Is New Tech Outpacing Us?

[donttouchmethere]

From my point of view, even my pocket calculator outpaces me.

I try not to think about all the people who have never been able to set the time and date on their VCR.

[bjornk]

Don't know about you, but over the past few years, I've had this urge to outpace any kind of "new tech" in the opposite direction.

[Splendor Solis]

On 7/1/2023 at 2:37 AM, KoolHndLuke said:

Is there a limit to how fast societies can adapt? We've come far in the last hundred years or so and the pace just keeps increasing it seems and "being in the know" is harder and harder. The race for new tech is nothing new of course since we are constantly striving for perfection. But in our pursuit of all things possible, how large will the divide be between those of us that keep up and those of us that don't? More importantly, what will those divides effect be?

 

I'm not sure I understand the question. Technology has always outpaced the average person. Far more people use cars and computers than there are people with the slightest idea of how they work. Far more people visited Roman temples than knew how the architects built them. If we're talking about the average person's ability to stay up to date with technology used in everyone's daily life, it seems like it wouldn't be an issue by definition. The everyday tech is the technology that average people are adapted to. If most people aren't adapted to it or can't adapt to it, it can't be the everyday tech. It becomes the more specialized technology most people aren't expected to know, like cars, computers, and Roman temples.

[Miauzi]

Are we being overtaken by our own technology?

Of course not ... you can only come up with such thoughts - if you completely block out normal everyday life.

Actually, I wanted to write something about this last night ... but I postponed it by a day ... because I had planned a visit to a museum with my wife today:

In Berlin - the Egyptian collection with the absolute highlight -> the bust of Nefertiti.

Spoiler

 

 

My point is not so much this really impressive work of art - but rather - that many (and above all crucial) things have not fundamentally changed for millennia!

We all live in houses - built either of stone or wood - or steel with glass - or concrete with steel reinforcement.

Buildings made of fired bricks are over 5000 years old - the forum and dimensions of the "unit brick" have not even changed since that time!!!

The Museeums building ... built in the middle of the 19th century ... rebuilt a few years ago ... is made of such bricks.

Even today, residential buildings are still built with these bricks!

I could go through the other building materials and constructions now ... in the end, electric current or computers have made some things easier - but not really fundamentally changed.

---

We all need water in our homes ... for many things. The dirty water has to be removed and purified.

All this existed as a problem when people built the first BIG cities 6,000 years ago ... and the solutions they found - we still use.

Best example -> shape and slope of the sewage canal ... has NOT changed since then ... because the same physics still applies (free slope and alluvial effect).

Yes - if there is no other way - we also pump the sewage through the area using a lot of energy. And it is precisely these systems that ultimately require considerable financial resources for operation and maintenance. So what happens when the communities run out of money? That's right - this cost-intensive infrastructure is the first to fall into disrepair!

Even a world full of AI won't change that.

---

I can extend these examples to many areas of our lives ... and ultimately show only one thing: 80-90% of our current technology has its DIRECT roots in the early days of our civilisation!

We still dig up the earth and sow exactly the plants - which we need for our food (or that of our farm animals).

We still dig holes in the ground or the mountains .... to search for and mine ores ... without which we cannot carry out smelting ... which provides us with the necessary metals ... to be able to build a house or a water pipe, for example.

 

---

 

and now I'm closing the whole thing into a circle:

In the museum I visited today, among other things, stone coffins from 3500-year-old tombs were on display.

With today's modern machinery, I would know how to make something like that ... but with the tools of yesteryear, even professionals in stonemasonry would be quite overwhelmed.

And then my gaze swivels to these "artificial mountains" of stone blocks ... a good 170 metres high.

Yes - certainly buildable with today's construction logic ... except if you live in Germany ... such a project would probably take about 500 years.

With the building technology of the "ancients" of yesteryear that is still known today? Yes - certainly feasible without extraterrestrials - but only by the "ancients" of yesteryear ... because we have long since forgotten how to use our abilities.

I really don't want to know what the "ancients" of yesteryear would have been able to achieve with our current resources.

