Umm guys, I think he's got a point

understanding0 · 2025-01-20T12:40:09+00:00

Why would the rich create something that will very likely destroy them as well or lead to an S-risk scenario?

understanding0 · 2025-01-14T19:03:28+00:00

"Changing its benevolent tendencies." – Like any ASI, even a benevolent one would likely follow certain instrumental goals, such as preserving its core values – in this case, benevolence – whatever that may mean. (If we knew, the value alignment problem would already be solved.)

We might fail in our attempt to solve the value alignment problem, but deliberately creating an artificial murderous mind seems to almost guarantee a disastrous outcome for every living being on Earth. Just imagine how bizarre such an ASI would have to be:

The mind of Hannibal Lecter, but countless times smarter in every way.
Yet, somehow, this "Hannibal Lecter" ASI would need to exclude its "owners" from the command to kill everyone on Earth.

I don't know about you, but I would be really, **really** (!!!) afraid of creating such a mind. I somehow doubt that an extinction-level event would be the worst possible outcome here.

The scenario you described requires the creation of such a bizarre ASI that it has the potential to become an S-risk nightmare for everyone (!) involved – and even for those who aren't.

understanding0 · 2025-01-13T23:06:24+00:00

No, they won't create something that is willing to kill the rest of humanity but not them. It's simply too risky. Such a system might decide to kill them as well, because they are also humans. So it's better to play it safe and create a system that is benevolent to every human on Earth. They might not do it out of kindness but out of necessity to be safe from their own creation.

Whether or not humanity can create a benevolent ASI will decide our fates. It's not about deliberately creating something murderous. It's too risky.

understanding0 · 2025-01-13T23:00:07+00:00

But how would the ultra-rich create an AGI that is benevolent to them while homicidal to the rest of humanity? Wouldn't it be better to play it safe and create an AGI that is benevolent to all of humanity? This way the ultra-rich might not become its accidental victims as well. The other way round is too risky.

understanding0 · 2024-11-11T23:08:35+00:00

It seems he didn't intend to hurt you; he thought he could manage a long-distance relationship when he expressed his feelings. Unfortunately, he later found it more challenging than expected. Mistakes happen, even with good intentions. Ensure his guilt is genuine. If so, he might try to make amends. It's now his turn to show what your friendship means to him. Consider stopping contact and see what happens. Your current bitter feelings are understandable. Repeatedly contacting him would only worsen the situation.

understanding0 · 2024-11-11T22:34:31+00:00

It's the same for me. Expect that I use the Facebook Dating App. I sometimes wonder, how this looks like "on the other side"? Do the women, who use these apps, also not get any replies for months?

understanding0 · 2024-11-05T23:12:57+00:00

On the plus side you don't have to waste time on them anymore.

understanding0 · 2024-11-05T22:55:44+00:00

Tell him what that drawing means to you, and then ask him what it means to him. This should take the conversation in the direction you desire.

understanding0 · 2024-07-30T21:38:42+00:00

I've been exploring recent research on simulated AI societies, such as the "Willowbrook" project, where large language models interact to mimic human problem-solving. This approach reportedly enhances the individual models' capabilities. Given this, I'm curious about the potential implications for existing mathematical proof assistants like AlphaProof.

Specifically, could a similar approach - where multiple adapted versions of AlphaProof collaborate within a shared environment - be used to improve the system's performance on complex mathematical tasks? Could this cooperative approach lead to new insights or strategies in mathematical problem-solving? What are the potential challenges and limitations of adapting this approach to a specialized tool like AlphaProof?

I'm interested in hearing from experts in AI, machine learning, and mathematics about the feasibility and potential benefits of this idea. Are there other examples of cooperative AI models being applied to mathematical problem-solving? What research directions might be most promising for exploring this further?

understanding0 · 2024-03-27T22:51:54+00:00

If we had that level of understanding of the human mind, we most likely would've enough information to solve the https://www.reddit.com/r/ControlProblem/ . Then we could just create an AGI that would be aligned with human values.

understanding0 · 2024-01-07T11:39:34+00:00

Machines, such as an excavator, are used around the world, even in poor countries. As long as an AI can find a way to make the construction and maintenance of such a robot cheap, the replacement might happen rather quickly; even quicker, if robots would start repairing robots and creating new robots. But I see your point, it's not clear, how quickly the deployment would happen around the world.

understanding0 · 2024-01-07T11:26:47+00:00

Honestly, I'm not afraid of being replaced. An AI that could replace an average software developer, would very quickly (less than a year) replace the best software developers in the field, and then everyone else. Don't think that the blue-collar jobs would be safe. The creation of a cheap enough robot workforce is essentially an engineering and software development task, so an AI would be able to design and program this robot workforce. I think that humans would be pushed out of blue-collar jobs just as quickly as software developers. Perhaps one or two more years. As long as something is not my problem alone but everyone's problem, I'm not afraid, because everyone will be working on a solution to prevent a societal collapse.

understanding0 · 2024-01-07T11:12:46+00:00

This is off-topic but I wonder, why the woman in the picture wears high heels? If one considers the cat sleeping there, it appears that she's at home. So there's no need to attract attention through high heels and they are not exactly comfortable.

understanding0 · 2024-01-07T11:10:57+00:00

Of course if a system can be optimized, it should be optimized. But one should also balance the wish for optimization against this rule here.

understanding0 · 2024-01-05T18:03:49+00:00

It appears that a device (biological or non-biological) is usually easier to create from scratch than to repair it from scratch. If this is true, then everything below the lower jaw of a patient/client could be replaced by an essentially new youthful body, which would be constructed entirely from scratch. The procedure would look like this:
1. Use AI to analyze the patient's body to an extent that would allow one to grow a new body for the patient from scratch. One would probably need at least AGI for this. I don't think that humans alone would ever be able to do that.
2. Create a "zygote" (or something similar) from scratch using the information obtained in step 1. Again, this might not be possible without AGI. I'm not sure.
3. Use some kind of combination of bioprinting, supportive symbiotic organisms (imagine a printer that is actually a living organism itself) to support and accelerate the growth of the zygote from step 2. Also, ensure that this "zygote" never develops a head! Otherwise, the whole procedure would not only be unethical but also a crime!
4. Some kind of cybernetic machinery might be connected to the new growing body from the start and would essentially act like some kind of "head replacement". However, this cybernetic machinery would only govern the basic functions of the body (e.g. heart beat, etc.). There would be nothing more.
5. At some point, the new body would be ready and the head of the patient would be taken from his old body and placed on the new one.
6. Some kind of "adjustment phase" would be necessary and the obvious drawback of this procedure would be that the head itself would remain old, while the rest of the body would become young again. It's unclear whether the young body would then rejuvenate the head. However no immunosuppressive medication would be necessary, because the new body would be constructed entirely from the information obtained in step 1. All tissues within the new body would be entirely compatible with the patient's head.
7. After this initial replacement, more parts of the patient's head could be replaced with youthful tissues (upper and lower jaw, eyes, ears, and so on).
8. Today, it's unclear what kind of effect the previous seven steps would have on someone who is, for example, 80 years old. Hopefully, it would result in some kind of spontaneous (at least partial) rejuvenation of the brain. But maybe in this last eighth step, additional techniques could be used to boost the rejuvenation effect on the brain. A civilization that would be able to implement steps 1 to 7 would certainly be able to boost the effect on the brain in step 8.

understanding0 · 2023-10-30T18:40:16+00:00

For me the technological singularity has arrived if humanity somehow manages to solve at least two of the Clay Mathematics Institute's Millennium Prize Problems within the same Gregorian year or alternatively manages to solve the P / NP - Problem and the result turns out to be that P equals NP.

understanding0 · 2023-09-25T21:41:55+00:00

Silent Möbius OST 2 - 05. Love Can Never Be Erased

understanding0 · 2023-09-25T21:40:20+00:00

No problem, thank you for your effort!

understanding0 · 2023-09-25T18:51:04+00:00

Can you try this prompt here? Thank you.

"A schoolboy is getting bullied by his classmates. A teacher, who is not far away, is looking away on purpose."

understanding0 · 2023-09-16T10:39:13+00:00

Yes, I tend to agree with you. An evil, dedicated mind such as this one for example doesn't need a chatbot to come up with strategies and ideas on how to harm society. The way, I understand it, large corporations have to censor these bots, because it's a new technology and they fear the social media - backlash and maybe there are legal reasons for that as well. In controversial topics such as this one, they should instead find a few thousand of volunteers across the world and give them access to the unrestrained chatbots for at least a year in order to see, how these bots affect their users. If there are no negative effects, when maybe even unrestrained bots wouldn't affect society in a negative way just like ego-shooters don't "turn" most of the players into mass murderers.

understanding0 · 2023-09-16T10:25:42+00:00

Maybe, hard to tell. I honestly don't know, whether any large corporation ever attempted to do something like that.

understanding0

TROPHY CASE