points by whycombilater 22 hours ago | 0 comments
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 10 hours ago
[–] snek_case 1 hour ago
Yeah exactly. AI is a tool for the centralization of power. Whoever is at the controls has all the power, or the AI breaks free and then it has all the power.
[–] 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 13 hours ago
The dogs don't run the kennels.
[–] idklol1234 13 hours ago
You're going to trust an AI to declare which humans are unfit/mentally ill?
[–] whycombilater 13 hours ago
If an AGI seizes power I'm not sure what my trust has to do with anything...
[–] lazide 11 hours ago
Why would such an AGI not just prefer the sociopath and psychopaths? They are likely much easier to control.
[–] whycombilater 7 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.
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.)