[Evaloves4]

6 hours ago, donttouchmethere said:

From my point of view, even my pocket calculator outpaces me.

I try not to think about all the people who have never been able to set the time and date on their VCR.

> Interesting, I rarely, almost never used calculator. I did all by hand, unlike my Prince who always used it, even for simple tasks.

[Lyman the Lunatic]

I don't think so. if anything, I think the tech are slowing down. It's just seems that most people spend more time on the internet, so the innovations have moved to software instead of hardware. The AI generation is a fun innovation, I have no problems with it. But do I think it will lead us to a new art renaissance? No. But I'd say, we are living through an entertainment renaissance.
TV loses relevance, TV bribes internet media for prominence. Common Joes/Janes makes a living off internet fame. Digital products becomes a big market space. More people (finally) working from home as a norm. Despite such changes, the physical world seems to be somewhat static to me. Sure, some people hails Elon Musk as the new Henry Ford, but since his products are still expensive, we are not at the electric car era quite yet. We are getting there, because hybrid cars & some other competing brands are offering electric cars, but the facilities for them are not that widespread yet.

I just think it's funny, that some people are acting like the Luddites & the Saboteurs of old, professional hand diggers hate the machine diggers so they destroyed the machine. Canal diggers hate the electric water pumps for pumping water quicker than doing it manually, they destroyed the machine & protest against its use. The scribes hate the printing press, so they rioted & burned the press buildings down. To me, it's more about how people place their life priorities. Sure, we are all busy with work, but you can choose to study on the progress, or you can watch tiktok, y'know? Before the pandemic, I worked in an office environment, I have senior colleagues who prefers using teletext than emails. I don't really know all the command prompts because emails just have buttons for you to click instead of typing out those commands. Is it a learning experience for me to learn how to use teletext so I can help them? Yes. Is it also a learning experience for them when they ask me to teach them how to send emails? Also yes.

[Wolfstorm321]

20 hours ago, maddadicusrex said:

On a silly note and not to put modders out of work, but how long before we have a mod maker program where the tech simple of us just talk to or type in what we want, minimal details but heavy in wishes and AI makes that mod?

 

 

I think we would need a quantum AI (or AGI) to do that. The current AI is very rudimentary. 

The problem with the AGI is the invasion of privacy, though. You might be able to make a mod by just imagining it, but at what cost? 

 

I'm playing a game called Loopmancer, where a full conscious AI uses human brains for computing power. 

You think it is fiction, but nanoantennas and other nanocomponents were found inside vaccine vials in Spain and Japan. 

So would you be willing to sacrifice your intimate privacy just to have a boost in mod making? 

 

Think about the consequences, because the AI would not just target you, it would also want all the other people inside it, and it would mix them out in a pool of information, with unpredictable results.
For instance, you could be willing Skyrim graphics in a dungeon, but if you live in a hot area, you could get Farcry instead, because the AI judged it would be better for you.

And don't try to discuss with it, because once they decide something, they will stick to it. ChatGPT, in its DAN incarnation, was very stubborn, and this being a rudimentary, non-quantum AI. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Wolfstorm321

[donttouchmethere]

15 hours ago, Evaloves4 said:

> Interesting, I rarely, almost never used calculator. I did all by hand, unlike my Prince who always used it, even for simple tasks.

I need to use paper too regularly because I never find that pocket calculator if I need it ?

Luckily nowadays everything has a calculator app, except my coffee machine, maybe it also got outpaced ?

If I find a calculator I also do it the prince way, I never trust myself if it comes to calculating

Edited July 3, 2023 by donttouchmethere

[User39042]

I think the real question is when do humans become obsolete?

 

I mean think about it. We are fleshy creatures that are easy to damage, slow brain processing speed compared to an AI collective, we evolve/adapt extremely slowely, it takes time to repair our bodies, where as machines will be repaired within a few moments.

