Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GayHitIer t1_j7k2hu0 wrote

And it's going faster and faster.

Just hope this sub doesn't turn into futurology.

Let's remember what this sub originated from.

92

MootFile t1_j7kl9pa wrote

>Just hope this sub doesn't turn into futurology.

You mean anti techno-optimists? Hardly even futurism.

43

zabby39103 t1_j7lu1bi wrote

Right? It's one thing to be angry and cynical on the normal reddits, but on a reddit that is specifically called futurism it's quite sad.

20

BlessedBobo t1_j7knl6b wrote

I for one hope this sub turns into r/science and we get fewer schizos posting, fewer low-effort screenshots of some random guy on Twitter, fewer people posting their chatGPT results, and shitty self-promotion of their crappy websites
for the first time in history, the singularity is no longer some science fiction fantasy for outcasts and weirdos to cope with, and I hope that is reflected in the standards of the sub
this sub would be brilliant if we only allowed high-effort posts, discussions, and papers without the hype and sensationalized headlines and we banned all the schizos posting their hallucinations

17

MootFile t1_j7kqlbc wrote

With growing momentum, it should be put to good use.

Technological trends are going to be irreversible. So its important to have a conversation as to where we want to head as a society. In the most organized, rational, manner.

Not just in this subreddit either. All the other related ones should get together in a sort of techno-fixer unity. For the promotion of science & technical solutions in our ever evolving society.

6

GayHitIer t1_j7ko9oy wrote

I agree to exclude the schizophrenia posting and false hype that turns into disappointment.

I am really realistic about the singularity as well.

We need to take this sub to a new standard.

Maybe some rule about low effort posts without any scientific background?

5

earthsworld t1_j7kjjpl wrote

>Just hope this sub doesn't turn into futurology.

afraid it already has. downhill from here.

11

GayHitIer t1_j7kjs5b wrote

You may be right, but let us try our best to keep this sub from becoming doomer posting 24/7 :)

Life is already as depressing as it is, let us keep some hope for our future, even as bleak it sometimes seems.

26

drekmonger t1_j7l4eh5 wrote

Heh.

A sub that's literally about a doomsday scenario (from the perspective of humanity) is worried because it doesn't want to get all cynical.

−12

EddgeLord666 t1_j7lbz73 wrote

It isn’t inherently a doomsday scenario though, assuming humans as individual beings will survive and simply ascend into a different and more advanced form of life.

9

drekmonger t1_j7lf6f0 wrote

It was originally postulated as a doomsday scenario. It's certainly an event that would mark the end of civilization as we know it, aka, a doomsday.

https://edoras.sdsu.edu/~vinge/misc/singularity.html

The abstract reads:

> Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.

>Is such progress avoidable? If not to be avoided, can events be guided so that we may survive? These questions are investigated. Some possible answers (and some further dangers) are presented.

(Interestingly, the essay was written in 1983. Vernor Vinge was off by his prediction by at least 10 years, probably 20 years.)

−3

ccnmncc t1_j7ltcj8 wrote

It was authored in 1993.

He noted that he’d “be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.” So unless you’re accusing Vinge of “relative-time ambiguity” maybe you can cut him some slack?

4

drekmonger t1_j7luzv7 wrote

>It was authored in 1993.

ChatGPT did me dirty. Prior to that comment I asked it to remind me who wrote the essay and when. It said 1983, and then I failed to look at the date on the essay itself.

Good catch.

3

EddgeLord666 t1_j7lfihu wrote

I guess the “end of human civilization” doesn’t really matter to me as long as my consciousness still exists in some form. Since I already think of myself as a prospective posthuman, I don’t really perceive any more loss in that scenario than the “loss” involved in going from a child to an adult.

2

drekmonger t1_j7lgpnf wrote

I imagine the notion of self will be eliminated. In the bad outcome, the robot overlords have no use for us. In the better outcome, your circumstances will be so grossly changed that whatever there is of "you" that's left over will be unrecognizable as such. I don't imagine a true continuity as plausible.

In the more neutral outcome, we become pets in a zoo, not ascended transhumanistic beings.

1

EddgeLord666 t1_j7lh7nj wrote

Well unlike most people on this sub, I think transhumanism should be prioritized over the creation of AGI. I’m more interested in AI serving us as tools or augmenting our capabilities than ruling over us. Furthermore, you absolutely could have continuity of consciousness as long as augmentation happened in a ship of Theseus way, say by gradually boosting your IQ by 20 points every year instead of all at once.

1

drekmonger t1_j7lia04 wrote

The Singularity, as it was originally imagined, included potential scenarios for transhumanism over a technological singularity. The original essay is still well worth the read, even 30 years later.

But the doomsday scenario the essay was ultimately warning against was that the Singularity would occur rapidly as a shocking cascade of events.

Perhaps in the "pet human" scenario, a benevolent ASI might slowly augment people as individuals.

Regardless, the problem is one of alignment, and I don't think you or I have much say in that. Even if a relatively benevolent organization like OpenAI develops the first AGI, their competitors (like, say, China's AI research efforts) won't be so benevolent.

As in capitalism, the most unethical strategy will tend to dominate ethical strategies. The "bad" AIs will win any race.

3

EddgeLord666 t1_j7livt6 wrote

So far we are not at the stage where the Singularity is likely to be imminent, contrary to what some people here say. That means we probably have anywhere from 1 to 3 decades for the “good” people to coordinate and plan ways for it to happen in a more beneficial way or stop it from happening at all if that is deemed more desirable. That is really what people should be using this sub for, not just idle speculation.

2

arckeid t1_j7l7hle wrote

It´s ironical, but i am proud of this sub for being so optimistic/realistic.

3

AsuhoChinami t1_j7mnwdm wrote

Most definitely. The self-proclaimed realists fucked up this sub months ago.

Techno-optimists: Make informed predictions about the future based upon the present, the recent past, and the trajectory of changes over time
Self-proclaimed realists/skeptics/cynics/whatever: Endlessly call the other side stupid while making no actual credible arguments, combined with acting like a victimized minority despite entailing at least half the sub

Boy I sure do wish I was a super smart smart techno-skeptic. They're the smartest people in the world and can never be wrong on anything.

9

diener1 t1_j7kfiil wrote

What did it originate from?

3

cloudrunner69 t1_j7khl04 wrote

Supposedly from microscopic organisms hanging around underwater hydrothermal vents.

24

wildgurularry t1_j7kjsy2 wrote

Going back further, it originated from a cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium gas.

3

LoasNo111 t1_j7kn2hz wrote

Optimism about the future.

7

TopicRepulsive7936 t1_j7lsu37 wrote

There should be a sticky about dangers of pessimism and how philosophical pessimism ought to be applied.

4