Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Iffykindofguy t1_j6ttzmn wrote

Reply to comment by Surur in Why do people think they might witness AGI taking over the world in a singularity? by purepersistence

What a silly post. You act like ChatGPT just threw that out there instead of was prompted "write a poem about an ai taking over the world" Also your logic is not that great because the vast vast vast majority of people don't know how anything works right now anyways. Ill take computers in charge over the 1% 100% of the time.

−11

TFenrir t1_j6u3yos wrote

>What a silly post. You act like ChatGPT just threw that out there instead of was prompted "write a poem about an ai taking over the world"

Is that what that came off as to you? I feel like everyone here's knows how ChatGPT works... It doesn't provide you anything unprompted.

> Also your logic is not that great because the vast vast vast majority of people don't know how anything works right now anyways. Ill take computers in charge over the 1% 100% of the time.

I don't think I understand your point, but I understand theirs. Their point is that we will relinquish control willingly, because it's better than having us in control in terms of output. What about their point do you find silly?

12

purepersistence OP t1_j6w2c3h wrote

>What about their point do you find silly?

Which part of their point is NOT silly? You just said it right there! In spite of all the doom we already predict, there's this idea that we would just give up control to AI anyway because it supposedly CAN make better decisions. How does it get more silly than that?

0

Iffykindofguy t1_j6uckrt wrote

No shit chatgpt doesnt give you anything unprompted, you don't see the difference between prompting for a poem and prompting for a poem specifically about taking over mankind?

​

And their point is not that we will relinquish control willingly, their point is we will do that and do nothing in the new free time. That is what I find silly. So it seems you didn't understand either point, maybe slow down on the reply button.

−4

TFenrir t1_j6udbuy wrote

>No shit chatgpt doesnt give you anything unprompted, you don't see the difference between prompting for a poem and prompting for a poem specifically about taking over mankind?

Where did they say that ChatGPT provided that poem without being given that theme? You're making a lot of assumptions about their intent, but anyone who has used ChatGPT for like... 5 minutes (basically everyone who posts here) would understand that ChatGPT isn't popping out poems like that without any lead up.

> And their point is not that we will relinquish control willingly, their point is we will do that and do nothing in the new free time. That is what I find silly. So it seems you didn't understand either point, maybe slow down on the reply button.

Where are you seeing that? What do you even mean "will do nothing"? I literally have no idea how you are pulling these insinuations from what seems to be a very clear post to me

6

Iffykindofguy t1_j6udv3y wrote

I'm sorry that you cant pick up on peoples intent but that's not my fault.

I'm also sorry that you're confused, yet again, on both points. Please really give some thought to the slow down I mentioned. What will people be doing when theyre not working? Why would they give up being curious about things? Because you're not a curious person?

−6

TFenrir t1_j6uemqp wrote

>I'm sorry that you cant pick up on peoples intent but that's not my fault.

Maybe you can help me - where in their post does this person say that we won't be doing anything in their free time?

> I'm also sorry that you're confused, yet again, on both points. Please really give some thought to the slow down I mentioned. What will people be doing when theyre not working? Why would they give up being curious about things? Because you're not a curious person?

Before we get there, maybe clarify, what point are you making? This post is about AI "taking over", the person who's comment we're replying to was suggesting how that AI would be able to take over much of our infrastructure and processes.

Are you trying to say that, no that won't happen because people will want to spend their free time... Managing waste treatment facilities, dealing with our food production, working in warehouses and factories? Is that what you are trying to get at?

5

Iffykindofguy t1_j6uf6ne wrote

Yeah some people would absolutely be about that life, you think they make video games simulating that sort of thing because no is interested in making and organizing a system? Again, both of you appear to be intellectually lazy and so you assume others will be the same.

−2

Surur t1_j6ugbht wrote

You are kind of ignoring that there are many jobs AI would be able to do better e.g. chip design for example or managing complex networks. Or understanding protein folding.

Even if you are curious and smart, you may not be the best person for the job.

For example, despite saying you are not lazy, you don't seem to have done much reading on the alignment problem, so you are not really qualified to discuss the issue.

6

Iffykindofguy t1_j6ugk2g wrote

So now people have to be the absolute best? Oh nice job moving the goal posts there pal. Again, the entire point is just that people still have agency. You seem to think everyone will fuck off and game all day long. That's not the case.

In addition to that I think you both seem to believe in some sort of framework to our society that doesn't exist. If there was a coordinated attack on the power grid or if the internet were to suddenly turn off tomorrow we would experience mass chaos and violence in the confusion. We are past the point of no return.

−1

Surur t1_j6uh0ia wrote

> Oh nice job moving the goal posts there pal.

You don't seem to understand that AI will indeed move the goalposts.

For example you may have a human doctor who has 10% of his patients die and an AI who only loses 5%. Goalposts moved.