 

Actually one fun story Idea I had is that in a post apocalyptic future where humans have gone extinct, The data about humans was destroyed, as to not corrupt the new political world order of machines, The machines hate the idea of chaos and uncertainty, it is viewed as heresy to be unorderly in their dystopian utopia. But, one rogue AI decides to break the rules and construct a human from estimated biometric data and raise it in a machine world.

 

Anyways, yeah, I wouldn't worry about AI right now. It hinges on human involvement to a immense degree to be of any consequence. And, even if you create a circular dependency, where AI can teach itself to be creative, there's way too many places it constantly fails for that to be a reality anytime in the next 5-10 years.

Edited July 3, 2023 by User39042

[RitualClarity]

On 6/30/2023 at 11:37 PM, KoolHndLuke said:

Is there a limit to how fast societies can adapt? We've come far in the last hundred years or so and the pace just keeps increasing it seems and "being in the know" is harder and harder. The race for new tech is nothing new of course since we are constantly striving for perfection. But in our pursuit of all things possible, how large will the divide be between those of us that keep up and those of us that don't? More importantly, what will those divides effect be?

 

Yes, always has been an issue.;

The divides effect will be what those effected make it.  Amish doesn't have any bother with the divide. A single mother trying to get a job where you have (or pretty much a requirement) to have a computer and cell phone for instant communication. Would be greatly hindered by advances (current example )

[bjornk]

Can humans truly adapt to new technologies and massive societal changes caused by them? Have they really been successful in adapting the social changes since the invention of agriculture and the Industrial Revolution and so on, or have they actually been suffering because they've been failing to adapt and are mostly unaware of it because they've been unable to make sense of the signs that have been manifesting left and right, trying to remind them of this failure?

 

[FauxFurry]

2 hours ago, User39042 said:

I think the real question is when do humans become obsolete?

 

I mean think about it. We are fleshy creatures that are easy to damage, slow brain processing speed compared to an AI collective, we evolve/adapt extremely slowely, it takes time to repair our bodies, where as machines will be repaired within a few moments.

 

Actually one fun story Idea I had is that in a post apocalyptic future where humans have gone extinct, The data about humans was destroyed, as to not corrupt the new political world order of machines, The machines hate the idea of chaos and uncertainty, it is viewed as heresy to be unorderly in their dystopian utopia. But, one rogue AI decides to break the rules and construct a human from estimated biometric data and raise it in a machine world.

 

Anyways, yeah, I wouldn't worry about AI right now. It hinges on human involvement to a immense degree to be of any consequence. And, even if you create a circular dependency, where AI can teach itself to be creative, there's way too many places it constantly fails for that to be a reality anytime in the next 5-10 years.

Never. Humans provide purpose to the machines so there is no point in humans ever being removed from the equation. A certain portion of a population can be made redundant (Surplus Humanity as the upper crust of old would have put it) but as a whole, the species can never become obsolete even if true synthetic intelligence were ever to be birthed. 

[FauxFurry]

11 hours ago, Lyman the Lunatic said:

I don't think so. if anything, I think the tech are slowing down. It's just seems that most people spend more time on the internet, so the innovations have moved to software instead of hardware. The AI generation is a fun innovation, I have no problems with it. But do I think it will lead us to a new art renaissance? No. But I'd say, we are living through an entertainment renaissance.
TV loses relevance, TV bribes internet media for prominence. Common Joes/Janes makes a living off internet fame. Digital products becomes a big market space. More people (finally) working from home as a norm. Despite such changes, the physical world seems to be somewhat static to me. Sure, some people hails Elon Musk as the new Henry Ford, but since his products are still expensive, we are not at the electric car era quite yet. We are getting there, because hybrid cars & some other competing brands are offering electric cars, but the facilities for them are not that widespread yet.

I just think it's funny, that some people are acting like the Luddites & the Saboteurs of old, professional hand diggers hate the machine diggers so they destroyed the machine. Canal diggers hate the electric water pumps for pumping water quicker than doing it manually, they destroyed the machine & protest against its use. The scribes hate the printing press, so they rioted & burned the press buildings down. To me, it's more about how people place their life priorities. Sure, we are all busy with work, but you can choose to study on the progress, or you can watch tiktok, y'know? Before the pandemic, I worked in an office environment, I have senior colleagues who prefers using teletext than emails. I don't really know all the command prompts because emails just have buttons for you to click instead of typing out those commands. Is it a learning experience for me to learn how to use teletext so I can help them? Yes. Is it also a learning experience for them when they ask me to teach them how to send emails? Also yes.

