The Official Original Artificial Intelligence We're All F***ing Doomed Thread

[Orvillain]

It’s always been remarkably daft to me to assume the guidestones were meant for us and not for the next civilization to come after we fuck everything up.

And the very line everyone takes umbrage with gives it away; “maintain” does not mean “eliminate”, “murder”, “decimate” or “euthanize”, it means “provide with necessities for life or existence” When you maintain a garden, you don’t go in and kill all the flowers, you keep the weeds out to allow the flowers to flourish.

Framed through our current civilization, I completely agree, it makes zero sense, but I never believed for an instance it was meant for us.

Guide to authoritarianism:

1. Invent problem (humanity fucked everything up, overpopulation, etc)
2. Offer solution (here's some handy guidelines for a post-catastrophe world, that I the guideline writer, happened to have a hand in bringing about!)
3. Control the population.

Give me one instance throughout history of a good society that didn't devolve into hell, that proclaimed the kinds of dystopian things that the stones describe, and then maybe I'll take your viewpoint seriously. But to me right now, it not only presupposes a conclusion in a very anti-scientific way, it also indirectly encourages us to do the very things that would positively result in a civilisational catastrophe.

I don't even take issue with the "maintain" bit. I take issue with the "permanent balance with nature bit" - it's absolute fucking hogwash.

 

[Orvillain]

Stating a goal does not mean all the solutions for implementation are baked in. Because you believe there is not way to implement such a goal is no reason to discard the validity of said goal. You have to work to achieve goals and it always involves compromise, but having a set goal such as the above is a good thing IMO.

Yeah... sorry, no. I've read the Gulag Archipelago. I know where all of this thinking leads. It leads to North Korea, and selling your children's corpses as food on the streets of Russia. It leads to the Holodomor, and it leads to Mr. Moustache himself.

Utopianism is authoritarianism disguised.

 

[Orvillain]

Fun times at Sweet Valley High!

 

[Piing]

 

[Solarflares]

Medieval people would seem like zombies to us. Trudging around with their heads bowed, as the landowner creams off the riches.
Then look at today. Zombies trudging around with heads in their phones, as the rich get richer.
If lasting intervention comes in the form of atrocity, I couldn’t give a fuck.
It’s for their own good.

 

[DrewJD82]

Guide to authoritarianism:

1. Invent problem (humanity fucked everything up, overpopulation, etc)
2. Offer solution (here's some handy guidelines for a post-catastrophe world, that I the guideline writer, happened to have a hand in bringing about!)
3. Control the population.

Give me one instance throughout history of a good society that didn't devolve into hell, that proclaimed the kinds of dystopian things that the stones describe, and then maybe I'll take your viewpoint seriously. But to me right now, it not only presupposes a conclusion in a very anti-scientific way, it also indirectly encourages us to do the very things that would positively result in a civilisational catastrophe.

I don't even take issue with the "maintain" bit. I take issue with the "permanent balance with nature bit" - it's absolute fucking hogwash.

That’s because you’re framing everything through “what does this look like placed on our current world and civilization”, which is a mess already.

Put it through the lens of a few hundred people surviving some kind of world war or apocalypse, starting civilization over, I know I’d want to do about a million things differently and rushing to rebuild our current world wouldn’t even be a notion I’d consider if I were around. “Let’s recreate the exact world that made this happen!” doesn’t sound very bright.

Like, imagine if the population started over and they said “Hey guys, let’s not go and make a bunch of babies right away until we can actually feed and house them first…”, that doesn’t exactly sound irrational to me. Everyone wants to clutch pearls at the idea of population control as if it’s unintelligent to ensure we have the proper resources to sustain the population first, before creating the problem and trying to solve it after. “WE MUST CREATE LIFE EVEN IF WE CAN’T SUSTAIN IT!!!!” is one of the dumber human sentiments I’ve encountered in my time on this rock.

At one point in time I wanted to have children, but knew it was stupid to do so as I could barely afford to keep myself fed and housed, it did not seem irrational to me at the time to have those children and I can say 20 years later I was pretty fucking smart for not having them for that exact reason and many more.

The history of humanity is an endless list of atrocities all based upon massive imbalances of wealth and resources, IMO, the Guidestones were a literal attempt at guiding a future civilization away from that.

 

[Orvillain]

That’s because you’re framing everything through “what does this look like placed on our current world and civilization”, which is a mess already.

Yes.

Do you know why I'm doing that?

Go on. Have a guess. I promise it is extremely logical, and also has a good amount of emotional intelligence behind it.

Have a guess, and then I'll deal with all the other stuff you've said. Let's not gish gallop.

 

[Solarflares]

Oh, you’ve got a lot more to ‘deal’ with than that.

 

[mbenigni]

An AI actually serving humans needed to care about humanity's biggest issues...

