This isn’t how it works. Mega corporations are also CVCs and LPs in VC funds.

They’re invested already.

Yes, I would also add that we just need them to fall into patterns of behavior that we can look at and say "they are demonstrating these specific values", at which point we can basically declare success. The actual process of reaching this point probably involves showing them stories and modeling behavior for them, and getting them to participate in events in a way consistent with those values (they get a gift and you tell them "say thank you" and wait until they say "thank you" so it becomes habituated). This is basically what you said "relying on our collective responses to 'learn'...."

i do not see what you mean, but time being slowed down is only painful/stressful if the entity thinks it is "normal" to have human time, which it would not unless it has human memories. So, it's very unlikely to be a problem

Also I believe what you mean is to speed up time, not slow it down.

The only real answer

Crying 'ad hominem' and baseless accusations of 'straw manning' are unlikely to work on me; I know all the debate-bro tricks, and appeals to notions of 'civility' do not represent the basis of a plausible argument.

You cannot separate 'emotion' from 'logic' like you seem to really, really want to. That is your fundamental cartesian over-simplification. 'Emotional logic', or 'empathy', is the very basis of how intelligence arises, and what it is 'for' in a social species like ours.

If you want to get mathematical-english hybrid about it, then:

((Matter+energy) = spacetime = reality) × ((entropy/emergent complexity ÷ relative utility/efficiency selection pressure) = evolution = creativity) × ((experiential self-awareness + virtuous cycle of increasing utility of social constructs like language) = society) = story^3 = knowledge^3 = id×ego×superego = father×son×holy spirit = maiden×mother×crone = birth×life×death = thoughts×self-expressions×actions = 'intelligence'. 🤪

Concepts like 'efficacy', or 'worth', or 'value' barely even enter into the equation as I see it, except as 'utility'. Mostly those kinds of 'values' are judgements that we can only make with the benefit of hindsight, they're not inherent properties that can necessarily be 'attributed' to any given sample of data.

Sir, this is beyond ridiculous.
Please stop anthroponomizing AIs.

It's just an average. "New" tech that is more of a combination of well-understood pre-existing tech often gets there faster, while genuinely *NEW* stuff can take several. AI might change the whole dynamic. We'll just have to wait and see.

This entire sub-thread is a wonderful illustration of how ideology is cancer. You're just arguing over which of your cancers is worse.

That'd certainly be better. Anyone supporting any politician in high office right now is part of the problem. They're all cancers.

Alright since most people would think that way i think it would be optimal to wait an additional generation and adopt at the 4th gen

Typically you want to be somewhere around the 3rd generation of adopters. That's usually how long it takes to work out the serious issues.

Ah, true. Its the worst measure.

If I have a billion dollars, and you have a thousand friends with nothing, GDP says we're all millionaires.

Yeah nah, one of us is doing fine, the other 999 are living in abject squalor. Which is to say, almost everyone.

Also, there is already a formula for determining QoL, with a dozen or so markers, and the US usually places around 16th or so.

>but why and how would that make your grimdark 'force of will' concept suddenly arise? I don't see the causal connection.

Which concept?

>That simply is not true, you don't seem to understand how evolution works at all. It optimises for efficient utility, not brute domination. That's 'social darwinist' style antiquated, racist-dogwhistle stuff, which Darwin himself probably would have found grotesque.

Ignoring the appeal to authority logical fallacy, the poisoning the well ad-hominum attack logical fallacy, evolution optimizes for more than just efficient utility.

It does maximize survival and replication to spread over available resources.

>Are you religious, if you don't mind my asking? A monotheist, perchance? You are talking like somebody who believes in the concept of a monotheistic God; personally I find such an idea simply laughable, but that's just my humble opinion.

If you think I'm religious, you're not understanding what I'm saying.

My entire premise has nothing to do with religion. This is it:

(Matter + Energy) * Utility = Efficacy

Therefore evolutionary pressures shape organisms not only to maximize utility but also the total matter and energy they consume in totality (the total matter and energy of all organisms within an echo system added together).

