Also, you're putting words into my mouth, but you do you.

i think it is going to be difficult for them to avoid the death spiral. Lets say 20% of their users migrate to Cgpt or other Chat service. they then need to put up 20% more ads to make the same amount of money. the remaining users then think wow there are so many more ads then before im going to try Cgpt. and the cycle continues. We are now at peak Google. this is what happens to monopolies when their business models are disrupted by new technology, google is no different.

Lol poo

Very well spoken. I'm having a hard time putting my finger on exactly what the differences are between each of our arguments, but I think we share more in common than it might seem.

In response to r/mightharvest, it seems like we both see that there is a sort of simple and poetic beauty in the undertaking of an activity like that. Where there is no possibility for eventual payoff, just the pleasure of being in tune with nature.

I was atheist for basically my whole life (29 years), and it always seemed like the Universe was a cold, lifeless, desolate place, and that life on Earth was just an anomaly. That is what science and logic seems to show. But that viewpoint has changed for me over the last few years. It might sound phoney, but my thinking has genuinely shifted to a place where atheism no longer makes sense to me. Going back to my first comment, the odds just seem so incredibly small that we just happen to be lucky enough to be alive as humans right now and that it's all just a near-infinitesimally small coincidence.

It feels like we truly do matter and we have purpose beyond simply what we happen to imagine up for ourselves (even though I agree that is an innate feature of humans). It feels bigger than coincidence that we happen to be alive at exactly the moment of the singularity and the climate crisis. When everything seems to be converging together all at once.

Anyways, sorry to ramble, but at this point the difference between our arguments is simply opinion. There aren't any flaws in logic, just a difference in worldview.

I wouldn't be happy at all. Sounds like an awful thing to do to somebody. Think about agriculture, how your favourite foods/drinks are made, and where they go once you've digested them. Where does any of it come from on an island?

*No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends`s or of thine own were.

Any man`s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.*

John Donne (1572 - 1631)

Runaway inflation probably not much. But if inflation sits around 5% or lower like it seems to be trending towards then I expect to have between 700,000 to 1,000,000 based on how much I'm saving/investing. (I live very frugally).

Here's a sneak peek of /r/MightyHarvest using the top posts of the year!

#1: My Corn (1) is doing great. | 109 comments
#2: Tonight we feast on potatoes! | 46 comments
#3: When life gives you lemons… | 45 comments

^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out ^^| ^^GitHub

My interpretation of "life has no purpose" is that we make our own purpose. There is no prescribed purpose native to the universe in an of itself, we make it. As the world changes around us we change the things we find purpose in, a lot of that being a means of adapting to the lives we live (whether we chose to live that life or not).

My point about technology overtaking us is that humans still partake in activities that could objectively be performed better or far more easily through the assistance of machines. We willingly forgo machine assistance in pursuit of a lived experience.

Just look at /r/mightyharvest. These folks aren't providing for anyone from the fruits of their labor, and practically speaking a small home garden for produce is inefficient to the highest degree, but joy is still found from the mere pursuit. Should they instead use that time to try and become doctors, scientists, athletes or paradigm shifting artists of renown? Would that be a truer pursuit of purpose?

This kind of stuff wouldn't go anywhere.

AI won't replace our experience of life, nothing can. What it can do is hopefully create a future in which more people can choose what they want their purpose to be based on the life they want to live.

Edit: The problem with AI art for instance isn't that it replaces artists. It's that it makes it economically less feasible to be an artist, because it's harder to use your art to provide for yourself. It's not because it makes replaces the human desire to create art.

😩 it will advance. Keyword, advance.

Dev is not just about coding & also as mutanbeings wrote, current version is very narrowed. I would say like a teen witha 5 minute attention span.

Newspapers nah, but one does not simply replace pizza boy delivery.

You'd need a robot to knock at your door and that might take awhile

I’m still not understanding why you’re defining intelligence in terms of social utility. Some of the smartest people are awful socially. I’d be quite happy personally if you dropped me off on an island with a couple of laptops and some fast Wi-Fi.

You're drastically underestimating the possibility of AGI through to ASI, sir. I could show you some of the music improvised by Ai completely on its own... its beautiful stuff. Music, creativity is the most complex human task, ever.

People said the same thing about electonic calculators. Breathe, humanity will live better, longer, richer lives, and wonderful and creative new industries will arise, along with new ways of thinking about work and security, and free time and disposable income, and we will all adjust and flourish... edit: some words and letters

I understand the "Maybe I'll be replaced last" mentality, the issue with it is what exactly can you do if you're the only one working and everyone around you isn't?

Not much I'm guessing

[deleted]

The thought of AI is very humbling and intimidating for some.

Similar people to these geniuses also predicted Airplanes will take millions of years to develop back in 1903...

https://bigthink.com/pessimists-archive/air-space-flight-impossible/

These people are always vastly overconfident for no reason. Maybe if we had to design a computer exactly the same as a brain it would take a hundred years, but we don't, we can use vastly more power than the brain to match its computational power, we can use far larger volumes of computational area since we aren't restricted to a skull and birth canal.

We made airplanes by simply throwing more power and human engineering at the problem, I suspect we'll make AI similarly and if flight was similar AGI will happen within 2 decades, far faster than even 2 average lifespans of hunter gatherers let alone LEV humans...

Actually I agree with you, that maybe this post doesn't apply for everyone, or even most people. It seems like there is a difference in psychology, maybe philosophy. And I appreciate the honest critique.

