Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EddgeLord666 t1_j7lbz73 wrote

Reply to comment by drekmonger in 200k!!!!!! by Key_Asparagus_919

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