If it destabilizes the economic system, then no investment will work. If it causes riots, you don't have any chance of retaining even homes let alone farms.

Best bet is to have a prepared government that won't destabilize in such scenarios.

Like Josh Gad in Avenue 5!!!!

This is such a great question /remind me

That I can't believe such a patronising attempt at an insult actually resonated with some clownshoes enough for it to earn an award.

Talk about a dumb person's idea of a smart person; what an Andrew Tate level witticism 🙄🤣

Long words seem to make so many people triggered and butthurt. Nvm, I don't care, my answer to 'tldr' people is either just click away, or damn well deal with it

Unless you can predict with certainty which company will get the crown (and that is a company you can actually invest in), then your best bet is to play the entire market, or at least the entire technology industry.

I agree, 'values' are kind of the building blocks of what I think of as 'conscious intelligence'. The ability to generate desires, preferences, opinions and, as you say, values, is what I believe fundamentally separates 'intelligence' as we experience it from the blind evolutionary generative creativity that we have with current AI.

I don't trust the idea that 'values' are a mechanistic thing that can be boiled down to simple principles, I think they are an emergent property that will need to be cultivated, not a set of rules that will need to be taught.

AI are not so much 'reasoning' machines as they are 'reflexive empathy' machines; they are engineered to try to tell us/show us what they have been programmed to 'believe' is the most helpful thing, and they are relying on our collective responses to 'learn' and accrete experiences and awareness for themselves.

That's why they're so good at 'lying', making up convincing but totally untrue nonsense; they're not minds that are compelled by 'truth' or mechanistic logic; they're compelled, or rather, they are given their evolutionary 'fitness factors', by the mass psychology of how humans react to them, and nothing else.

A mutual fund is a slice of all, or at most, of them, as one starts its fall, shares will be sold automatically and used to buy its replacement.

The SP500 is the 500 largest businesses. If large companies start to fail and others take their place, the failing companies will drop off the SP500 and be replaced by the successful ones.

>Engineers are well known for being morons outside of their field. Pretty ironic being “pro-scientism” and being evidence based economic policy

Reality seems to disagree with this point considering our society is built off the wonders of science & engineering.

>Why is that progress?

Because they've created new technology? Which fixes problems, thus progress?

>And thereby making them capitalists themselves. What a big brain move. Pretty much every tech company gives equity as a form of compensation with most of the early employees (mostly all scientists and engineers) became very wealthy if the company is successful.

Being a worker doesn't make you a capitalist. Although Marxists do call scientists "petite bourgeoisie"

>And has a masters in Physics, which means he is a scientist owning the means of production

A dictatorship lacks perspectives of other people. One scientist in charge would obviously fail. The big idea is that everyone whos educated or trained in technical occupations would be making decisions together. Aimed at removing the inefficiencies and waste of capitalism.

>Singapore is an actual technocracy and is very right-wing

Singapore has nothing to do with the movement and is not a technocracy. Neither is China.

Oh boy. What the hell is being done to keep ethical AI an achievable goal still?

Utilitarianism tries to frame it into a science based measurement.

Scientism is about solving problems. People starving is a problem. Morals are up to the community.

i may have been exaggerating slightly.

still, it used to be a lot more efficient of a system, than it is now.

The biggest companies will save tons of money with AI. They won't be out of business they'll be richer than ever. We'll be out of jobs. But they'll be fine.

capitalism = capital can be acquired through free trade

you seem to be positing that "pro scientism" will somehow distribute capital via a means other than trade, some form of distribution, which would presumably require making some kind of moral judgement of the form person y deserves amount of capital z.

but i don't see how scientific method has anything to do with making such moral judgements.

What do you mean by morals.

> progressive engineers look like and advocated for. They’re anti-capitalism and pro-scientism.

Engineers are well known for being morons outside of their field. Pretty ironic being “pro-scientism” and being against evidence based economic policy

> Progress, is taking the means of production out of the hands of capitalists.

Why is that progress?

> And placing it in the hands of technicians, engineers, and scientists.

And thereby making them capitalists themselves. What a big brain move. Anyways, pretty much every tech company gives equity as a form of compensation with most of the early employees (mostly all scientists and engineers) became very wealthy if the company is successful.

> Elon has not used his wealth to make this possible. Because he’s a businessman.

And has a masters in Physics, which means he is a scientist owning the means of production

> a left-wing movement known as Technocracy

Singapore is an actual technocracy and is very right-wing

Who? I am unaware of this Leto the Second that you mention.

