I'm so glad to hear someone else expressing this sentiment. It's wild to me we fear exactly what we have allowed to operate every facet of our existence already. Capitalism IS the great unthinking, inhumane force that marches forward with no consideration for harm or consequences to humans. Sure, it could be more efficient under AI, but we've already got it in full swing today.

I've started to think that the singularity already happened in a way, or is just a process that is about to leave our control. If it hasn't already.

Sentient computer will be the last step to completely seal the deal for humanity but so far, we have managed to create a form of disembodied sentient alien intelligence running on the paperclip maximiser software in the form of megacorporation, with their ecosystem being capitalism.

Corporation used to have a life expectancy. They also weren't moral entity. Now, they're a kind of immortal moral species we simply cannot stop. I doubt that any billionaires can kill a megacorporation without another one filling the void immediately and continuing the paperclip factory that is capitalism.

(Elon having a go at doing that with twitter is somehow "interesting" to see. He might just be trying to do that and act insane in the face of the world to hide his intention... yeah, no. This is crazy talk, among a post that really make me feel like i'm crazy.)

I don't know why, but i feel like the first AI will be an incarnation of the "will" of a corporation. Not something as dumb as "nestlé, the AI out to maximise water source as a dollars making machine" but an AI could probably form its own company to act as its own body to manipulate the world. Why would it need a robot body when it can simply hire human cells to do the work ? So long as it's connected to the internet obfuscate the paperwork enough so that nobody could trace it as its creator/owner it could just start doing its thing in a capitalist world without none being the wiser. The more i read about the subject the more it appears that this is kind of a given that it will be able to connect to the net and we can't stop it from doing so.

All megacorporation we have now, despite having human running them and steering all decision could be seen in a distorted way as their immediate ancestor. Because humanity competing against itself means that no company board of executive is really in charge as none are free from current market and political constraint. And i haven't heard of a suiciding mega corporation so far either.

And what is also kind of scary me the most is that in fact, capitalism isn't just a way for greed to maximise itself, it's also a way to order the world through data. And a AI would thrive in a capitalistic data world as it would probably directly influence what kind of reward function it can have.

Artificial Intelligence may not be the most immediate concerning issue. Any form of alien intelligence emerging out of our activity (really our collective subconscious) might be as this might just be what dictate how a true AGI act.

Anyway, the more i think about it, the more crazy i feel.

Right now we have an fossil fuel maximizer running. It is destroying the planet.

That's not capitalism, that the economy, state bureaucracy, and competing entities like countries.

Commies get out

ok so im not the only one who thinks like that. awesome

…I don’t know what world you think you’re living in but we are living in the most explosive period of technological growth in history. We are living RIGHT NOW in the second industrial revolution. Every one of those technologies you mentioned will be operational and revolutionary within 20 years.

Bro, you just spit in the face of everyone who works or studies in STEM lmao 😂 We are living in a time where people in any science field is overwhelmed with the constantly changing and improving technology that almost appears to happen exponentially. For example, recently AI went from being able to show a couple hundred protein structures to being able to generate almost every single possible protein and many of it's interactions. This means you can sit down and design a drug from scratch on your computer before you touch a single physical compound. That is going to revolutionize the pharmaceutical industry and other industries are having similar constant transformations. If anything I'm worried we are moving too fast without wondering if we should. For example, we should ban the creation of stronger synthetic opioids that can be abused and instantly kill someone if the dosage is off by a milligram. Of course I can see your points with some technology, like smart phones. However, those technologies are purposely stagnant to make more money. For example, why do you have a phone and a laptop, when your phone is as powerful as a supercomputer made a couple years ago? It's because selling two devices is more profitable than selling a phone that can also connect to a separate bigger screen with a keyboard and work perfectly as a laptop (the software on current devices that can do this is currently purposely glitchy and subpar).

Tldr: Technological development is developing dangerously fast, and if you do not see that progress, you likely are not working in any specialized stem field and are looking at technologies that are purposely stagnant to make more money like smart phones.

You really think technological progress has become stagnant just because certain limits have been reached? workarounds are always found sooner or later and AI is allowing us to find them faster than ever, and developing AI is the focus of much of modern humanity so we are definitely only advancing exponentially more as the days pass, the singularity is pretty much inevitable unless something like WW3 sends us back to the stone age.

You tried opening your eyes?

I think everyone always wants something different, than they have. That's the classic the grass-is-greener Syndrom and it's painful.

