Submitted by sonderlingg t3_ybh3k3 in singularity
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itgys81 wrote
Reply to comment by DukkyDrake in What will singularity lead to? by sonderlingg
When has society gotten worse after rapid change, typically society changes for the better and this can be shown by things like the agricultural and technological revolutions.
dreamking__ t1_ith3ijg wrote
Didn't the industrial revolution turn farmers into proletariat? Technological progress will never make the working class's life better if it is not accompanied by social progress.
ParryLost t1_itjef6p wrote
And agriculture turned happy bands of free, egalitarian hunter-gatherers into generations of miserable dirt-farming peasants toiling away for the glory of various dictatorial leaders.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_ith426i wrote
Can you tell me what you mean by social progress ? Also you can say there was a negative from an industrial revolution, but I’m saying overall they were highly favorable. For example things like better and more accessible transportation technology have been a huge help in combating poverty, which mind you has been decreasing at an incredible rate due to things like the internet
dreamking__ t1_ithc5up wrote
>Can you tell me what you mean by social progress ?
Improving the living conditions of the working class.
>For example things like better and more accessible transportation technology have been a huge help in combating poverty, which mind you has been decreasing at an incredible rate due to things like the internet
As I said, they have been a huge help when employed for it. Tech advancement by its own it's neither good nor bad, it's just a tool. Look at what social media has done to us in the name of profit.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_ithmm9s wrote
Well that’s pretty tautological, you’re saying that social progress is needed to improve worker class living conditions, and then you are defining social progress as anything that improves working class living conditions. What I’m saying is that technological advancement rapid or not enhances/enables or quickens social progress
dreamking__ t1_ithwclr wrote
>and then you are defining social progress as anything that improves working class living conditions.
Right, what I mean is public housing, food security, zeroing unemployment, decent working legislation (securing existing rights and improving upon them).
I'm not sure how things are where you are but my country is struggling with high unemployment due to failed neoliberal policies and a lot of folks are now stuck in the gig economy enabled by delivery and ride apps. Their living conditions are inhumane and way worse than what delivery folk and cabbies used to have prior to the apps.
Pepperstache t1_itj6nkl wrote
Just as how humans completely ignore Thorium as a fuel source despite being cleaner, because it doesn't produce Plutonium as a byproduct. Government and corporate-owned ASI will almost certainly form cartels, and just like the Phoebus cartel, keep the most efficient and useful things from becoming actual solutions. They already openly told us that we'll own nothing in the future and be happy.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ithm3kl wrote
The singularity is not just more "rapid change". It's not like the Industrial Revolution or the Information Revolution or the Internet. All of these things were still under the control of merely human minds.
Beings of mere human intelligence will be like animals after the singularity, compared to the vast and cool intellects in charge of the world. Asking a human about what it will be like is like asking a dog or a raccoon about the Industrial Revolution.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_ithmtpt wrote
Our intelligence will be similiar to what we are to dogs but I don’t think there’s enough reason to believe we will be treated as we treat dogs
ArgentStonecutter t1_ithpv6n wrote
Pekinese maybe. One of those terrible mutants with the crushed sinus.
TheSingulatarian t1_itiai7f wrote
Depends on where you are in the world as to how dogs are treated. Some are treated very well, some have medical experiments conducted on them, some are euthanized, some are eaten. How ASI will regard humans remains to be seen.
DukkyDrake t1_ithplg5 wrote
Agricultural and technological revolutions were not rapid uncontrolled change.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_ithq40b wrote
Not quite singularity level but they were quite rapid , and you said that these changes have been historically universally bad. But if not even a industrial revolution counts as such I don’t get where you’re getting you’re opinion from. Change can be good or bad, when it comes to technological change it has almost always been universally good for humanity, except for things like something like a nuke , but even then it could be argued nukes ultimately benefited humanity.
DukkyDrake t1_itj280d wrote
I think you need to brush up on singularity theory, you're comparing very different things and timelines.
I bet you don't have a nuke in your basement, what if you could and it would cost you no effort or money.