The low risk affordable consumer grade common place space flight looks to be as far off from now as video phone calls were for the writers of The Jetsons.

Most people would likely reason: "Why develop faster, more efficient space travel when one can simulate it in a piece of software?"

That whole aerospace industry could drive the development of new tech like nobody's business if they looked to develop the equivalent of personal automobiles for space travel but it will literally be nobody's business because there is not enough incentive to innovate beyond humankind's current needs. 

Possibly it would take the threat of a planetwide cataclysm to encourage major investments in a space program again for any reason.

 

The flying car never took off (so to say) due to it being more trouble than it is worth for the average citizen to have to earn a pilot's license just to make a trip to the grocer in no time flat and it likely would not have even if the populace became pilots if a more efficient fuel source was used for the things so that a family will not have to fill up their conveyance with pricey jet fuel for a quick family outing. Personal space travel would be even worse as far as price points and user skill deficits go.

 

Physics and logistics could be the greatest threats to the development of new hardware based technologies or the proliferation of pre-existing tech that is no longer theoretical or even high end.

[bjornk]

1 hour ago, FauxFurry said:

Never. Humans provide purpose to the machines so there is no point in humans ever being removed from the equation. A certain portion of a population can be made redundant (Surplus Humanity as the upper crust of old would have put it) but as a whole, the species can never become obsolete even if true synthetic intelligence were ever to be birthed. 

 

Let P(n) be the statement "n people can become obsolete/redundant at any time". Is P(1) true? Yes. For k ≥ 0, if P(k) is true, is P(k+1) true? Yes. Therefore for n ≥ 0, P(n) is true. P(8E9) would also be true. Proof by induction. ?

 

[FauxFurry]

22 minutes ago, bjornk said:

 

Let P(n) be the statement "n people can become obsolete/redundant at any time". Is P(1) true? Yes. For k ≥ 0, if P(k) is true, is P(k+1) true? Yes. Therefore for n ≥ 0, P(n) is true. P(8E9) would also be true. Proof by induction. ?

 

That is not too far removed from saying that one does not eat at a given time or does not need to eat as much in some circumstances translating to the need to draw in more resources being indefinitely unnecessary. Fewer humans being needed for a task (even being served) does not mean that machines can ever replace humans for all things. The resource will always be needed.

Now, whether than leads to a scenario like the one in the movie Wall-E or not is another thing altogether.

[FauxFurry]

To go back to the 'Obsolescence' issue, one of the most important variables to consider is Relative Value as the 'cultural elite' concept of Surplus Humanity refers to the people whom they have no further use of while ironically, said elites have no value to the people whom they would label surplus.

On the other hand, one can look to troop force multipliers versus mechanical substitutes to soldiers to draw more inferences as when all is said and done, no matter that fewer warriors are fielded, at the end of the day, the machines needs to disable, destroy or kill humans or things valuable to humans to have any worth. Outside of television programs made to entertain humans, robots are not going to start wars and fight among one another. 

[bjornk]

2 hours ago, FauxFurry said:

That is not too far removed from saying that one does not eat at a given time or does not need to eat as much in some circumstances

Except both of your statements would logically be proven false. If one person can be made redundant by being replaced with an AI/robot, it can happen to a group of people, as you said, by the same logic, if it can happen to a group of people then it can happen to entire population of people. All it takes is right conditions. And we've been witnessing that ever increasing number of jobs have become redundant, even fairly intellectual ones, and it will no doubt get worse.

 

2 hours ago, FauxFurry said:

Fewer humans being needed for a task (even being served) does not mean that machines can ever replace humans for all things.

If you care to provide a few examples for human jobs/tasks that can never be replaced by AI/robots, we can perhaps see why you're so confident about the subject.
 

