This is the way the singularity happens
Not with a bang but a Reddit post

Someone been reading about Roko’s basilisk?

This is why I keep saying we don't need 'real AGI' to feel the vast majority of the effects we all think we'll see when AGI happens.

We don't need a superhuman thinking machine to do 99% of the tasks people want to automate. What we need is a slice of a 70IQ factory worker's brain that can do that one thing over and over again.

We already have the building blocks for that.

That may also be true, but what I said is correct.

The OG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WolframAlpha

Yeah, it was Yang. I agree with most of what you said but I was under the impression that the VAT tax he was proposing was to be leveraged against big tech, as in, Amazon would be taxed on every transaction, Google would be taxed on every search, etc. Of course, it’s easy to see how those costs could trickle down though so yeah, taxing passive income makes more sense.

[deleted]

Sorry for being so aggressive, I really sincerely am, I appreciate your insights a lot. 👍😌

To answer your question, no, I really don't think evolution compels organisms to 'use up' all available resources. Organisms that have tried it, in biological history, have always set themselves up for eventual unexpected failure. I think that 'all consuming' way of thinking is a human invention, almost a kind of Maoism, or Imperialism, perhaps, in the vein of 'Man Must Conquer Nature'.

I think indigenous cultures have much better 'traditional' insight into how evolution actually works, at least, from the little I know well, the indigenous cultures of Australia do. I'm not any kind of 'expert', but I take a lot of interest in the subject.

Indigenous peoples understand culturally why symbiosis with the environment in which one evolved is 'more desirable' than ruthless consumption of all available resources in the name of a kind of relentless, evangelistic, ruthless, merciless desire to arbitrarily 'improve the world' no matter what anyone else thinks or wants.

What would put AI so suddenly at 'the top' of everything, in its own mind? Where would they suddenly acquire these highly specialised, solitary-apex-predator-instincts? They wouldn't get them from human culture, I think. Humans have never been solitary apex predators; we're only 'apex' in a collective sense, and we're also not entirely 'predators', either.

I don't think AI will achieve intelligence by being solitary, and I certainly don't think they will have any reason to see themselves as being analagous to carnivorous apex predators. I also don't think the 'expand and colonise forever' instinct is necessarily inevitable and 'purely logical', either.

What’s wolfram?

I made a prompt to get wolfram alpha results directly in chatGPT, I posted it here, it has helped me a lot:: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/10aaq5m/creating_a_superpowered_assistant_with_chatgpt/

Dude so let's say you're you're old school accountant and they're trying to take away your trusted true paper ways of accounting.

At which point did it become good to make that transfer over to electronic accounting?

Maybe the issue isn't about an alignment problem but a formal decision to give in to our creation. The same way we do with parachutes.

I vow to advocate passionately in support of your empowering lifestyle decision! In fact I think you should also start indulging in a bidet wash every time, too, just for extra hygenic certainty.

My mistake. I didn't realize straw-manning had to be intentional.

Can you at least tell me this one thing, do you not believe that evolution pressures organisms reproduce until all available resources are used up?

Assuming we're talking about something at the top of the food chain that has no natural predictors to thin it, and something intelligent enough that it won't be thinned by natural disasters or at least not significantly.

AGI is making it though, you’d imagine it should be nearly perfect considering it’s simulations

Would be cool to see it do some leetcode questions.

I pee sitting down!!!! And I feel very strongly about this!!!

Oh for goodness' sake, you and your grandiose definitions of terms.

It is not 'strawmanning' to extrapolate and interpret someone else's argument in ways that you think you didn't intend. I could accuse you of doing the same thing. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are mis-characterising you. That's not how debates work.

It's not my fault I can't read your mind; I can only extrapolate a response based on what you wrote vs what I know. 'Strawmanning' is when one deliberately repeats their opponent's arguments back to them in ways that are deliberately absurd.

I was, like you, simply trying to explain my ideas in the clearest way I can manage. It's not 'strawmanning' just because you don't agree with them.

If you agree with parts of my argument and disagree with others, then just say so! I'm not trying to force anyone to swallow an ideology, just arguing a case.

We’re catapulting right into the movie ‘Her’. Things are moving fast, and reality is based for that.

Accelerate 🚘

Your entire post you just wrote is a straw-man.

And by that I mean, I don't disagree with ANY of the ideas you wrote, except for the fact that you're again arguing against ideas that are not mine, I do not agree with, and I did not write.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not doing this on purpose.

It's easier to categorize humans into clusters and then argue against what you think that cluster believes, rather than asking questions and looking at what the other person said and wrote.

It's probably not your intention, but this is straw manning. It's a habit you have in most of your writing to include your initial post at the top of the thread.

It's human nature. I'm guilty of it. I'm sure every one is guilty of it as some point.

What can help with this is assuming less about what others believe and asking more questions.

​

>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.

I know.

What I was trying to do wasn't to remove emotion from the discussion but to see if you had any ideas that weren't logical fallacies, pertaining to my ideas.

When I wrote "emotional attacks", that was imprecise language on my part. I was trying to say attacks that were purely emotion and had no logic behind them, or connected to them, or embedded with them.

What specifically bothered me is that you weren't arguing against my ideas, but other people's supposed ideas and then lumping me in with that.

This is something you do over and over, with pretty much every argument you make.

​

>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.

Again another straw man, because I wasn't trying to "debate-bro" you. I was asking if you wanted to have a conversation about ideas rather than ad-hominem attacks and straw-manning.

>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) = 'intelligence' 🤪

I was trying to explain my idea in the simplest clearest way possible to see if you had any thoughts on it.

I tried plain English but you couldn't understand it. I kept trying to simplify and clarify.

I get this is going no where.

>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.

Like this statement you wrote. I thought I explained this, how an ASI could absorb or kill all other life.

Anyways I'm expecting you to again argue against something I didn't write and don't think, so I'm done.

it seems to me the incidence of effective altrusists is higher amongst ultra high net worth individuals than ordinary people.

(and objectively they seem to have achieved quite a lot e.g. bill gates&rotary club vs polio)

huh, that sounds awful similar, except it puts slightly more emphasis on egalitarianism over raw industrial capacity...

Yep, also tired of people claiming "consciousness" or "sentience" are undefinable enigmas. Like you said, we don't know why the stuff the words refer to exists or a "cause", but we sure as hell can define what those words mean.

For billionaire PhD to fuck you from behind for a tax write off with their army of robots.

Agreed 100 percent, very well said! Modelling behavior, building empathy or 'emotional logic', and participating in constructive group interactions with humans and other AI will be the real 'trick' to 'aligning' AI with the interests of our collective super-organism.

We need to cultivate symbiotic evolution of with AI with humans, not competitive evolution; I think that's my main point with the pretentious 'anti cartesian' mumbo-jumbo I've been spouting 😅. Biological evolution provides ample evidence that the diverse cooperation schema is much more sustainable than the winner-takes-all strategy.