Ex:
>Molecular manufacturing raises the possibility of horrifically effective weapons. As an example, the smallest insect is about 200 microns; this creates a plausible size estimate for a nanotech-built antipersonnel weapon capable of seeking and injecting toxin into unprotected humans. The human lethal dose of botulism toxin is about 100 nanograms, or about 1/100 the volume of the weapon. As many as 50 billion toxin-carrying devices—theoretically enough to kill every human on earth—could be packed into a single suitcase. Guns of all sizes would be far more powerful, and their bullets could be self-guided. Aerospace hardware would be far lighter and higher performance; built with minimal or no metal, it would be much harder to spot on radar. Embedded computers would allow remote activation of any weapon, and more compact power handling would allow greatly improved robotics.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itked5f wrote
As I said earlier you’re only focusing on selective negatives, im saying it will be overall positive, but there will likely be negatives as well. Like with smartphones how there is many negatives and positives, but the positives outweigh the negatives. I can’t say anything for certain I’m just saying that based on the past it is more reasonable to assume it will be positive
DukkyDrake t1_itktg3q wrote
I'm saying it's the rate of societal changes that is usually bad, nothing to do with specific technologies. When it comes to specific tech being bad post singularity, history has no lessons to teach. A smart phone being bad or good doesn't quite relate to every random person on the planet getting access to tech that could end human civilization. Better smartphones or whatever is no good to anyone if they are not alive to enjoy it. It's completely unreasonably to equate the singularity with anything that came before.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itkuws2 wrote
No it’s is reasonable because it refers to the point in which technological advancement becomes unimaginably quick, this says nothing of the rate that social progress will move, but typically quick technological change usually means social change will be quicker. I disagree that quick social progress has been bad, I think that society will change at whatever rate is necessary, that’s the way society works, there’s no “we can’t keep up with technology so we fall as a society scenario” in no way does very very quick technological progress mean very very quick social progress, however it can be reasoned that there will most likely be a lot of social progress and it will happen quite quickly.
DukkyDrake t1_itnn0dn wrote
When I say societal changes, I refer to the large societal level structures that enable society to function. If the supply chain for food stuffs stops working, how long do you think you could survive after the shelves at your local supermarket goes empty. That sort of thing.
If changes occur in days or weeks and not on decadal or centuries timescale, parts of your society could stop functioning before the tech that permit some workers to walkaway reaches everyone. That's why fast societal level changes destabilize society and endangers its ability to support its populational. It's almost always bad, the only sorts of thing that causes fast societal level changes are usually actual revolutions/wars. Industrial revolution wasn't quick, that played out over the course of almost a century. Collapse all those changes down to a week or 2 and you might be closer to the mark.
That's also why there can't be a Ubi before AI replaces most job, the desperate low way wage workers could just walkaway resulting in civilizational collapse.
>I think that society will change at whatever rate is necessary,
Society isn't a monolithic thing, it's a bunch of individuals doing their own thing. It's structured in such a way where there are only a few degrees of freedom that allows one to survive easily. Basically, get a job, earn money, buy food and shelter. Increase those degrees of freedom with tech that allow survival independent of society, most people would walk away. Tech never spreads uniformly and instantaneously. You need society to survive until you reach a state where you no longer do, transitioning from one state to the next is fraught with peril.
>this says nothing of the rate that social progress will move
The Technological Singularity has everything to do with that rate of change on human society, else no one would really care. The Singularity isn't a future point where companies are simply selling new fancy consumer products faster and faster, this event won't be in the control of baseline humans.
>is a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization
> "centered on the accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue"—John von Neumann
>The concept and the term "singularity" were popularized by Vernor Vinge in his 1993 essay The Coming Technological Singularity, in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itnsvge wrote
The main problem with this is that you are assuming all change is bad. Which mind you, the thing up for discussion is whether this change will be good or bad. I’m saying it is more likely to be good than to be bad. I don’t see how you’re jumping from fast technological progress to society stopping. It seems like you’re saying that there will be a time difference in between when the first workers start to get “replaced” and the last workers do. However this is something that will most likely happen Far before the technological singularity.
It just seems to me that we are not actually getting to the root of the argument which is whether it is more likely to be positive or negative for society, historically the industrial revolutions and things of that nature which are a type of scaled down singularity have been extremely positive for society
DukkyDrake t1_itnwmz5 wrote
> The main problem with this is that you are assuming all change is bad.
No, I just never worry about the good cases. The good case is the default state, one only need concern themselves with the bad cases.
>I don’t see how you’re jumping from fast technological progress to society stopping.
How can you not see that pathway. The biggest is fast technological progress creates a super intelligent agent and it accidentally kills everyone.
>which is whether it is more likely to be positive or negative for society
One cannot predict what the world looks like after the singularity, hence the name.
One can theorize about the kinds of tech the avg person could get their hands on, just about anything permitted by physics, and what would do with it. It would take just 1 person to make that choice.
>historically the industrial revolutions and things of that nature which are a type of scaled down singularity have been extremely positive for society
Did those past events, which played out over decades, provide each human on earth access to superhuman competence & labor?-No.
There is no point considering any good when superhuman competence & labor could allow an endless number of maximally bad events. Some prankster is bound to create that suitcase containing 50 billion flying insect bots 200 micron in size, each carrying a 100 nanograms payload of botulism toxin.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_itkv5mc wrote
But sure it could just be a coincidence that in the last 100 years we have had vast global social progress which seems to coincide with our standard of living increasing, poverty decreasing and overall connectivity
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments