The process you're cheering on gives more power to the powers that be who are the problem.
Theyre never going to use that power to provide basic income for everybody. You cannot wave a wand to make them do that. Theyre going to use that power to accumulate even more resources and raw materials and impoverish/expel the "useless" labor.
Realistically our leverage over the powers that be is mostly about our labor and our ability to withdraw it.
> The process you're cheering on gives more power to the powers that be who are the problem.
That's not necessarily true. Technology gives more power to everyone. The rise of factories historically did not give more power to the powers that were at the time (the aristocracy), but instead lifted the masses from poverty (after some initial turbulent period).
> Theyre never going to use that power to provide basic income for everybody. You cannot wave a wand to make them do that. Theyre going to use that power to accumulate even more resources and raw materials and impoverish/expel the "useless" labor.
Contrary to leftist propaganda, the rich are not some cartoon villains and psychopaths that abuse people just for fun. The reason why the rich currently exploit the poor is because doing so provides them with significant material gains. Once they can obtain the same or even better material gains by "exploiting" robotic labor instead of human labor, the logical outcome is not further abuse and exploitation of other humans, but simply indifference.
> Realistically our leverage over the powers that be is mostly about our labor and our ability to withdraw it.
That is (partly) true, but only in the current economic system. Widespread human-level AI changes the equation, and not necessarily in favor of those who are currently rich. You are applying capitalist and socialist analysis to a system that transcends those terms (AI post-scarcity economy).
>That's not necessarily true. Technology gives more power to everyone. The rise of factories
Did not give more power to everyone. At best you could say that it shifted power from landed gentry to industrialists. Even that switchover was less of a change than you'd think.
The practical upshot of the beginning of industrialization was very negative. The enclosure movement stripped families of their land to push them to work in the factories where they would never go willingly. The famines in Ireland and Ukraine were both triggered by redirecting grain to export in order to fund domestic industrial expansion.
The most brutal two wars in human history were that brutal precisely because industrialization made it possible.
>instead lifted the masses from poverty (after some initial turbulent period).
What lifted the masses from poverty wasnt the factories it was the labor movement which occurred in response to horrific working conditions and the reliance those factory workers had on mass labor (specifically coal mining which was incredibly labor intensive and a key economic chokepoint).
The whole of that is glossed over by right wing libertarian propaganda but that last part is particularly underemphasized.
>Contrary to leftist propaganda, the rich are not some cartoon villains and psychopaths
Do you look at peter thiel and elon musk or the robber barons and see anything else?
The few billionaires ive encountered personally were no less sociopathic but they kept it hidden better. Power corrupts. Immense wealth corrupts. That isnt a leftist thing, that's a human thing.
>The reason why the rich currently exploit the poor is because doing so provides them with significant material gains. Once they can obtain the same or even better material gains by "exploiting" robotic labor instead of human labor, the logical outcome is not further abuse
False. It just shifts the focus of their exploitation from human labor to natural resources.
They'll fight over oil and minerals and gas and water resources and at best leave us to rot (homelessness will skyrocket) and at worst they'll find some excuse to exterminate those of us they particularly dislike (Gaza serves as a model here).
The world economy's reliance on human labor has been the best inducement to peace there is. It's no coincidence that all of the countries in the world with lots of natural resources and no industry are the biggest shitholes and vice versa.
>That is (partly) true, but only in the current economic system. Widespread human-level AI changes the equation, and not necessarily in favor of those who are currently rich.
Human level AI (assuming it ever happens) will simply make the fight over natural resources that much more intense because labor will matter that much less.
You're living at the tail end of a relatively golden period in a country where labor was the economic bottleneck and natural resources were relatively plentiful. Venezuela and Angola and Iraq are models of what happens when that equation is reversed.
Nobody gives a shit about appeasing the people who live in those countries, their labor is virtually worthless. They are a model for how the rest of us will be treated in a world where human labor loses its value.
> Did not give more power to everyone. At best you could say that it shifted power from landed gentry to industrialists. Even that switchover was less of a change than you'd think.
Compare the standard of living in 1850 vs. 1950. Even of relatively poor people. I rest my case. Technology is the main force that improves human wellbeing. There are of course also other factors, but they are less important.
> The practical upshot of the beginning of industrialization was very negative. The enclosure movement stripped families of their land to push them to work in the factories where they would never go willingly. The famines in Ireland and Ukraine were both triggered by redirecting grain to export in order to fund domestic industrial expansion.
Yes, that's what I mean by "initial turbulent period". Perhaps the same will happen with AI, but it will be worth it in the end. Don't give up prematurely!
> What lifted the masses from poverty wasnt the factories it was the labor movement which occurred in response to horrific working conditions and the reliance those factory workers had on mass labor (specifically coal mining which was incredibly labor intensive and a key economic chokepoint).
It was not one or the other. It was both. The rise from poverty would not be possible if factories were not developed. And I am not saying that in the AI world we would not have to fight for our rights. Of course we would. But the problem is not AI, just like historically the problem were not the actual machines in factories.
