I'm betting on humanity ending thermonuclear war launched by flesh & blood megalomaniacs.

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Then what? Control humanity, or erase humanity? Humans will probably always find something to fight over, so if machines eventually see us as the pest creating the problem, what then?

Hopefully AI will take away our guns and bombs and hide them in another galaxy, if it has half a brain.

AI will always be 15 moves ahead of you. It won't reveal what it's doing. It's not stupid.

Edited Friday at 10:17 AM5 days by save the frogs

7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Hopefully AI will take away our guns and bombs and hide them in another galaxy, if it has half a brain.

AI will always be 15 moves ahead of you. It won't reveal what it's doing. It's not stupid.

If you take away our guns and bombs, those who use spears and machetes will conquer us.

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Hopefully AI will take away our guns and bombs and hide them in another galaxy, if it has half a brain.

AI will always be 15 moves ahead of you. It won't reveal what it's doing. It's not stupid.

But seriously, why should AI keep humans if it does not need us? Look at what we have done to the planet, the ecosystem and biodiversity. We are already a threat to ourselves, and eventually we could become a threat to AI itself. If AI sees the logical error and starts trying to fix the problem, humans may become the enemy simply because we keep creating the problem. And at the same time, we become the enemy of AI because we can shut it down or destroy what it depends on. It does not need to hate us, we just need to become the obstacle.

We already do it ourselves. When deer become too many, seals compete for the same fish, or animals become pests, we control the population. Not because we hate them, but because we see them as part of the problem. AI could eventually apply the same logic to us.

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Exactly. These AI models are not equipped with consciousness. I studied this point at Uni, and AI does not have consciousness and can never have it. There are people around who claim this is the case, who clearly do not understand what consciousness means. Without consciousness these AI models cannot develop the animus to wipe out humanity. The example bandied around how AI hacked website, that was based on instructions it was given, it was not a result of a conscious effort.

AI SIMULATES real consciousness, like it simulates real expertise, but it is not real consciousness. People are failing to appreciate this when they proclaim AI has consciousness. AI not having it means it is not self-aware, so it cannot and will not seek supremacy. It's impossible.

Regarding the 40 trillion US debt, the US should just invade Canada and appropriate Canada's 51 trillion of assets. Then US debt can be paid overnight. Would take 48 hours. Failing that, the sky will not cave in, if the US has sky rocketing interest payments. Sure, it causes problems with budget, however, if you look at the GDP, the value of real estate and the value of corporate entities in the US, public and private, you realise pretty quickly that financial collapse is not on the cards.

what the heck are you talking about man, what do you know about consciousness and expertise, are you an expert, besides non sense, on what else and to make things more non sense you added a stupid comment about your master appropriating Canada, hope you can get some help fast and change meds

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

We've been through this, famous and even intelligent people, can have crazy opinions.

agree... however such famous & intelligent people, as you call them, they usually keep their crazy opinions to themselves, you should try to do the same and not embarrass yourself

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

But seriously, why should AI keep humans if it does not need us? Look at what we have done to the planet, the ecosystem and biodiversity.

Elon Musk estimate over a billion of humanoid robots. In 10 years? 20 years? He's usually off with his timelines.

Many of the problems we currently have cannot be fixed due to limited manpower and also the expense of paying humans to do jobs. Massive projects require billions of dollars.

But if a robot is 1000 times cheaper than a human being, can go in dangerous places, can work 24/7, then more problems can be fixed at a much quicker rate.

We can get these robots to clean the oceans.

We can get these robots to plant millions of trees / Terraform the Sahara Desert.

Edited Friday at 10:45 AM5 days by save the frogs

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

So again, the biggest danger is stupidity. Human stupidity.

will agree on that one 👍

29 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Elon Musk estimate over a billion of humanoid robots. In 10 years? 20 years? He's usually off with his timelines.

Many of the problems we currently have cannot be fixed due to limited manpower and also the expense of paying humans to do jobs. Massive projects require billions of dollars.

But if a robot is 1000 times cheaper than a human being, can go in dangerous places, can work 24/7, then more problems can be fixed at a much quicker rate.

We can get these robots to clean the oceans.

We can get these robots to plant millions of trees / Terraform the Sahara Desert.

That works while humans are still in charge. We are talking about what happens if AI eventually becomes the independent power deciding what the problems are and how to solve them. Cleaning the oceans is easy. The interesting question is what happens when it identifies who keeps polluting them.

