←back to thread

AI 2027

(ai-2027.com)
949 points Tenoke | 2 comments | 03 Apr 25 16:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
ivraatiems ◴[04 Apr 25 00:49 UTC] No.43577204[source]▶
Though I think it is probably mostly science-fiction, this is one of the more chillingly thorough descriptions of potential AGI takeoff scenarios that I've seen. I think part of the problem is that the world you get if you go with the "Slowdown"/somewhat more aligned world is still pretty rough for humans: What's the point of our existence if we have no way to meaningfully contribute to our own world?

I hope we're wrong about a lot of this, and AGI turns out to either be impossible, or much less useful than we think it will be. I hope we end up in a world where humans' value increases, instead of decreasing. At a minimum, if AGI is possible, I hope we can imbue it with ethics that allow it to make decisions that value other sentient life.

Do I think this will actually happen in two years, let alone five or ten or fifty? Not really. I think it is wildly optimistic to assume we can get there from here - where "here" is LLM technology, mostly. But five years ago, I thought the idea of LLMs themselves working as well as they do at speaking conversational English was essentially fiction - so really, anything is possible, or at least worth considering.

"May you live in interesting times" is a curse for a reason.

replies(8): >>43577330 #>>43577995 #>>43578252 #>>43578804 #>>43578889 #>>43580010 #>>43580150 #>>43583543 #
zdragnar ◴[04 Apr 25 06:20 UTC] No.43578889[source]▶
> What's the point of our existence if we have no way to meaningfully contribute to our own world?

You may find this to be insightful: https://meltingasphalt.com/a-nihilists-guide-to-meaning/

In short, "meaning" is a contextual perception, not a discrete quality, though the author suggests it can be quantified based on the number of contextual connections to other things with meaning. The more densely connected something is, the more meaningful it is; my wedding is meaningful to me because my family and my partners family are all celebrating it with me, but it was an entirely meaningless event to you.

Thus, the meaningfulness of our contributions remains unchanged, as the meaning behind them is not dependent upon the perspective of an external observer.

replies(2): >>43579260 #>>43582917 #
1. ionwake ◴[04 Apr 25 07:25 UTC] No.43579260[source]▶
Please don't be offended by my opinion, I mean it in good humour to share some strong disagreements - Im going to give my take after reading your comment and the article which both seem completely OTT ( contextwise regarding my opinions ).

>meaning behind them is not dependent upon the perspective of an external observer.

(Yes brother like cmon)

Regarding the author, I get the impression he grew up without a strong father figure? This isnt ad hominem I just get the feeling of someone who is so confused and lost in life that he is just severely depressed possibly related to his directionless life. He seems so confused he doesn't even take seriously the fact most humans find their own meaning in life and says hes not even going to consider this, finding it futile.( he states this near the top of the article ).

I believe his rejection of a simple basic core idea ends up in a verbal blurb which itself is directionless.

My opinion ( Which yes maybe more floored than anyones ), is to deal with Mazlows hierarchy, and then the prime directive for a living organism which after survival , which is reproduction. Only after this has been achieved can you then work towards your family community and nation.

This may seem trite, but I do believe that this is natural for someone with a relatively normal childhood.

My aim is not to disparage, its to give me honest opinion of why I disagree and possible reasons for it. If you disagree with anything I have said please correct me.

Thanks for sharing the article though it was a good read - and I did struggle myself with meaning sometimes.

replies(1): >>43581167 #
2. zdragnar ◴[04 Apr 25 12:18 UTC] No.43581167[source]▶
To use a counter example, consider Catholic priests who do not marry or raise children. It would be quite the argument indeed to suggest their lives are without meaning or purpose.

Aha, you might say, but they hold leadership roles! They have positions of authority! Of course they have meaning, as they wield spiritual responsibility to their community as a fine substitute for the family life they will not have.

To that, I suggest looking deeper, at the nuns and monks. To a cynical non-believer, they surely are wanting for a point to their existence, but to them, what they do is a step beyond Maslow's self actualization, for they live in communion with God and the saints. Their medications and good works in the community are all expressions of that purpose, not the other way around. In short, though their "graph of contextual meaning" doesn't spread as far, it is very densely packed indeed.

Two final thoughts:

1) I am both aware of and deeply amused by the use of priests and nuns and monks to defend the arguments of a nihilist's search for meaning.

2) I didn't bring this up so much to take the conversation off topic, so much as to hone in on the very heart of what troubled the person I originally responded to. The question of purpose, the point of existence, in the face of superhuman AI is in fact unchanged. The sense of meaning and purpose one finds in life is found not in the eyes of an unfeeling observer, whether the observers are robots or humans. It must come from within.