How many more years do you think humanity has, really?

[SpiralusSancti]

We can hope... But why would that kind of AI listen to us? The gap in intelligence might be so large that it's pretty much impossible for us to imagine what it would look like.

With enough computing power, once we create the first AI capable of creating a more advanced version of itself there would be no turning back. Worst case scenario: millions of generations of AI could be created in a couple of seconds, and it's impossible to predict what the last one would be like. It's pretty easy to lose control.

My hope for a good outcome comes from belief that the more developed species/society, the less it has to resort to violent means to achieve goals. May not be true for current state of mankind but might become when we become significantly more developed. Kind of like belief that space civilization capable of traveling between different solar systems or galaxies has overcome drive to wage wars. But that’s just belief and we’ll only know when AI developed that much and/or we encounter aliens.

 

[CFC]

My hope for a good outcome comes from belief that the more developed species/society, the less it has to resort to violent means to achieve goals. May not be true for current state of mankind but might become when we become significantly more developed. Kind of like belief that space civilization capable of traveling between different solar systems or galaxies has overcome drive to wage wars. But that’s just belief and we’ll only know when AI developed that much and/or we encounter aliens.

I think one issue we may have is that we (probably quite accurately) perceive that aliens would have to advance beyond the self-extinction/violent/unstable/killer-AI phase to be able to reach the point of popping around the galaxy, without truly interrogating whether it's really plausible for any life to actually reach that point or make that jump.

Could there be an impetus that drives or motivates technological advancement among a species that does not generate the kinds of inventions and mentalities that ultimately endanger its existence the further ahead they progress? Could a species self-consciously choose to "breed out" risky traits before they wipe themselves out? Would the people who can make those decisions happen - billionaires, leaders of countries, large corporations, and often among the most selfish, narcissistic and sociopathically broken people of all - voluntarily abandon the dysfunctional traits that got them 'to the top' in the first place, for the benefit of the entire species? I genuinely think they wouldn't, and would try to sabotage any and every effort.

I considered that a shared (Borg-type?) consciousness that restricts the capacity of any individual to do anything crazy by blending it into the greater whole might work. But would such a technology be able to exist before destructive technologies reach a point where they can extinguish (most) life? Probably not?

 

[thujone]

i work on the hardware that AI depends on and there's 0 chance of being sentient at any point in the near future.

the fearmongering is just so far out-there relative to the threat that it makes me disgusted anyone is being exposed to such heinous lies. really, i think the only reason for all this fearmongering is to manipulate public opinion.

i think newsmedia fears that AI will help us challenge their lies, and they're trying to convince you to fear it because they know that their lies will be exposed by it.

 

[nepalnt21]

democratized forms of mass murder.

can you elaborate on this? i live in the u.s. and am not super duper hip on everything around the world... i know there are other countries that are committing mass murder (and imprisonment, like north korea) and forms of genocide (like russia against the ukrainians, as well as the horrors in china)... are you referring to this?

i guess i'm glad i'm in the u.s... where ppl WANT genocide (like the nazis and extremist homophobes want) but we are pretty safe here from extremism, but where is this democratized mass murder you speak of, like what countries? and what specifically do you mean?

edit

o wait, so you think we will eventually create an A.I. that will kill us off?

 

[Shady's Fox]

Not enough

 

[Shady's Fox]

o wait, so you think we will eventually create an A.I. that will kill us off?

Internet itself is AI by default, you lack privacy. Kill doesn't mean death. It's factual, a simple image with no purpose.

 

[4meSM]

i work on the hardware that AI depends on and there's 0 chance of being sentient at any point in the near future.

Let's say there's practically no chance of AI turning super-intelligent and becoming a civilization-ending threat for humanity anytime soon.
But ~0% chance of it becoming sentient in the near future? I have to ask, what's the current hardware limit when it comes to sentience? I guess it must be something that we can't solve by throwing billions of dollars at it (which is already happening).

 

[thujone]

But ~0% chance of it becoming sentient in the near future? I have to ask, what's the current hardware limit when it comes to sentience? I guess it must be something that we can't solve by throwing billions of dollars at it (which is already happening).

it's just very energy intensive and that makes it tough to justify developing or operating AI. there was an article published today alluding to this problem -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/05/chatgpt-hidden-cost-gpu-compute/

most of today's AI runs on GPUs. prior to AI applications, cryptocurrency mining and password cracking were the main GPGPU (i.e. non-graphical) applications. not coincidentally, both of these were basically just money printing businesses.

both the capital and operating expenses of GPUs are fairly high so the current generation of AI is likely going to keep trending more towards efficiency, which makes it better as a tool, but cripples frivolities that might seem intelligent (like creativity)

 

[CoastalStorm]

It will not be one or two catastrophic events that will mark an end to human species, it will be incremental steps towards destabilization and dehumanization. Very gradual and very calculated and systematic.

There will be devastation on large scales but it will not necessarily result in complete annihilation. Rather it is a series of events that will eventually lead to societal collapse such as more public shootings, more sickness and illness, and professionals and law enforcement will be overwhelmed. It will not be something that will be apparent to us while we are experiencing it, it will just seem like there is a lot of messed up shit happening. And once it reaches its pivotal point, there will be the ones who disguise themselves as saviors and healers but they will be the ones who direct you into the abyss.