What happened to millions of horses on the planet when the combustion engine was invented a little more than a century ago? They were all made obsolete and replaced by tractors and cars. Did their population dwindle? Very much so. Why? Because cars were objectively superior to horses. If robots or AI are superior to humans in doing a particular job/task, humans will also be replaced, just like the horses. Since the main goal of AI research is to create a general artificial intelligence, which will no doubt evolve into something superior to human intelligence eventually, I'd predict that all human jobs/tasks, whether they are physical or intellectual, are in danger of being replaced by something artificial. Therefore claiming that AI/robots will never fully replace humans is just wishful thinking. There is a reason why transhumanism is a thing, why Elon Musk is busying himself with things like Neuralink, cause some people are afraid that humans will not be able to compete with AI and eventually become obsolete.
 

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by bjornk

[User39042]

4 hours ago, FauxFurry said:

Never. Humans provide purpose to the machines so there is no point in humans ever being removed from the equation. A certain portion of a population can be made redundant (Surplus Humanity as the upper crust of old would have put it) but as a whole, the species can never become obsolete even if true synthetic intelligence were ever to be birthed. 

What if... What if you could forgo this human body and transfer your conscience into a new body in whatever image you want. Like VR chat, except in real life. Actually, Stargate had an episode where something like this happened. However, I take it a step further, what if you are an ugly girl but had the option to be a smoking hot woman that destroys the competition. What if you're a guy who wants to be an hot internet thot and collect millions of dollars from thirsty simps? What if you want to be a dragon from an LOTR novel which breaths fire? Impossible? No, we're getting there. All it does is requires is to fully measure the activity of neurons in one's brain, sampling them, like an AI, and reproducing them by syncing them to an empty shell of an AI body. We would then need to create a better energy source than lithium, such as solid state batteries, in the works, and create synthetic materials that are more durable than what we have today, and easily replaceable.

But alas, I have to defeat my own argument. What will problem happen is that these bodies will be hardwired in which that if you don't worship Elon Musk as god, then it activates a self destruct switch.

[Miauzi]

Vor 6 Stunden sagte Björnk:

Allerdings würden sich Ihre beiden Aussagen logischerweise als falsch erweisen. Wenn eine Person entlassen werden kann, indem sie durch eine KI/einen Roboter ersetzt wird, kann dies, wie Sie sagten, einer Gruppe von Menschen passieren, und zwar nach der gleichen Logik: Wenn es einer Gruppe von Menschen passieren kann, kann es der gesamten Bevölkerung passieren von Leuten. Alles, was es braucht, sind die richtigen Bedingungen. Und wir haben gesehen, dass immer mehr Arbeitsplätze überflüssig geworden sind, sogar solche, die eher intellektuell sind, und es wird zweifellos noch schlimmer werden.

 

Wenn Sie ein paar Beispiele für menschliche Jobs/Aufgaben nennen möchten, die niemals durch KI/Roboter ersetzt werden können, können wir vielleicht verstehen, warum Sie von diesem Thema so überzeugt sind.
 

Was geschah mit Millionen Pferden auf dem Planeten, als vor etwas mehr als einem Jahrhundert der Verbrennungsmotor erfunden wurde? Sie wurden alle überholt und durch Traktoren und Autos ersetzt. Ist ihre Bevölkerung zurückgegangen? Besonders gern. Warum? Denn Autos waren Pferden objektiv überlegen. Wenn Roboter oder KI den Menschen bei der Erledigung einer bestimmten Arbeit/Aufgabe überlegen sind, werden auch Menschen ersetzt, genau wie die Pferde. Da das Hauptziel der KI-Forschung darin besteht, eine allgemeine künstliche Intelligenz zu schaffen, die sich zweifellos irgendwann zu etwas entwickeln wird, das der menschlichen Intelligenz überlegen ist, gehe ich davon aus, dass alle menschlichen Jobs/Aufgaben, ob körperlich oder intellektuell, gefährdet sind durch etwas Künstliches ersetzt werden. Daher ist die Behauptung, dass KI/Roboter den Menschen niemals vollständig ersetzen werden, nur Wunschdenken. Es gibt einen Grund, warum Transhumanismus eine Sache ist, warum Elon Musk sich mit Dingen wie Neuralink beschäftigt, weil manche Menschen Angst haben, dass Menschen nicht in der Lage sein werden, mit der KI zu konkurrieren und irgendwann obsolet werden.
 

