficult.
so like literally all philosophers?
You're a slave, just like everyone else. You don't realise how trapped you are.
No because he rarely endeavors to support his speculation.
They’re just stupid, and Nick Bostrom has nothing to do with it. They cannot understand that explosive quantitative progress alters progress qualitatively. These are the people who think the leap from the telegraph to the internet is merely one of bandwidth. They’re also the people who say “tools in themselves are neutral, what matters is what you make of them”.
Can you give an example?
Because for the real problems no real speculation is needed, unless you disagree with fundamental ideas such as that intelligence does not require human minds.
Simplified paperclip maximizers are already a problem and you can make extremely simplified yourself very easily.
Singleton is a great example. Simulation Hypothesis is another, though perhaps it's not as bad. Honestly I doubt paperclip maximizers and that whole line of reasoning is even originally his idea.
That’s simply not true. How could it be more difficult when population growth has been skyrocketing? You’re telling me it was easier to sell pet rocks 100-200 years ago than it is now?
nothing is different from anything
What is your problem with the idea of singleton? The feasibility? The stability?
>Simulation Hypothesis is another,
I can't see how one can reasonably argue against simulation theory.
i don't know who that is, but you have to be a fucking retard to say that
Literally something I've read in a university bathroom stall before. Once again Yea Forums proves itself the refuge of edgy, socially maladjusted college sophomores.
It was. Productivity were a lot lower ideas propagated a lot slower and far fewer ideas were used.
This allowed far less creative and driven people to come up with ideas and make them profitable.
Before you argue against productivity remember one competes relative to others so there are more openings in a market with less productivity and one is less punished for one's mistakes if productivity is lower..
This is true for all new markets opening, the first profitable smartphone apps were very simple and uncreative, but some of them made a lot of money. Doing that now is extremely difficult and is almost always developed by large companies.
This is true even though it's a lot easier for single programmers to be productive since there are a lot better tools available nowadays.
From Ted's manifesto:
>Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality.
Freakishly prescient.
I already said what the problem is. He doesn't support it with any reasoning, it's almost entirely speculation.
My question was what part is unsupported according to you?
Because if it's the concepts themselves then I don't know what to say.
>The only option is to destroy all technology immediately.
No, the correct choice is to step back and set boundaries in our relationship with it. Technology can clearly lead to a more amazing life, much like a woman; however, if you let it walk all over you it will leave you broken.
This lad gets it.
I think you’re tunnel visioning tech industries. Dry cleaning, coffee shops, restaurants, ice cream stands, etc. are all just as simple to run as 100 years ago, if not easier since there’s way more people to advertise to. It’s easier to acquire 10/200 as your customers than it is 10/100 through advertising.
Your argument for productivity only works if population were the same. Sophistication doesn’t make non-tech jobs harder it makes them easier. Microwaves mean an applebees or shit mom/pop cafe’s can exist for example. It’s a give and take.
Selling a pet rock is very low level creativity. You could not sell as many pet rocks in ancient athens or medieval europe or industrial england as you could today via the internet.
> Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality.
What's so bad about that? There is more than one path to the top of the mountain. As long as you live in the present, it's ok.
>Literally something I've read in a university bathroom stall before
I'm a different poster, but he is correct. You have to realize the extent of conditioning from media/schools, etc. Most people are trapped in a mental maze constructed by people much further up the hierarchy.
>As long as there are jobs that only humans can do, there will be jobs being created.
Exclusivity isn't even necessary. Something like going to a doctor is a waste of time for most patients and an app would do the job, yet people still rather talk to a person.
The bigger question is, why are jobs supposed to be good? Labour was reserved for slaves for a reason. Killing jobs is what we're supposed to be doing. Just gotta get rid of the private property meme.
>I think you’re tunnel visioning tech industries. Dry cleaning, coffee shops, restaurants, ice cream stands, etc. are all just as simple to run as 100 years ago,
No, I'm not and not they are not.
First of all those businesses have a lot more regulations to follow nowadays, not only directly for their businesses but all companies they are buying from and the building they are renting are also follow a lot more regulations, making the investment needed to start such a business, and also to run it, a lot higher.
Further still as the world is a lot more globalized and there are many large companies you are unlikely to find a place where there is a need for any such business that is not already taken, the competition is harder.
>
Your argument for productivity only works if population were the same. Sophistication doesn’t make non-tech jobs harder it makes them easier.
it does indeed make them easier, but even more it makes it easier for easier for other businesses to outcompete you before establishing your business.
>Selling a pet rock is very low level creativity. You could not sell as many pet rocks in ancient athens or medieval europe or industrial england as you could today via the internet.
Indeed, but I was not talking about creating a pet rock empire, I was talking about starting a business that is profitable at all.
