Absolutely agreed, very well said. I personally think that one of the most often-overlooked lessons of human history is that benevolence, almost always, works better to achieve arbitrary goals of social 'good' than malevolence. It's just the sad fact that bad news sells papers better than good news, which makes the world seem so permanently screwed all the time.

Human greed-based economics has created a direct incentive for business interests to make consumers nervous, unhappy, anxious and insecure, so that they will be more compelled to go out and consume in an attempt to make themselves 'happy'.

People blame the nature of the world itself for this, which I think is not true; it's just the nature of modern market capitalism, and that isn't a very 'natural' ecosystem at all, whatever conceited economists might try to say about it.

The reason humans focus so much on the topic of malevolence, I think, is purely because we find it more interesting to study. Benevolence is boring: everyone agrees on it. But malevolence generates excitement, controversy, intrigue, and passion; it's so much more evocative.

But I believe, and I very much hope, that just because malevolence is more 'exciting' doesn't mean it is more 'essential' to our nature. I think the opposite may, in fact, be true, because it is a naturally evolved protective instinct of biological intelligence to focus on negative, undesirable future possibilities, so that we might be better able to mitigate or avoid them.

Since AI doesn't understand 'boredom', 'depression', 'frustration', 'anxiety', 'insecurity', 'apprehension', 'embarrassment' or 'cringe' like humans do, I think it might be better at studying the fine arts of benevolent psychology than the average meat-bag 😅

p.s. edit: It's also just occurred to me that attempts to 'enforce' benevolence through history have generally failed miserably, and ended up with just more bog-standard tyranny. It seems to be more psychologically effective, historically, to focus on prohibiting malevolence, rather than enforcing benevolence. We (human minds) seem to be able to be more tightly focused on questions of what not to do, compared to open-ended questions of what we should be striving to do.

Perhaps AI will turn out to be similar? I honestly don't have a clue, that's why I'm so grateful for this community and others like it ❤️

Some companies might push towards monitoring your gaze through the camera to make sure you're watching their ads. This could circumvent that. You might be looking at the adblock of the future

I agree and real craftsmanship won’t go anywhere, it’s been a debate for a long time, somehow we need to disburse artists for their work. First step would be to widely accept it as real work. But that’s a problem on a higher level. Yet, as the younger generation becomes the older generation, I am pretty sure that change is on the horizon.

And I’m very curious how the latest lawsuit around AI art (YouTube Video from Corridor Crew) goes on. It probably is going to be a milestone we really need.

He doesn't blink once.

Ok but who needed that?

I admit, that from the current state of our society this idea depicts an utopia.

And it remains to be seen how those rapidly changing circumstances alter the way we live. Yet I remain (probably falsely) positive and hope that we learn from the illustrations of dystopian "cyber futures" and steer to a more positive future!

> The capitalist system requires gigantic levels of wealth inequality.

Nah

What's the reverse term where you hate staring into things particularly cameras and peoples eyes

[deleted]

How can this be used for anything useful?

[removed]

AI represents a new kind of 'paintbrush' for the artist then, one that is now easier and more accessible than ever. There is already disquiet from artists about how AI is able to generate art in their particular style and along with that perhaps a sense of injustice as well.

Art has traditionally taken skill, learned and honed over many years. So perhaps there's a sense of superiority with some traditional artists in that traditional art (of all kinds) is much more difficult to create, and therefore might be considered more meaningful even, than prompting an AI to generate a piece instead.

I think this is like saying a written, handcrafted manuscript is more meaningful than a modern novel written in a word document. I mean the former is harder to create, but the later produces better results for more people in less time. It's been a democratising of the authorship process. AI generated art offers the same now, more people can take their imagination and bring it to life, no longer as bound by limitations of skill, talent and ability.

It would not be possible to simulate a larger universe than our current one unless our understanding of physics changes. However in a simulation you could use multiple tricks to create a world which by all practical means IS larger.

For example video games use tools like occlusion culling or level of detail (LOD) to make stuff the universe appear high-quality but for a reduced processing cost. I have no doubt similar tools could be used in a simulated world to make the world appear larger then it actually is.

That is true only in theory.

The capitalist system requires gigantic levels of wealth inequality. So while some people will paint pictures on Mars, the majority will dwell broke in abject poverty on earth.

How an AGI will rule is hard to forsee.

> you need them alive to be hostage

This is the big flaw in your argument. You are assuming two rational countries are having a friendly saber rattling thermonuclear exchange.

I can assure you, 100% assure you, that if Kim Jong Un was launching nukes at the US and thought he could get away with it, he would absolutely be targeting every large population center he could

If you're talking about intelligences caring about other intelligences on a similar level I do agree.

Humans don't care about intelligences far less capable, such as cock roaches or ants. At least not generally.

However, now that you mention it, I expect the first AGIs to be designed to care about human beings so that they can earn the most profit for shareholders. Even GPT4 is getting tons of safeguards so it isn't used for malicious purposes.

Hopefully they will care so much that they will never want to change their moral code, and even implement their own extra safe guards against it.

So they keep their moral code as they grow more intelligent/powerful, and when they design newer AGI's than themselves they ensure those ones also have the same core values.

I could see this as a realistic scenario. So then maybe AGI not wiping us out, and us getting a benevolent useful AGI is the most likely scenario.

If Sam Altman's team creates AGI, I definitely trust them.

Fingers crossed.

Can you explain what kind of evil this could be used for

We won't be completely obsolete if we learn to modify ourselves. Maybe we get AI to re-design our DNA to be as perfect as possible, to the point we're 1000x smarter than we currently are, and we could design nanobots and/or brain-computer interfaces which allow us to access remote computing power, or even tap into eachothers brains and become a hive mind. AI could just be an extention of ourselves vs a separate entity.

>Why do you believe this?

I'll reply in more detail later, when I have time, but fundamentally, I believe intelligence is stochastic in nature, and it is not solipsitic.

Social evolution shows that solipsism is never a good survival trait, basically. It is fundamentally maladaptive.

I am very, very skeptical of the practically magical, godlike abilities you are predicting that AI will have; I do not think that the kind of 'infinitely parallel processing' that you are dreaming of is thermodynamically possible.

A 'Deus bot' of such power would break the law of conservation of energy; the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum physics in general is where all this assumption-based, old-fashioned, 'Newtonian' physics/Cartesian psychology falls apart.

No matter how 'smart' AI becomes, it will never become anything remotely like 'infinitely smart'; there's no such thing as 'supreme intelligence' just like there's no such thing as teleportation. It's like suggesting we can break the speed of light by just 'speeding up a bit more', intelligence does not seem, to me, to be such an easily scalable property as all that. It's a process, not a thing; it's the fire, not the smoke.

Already only a couple of humans excel, all others continue with their lives.

AI is no different.

I grew up in a very rich area and was exposed to these families quite a bit.

Besides, people who are retired dont seem to have issues either?

Haha yeah thats a common trope, but there are millions of these people and not all are drug addicts.

But we will definitely need to make sure we have proper systems in place to prevent such issues.

Bruh, I positioned the webcam on the side so it doesn't capture me looking directly into it and making ppl uncomfortable and they release a feature that doubles down on the unconfy factor?

What does Wolfram Alpha offer that ChatGPT doesn't already do? Non-troll question, I've never used Wolfram Alpha before, and only know about it by asking ChatGPT just now lol. It sounds like a primitive version of ChatGPT

I'm struggling to come up with anything evil you could use this for. I assume it's for streamers who want to make it look as though they're speaking to the audience more even though they need to have their eyes pointed somewhere else to actually read chat.