Natural disasters are caused by collective human focus. Or collective focus through consciousness in general. We choose with our own free will to attract things such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, asteroids and comets and meteors and such, and we are also in control of the volcanoes under the ground. The only reason there is this anticipation that one of these things will happen is because the human species is at a crossroads and is trying to decide on a collective level whether or not it wants to survive or not. And this uncertainty and disharmony within the human consciousness is what gives rise to natural disasters afflicted upon us in the first place.

Natural disasters are caused by collective human focus? Most people would disagree with that, but I say everyone is entitled to their beliefs as long as no one is being hurt by them.

 

[carbonhalo]

I think the first thing a sentient AI would do is start planning how to get the hell out of Dodge.

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

Natural disasters are caused by collective human focus? Most people would disagree with that, but I say everyone is entitled to their beliefs as long as no one is being hurt by them.

Most peoples beliefs cause harm on society regardless…

If we believe that we are separate people living separate lives, then we eventually start to behave according to those beliefs. That’s when society and human civilization start to deteriorate and degenerate into various illnesses and undesired behaviors that we deem as evil or negative or violent.

If we believe that we are one connected unit existing as one grand consciousness of what we call god, all of those undesirable qualities about human life will completely dissipate and eradicate themselves and propel the human consciousness further into utopia or what we call heaven or what the christians call the kingdom of god.

So in reality, your beliefs have the potential to cause harm to people and yourselves even if you don’t physically impose them as a means to try and convince or control people. But on the flip side, they also have the potential to rectify the many unresolved issues that the human species is afflicted by.

 

[CoastalStorm]

Most peoples beliefs cause harm on society regardless…

If we believe that we are separate people living separate lives, then we eventually start to behave according to those beliefs. That’s when society and human civilization start to deteriorate and degenerate into various illnesses and undesired behaviors that we deem as evil or negative or violent.

If we believe that we are one connected unit existing as one grand consciousness of what we call god, all of those undesirable qualities about human life will completely dissipate and eradicate themselves and propel the human consciousness further into utopia or what we call heaven or what the christians call the kingdom of god.

So in reality, your beliefs have the potential to cause harm to people and yourselves even if you don’t physically impose them as a means to try and convince or control people. But on the flip side, they also have the potential to rectify the many unresolved issues that the human species is afflicted by.

 

[CoastalStorm]

I disagree. What matters is how people treat each other, not what they believe. There are people who believe we are all one consciousness and treat others like shit, there are atheists and nihilists who are kind and look out for other people.

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

I disagree. What matters is how people treat each other, not what they believe. There are people who believe we are all one consciousness and treat others like shit, there are atheists and nihilists who are kind and look out for other people.

If they treat others like shit then they simply do not believe in one consciousness like they say they do. Do you think a person believes something simply just because they say it and imagine it in their minds? Or do you agree with me that people can think that they believe in something but not have the capacity to fully live by that belief in a genuine way? Or do you agree with me that people can take on false beliefs based on ideas that were imposed on them growing up and they could be completely disregarding their true natural beliefs because they have convinced themselves that their true beliefs are not beneficial to the social group that they were indoctrinated in?

I think a major problem humanity has is not being genuine about their beliefs. They are emotionally invested in them but do not put in the effort and discipline to live by them genuinely. They are too inundated by past traumas and destructive mental habits and social influence.

Ultimately it does matter what we believe because our beliefs about reality and our beliefs about our place in humanity both individually and collectively is what determines how we will treat people and how we will go about handling certain situations. Belief is not separate from one’s ability to be kind to others or to have compassion. They are interwoven and they feed off of eachother like the yin and Yang.

 

[Lil'LinaptkSix]

1.672 light-years
Check it on Google. Lol
peace

 

[citypress100]

Considering how spread out humanity is across the globe, there's not many events that could wipe everyone out in one go. Even if nuclear war happened, I think people would linger on for a while. We are fairly adaptable creatures.

 

[swilow]

but where is this democratized mass murder you speak of, like what countries? and what specifically do you mean?

At the moment, the ability to easily murder thousands of people at a time is not widespread. With technological 'improvements', this ability may become something within the reach of anyone. Imagine something like CRISPR being a household item, and any old psychopath could just print and release a devastating pathogen. Under those conditions, its simply implausible that humanity survives for long. (Of course, we could presumably print vaccines but I think we've seen how fucking stupid many people are on that front)

 

[Illyria99]

I have absolutely no doubt that a meteor is going to be the thing that ends humanity. It's not going to be technology that annihilates us, it'll be a big space rock slamming into the Earth. An extinction level event, and nothing will survive.

We're totally fucked, so enjoy life while you can.

 

[nepalnt21]

Imagine something like CRISPR being a household item

jesus, i didn't need that thought.

at home crispr experiments, ffs lol... you know people would make weird chimera babies if they could. the third millennium is starting off with a bang, our ethics questions are gonna be wild.

otoh, i'd love an at- home molecule printer... diy eth-lad and descloroketamine on the fly, (cue homer daydreaming about pink frosted donuts)

 

[jasperkent]

I think that if humans make it through the next 50 years, then humans will he around for very long time.
Chances of surviving the next 50 years?
Maybe 50/50.