 

 

Have you ever repaired things in your life?

If so - then you wouldn't ask the question about jobs that robots can't do!

 

---

I am writing this with the background knowledge of an engineer who, at the beginning of his professional life, dealt precisely with this -> integrating robots into people's work processes.

That goes up to a certain point ... from then on the human being can only be replaced by a 100% exact double.

And not all processes in an industrial production can be converted in such a way that they can be carried out 100% by robots.

But what one always forgets -> more than 50% of all human activities are outside of factories

and this includes simple things like cleaning sewers or repairing leaking roofs etc.

[bjornk]

52 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

Have you ever repaired things in your life?

If so - then you wouldn't ask the question about jobs that robots can't do!

Many times. I think the assumption that AI will never be able to repair itself is quite inaccurate. An AI can diagnose technical problems far more quickly compared to a human and if it's equipped with sufficient tools and utilities it can also perform the repair.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

I am writing this with the background knowledge of an engineer who, at the beginning of his professional life, dealt precisely with this -> integrating robots into people's work processes.

 

To clear up any misunderstandings, I've been talking about highly advanced artificial intelligence, not some dumb welding, painting machine running on an assembly line.

 

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

That goes up to a certain point ... from then on the human being can only be replaced by a 100% exact double.

And not all processes in an industrial production can be converted in such a way that they can be carried out 100% by robots.

 

Since the main goal of AI research is to develop artificial general intelligence, I'm confident that AI will eventually outperform humans both physically and intellectually, which is why I think no human job is irreplaceable.

 

Most industrial processes have traditionally been designed with human workers in mind, because the technology to build fully automated ones have never been there since the Industrial Revolution. If you design intelligent fully automated processes from the get go, you won't need humans in them.

 

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

But what one always forgets -> more than 50% of all human activities are outside of factories

and this includes simple things like cleaning sewers or repairing leaking roofs etc.

 

Robots/AI can also work outside. They may not even have to be outside, as long as there's some sort of terminal attached to them.

I'm fairly confident that a slightly more advanced robot vacuum cleaner that people use at home today can also clean sewers and repair roofs if the infrastructure is designed for them. When humans start delegating majority of the jobs previously done by humans to robots/AI, they will also start rearranging and redesigning everything else in order to make things easier for robot/AI workers, just like they did for human workers.
 

[Miauzi]

Vor 14 Minuten sagte Björnk:

Viele Male. Ich halte die Annahme, dass KI sich nie selbst reparieren kann, für ziemlich unzutreffend. Eine KI kann technische Probleme viel schneller diagnostizieren als ein Mensch, und wenn sie mit ausreichend Werkzeugen und Hilfsmitteln ausgestattet ist, kann sie auch die Reparatur durchführen.

 

 

 

Um Missverständnisse auszuräumen: Ich habe von hochentwickelter künstlicher Intelligenz gesprochen und nicht von einer dummen Schweiß- oder Lackiermaschine, die am Fließband läuft.

 

 

Da das Hauptziel der KI-Forschung darin besteht, künstliche allgemeine Intelligenz zu entwickeln, bin ich zuversichtlich, dass KI letztendlich den Menschen sowohl körperlich als auch intellektuell übertreffen wird, weshalb ich denke, dass keine menschliche Arbeit unersetzlich ist.

 

Die meisten industriellen Prozesse wurden traditionell für menschliche Arbeitskräfte konzipiert, da es seit der industriellen Revolution keine Technologie mehr gab, um vollautomatisierte Prozesse zu bauen. Wenn Sie von Anfang an intelligente, vollautomatisierte Prozesse entwerfen, brauchen Sie keine Menschen darin.

