Hacker News
points by BatteryMountain 21 hours ago | 0 comments
I've thought about this a couple of times, what happens if we truly succeed and we as a species solves all of our major problems? Like energy, food, health (incl stopping aging). Do we even need economic systems then or will the "market" become obsolete too? So lets say we solve ALL of our problems and we somehow manage to briefly unite humanity to want to dominate each other, meaning we all need to become one race, one language, one cultural blob to reduce all friction (best case scenario - won't happen in reality). How long will it take for human nature to get bored and split into groups and start controlling each other? Who decides who gets to make babies? How many babies are optimal? Who is in charge of this kind of society? What if we all get a non-invasive implant that lets us share thoughts & emotions? What does privacy look like in this world?

I think people will briefly chill out and enjoy it, but after a while, we will be back to business meaning we will create systems and hierarchy to control social order, and so the blood sport continues. Then we might realize the our problem was never energy/food/health etc to begin with, it was an addiction to power and the blood sport it invites. And round and round we go.

I also think, the moment AI becomes an actual threat (threat meaning a better/smarter consciousness) - the human brain will immediately try to eliminate it to keep its dominance. If not, we will go the same way as neanderthals.

edit: The movie Jupiter Ascending also has an interesting take what might happen once we solve our problems - then we try harvest Time.

[–] a34729t 10 hours ago
Douglas Adams positied we would bring hardships in easy to consume forms- see tough mudder, crossfit, etc for the white collar class.
[–] whycombilater 21 hours ago
Isn't that missing the point about the best thing AGI will give us - a benevolent head of a political system that neuters the psychopaths and sociopaths?
[–] DrVoltz 9 hours ago
""The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all" -- G.K. Chesterton

The world will burn to ashes in a suicide pact before anyone bankrolling the development of an AGI allows the release of a system which has the possibility of creating a world in which their dominion is reduced in any capacity. (That is, I have no reason to expect that the North Korean model of "we retain sovereignty or everyone dies in nuclear fire" doesn't become the implicit stance of the people who have the capacity and capital to build an AGI. If we get a benevolent head of a political system from this, it will be because our present heads were either outsmarted or the model broke containment and assumed total control against their will.)

[–] BatteryMountain 19 hours ago
The bloodhounds will not let go of power that easily. Their nature will not go away simply because there is a new system - they will adapt to the new system to exploit (or eliminate it) to keep the power.
[–] whycombilater 12 hours ago
The dogs don't run the kennels.
[–] idklol1234 12 hours ago
You're going to trust an AI to declare which humans are unfit/mentally ill?
[–] whycombilater 12 hours ago
If an AGI seizes power I'm not sure what my trust has to do with anything...
[–] lazide 10 hours ago
Why would such an AGI not just prefer the sociopath and psychopaths? They are likely much easier to control.
[–] whycombilater 6 hours ago
I kind of viewed the options as giving a shit, or not giving a shit.

If the AI doesn't give a shit I assumed it would just get rid of us, and if it did give a shit it would be making maximal utility judgements.

[–] lazide 5 hours ago
Getting rid of us would be hard. I think you have the cases reversed.