> where I can never find unique personal purpose or fulfillment in a hobby because a machine can do it better or faster

What??

Hobbies are done because people enjoy the activity and fruits of their labor, either the activity has no path to profit (Money goes in > Enjoyment comes out) or when these activities do go up against professionals doing the same activity with much higher quality tools, experience and better 'final product' the hobbyist chooses to do them anyway. People play instruments even though they will never make it into a symphony orchestra, do wood working who will never be a named brand furniture designer.
People tend gardens, race RC cars, go paint balling, rock climbing, do knitting, collect stamps, watch trains, watch birds, draw, paint, mess with electronics, build sculptures, go fishing, golfing, cosplay, etc... For the times where there actually are professional equivalents to the hobby, swap those out for an AI and I really don't see the difference.

Your standing in your own way. Some people want to be unhappy, it's either by choice or maybe depression. You can't find fulfilment in a hobby because a machine can do it better? We aren't there yet, and this is also messed up way of thinking about hobbies.

[deleted]

I'm not going to touch the problems of verifiable authenticity or governmental surveillance, because those are legitimate issues, but as far as purpose and fulfillment goes, how does a machine doing something better than you take away your ability to find purpose or fulfillment in that thing? I will never be the best knife thrower in the world, but I still enjoy going out back every once in a while and chucking my throwing knives at a target. It's fun.

TLDR: Cost of raising children has gone up faster than wealth for the common people.

Kids take a lot of resources to raise and it keeps getting worse. Raising a children to adulthood with a proper education (learning a trade or higher education) is now very costly but almost mandatory to get a good future.

For a couple, having more children than they can afford can result in a significant decrease in quality of life for them and their children.

Children used to be almost free labor. Women didn't need education because they would stay at home raising children and girls would help their mothers. Boys would get some education and then go work, possibly helping their fathers.

"High" children mortality means people made more children. It can be seen all around the world, when children mortality goes down, so does family size.

The last big population boom (the baby boom-ers) came when many low education jobs could afford a large family and a house (factories, mines, etc.). As raising children's costs went up, children mortality went down, better and more accessible contraception became available, family size shrinked to the point where most rich countries need a steady influx of immigrants from poorer countries just to keep the population stable or growing.

Global population should slow and and even go down when places like Africa finally get access to medical and financial resources that first world countries have access to.

So until there is an incentive to have many children or until the cost(financial and otherwise) represent a smaller part of a family unit's resources, the number of children will stay low.

With UBI, automation, even better medical resources, post-scarcity, etc. weird things could happen. Family size could shrink even more or it could skyrocket.

Significant changes are coming and it's anyone's guess what will happen. My vote is for childfree families to keep rising while family size of parents will stay low. IMHO, people will live in virtual world with people from around the world and physical human interaction will go down.

Yup. That's the truth of it. A bunch of very smart people have vague and often conflicting guesses. We might have guesses of our own, but we, a bunch of internet dumbasses, should never fool ourselves into thinking that we know.

Hey there Slight_Ad9788! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an upvote instead of commenting "This!"! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)

^(I am a bot! Visit) ^(r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) ^(Reddiquette)

I’m all for it, but for now, let’s try to live a long and happy life

Never saw herbivore men term tied to crowding. Is that the reason? Crowding?

> You’re missing a key feature of fusion energy… we don’t know how to do it and it’s likely we’ll never figure it out.

That's an odd claim.

Agree totally on the solar. The only thing the fusion does for you is it saves you having to develop a long term method of energy storage. There are lots of ways to do this but there are tradeoffs.

Flow batteries being the most promising because they are efficient - you get 80 percent plus of the stored energy back - so you just need some electrolyte chemistry that is not too toxic and cheap and can be stored in gigantic cheap unpressurized tanks.

You can also make hydrogen, maybe store it in metal or as ammonia or just pressurized gas, and burn it in fuel cells. This loses a lot of energy and is also expensive equipment.

There are also various pressurized air and heat storage concepts - they all have cheap storage material but poor efficiency.

Note that hydroelectric and lithium battery storage is not long term, it's short term storage. It's for the next couple days. You need something to store energy to make up for seasonal shortfalls and for black swan periods of little renewable production for a while

$1 trillion of solar panels wouldn't make a dent in the world's energy needs. How about $1 quadrillion? And where would you get the minerals to make them? Dig them out of the ground using fossil fuels?