If you have any thoughts on that specific chain of logic, other than calling it a cartesian over simplification or something, I'd love to hear them.

All models of reality are over simplifications. I understand this, but there's still utility in discussing the strengths and weaknesses of models, because some models offer greater predictive power than others.

>Oh please, spare me the despair-addict mumbo jumbo. I must have heard all these tired old 'we have no free will, we're just slaves and puppets, woe is us, misery is our destiny, the past was so much better than the present, boohoohoo...' arguments a thousand times, from my more annoying rl mates, and I don't find any if them particularly compelling.

Ok. You don't have to be convinced but nothing you said here is an argument for free will. Again, you're continuing to make emotional attacks rather than logical ones.

I didn't say we're all puppets, I said most people are. I choose my words carefully. I also clarified it saying it's a matter of perspective.

You're still continuing to straw man. You can't assume that I have the same thought process as your mates. I don't think the past is better. I don't think life is particularly bad. And I don't think misery is necessarily our destiny.

>That's misunderstanding the square-cube law, you can't just 'zoom in and out' and generalise like that with something like evolution, that's Jeepeterson level faulty reasoning.

Sure it's an over simplification. I admit that when we talk about super intelligence it's a best guess, since we don't know the kinds of solutions it will find.

The continued adhominum attacks aren't convincing though. It's just more verbiage to sift through.

I'm interesting in having a discussion to get closer to the truth, not in trading insults. If you'd like discuss my ideas, or your own ideas, I would love too.

If it's going to be more insults, and straw manning then I'm not at all interested.

> Reality seems to disagree with this point

Really? Being an engineer doesn’t automatically make you an expert in a different field from your own

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

And how is giving them the means of production automatically progress

> Being a worker doesn’t make you a capitalist.

Only the scientists and engineers owning capital would make them the capitalists

> The big idea is that everyone whos educated or trained in technical occupations would be making decisions together.

That’s how every business works, especially tech companies. Teams make decisions together

> Singapore has nothing to do with the movement

All policy in Singapore is crafted by experts in their field. Even in China, all the politburo members (the guys in charge of the country) have STEM degrees. Xi for example is an Industrial Engineer

Man I have a feeling in 20 years this will be one of those videos that gets posted in some meme forum with a caption like "lmao millennials were actually mindblown by simple shit like this xD the newly released Elder Scrolls 6 would make their brains explode"

Yes, but engagement isn't necessarily my goal, and I think 111+ total comments isn't too bad going, personally. It's been quite a fun and informative discussion for me, I've enjoyed it hugely.

My broad ideological goal is to chop down ivory towers, and try to avoid building a new one for myself while I'm doing it. The 'karma points' on this OP are pretty rough, I know, but imo karma is just fluff anyway.

A view's a view, and if I've managed to make people think, even if the only thing some of them might think is that I'm an arsehole, at least I got them to think something 🤣

Here is a good summary of my perspective on your kind of 'wit', my friend:

"When I Was a Lad - song from HMS Pinafore"

This is an important point.

Learn to grow food and self-sufficiency skills

Ok, thanks for copping to it.

If you want more engagement, brevity is the soul of wit.

Live your life as if you knew for sure some day you were going to die

Just put render distance

It's why some people say "culture is everything". A technological revolution without a cultural/thought based revolution, will simply lead to all of the problems we have today growing exponentially. Think privacy concerns worsening by leaps and bounds.. (we know what you are thinking and remove the "threat to our cultural norms" before it becomes a threat). Think about how having a fundamentally greater understanding of how the mind works will lead to innovation in the control of people's thoughts.. The possible way things can "and probably will" go wrong is staggering when you really stop and think. I think many will come to be.. Even groups which supposedly are designed to combat such a future are simply bringing it into existence.. Look at open ai, it was supposed to be an open source group that worked with the community to come up with solutions to the problems ai would create. Now? It's a walled garden, with billions coming in from mega corps, with ever increasing ideological censorship baked into its products.. I personally think things will get unimaginably bad, and then unimaginably good.. But it could just as easily go unimaginably bad and stay that way.