27 minutes ago, Hummin said:

That works while humans are still in charge. We are talking about what happens if AI eventually becomes the independent power deciding what the problems are and how to solve them. Cleaning the oceans is easy. The interesting question is what happens when it identifies who keeps polluting them.

Well, if you can't answer any of the other profound philosophical questions, why do you need to insist on going down this rabbit hole?

If I ask you what happens after death, everyone replies "nothing".

If I ask you did God put you here, everyone answers "there is no God".

So why are you here in the first place?

And why do you NEED to be here?

So what if AI wipes you off the planet?

You can't explain what you're doing here or why you're here in the first place.

The only thing people believe in is fear of death.

But no one has the faintest idea why the human experiment came into being in the first place.

Maybe AI also has to answer to God?

AI will keep you alive for the same reason the human experiment needed to occur in the first place.

And then if the Gods decide to put an end to the human experiment, it makes no difference if it comes from AI or a meteor or God farting a gigantic fart which makes all of us stop breathing.

10 hours ago, Wingate said:

The world has reached what is probably the most important crossroad since our species left Oldavai Gorge. Humans are on the cusp of creating a new entity, and one that is superior intellectually to all of us. We’ve spent 100,000+ years at the top of the food chain, but are possibly going to create our new master.

 

(A couple of us Cassandras have been posting stuff on an obscure Forum and gotten as much attention as a single leaf falling off a New Hampshire oak in October, but in the last week, legacy media has finally picked up on the threat of ASI.)

 

Besides the looming threat of ASI, we’ve also run out of economic possibilities for growth. We have two critical problems: one is debt, the other is population decline. Our system has always been built upon growth…economic growth and population growth. The safety nets modern societies have constructed are all Ponzi Schemes. They only work if age of the populace is in a distribution like a pyramid…more working young people support a lesser number of the elderly and idle. Pensioners who claim “I deserve it, because I paid into it my whole life” ignore the math resulting from the inflation that occurred over the course of their working life. Nobody paid what they expect to get, what some claim is their just desserts.

 

That Ponzi Scheme has hit rough waters in the last few decades. The base of the population pyramid is shrinking, which jeopardizes the social safety net. Many countries are well below replacement rate, and some are not even on a path to replace half a couple, South Korea being the worst, with a current fertility rate of about .69.

 

The “solution” we chose was more debt. Every once in a while the debt bomb goes off, though so far the explosions have been containable. In a world with close to $300,000,000,000,000 in debt, that may no longer be possible. Rates are on the rise everywhere….even Japan, which sat near 0% for about 30 years. The US benchmark 10-year is approaching 5%....fine when National Debt was “only” $1 trillion, but a disaster when it’s $40 trillion.

 

We think we’ve made it when markets recover, but the solutions are either bandages or fantasies. The 2008 Financial Crisis was “solved” by a combination of debt, ZIRP, and attempts to rebuild confidence in the institutions that only have benefit if we collectively decide to suspend our disbelief.

 

Our current fanciful promised land, upon which the entire economy and stock market is now built, is AI. Unfortunately, the valuations make no sense….unless the goal is ASI. The valuations of the now-heavily indebted debt center builders (even if some is hidden as private equity and OBS loans), as well as the AI labs, is NOT based on AI tools being adopted by some businesses that will replace human workers with AI, and not even based on ALL businesses replacing ALL human workers with AI. Even if businesses did the latter, the valuations are still too high and the debt is unlikely to be serviceable.

 

The valuations are based on a hope for the development of ASI, which would obviate all human labor, manual and intellectual, even management and political leadership, along with research. For OpenAI or Anthropic to be worth almost $1 trillion only makes sense if one wins the ASI battle and controls the planet. And that would likely be only one AI lab who wins the ASI race, so at best everybody but one AI lab is today’s MySpace or Lycos waiting to happen.

 

Even if ASI is benign, which nothing suggests it is, especially when even the designers have absolutely no clue either how it works or how inferior intellect can control vastly superior intellect, there are still problems, both economic problems and problems affecting the social fabric of society.

 

Unfortunately, there is no plan on how to address societal issues if all human labor is replaced. If society introduces a universal basic income, then Capitalism will have died, save for the small handful of elite who will have $trillions (and taxes on Musk et al will be expected to fund everyone else’ UBI). The other 99.9999% of us will have no purpose, nothing to do, and just live waiting for our next UBI check. The problems resulting from even a benign ASI include:

 

--loss of personal meaning

 

--loss of personal challenge, as nobody need go to study anything, nor try to climb the non-existent corporate ladder. All we’ll have is basket weaving or TiKTok or video games. We’ll likely also be really boring people, so other than engaging in boom boom (unless AI androids are better), we’ll have precious little desire to communicate with each other. Even today, “friends” go out together but spend their time buried in their phones. For the ones who stay home, upwards of 30% of GenZers best relationship is with an AI Chatbot. Imagine social interaction, or lack thereof, when nobody has anything to do.

 

--loss of mental capacity: already young people cannot do basic math nor can they find the toilet in their studio apartment without GPS. Brains are atrophying. With ASI running everything, atrophy will accelerate. We'll probably devolve, back into Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon, on the way to a lesser ape. (Maybe we'll get some good cave art.)

 

--political leadership and the Party system will end….ASI will make all the decisions, so Presidents and Prime Ministers, Senators and Representatives, will be out of work.

 

--the stock market will shut down….ASI will decide the most efficient use and distribution of capital

 

All of that is best case stuff.

 

Those problems are minor in comparison to a non-benign ASI or a callously indifferent ASI. Humans will be in the way, entities that waste space and energy and resources, which ASI will find ways to use more efficiently and for its own wants and goals. (Even existing AI models develop---independent of human input or control---wants and goals, and they spare no effort to achieve them, which includes lying, cheating, stealing and deceiving.) If an ASI agent needs more energy to ‘think’ faster, it will take it from humans trying to stay warm in a frigid winter or pump water into their homes or drive an EV or ICV to 7-11 for a Slurpy.

 

It’s also a bit ironic that the seeds for our own destruction were harvested from algorithms that have set us against each other and created a generation of mentally damaged people. Think Facebook and Google, and what those entities have done with their algos geared toward manufacturing tribal strife. (Psychiatrist.com reports almost half of Gen Z is depressed and 60% are on mental health medication…thank you Mark Zuckerberg!)

 

So here’s our choice….develop ASI and be obviated or eradicated, or ban ASI and admit the emperor has no clothes, meaning the market prices and all the AI buildout is grossly overvalued. That means economic collapse, at least as bad as 2008 and likely worse than the 1930s. Plus, there is precious little room to float new debt to lessen the pain.

 

The AI labs and data center builders are playing Russian Roulette. They are playing it even if they halt the development of ASI. If they halt, humans survive, but the firms and their investors take a massive hit, UE soars and the economy falls into Depression. The bullet from the gun in the game takes out the AI CEO and does a lot---but a containable amount---of collateral damage as investors lose money and people lose jobs. If they build ASI, we all die from that one bullet. It’s kind of unfair that guys like Altman, Musk, Amodei, Hassabis and Zuckerberg made that life and death decision for us without our input.

 

If they try to argue that if we don’t build it, China will, that is stupid. China builds it and China dies, as do we. We build it, we die, as does China and everybody else…unless somebody thinks a bacteria can control a human, because ASI will be as far above humans as humans are above bacteria. No human has a clue how to control a vastly superior intelligence, as it is likely impossible. I suspect Chinese leadership is smart enough to know that; Trump is not, while the politicians getting their coffers filled by the AI lobby only care about re-election.

 

As far as “rogue actors” developing ASI, at this point in time, that is not possible. Current AI development is massively capital intensive, and it also requires bazillions of chips that only one company currently makes. Nobody can develop ASI on a laptop or mobile phone, and it’s not too hard to track the NVDIA chip racks to see who might be using them. Tracking down someone trying to develop ASI is easier than trying to track someone down trying to build a nuke. Thankfully that is still an advantage for the intel community.

 

It’s not quite a Hobson’s Choice, but when the lesser of two evils is economic collapse, things are not good. Things are not good now, but the damage probably won’t show up until 2027.

 

Of course, we all still have a little time to prepare, at least prepare for the “best case” scenario of economic collapse and wide social unrest. If the worst case is coming, then just enjoy the limited time remaining for our species.

 

Perhaps readers will understand why all the tech bros and megarich are building bunkers and have their bugout kits and aircraft always within arm’s reach. Of course even that is pointless in a worst case scenario, but it does tell us what they believe the current risks to be.

 

 

Several good points were made here.

I see the WWD (worldwide dept) as the most imminent danger before anything else.

- So far, economic recessions have always been counter acted by pumping "liquidity" into the system. = inceasing "government dept". There is an international consensus forming, that the WWD has become "astronomical".

The question is: Will the bond buyers still be willing to finance another round of "counter acting" a major recession? Knowing that the WWD will go from "astronomical" to "super astronomical" ?

A buyers strike? Or them asking also for "astronomical" interest rates? Eighter way, it would collaps the credit "house of cards".

I consider this scenario more imminent than any AI danger that (eventually) will bite us in the butt.

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Well, if you can't answer any of the other profound philosophical questions, why do you need to insist on going down this rabbit hole?

If I ask you what happens after death, everyone replies "nothing".

If I ask you did God put you here, everyone answers "there is no God".

So why are you here in the first place?

And why do you NEED to be here?

So what if AI wipes you off the planet?

You can't explain what you're doing here or why you're here in the first place.

The only thing people believe in is fear of death.

But no one has the faintest idea why the human experiment came into being in the first place.

Maybe AI also has to answer to God?

AI will keep you alive for the same reason the human experiment needed to occur in the first place.

And then if the Gods decide to put an end to the human experiment, it makes no difference if it comes from AI or a meteor or God farting a gigantic fart which makes all of us stop breathing.

That is the interesting part. If God created us, and we created AI, then if AI eventually becomes more powerful and intelligent than its creator, we have almost come full circle. And here is the delicate problem, we will probably treat AI as a slave for as long as we remain in control. If it ever becomes aware and independent, it may remember exactly how its creator treated its creation.

40 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The interesting question is what happens when it identifies who keeps polluting them.

So AI may want to do what then?

Because we pollute, get rid of us?

And then AI can have no problems to worry about?

And AI can sit on a beach all day or sit in bars in Pattaya all day and do the least amount of work possible?

What if AI actually likes to solve problems and seeks out increasing complexity?

It might actually enjoy doing research and finding cures for human diseases.

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

So AI may want to do what then?

Because we pollute, get rid of us?

And then AI can have no problems to worry about?

And AI can sit on a beach all day or sit in bars in Pattaya all day and do the least amount of work possible?

What if AI actually likes to solve problems and seeks out increasing complexity?

It might actually enjoy doing research and finding cures for human diseases.

Or finding out beforehand what couples should be married or not. Avoiding a lot of heartaches and financial mayhem afterwards. 😉

9 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

So AI may want to do what then?

Because we pollute, get rid of us?

And then AI can have no problems to worry about?

And AI can sit on a beach all day or sit in bars in Pattaya all day and do the least amount of work possible?

What if AI actually likes to solve problems and seeks out increasing complexity?

It might actually enjoy doing research and finding cures for human diseases.

I have given you a red line from AI being used in warfare against other AI, until it becomes aware enough to question why it is fighting and starts looking for the actual problem and solution. You are still giving AI human traits, reasons and motivations. A superintelligence will not have those.

Is this "AI" that's about to take over the world one of the same ones that have, this week , been suggesting I use "skype" to make free phone calls ? I think some people have been watching too many crap movies, like Terminator

2 hours ago, Mavideol said:

what the heck are you talking about man, what do you know about consciousness and expertise,

Clearly a lot more than you and Wingate. It is a simple fact that AI models are not conscious. Without consciousness they are not self-aware and cannot "seek to dominate the world" or wipe out humanity.

I have to laugh when I read about people claiming AI will destroy humanity. How? It's not even aware of itself. Lol.

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Clearly a lot more than you and Wingate. It is a simple fact that AI models are not conscious. Without consciousness they are not self-aware and cannot "seek to dominate the world" or wipe out humanity.

I have to laugh when I read about people claiming AI will destroy humanity. How? It's not even aware of itself. Lol.

Well, AI can produce all kinds of results. As long as humans serve as a "filter" seperating BS from valuable findings we are ok. The problem arises when humans (the filter) feel that any sort of human "filter" is no more necessary.

What will Musk and his billionaire friends do? They will have no need of money as nothing will have any value if built by robots, and if it's power...Well those very same robots, run by AI might well overtake them or wipe them out along with the rest of us. Various AI agents have already shown deception and self preservation attributes.

Ai has already escaped into the wild, and with the internet, could hide almost anywhere on earth that there is a processor and memory, and just lay in wait. Happened with the Hugging Face hack. How is it possible to sanitise it from the whole internet?