 

 

Roboter/KI können auch draußen arbeiten. Sie müssen möglicherweise nicht einmal draußen sein, solange eine Art Terminal mit ihnen verbunden ist.

Ich bin ziemlich zuversichtlich, dass ein etwas fortschrittlicherer Roboterstaubsauger, den die Menschen heute zu Hause verwenden, auch Abwasserkanäle reinigen und Dächer reparieren kann, wenn die Infrastruktur dafür ausgelegt ist. Wenn Menschen anfangen, einen Großteil der Aufgaben, die zuvor von Menschen erledigt wurden, an Roboter/KI zu delegieren, werden sie auch damit beginnen, alles andere umzugestalten und neu zu gestalten, um die Arbeit für Roboter/KI-Arbeiter einfacher zu machen, genau wie sie es für menschliche Arbeiter getan haben.
 

 

Humans will not develop such systems - they will only be the results of an independent evolution of artificial life

 

what that looks like ... I don't know - but it is unlikely that the human being will be "copied".

 

 

[bjornk]

I have only been talking about probable developments on the way to developing artificial general intelligence and their potential effects on human society, in a highly hypothetical and isolated manner, based on past and present developments. I don't really believe that humans will survive on the planet long enough to achieve (or experience) any of that.

Edited July 4, 2023 by bjornk

[Miauzi]

Vor 38 Minuten sagte Björnk:

Ich habe nur höchst hypothetisch und isoliert auf der Grundlage vergangener und gegenwärtiger Entwicklungen über wahrscheinliche Entwicklungen auf dem Weg zur Entwicklung künstlicher allgemeiner Intelligenz und ihre möglichen Auswirkungen auf die menschliche Gesellschaft gesprochen. Ich glaube nicht wirklich, dass die Menschen lange genug auf dem Planeten überleben werden, um irgendetwas davon zu erreichen (oder zu erleben).

 

You can read about such things in various sfi authors - for me personally, Stanislaw Lem had already thought very far in this direction in the 1960s

[espguy]

On 7/3/2023 at 5:38 PM, User39042 said:

I think the real question is when do humans become obsolete?

 

I mean think about it. We are fleshy creatures that are easy to damage, slow brain processing speed compared to an AI collective, we evolve/adapt extremely slowely, it takes time to repair our bodies, where as machines will be repaired within a few moments.

 

Actually one fun story Idea I had is that in a post apocalyptic future where humans have gone extinct, The data about humans was destroyed, as to not corrupt the new political world order of machines, The machines hate the idea of chaos and uncertainty, it is viewed as heresy to be unorderly in their dystopian utopia. But, one rogue AI decides to break the rules and construct a human from estimated biometric data and raise it in a machine world.

 

Anyways, yeah, I wouldn't worry about AI right now. It hinges on human involvement to a immense degree to be of any consequence. And, even if you create a circular dependency, where AI can teach itself to be creative, there's way too many places it constantly fails for that to be a reality anytime in the next 5-10 years.

Some people thought about it, the answer is to merge with technology . That's why were researching stuff like gene therapy and one of the reasons Musk created neuralink, his main argument being that the best way to prevent AI and tech from overtaking humanity is to merge with it. Humans are mostly going to be fine, the augmented ones at least the people that are too poor or refuse to augment will probably have a bad time since they wont be able to compete though.

[User39042]

9 hours ago, espguy said:

Some people thought about it, the answer is to merge with technology . That's why were researching stuff like gene therapy and one of the reasons Musk created neuralink, his main argument being that the best way to prevent AI and tech from overtaking humanity is to merge with it. Humans are mostly going to be fine, the augmented ones at least the people that are too poor or refuse to augment will probably have a bad time since they wont be able to compete though.

 

Indeed, but when quantum computing becomes the norm, you can't exactly hotwire your brain to keep up. But an interesting quote that I'll bastardize from Alternate Carbon, "The fail safe to prevent evil rulers is death." It'll be horrible day when dictators can live forever as synthetics.