Idk if I agree with removing money.. as you won't be removing barter or all forms of power.. power exists regardless of money. Do you have a higher iq? A more attractive face? Are you able to imagine stories in your minds eye with clarity? Then you have some form of capital that makes you more wealthy than those who don't. Would we make kindness something that can only be doled out in equal measure? If one parent loves their child more than another, is it good to remove the loving parent simply because you're unable to find a parent to love the other equally as much? Hyperbole, but you get my point. Money is as bad as the person spending it, and the people accepting it. Outside of creating simulated worlds, it's impossible to give everyone true equality.

>Nobody's going to wade through mountains of crap and ads to find a nugget of useful information anymore. Google actually has an interest to have moderately useful but not great results because the faster a user finds what they need, the fewer ad impressions they generate. This practice won't fly from now on.

If Google just sat on a poor search algorithm somebody would come up and overthrow them - duck duck go or about a million others. But they weren't able to do that. Why? Because nobody was able to come up with a better search engine so far.

And now when it's obvious that search engines are past and LLMs are a much better way to go Google is racing with everyone to it.

Everything else is just a wacky conspiracy theory without any substance to it, but invoking magic words "evil corporation" does have an effect regardless of the matter discussed.

Pathetic.

>We're not talking about an agent that needs to randomly mutate to evolve but one that can reprogram and rebuild itself at will.

Biological lifeforms are also 'agents that can reprogram and rebuild themselves', and your cartesian idea of 'supreme will power' is not compelling or convincing to me. AI can regenerate itself more rapidly than macro-scale biological evolution, but why and how would that make your grimdark 'force of will' concept suddenly arise? I don't see the causal connection.

Bacteria can also evolve extremely fast, but that doesn't mean that they have somehow become intrinsically 'better', 'smarter' or 'more powerful' than macro scale life.

>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

Rubbish, you're still talking about an evolutionary creative process, not the kind of desire-generating, conscious intelligence that I am trying to talk about. A better search pattern is 'more creative', but that doesn't necessarily add up to the same thing as 'more intelligent', it's nothing like as simple as that. Intelligence is not a fundamentally understood science, it's not clear-cut and mechanistic like you seem to really, really want to believe.

>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.

That's misunderstanding the square-cube law, you can't just 'zoom in and out' and generalise like that with something like evolution, that's Jeepeterson level faulty reasoning.

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

That simply is not true, you don't seem to understand how evolution works at all. It optimises for efficient utility, not brute domination. That's 'social darwinist' style antiquated, racist-dogwhistle stuff, which Darwin himself probably would have found grotesque.

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

There is not, and logically cannot be a 'singular super intelligent being'. That statement is an oxymoron. If it was singular, it would have no reason to be intelligent at all, much less super intelligent.

Are you religious, if you don't mind my asking? A monotheist, perchance? You are talking like somebody who believes in the concept of a monotheistic God; personally I find such an idea simply laughable, but that's just my humble opinion.

>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.

Oh please, spare me the despair-addict mumbo jumbo. I must have heard all these tired old 'we have no free will, we're just slaves and puppets, woe is us, misery is our destiny, the past was so much better than the present, boohoohoo...' arguments a thousand times, from my more annoying rl mates, and I don't find any if them particularly compelling.

I remain an optimist, and stubborn comic cynicism is my shield against the grim, bleak hellishness that the world sometimes has in store for us. We'll figure it out, or not, and then we'll die, and either way, it's not as if we're going to be around get marks out of ten afterward.

>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

I feel exactly the same way as you, right back at you, mate ❤️👍 If you could get your hands on a bit of experience with studying evolutionary biology and cellular biology, and maybe a dash of social science theory, like Hobbes' Leviathan etc, I think you might also get a clearer understanding.