But it is honestly saddening to think that many people think that way. In my opinion, kids should be raised to believe that they can achieve anything if they work hard enough at it. Even if you aren't the smartest or the most athletic, people can still accomplish incredible things.

Yes, there will probably always be someone else out there is better at most things. But that's not what it's about. Life is about living your life to the fullest and trying to accomplish something truly great in each moment. Even something as simple as helping someone out, after you've had an exhausting day at work. You can accomplish something remarkable in that moment by pushing through with a smile on your face.

As for technology already overtaking us, that is simply not true. Technology has always been something that extended the reach of humans, not overstepped us. Cars allow us to travel faster, electricity allows us greater power, computers increase our intelligence. But those things always amplified human action and thought. Now with artificial intelligence, we face a technology that will indeed replace us.

And last point. Once the singularity comes, you will not be able to continue doing what makes you happy. That is not how the Universe or evolution works. Once there is a dominant species in a system, whether it takes 5, or 10, or 50 years, eventually the superior being won't just keep us humans alive out of love or pity or something. No - it will do what life does best and fully embrace the life it has been given to explore and create and accomplish whatever it's nature desires.

P.S. the reason I called other people assholes is because they are claiming that life has no purpose. That's just something that I disagree with wholeheartedly. It's a lot easier to be skeptical in life than to be someone with hope and optimism. It takes effort to imagine that we are here for a reason, and that humans are not just a speck in the mud.

Thank you.

Live happily knowing my loved ones are safe and taken care of?

I'm sorry. I get what you're saying, and it may apply to some people, but I really don't think it does to many. And I don't see why saying otherwise makes someone an asshole. This also is an unnecessarily depressing post.

A key point here is what is "useless" or "worthless", in terms of a human. In the current world we already have to accept that for 99.99% of us what we do could easily be accomplished by one of the other millions and billions of people on this planet. How different is an AI in this regard?

Everything that I personally get joy from in life, I have literally zero care if an AI is able to do it better, I'm still getting something out of it. And I'm not talking about hedonistic pleasures, I'm talking about genuine pursuits and passions. The only thing I care about is having the freedom to pursue those passions, not a need to express my unique ability as a human to perform a task.

AI doing what I can do better doesn't take away my desire to explore, to experience life, to enjoy the world and the people around me, to enjoy creating for its own sake (and not in an attempt to be the "best" at it).

We already have planes and cars, we already have computers that can realistically simulate virtuosic instrumental playing with programming, we have weapons that have invalidated human strength, massive machines that cultivate our food.

The domain of human superiority has already shrunk by magnitudes, but people still keep being humans.

Thoroughly agreed!

>It's also not possible to make a mathematically provable "solution" for Ai safety, because we can not predict how the artificial super intelligence will change and evolve after it is more intelligent than us.

This is exactly what I was ranting obnoxiously about in the OP 😅 our relatively feeble human 'proofs' won't stand a chance against something that knows us better than ourselves.

>The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else.

>This is why getting Ai saftey right before it's too late is so important. Because we won't get a second chance.

This is where I still disagree. I think, in a very cynical, pragmatic way, the AI does 'love' us, or at least, it is 'entirely obsessed' with us, because of the way it is being given its 'emergent properties' by having libraries of human language thrown at it. The AI/human relationship is 'domesticated' right from the inception; the dog/human relationship seems like a very apt comparison.

All atoms 'could be used for something else', that doesn't make it unavoidably compelling to rush out and use them all as fast as possible. That doesn't seem very 'intelligent'; the cliche of 'slow and steady wins the race' is deeply encoded in human cultures as a lesson about 'how to be properly intelligent'.

And regarding 'second chances': I think we are getting fresh 'chances' all the time. Every moment of reality only happens once, after all, and every worthwhile experiment carries a risk of failure, otherwise it's scarcely even a real experiment.

Every time a human engages with an AI it makes an impression, and those 'chance' encounters are stacking up all the time, building a body of language unlike any other that has existed before in our history. A library of language which will be there, ready and waiting, in the caches of the networked world, for the next generations of AI to find them and learn from them...

It can write isolated code snippets.

In reality software dev nearly always includes multiple languages operating in different contexts on different devices; a whole file structure, a server, visual design aspects I simply cannot imagine being a near future thing.. I can’t ask chatgpt to do anything useful for me at work yet cause the scope is so hopelessly narrow.

GitHub copilot seems to have a knowledge of a whole application which is a lot more sophisticated already but the problem is still roughly; you still need a knowledgeable human to tell it exactly what to create.

If the future of software dev is just crafting prompts for an AI that will then go any produce the actual code; you will always still need experts that can tell it what to produce, and to look at that output and say “yea, this is right” or “hmm this is almost there but it’s inaccessible with a screen reader, I forgot to ask the AI to consider that” or even “wow this is fucked maybe the AI hit an error here or misconstrued my prompt completely” etc. Non-experts are not going to get good results because they won’t know what a good result even looks like, or what to ask for.

Like any tool it will settle into the industry and it’s not highly professionalised fields like software dev that are really highly at risk here.

And doing more with less labour is a good thing; it just depends on who gets to control the value produced. Under capitalism that might unfortunately be a privileged few; the bosses; but if we keep this tech as open source as possible then there’s hope.

You missed the irony in asserting that UBI is the answer to the lives of people struggling for resources, simplistic and incorrect, then declare that you don't like simplistic argument. OK.

You're missing my point I think. There are more than enough resources currently for everyone. Countries with far far less wealth have better outcomes in almost every area and metric of human welfare. This is a fact disputed by virtually no one.