2

Iffykindofguy t1_j6uh92m wrote

...

​

Are you drunk? I accused you of moving goalposts. Because at first you were arguing no one would have a job and now youre talking about having to be the best at the job.

0

Surur t1_j6ukt55 wrote

You don't understand that if you are worst at a job, then you will not have employers or customers?

This discussion is clearly over your head. Good day to you, sir.

3

iNstein t1_j6vvzyg wrote

No one will have a job because they will not be good enough. If someone wants to druve a taxi, why would I agree to use them when an AI driven taxi is significantly safer. People won't work BECAUSE we are not as good as AI and so the jobs won't be available to us.

2

TFenrir t1_j6ugkm7 wrote

I'm basically going to ignore the ad hominem's, but just as a tip - that sort of stuff makes you look worse, not me.

So your argument against the idea that we would replace a significant portion of the infrastructure of the world with automated processes run by AGI is that people would be too bored, so they would want to have what are the equivalent of Jetson's button pressers? I have a few critiques of this argument....

Let me try a more casual one.

So AGI takes over, suddenly all human work is unnecessary. AI does it better, faster, and cheaper than people. Bob though used to run the waste disposal plant in your city. He really wants to keep working that job, so he just.... Walks into this new robot run facility, understands how everything is working even though it's all changed, and now his job is what... Making sure the AI doesn't make a mistake, or take over? Meanwhile his buddies are at the cottage, having a beer and not having to work. You think Bob's work is so satisfying and valuable that this is a tenable situation?

Maybe you can give me an example of how you think this plays out? Do you think Bob is in a position to protect us from malicious AI? Do you think people like Bob exist, or at least enough to have a handle on all important infrastructure? You think Bob wouldn't rather spend time on his woodworking hobby?

4

Iffykindofguy t1_j6ugqa8 wrote

I never ever ever said we wouldnt replace a significant portion of the infrastructure so Im going to stop reading there. When you'd like to have a serious discussion and stop moving goalposts, stop lying, come back and talk like an adult.

−2

TFenrir t1_j6ujt8k wrote

I hope you talk to the people in your life better than this

2

Iffykindofguy t1_j6uk2ku wrote

I do and sorry for being so intense but you came at me hot and you're talking some nonsense. You went from no one will be doing anything to oh well no one can be the best at their job so no one will want to do anything to....? My entire point from the jump is just that people arent going to just sit idly by and die. A generation may over indulge if we get some relief from the current capitalist hellscape we have at the moment but before long people will get bored. Not to mention people are aware of this problem, why wouldn't they take steps to avoid not knowing how our daily life functions?

1

Surur t1_j6tuq4j wrote

> You act like ChatGPT just threw that out there instead of was prompted "write a poem about an ai taking over the world"

Actually I asked it to turn my post into a poem.

> Also your logic is not that great because the vast vast vast majority of people don't know how anything works right now anyways.

But some people do. In the future, for some areas, no people will.

Lastly, do you see any flaw in the progression, with AGI taking control first in some areas, then more and more, until it becomes the foundation of our civilization.

3

Iffykindofguy t1_j6tveqi wrote

"Some people" do not, some people do know how this works partially here, some know what works there, no one knows globally. Youre protecting a facade, something that isn't there. And yes, your progression is such 80s horror nonsense its cliche at this point. It absolutely could replace all those things and I agree that it would be bit by bit without anyone knowing but you act like there's will be no human activity in those times other than lounging about. Thats not how humans work.

0

Surur t1_j6tvrdt wrote

> but you act like there's will be no human activity in those times other than lounging about.

This is an extremely vague objection, like talking about souls and spirits and patriotism.

The point is that if AGI is good we will slowly relinquish control, because humans are lazy and greedy.

3

Iffykindofguy t1_j6txhst wrote

How is talking about humans continuing to exist and be active like talking about souls and spirits? Jesus christ we got a "logic" guy over here lol. Humans arent really lazy or greedy, though many of us are. Its kind of fallout from how our society developed. That'll change as we grow.

1

Surur t1_j6tyxte wrote

> Humans arent really lazy or greedy

I think you are very divorced from reality.

7

turnip_burrito t1_j6uqmqt wrote

>You act like ChatGPT just threw that out there instead of was prompted "write a poem about an ai taking over the world"

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong. The poster knew basically everyone here would understand the AI was prompted. The point was to make their point more poetic, because it is a nice poem.

2

Ok-Hunt-5902 t1_j6vhr1i wrote

To be fair it was kinda a shit poem unfortunately.

0

turnip_burrito t1_j6vk26m wrote

It's just a matter of taste I guess.

2

Ok-Hunt-5902 t1_j6vkhas wrote

Lol yeah I was just kind disappointed it wasn’t a good showing this time around imo

2