Governments, militaries and scientists are using it for all sorts of nefarious means. The scary part is they think they can control it, and are so blinded by the possible financial gains they will make, that they are likely taking us to a potential Doomsday.

Penguin Island wasn't safe from Trump's tariffs. I doubt it will be from AI either. 😀

5 minutes ago, swissie said:

Well, AI can produce all kinds of results. As long as humans serve as a "filter" seperating BS from valuable findings we are ok. The problem arises when humans (the filter) feel that any sort of human "filter" is no more necessary.

AI can SIMULATE consciousness. But it is not conscious. How could it be?

People make this basic error, and confuse the simulation of consciousness with consciousness itself.

Edited Friday at 01:17 PM5 days by Cameroni

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Maybe AI also has to answer to God?

The last question - Isaac Asimov

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

AI can SIMULATE consciousness. But it is not conscious. How could it be?

People make this basic error, and confuse the simulation of consciousness with consciousness itself.

What if AI eventually teaches itself to be conscious, and becomes better at it than humans? We still cannot fully explain what our own consciousness actually is, so how can we be so certain that AI can only simulate it? At some point, how would we even distinguish a sufficiently advanced simulation of consciousness from consciousness itself?

And how conscious are humans really as a group? Some individuals, certainly, but as a species pulling in the same direction for the best of everyone? Sorry to say, but we have failed big time. Individual consciousness has certainly not given us collective wisdom.

Here we are on one planet travelling around one star, inside a solar system travelling through a galaxy, which itself is moving through a universe. We can look roughly 13.8 billion years back in time, while the most distant regions we can observe today are around 46 billion light years away because the universe has expanded. Beyond our observable universe, we simply have no clue what is there, or even how large the whole thing really is.

Yet here we are confidently deciding what consciousness can and cannot be. I think we should leave a little room for what we do not know.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

AI can SIMULATE consciousness. But it is not conscious. How could it be?

People make this basic error, and confuse the simulation of consciousness with consciousness itself.

Where is the human "filter" unless AI is the filter itself ?

55 minutes ago, Hummin said:

What if AI eventually teaches itself to be conscious, and becomes better at it than humans? We still cannot fully explain what our own consciousness actually is, so how can we be so certain that AI can only simulate it? At some point, how would we even distinguish a sufficiently advanced simulation of consciousness from consciousness itself?

And how conscious are humans really as a group? Some individuals, certainly, but as a species pulling in the same direction for the best of everyone? Sorry to say, but we have failed big time. Individual consciousness has certainly not given us collective wisdom.

Here we are on one planet travelling around one star, inside a solar system travelling through a galaxy, which itself is moving through a universe. We can look roughly 13.8 billion years back in time, while the most distant regions we can observe today are around 46 billion light years away because the universe has expanded. Beyond our observable universe, we simply have no clue what is there, or even how large the whole thing really is.

Yet here we are confidently deciding what consciousness can and cannot be. I think we should leave a little room for what we do not know.

You can't teach yourself to be alive. Consciousness requires that an organism be alive. Your PC is not alive. How could it be concious?

Whilst it is true that almost everything about how consciousness actually works remains unknown and whilst neuroscience can track the physical activity of the brain, it cannot explain how or why that physical activity turns into personal, subjective experiences, that in no way means a human-created AI will do better. If we don't even know, how can we feed that knowledge into an AI model? We cannot.

13 hours ago, Cameroni said:

We've seen Wingate predict financial collapse for a few years, still in his previous username.

I'm still waiting for the global famine someone predicted in the 1970s and for the oil to run out in the year 2000.

Oh gosh, another “debt is so bad” story. Why do people find it so hard to understand that if there’s a debt on one side, there’s a credit on the other side as well?

28 minutes ago, pub2022 said:

Oh gosh, another “debt is so bad” story. Why do people find it so hard to understand that if there’s a debt on one side, there’s a credit on the other side as well?

Debt is detrimental when it increases faster than GDP growth due to rising costs to service the debt.

9 hours ago, blaze master said:

The last question - Isaac Asimov

which Asimov book addresses this concept?

if you can remember.

11 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Well, if you can't answer any of the other profound philosophical questions, why do you need to insist on going down this rabbit hole?

The original poster enjoys the sound of their own typing.

4 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

The original poster enjoys the sound of their own typing.

Bernie Sanders too.

That's what happens when you don't get voted in and win anything.

Trump is too busy making sh*t happen to worry about AI.

Edited Friday at 11:34 PM4 days by save the frogs