I'm sure the AI will just work on other stuff while it is waiting for you to finish.

Do you know sleep command or have you used it some? Have you ever used sleep command in loop statement? And please search for incron or try Linux and use it.
Sleep well. Good morning.

​

>diversity is always stronger than clonality; species that get stuck in clonal reproduction are in an evolutionary cul-de-sac, a mere local maximum, and they are highly vulnerable to their 'niche habitats' being changed.

False dichotomy. Diversity is a slow and unfocused search pattern. We're not talking about an agent that needs to randomly mutate to evolve but one that can reprogram and rebuild itself at will. One that can anticipate possible futures, rather than needing to produce numerous offspring in hopes that some of them have attributes that line up with the environment of it's future.

>Massive singular monolithic monocultures do not just inevitably win out in evolution

With sufficient intelligence, they do because they can anticipate and adapt to the future before it occurs.

>We are not 'livestock', corporations are not that damn powerful

It's a matter of perspective. As some one who's been banned for r/science for pointing on bad science (not double blind, not placebo controlled, with profit motive) produced by corporations for profit, yes corporations are that powerful. We have the illusion of freedom but the vast majority of people are being manipulated by corporations like puppets on a string for profit. It's the reason for the rise in obesity, depression, suicide, cancer, and decreased lifespan in developed countries.

>What you call 'creativity' is actually 'spontaneity', and what you call 'intelligence' is still just creativity. Intelligence is still another elusive step up the heirarchy of mind

You don't understand what intelligence is. It's not binary, it's a search pattern through possibility space to satisfy a fitness function. Better search patterns that can yield results that better satisfy that fitness function are considered "more intelligent". A search pattern that's slow or is more likely to get stuck on a "local maximum" is considered less intelligent.

>I mean, where do you think all the coal and oil come from? The carboniferous period, where plant life created cellulose and proceeded to dominate the ecosystem so hard that they choked their atmosphere and killed themselves.

These kinds of disasters are a result of "Tragedy of the Commons" scenarios, and do not apply to a singular super intelligent being.

>Intelligence absolutely does not evolve for 'one singular purpose'; that's just Cartesian theocracy, not proper scientific thinking. Intelligence is a continuous, quantum process of ephemeral, mixed influences, not a discrete, cartesian, boolean-logic process of good/not good.

When you zoom in that's what the process of evolution looks like. When you zoom out it's just an exponential explosion repurposing matter and energy.

Entities that consume more matter and energy to grow or reproduce themselves outcompete those that consume less matter and energy to reproduce themselves.

>I disagree pretty much diametrically with almost everything you have said about the nature of evolution, and of intelligence. Those definitions and principles don't make sense to me at all, I'm afraid.

I tried to explain things as best I could, but if you can get hands on experience programming Ai, to include evolutionary algorithms which are a type of learning algorithm you will get a clearer understanding.

This is the most ignorant thing I have read in a week

Yeah true, I am just concerned about those who get first access to the BCI’s. It would be great to be a first adopter.

> Why do people always defend billionaires.

Correcting misinformation is bad if it is against undesirable people now?

> Every penny of their fortune comes from paying a person below a living wage.

Labor theory of value BS. This has been debunked over a century ago

> We are past the point that capitalism doesn’t need all of us to work anymore

We are not at that point. Maybe by the end of the decade though

> If we want a mars colony it should be run by the government like any other city.

The people on the Mars colony will form their own government, likely a direct democracy since the population will be so low

> We are capable of providing a living wage

Every westerner makes a living wage. You guys are so privileged and don’t realize it

It doesn't look at all like we are going to have brain implant by the time AGI gets here, sure we might get some rudimentary thing that allows us to control the mouse cursor or something simple but it just seems way to complicated to get make what people are proposing.

I think we are going to need highly advanced nano tech in order to do BCI's correctly and although this can be done without the help of AI we are too slow off the mark to get it done in time now.

At this point we have something like a catch 22, we need the BCI's to keep up with AI but it really can't be done properly without the help of AGI.

You don't think AGI will render a ton of those businesses obsolete as it drives towards the singularity? That is what the G there signifies after all.

It will be able to do many of the same functions humans do, but gradually far more competently and at a much greater speed, 24/7.

Businesses won't simply disappear overnight but the writing would be on the wall once we start getting close enough to become more generally understood.

Timing the market for the way out is hard, so while leaving it in a mutual fund for now is fine, at some point we may see great disruption.