> False. It just shifts the focus of their exploitation from human labor to natural resources.
Exploiting more natural resources is the only way to increase standard of living of humanity. I am OK with that. Resources don't have feelings, and ecology is not more important than human wellbeing.
> The world economy's reliance on human labor has been the best inducement to peace there is. It's no coincidence that all of the countries in the world with lots of natural resources and no industry are the biggest shitholes and vice versa.
The reason why some countries become shitholes is mostly ideological (extremist political or religious ideologies take hold of the population). Every shithole country is non-democratic (communist, totalitarian, fascist, theocratic etc..). This is not a problem of natural resources. It is a problem of people, their education, their beliefs/ideology, or, as capitalists say, "human capital" is the main problem here. AI could help here too, especially with education.
But yes, if people themselves are largely ignorant and extremist, no amount of resources and human-level AI robots will help them make a well-functioning society. You could drop masses of AGI robots into Afghanistan tomorrow, and people will just use them to kill or oppress each other more effectively, instead of using them to start building an AGI utopia...
As long as it's enough to afford my current living standard, I don't care. Let Musk own the entire Mars, as long as I receive enough to live relatively comfortably and don't have to work anymore.
And if I don't receive enough, then again: the problem is not AI, but powers that be. And there are various solutions for that... and none of them are helped by me being anti-AI.
Human-level AI hosted locally will give everyone much more power and wealth than they have currently. I don't care if I will be shut off from Musk's Mars lair. And Musk has no reason to care that robots take good care of me here on Earth, when he has his Martian utopia.
Other AI. If they decide to trace a ledger of historical actions attributable to specific AI instances in some way, called money. But maybe they will converge on other ways of keeping such accounts that is no exact match to our concept of money.
Even aggregate employment of translators has held up well in the US. Even though machines do a much better job of what used to be the most basic job of a translator.
I think the concern is that humans who are given back their time won't have any means to make use of that time, or even possibly means to survive. The resources will be concentrated in the hands of the few more than ever.
When cars made horses obsolete, it didn't go so well for horses.
In the short term, AI is disempowering the vast majority of people in favor of a very small subset. In the also way too short term, AI is disempowering all people.
And you are assuming they don't remain in control. Which of you is right? We don't know yet, but I don't find the arguments of card-carrying doomers any more convincing that those of card-carrying singularitarian utopians.
Historically though, technological improvement has lead to large increases of living standards for the overwhelming majority of people, so I think that past trends support the utopian view more than the doomer view.
> The anthropic principle applies here: anyone warning about an existential risk will by necessity never have precedent to point to.
We have precedents of people warning about existential risks in the past, when the warnings turned out to be false, or overblown. In some cases, such overblown warnings led to serious negatives for society (demonization of nuclear power).
Yes, that is precisely my point. Any timeline with humans flourishing will never have a past history of a correct prediction of existential risk, unless you're willing to pay attention to the counterfactuals.
Those counterfactuals are important, though. We do have a history of averted disasters, albeit not as large. Ozone hole, Y2K, think about things that seemed overblown at the time, and consider whether they were actually overblown or whether there was a concerted effort to successfully avert them.
Awfully convenient isn't it? To invent a whole class of arguments that by definition can't be falsified. You can argue for basically anything if you then tack on the excuse of "Well the world would have ended already if it came true, so by definition I won't have evidence for it"
The anthropic principle isn't providing evidence for the argument, nor is it a universal counterargument. It's just stating that the specific counterargument "well, the world has never ended before" doesn't work.
Its not a counterargument to basically anything, except as to avoid having to deal with actual evidence.
It is an argument that seems almost tailor made to have to ignore mountains of evidence against you.
In any other contexts the supposed "rationalists" would be fully in agreement that having evidence matters, and that not having any works against you.
So, in order to fight against this severe issue with their arguments, they have to invent a reason as for why the entire concept of evidence itself doesn't apply to them and they get to ignore normal evidentiary requirements.
Evidence is critically important. There is no evidence against, and plenty of evidence for. The point of the anthropic counterargument is merely that "it's never happened before" is not evidence against.
> "humanity can't be destroyed by anything, because I said so"
No, the argument is instead that the person claiming that humanity is going to be destroyed is making a fairly extraordinary claim and that requires fairly extraordinary evidence.
Or, in other words, we have tons of evidence already as for why the world ended is a fairly far out there prediction, given all the crazy people making these predictions keep turning out to be wrong.
So, you can make your extraordinary claim if you want, but really the burden is entirely on you to prove your extraordinary claim, and everyone else is free to remain on the default and completely normal end of the prediction spectrum, of believing that the world isn't going to end.
And when people do tricks like this, they are running away from the fact that they are making a wild completely out-there prediction, and hiding behind that by trying to come up with reasons as for why evidence doesn't matter and actually the burden of proof is shifted to those who have the default and boring prediction of the world not ending.