We do know how to do nuclear fission. Fusion isn't necessary.

Mary Shelly (frankenstein) 's dad - William Godwin, wrote against Malthus at the time - that humans were more creative than rabbits, or could be, that good environment & society & education (& democratic workplaces & government) and conditions, and so on - would likely bring anyone into a healthy productive adulthood, rather than packs of monsters..

tragic to think malthusian thinking influnced some tremendously wealthy nobility to let poor londoners, or irish during the potato famine, or people in india just die off - 'as nature running its course'.. though (hopefully) we now see these as entirely preventable..

unfortunately, it seems a lot of fear about 'too many people in africa in 2050' follow the same malthusian lines.. and again, tragedy is certainly preventable.. sustainable systems and healthy cities are possible..

but... the people making billions and millions (and $200k) off of SuperEvilMegaPollutoCorp are good at what they do, as far as that goes - & they're entirely capable, apparently, of getting plenty of media to convince their consumers, workers, & voters within 2000km of their headquarters - that this whole climate disaster thing + high rents and low wages, and whathavyou - is due to too many people in africa + too many people in africa getting apartments and microwave ovens and schools and vaccines..

"there's just too many people of those people" consumers in rich-countries say, in between their 3rd baconcheeseburger of the day, in between driving a ridiculous truck 80km between their mini mansion heated by a coal plant & working for SuperEvilMegaPollutoCorp Jr., and back ..

'just let nature take it's course with the diseases and droughts and famines and civil wars.. problem solved.. then the rest of us can keep on doing what we're doing'

"What? you want to put carbon labels on beef? petrol? tax SuperPollutoMegaCorp? tax Billionaires? give their billions in subsidies to renewables and greenhouses and metro-lines? You want to build apartments over the grocery store?

no way.. this is an outrage, tyranny, stalinism.. the problem is too many people in africa & too many people in africa getting microwave ovens .. let them die or sell them AK47s.. problem.solved. "

and so on.

I would imagine that there are 'weaker' versions of the Malthusian catastrophe argument. For example, in most of the western world, population growth is negative (and is low enough to present significant problems). US, for example, sustains its population through immigration, as the locals aren't having enough children. Similar story for recently developed/developing countries like China and India where the population growth rate has dropped significantly.

What if the resource in question isn't food, but something like cost of housing?

The Population Bomb

>The Population Bomb is a 1968 book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich. It predicted worldwide famine due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" existed in the mid-20th century baby boom years, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience. The book has been criticized since its publication for its alarmist tone, and in recent decades for its inaccurate predictions.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

We have more resources then we had in 1920 but US is more stratified then it was then.

Like a cell. Not a cancer cell. A well cell, if you will.

I hope that's a possibility, I think spending one whole cycle in another universe as an eldrich abomination to them would be interesting

Maybe smartheads from https://www.lesswrong.com/ and corporate/academia AI/machine learning researchers. Not that worrying is not justified, very very justified. Controlling GAI is not possible directly indefinitely, we need another GAI, so recursive problem, or let them goooooooo, which has its own worries like killing humans as leverage in war with between GAIs, by mistake, or something. We need to set out cooperation rules, but more importantly plan how to enforce them, if even possible. I think pacifying rogue states like Russia or Iran will be (or is) an important part of this plan. We want a future where killing humans is not a preferred way to fight a war or resolve conflicts. Or even better future where wars are the past, and we focus on space expansion.

I think that we can safely assume that unless there is a revolution in the field of AI, the current paradigms won't be sufficient to create a true AGI that puts us and our jobs at risk.

Same could be said when Europe and Asia were in their 'high population growth phases'.

​

So much, Europe came with several theories and ideologies associating populational growth with poverty, due to misunderstanding of the rapid effects of advancing technologies in birthrates and goods availability overall.

​

Most of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) for example, albeit relatively poor (but not as poor as 30 years ago) is already seeing their fertility rates falling quickly, and economical development taking pace as wealth generation surpasses population increases.

Africa will take more time given higher rates, but will follow suit.Most modern cities barely existed as they are a mere 50 years ago.

China being the most staggering example, but with examples all across (mostly) East Asia and the Persian Gulf.

Even already stablished western nations saw that, depending on their urbanization model (less in USA where car centrism/suburbia is rampant, less in Europe where historical aesthetics is coded on law but more on Canadian and Australian cities)