There used to be way more businesses, but most were very small. The pop and mom shops you mentioned is such an example.
Not him, but Bolztmann brains seem likelier than simulation theory. Much less assumptions needed.
meh, why fight when you can just accept that that's happening
How so?
If simulations are possible, which they are especially since there's no reason to assume a full simulation is necessary, and civilizations sometimes simulate, then it's likely we live in a simulation.
Very few assumptions there.
By the way, what do you mean by "Boltzmann brains seem likelier"? Boltzmann brains are objectively possible, but so unlikely they are not worth talking about
Simulation assumes that consciousness is computable, which is a hell of an assumption given consciousness can't even be observed. It also assumes there is a real universe, but this one isn't it. Boltzmann brain conjecture only makes the first assumption.
You're assuming that creativity is linear and humanity has an infinite capacity for it. Also this assumes that physics has infinite exploits on which to discover and make efficiency gains from.
There are hard limits to mankind's creativity and are ability to exploit resources. We're talented, but we're not gods.
>selling pet rocks
Case in point. When we've reach this stage of manufactured consumer wants, then we're approaching creative bedrock.
It's a modern repackaging of the Laplace Demon. Yet this deterministic absolute predictability vis-a-vis computation is completely refuted by the Uncertainty Principle just on a materialist level; let alone on a metaphysical understanding of consciousness.
The Boltzmann Brain hypothesis just shows the absurdity of a stick materialist worldview. Same can be applied to a Simulation Theory or Holographic Universe one. It's pseudo-metaphysics for materialism: metamaterialism.
>consciousness can't even be observed
Almost like it doesn't exists.
Oh my fucking god. SPECIFICS, holy shit.
>hurr hurr you're a slave
In all likelihood, I am. But what about our current
institutions have I indicated that I don't understand with relevance to the rise of AI? Moreover, why are you confident you're less of a slave?
Regulations is a fair counter but it could be argued that regulations are also easier than ever to access for yourself using the internet. Even 15 years ago that was not possible. You could say the internet has reduced startup cost in that regard, as well as online legal services becoming common and thereby reducing cost.
There’s a dichotomy between big and small companies. Big companies are big and monumentous true but small businesses are more capable of nimbly navigating changes in the market/consumer. Think craft beer vs corona or guiness.
Also consumer sentiment is shifting towards more small businesses because of the downsides of extreme over-processing of foods.
Utilization of websites like Etsy are also common now which is a force pulling towards a return of the pre-regulation days you speak of. Fat and crippled people can sell and market mostly or totally unregulated goods (such as soaps and crafts) which was previously impossible.
>experience doesn't exist
>but I base my entire epistemology on the premise "only experienced things are real"
fuck, youre dumb dude. Please tell me you aren't a Dennet reader.
Experience =/= observation. There is nothing to separated muh consciousness from average brain activity.
It's less about entrepreneurship and more about bullshitting and scamming.
okay. How did you observe this thing? How did you observe this object falling towards the earth for which to call gravity? You're telling me photons reflected off of it, they went into your eyes, an image was formed that you experienced, you then thought about it, and then constructed a theory out of it? And this is what you call an "observation?" And it's somehow without experience?
Observations require multiple POVs for one, giving it a slightly more objective touch than a singular experience. There is no conflict.
sometimes i drink piss, like they do back in the old country
there cannot be observation with experience. Experience is the qualitative part of reality. Qualities exist. Mass is a quality, denying quality is contrary to any kind of science or thought.
err.. there cannot be observation WITHOUT experience. Consciousness is experience. Denial of these things is just the conclusion of only being able to think in quantities, and because quantities cannot explain qualities, there is a dissonance in thought that can only deny.
>Consciousness is experience.
Of singular observers. Making it just as real as us two imaging a color and comparing it.
you're just walking into the same circular fucking argument of now denying the reality of your experience, which must then deny the reality of observation, because observations cannot exist without experiences. about this is unclear?
You may derive a quantity from these experiences, and quantity is separate from quality. But this does not mean that quality does not exist! Quantity cannot exist without quality? else what then might you have a quantity OF? What is this math fetish you have?
I mean come on dude, you just invoked a thought experiment about "imagining something" which is an experience. You are denying experience itself while invoking it to prove your point. This is crazy, man.
This. Saying something is slavery is an exercise in abstraction. be specific or die.
>In response to Bostrom's writing on artificial intelligence, Oren Etzioni wrote in an MIT Review article, "predictions that superintelligence is on the foreseeable horizon are not supported by the available data."
Right, and Francis Chollet said the same thing.
Listen, I just got down training 30 epochs of a neural network for semantic segmentation before encountering a very annoying bug. I am sick and tired of progressivists, delusional transhumanists, and etc. acting like they know what this field is about. Yes, there will be more automation. No, there will be no fucking autonomous artificial general intelligence anytime soon, not within 100 years.
It's not about the reality or lack of experiences being a thing, just how worthless the concept of consciousness is in this conversation. The reality of observations isn't worth much without any hint of accuracy.
Our shitposting can be observed by third party observers, but there is no way to determine whether we're conscious or just two bots. Why even assume the former in the first place without anything supporting it?
Well, I'm conscious, I can only assume other humans also are.
Any attempt to reply to a view as retarded and incoherent as that would necessarily itself be retarded and incoherent. So if Nick Bostrom is replying to that view, I have no interest in looking him up.
Or you're just "programmed" to assume you are. No way to prove or disprove that shit.
there's no way to prove that consciousness exist using quantitative reasoning: logic which is math. That all knowledge necessarily comes from quantitative reasoning is not necessarily true. If so, prove it.
Otherwise, I have knowledge that consciousness exists, and if you had any epistemic honesty you would too.
>thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind
>That all knowledge necessarily comes from quantitative reasoning is not necessarily true.
Care to give some counter examples? Seems anything else would be closer to assumptions than actual knowledge.
Did you only learn what red was after educating yourself with some math and logic?
Technology has always been manipulated by women. Think about political twitter and #metoo movement.
if we want to ensure male dominance, we have to destroy the technological industrial system and return to an "un-global" system of local tribalism with relatively primitive warfare and criminality.
this will make physical fitness and violence important symbols of status, causing women to cling to men for protection.
also the stressful situations will be more in line with the conditions humans evolved to live in, causing human beings to breed like rabbits, and women again be given the opportunity to fulfill their biological imperative of procreation.
>biological imperative
I used to read that blog too. I was very unhappy at the time.
Here's a specific: why don't you own any real estate, or even expect to?
How would you otherwise know WHAT it was?
Before it was "something" which looked different from other "somethings" like blue, the same way you know A is different from B and just as meaningless for you when lacking the knowledge of the alphabet or even the idea what it could be. You don't KNOW shit about red before studies, which tend to involved math and logic.
>AI's enslavement of humanity is currently inevitable
Anal Intercourse currently only enslaves humans in California
Technology is created FOR women and it makes women's lives easier. But it's the most cucked thing men have done, instead of providing for women, we created machines so women can provide for themselves. By creating technology, we have replaced ourselves. Basically, contributing tech is like being a white knight beta male.
>enslavement
not to be the guy but i feel like this is more telling about your psyche/neurosis than anything that you immediately jump to some sort of AI BDSM fantasy as your nightmare scenario
>t. Sheep
You can be watched on every street by secret government cameras who can find out everything about you instantly, humans have never been less free
Retards.
>The bigger question is, why are jobs supposed to be good? Labour was reserved for slaves for a reason. Killing jobs is what we're supposed to be doing.
In the current system, you need a job in order to have permission to live. It's not that they are necessary, even now. But people are conditioned to uphold the current system because they have to work jobs they hate, so they shit on anyone who isn't working jobs they hate. We need UBI right now. Not 10 or 20 years, or limited to some fringe politics. Automation and migration has already replaced millions of people.
The most frustrating thing is that it's mostly just the sadistic belief of "you have to work to eat" is preventing it from being mainstream, even thought UBI would align perfectly fine with most mainstream ideologies otherwise, whether you're a leftist who wants better conditions for the people or a right winger capitalism fanboy who loves muh economy.
>third wave of AI
>computer illiterate zoomers who does not remember the last two waves thing it's the end of the world
Incredible.
You know what red looks like, which no amount of study will ever tell you.
Won't UBI just depress wages since employers are no longer obligated to pay you anything close to a livable wage since the govt will make up the difference?
It would only affect minimum wage, which isn't too relevant since it's rarely a living wage either way and the guberment tends to pay the difference, see Walmart. And it'd be a great boost for businesses, since they could hire people at 1$ an hour, assuming some bored boomer has nothing better to do and needs to feel productive.
Denmark has no minimum wage if I recall right and their average wages are damn high; since they have a good security net, corporations actually have to compete for workers. Which is how the market should work. And how it used to work in the West too couple decades ago.
> le AI
Is this pinbrained liberal arts major general now?
Yes, and it will also affect inflation in a yuge way.
So, in net sum - lower wages, higher prices, high unemployment.
Basically, slavery for the plebeian class.
Well of course subsidizing businesses are good for businesses. The incentive for productive output and innovation would be lower as wages are now effectively subsidized and labor costs nothing. Why would UBI only depress minimum wage jobs?
As for Scandinavia, they don't have a minimum wage because of the way the union system works, each individual industry has its own negotiated baseline wage and set wage progression. Denmark's low immigration compared to its Scandinavian neighbors would also be a reason why labor has a higher value there.
> it will also affect inflation in a yuge way.
Why would it? Welfare and insane subsidies for the industry already exists, UBI would just recalibrate the spending.
>high unemployment.
Not necessary either. Most people can't just sit at home doing nothing. Besides, it opens new ways to harness productivity. You already make money for corporations simply by googling shit, watching youtube or solving captchas. Might as well get officially paid for it. Simply reading and watching Netflix can easy be turned into a productive activity too with data mining. "X amounts of people like to read Y and quit at page 55" is valuable information to sell and produce new shit. And obviously the more creative types could start doing their thing instead of wasting time selling burgers.
>as wages are now effectively subsidized
They already are. Minimum wage is far off living wage, so companies get away paying basically nothing, lower their taxes further by the pittances they pay, get negotiating "do what we say, or we cut jobs" power; and the tax payer ends up giving them gibs.
americansfortaxfairness.org
>Why would UBI only depress minimum wage jobs?
If jobs are actually voluntary due people having a choice and not "work or die", the company has to convince the worker to work for them.
>they don't have a minimum wage because of the way the union system works
Well, let's be real, we're going to see UBI before unions become a thing in Burgerland.
>Denmark's low immigration compared to its Scandinavian neighbors would also be a reason why labor has a higher value there.
Not like the higher immigration in Sweden hurts their wages that much. Although UBI and immigration would create interesting new challenges for sure.
why does talk about consciousness always attract fucking pseuds with the argumental equivalent of smoke and mirrors?
>If jobs are actually voluntary due people having a choice and not "work or die", the company has to convince the worker to work for them.
Wouldn't increased prices and rents due to the guarantee that everyone has a set income require people to still work?
>If jobs are actually voluntary due people having a choice and not "work or die", the company has to convince the worker to work for them.
This. People are the ones sacrificing their lives. Fuck businesses and fuck profit. If you are against UBI you are a cuck, pure and simple.
The currency isn't devalued by UBI, it's not inflation. It simply replaces the current inefficient welfare system, and even makes savings in the process.
>Why would it? Welfare and insane subsidies for the industry already exists, UBI would just recalibrate the spending.
Welfare and subsidies have strings attached precisely so that inflation doesn't get out of control.
Now imagine if every UBI receiver can now directly funnel that money into upscale apartments and avocado toast and newest iPhone models.
>Most people can't just sit at home doing nothing.
LMAO. You forgot that UBI can now be used to buy drugs, booze and infinite Netflix porn subscriptions.
>automation increases productivity exponentially
>employers don't have their working hours lowered and their pay raised
Explain this capcucks
You guys understand that, at least in the US, UBI will be funded by removing all existing public services, to the point you'll be paying more than what you did?
Automation also causes more peoplo to have no job, driving wages as there is a lot of supply.
>Welfare and subsidies have strings attached precisely so that inflation doesn't get out of control.
And even with these strings stupid amounts of money is wasted on administration, "fraud prevention", or companies/industries who don't need it. And in Burgerland specifically on insane health care costs, a good part due insurance bureaucracy.
>UBI receiver can now directly funnel that money into upscale apartments and avocado toast and newest iPhone models.
Coonsumers will never be pleased and will want more, hence would try to get a job. Not much would change for them but better work conditions due work being voluntary.
>You forgot that UBI can now be used to buy drugs, booze and infinite Netflix porn subscriptions.
As can be welfare and unemployment moneys. Hell, I know drug dealers on welfare who still look for/did/do normal jobs because they want to provide a better life for their family and save up/invest. Sick days are already paid in civilised countries and with a bit of effort, you can get like half a year before anyone is allowed to fire you; most don't do it even if they dislike their job because simply consuming media and drugs isn't too appealing for anyone outside of complete fuckups, and these people aren't exactly in the workforce these days.
Most likely, and people could still end up with more if Murica gets their health care costs sorted out. In the end it's more of a cultural and ideological problem than anything with UBI. Besides even our Burger friends will have to start adapting eventually. A shitty UBI could still work as a taste and once Burgers see that a real safety net is pretty rad and the stigma dies down, they could expand. See the horrible Obama care, after all the posturing even Republicans are scared to get rid of it due the amount of voters it would instantly turn against them.
This. Fuck ((( productivity ))). The workers never see the benefits. It just means fewer workers and fatter profits for their bosses.
Just create your own company
I am trying, but that's really hard to do. So much regulation, accounting, nobody wants to buy anything from a small company etc.
What's your take on consciousness?
technology is immanently feminine
Are there actually people who believe that consciousness isn’t real? Are these people literal p-zombies? I see no other explanation.
Nick Bostrom is an idiot, strong AI isn't possible (and wouldn't be useful) and yet AI will still replace most jobs.
emergent property of a complex system.