I'm more concerned about the fact that humanity, collectively, doesn't generally care about humanity's biggest issues.

This brings us back to the "argument" (air quotes because everyone "arguing" is right, IMO) about over-population, "cancer on the earth", et al. Our biggest enemies right now are the economic forces that drive us unconditionally toward growth - often irrespective of population or the actual needs of that population.

 

[mbenigni]

1. Invent problem (humanity fucked everything up, overpopulation, etc)
2. Offer solution (here's some handy guidelines for a post-catastrophe world, that I the guideline writer, happened to have a hand in bringing about!)
3. Control the population.

Are you suggesting that the problem isn't real?

 

[Orvillain]

Are you suggesting that the problem isn't real?

In many many ways, yes. See, Thomas Malthus got the overpopulation theory going in 1798. Except, his claims have been thoroughly debunked and disproven by now:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-malthus-is-still-wrong/

But it doesn't stop people from spreading his ideas to this day. Paul Erhlich wrote the Population Bomb in the 1960's, and that brought the concept into everyone's home and everyone's every day lives. But there truly isn't much else to the theory beyond what Malthus originally predicted; none of which came to pass.

Same with Al Gore saying that we'd lose the ice caps by 2016. Never happened. There are all these little anti-science chicken Licken types running around proclaiming the sky is falling down. It never does. A lot of high-profile population doom predictions were overstated, and some were flat-out wrong. This is no different.

Ehrlich-style catastrophism does a disservice to the entire human race. Plenty of overpopulation prophets made confident predictions that failed. Malthus underestimated innovation. Ehrlich underestimated innovation. That does not prove every environmental concern is fake, but it does prove that apocalyptic certainty is not science. It is often just ideology wearing a lab coat.

If you trust these people, but won't trust a preacher when he screams about fire and armageddon, then you've been captured by ideology.

 

[mbenigni]

Context matters. "Commandments". They are not suggestions. You either accept them wholly or not. I mean, they can be cherry picked all day but that's not the point of them.

Religion presents these to us as "Commandments". IMO they make a lot more sense and bear more wisdom if they're taken as blessings. Sure, "do not kill" is a good, hard and fast rule. But do not covet?? Unless you act on your covetousness, it seems a little off the rails to call it a sin. But obviously we lead a better life if we're happy with our own lot. So, a blessing to my loved ones: "May you not covet." Or as the Great Buddha taught: Do not want.

Modern religion has gotten a little off track with the word "sin", anyway. So much weight. The original translation of the word was simply "waste", as in don't waste your opportunity to have a better day, life, whatever...

 

[mbenigni]

In many many ways, yes. See, Thomas Malthus got the overpopulation theory going in 1798. Except, his claims have been thoroughly debunked and disproven by now:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-malthus-is-still-wrong/

But it doesn't stop people from spreading his ideas to this day. Paul Erhlich wrote the Population Bomb in the 1960's, and that brought the concept into everyone's home and everyone's every day lives. But there truly isn't much else to the theory beyond what Malthus originally predicted; none of which came to pass.

Same with Al Gore saying that we'd lose the ice caps by 2016. Never happened. There are all these little anti-science chicken Licken types running around proclaiming the sky is falling down. It never does. A lot of high-profile population doom predictions were overstated, and some were flat-out wrong. This is no different.

Ehrlich-style catastrophism does a disservice to the entire human race. Plenty of overpopulation prophets made confident predictions that failed. Malthus underestimated innovation. Ehrlich underestimated innovation. That does not prove every environmental concern is fake, but it does prove that apocalyptic certainty is not science. It is often just ideology wearing a lab coat.

If you trust these people, but won't trust a preacher when he screams about fire and armageddon, then you've been captured by ideology.

Well, I didn't quote you regarding overpopulation; I quoted you regarding "overpopulation, fucking everything up, etc." I'm not a research scientist, so to an extent my judgments will always be "second hand". But I think it's empirically evident that we are fucking a lot of things (perhaps not everything) up. (And we're not slowing down; in fact, corporate/ economic/ nationalistic interests are driving unconditional growth.)

tl;dr - You can't talk about population meaningfully without talking specifically about the demands that population is making on its environs, according to its technologies and usage. The body count is just an integer.

 

[mbenigni]

P.S.

 

[Orvillain]

Well, I didn't quote you regarding overpopulation; I quoted you regarding "overpopulation, fucking everything up, etc." I'm not a research scientist, so to an extent my judgments will always be "second hand". But I think it's empirically evident that we are fucking a lot of things (perhaps not everything) up. (And we're not slowing down; in fact, corporate/ economic/ nationalistic interests are driving unconditional growth.)

tl;dr - You can't talk about population meaningfully without talking specifically about the demands that population is making on its environs, according to its technologies and usage. The body count is just an integer.

You measure one way, someone else measures another way. You come to different conclusions. How do you know who is right and who is wrong? How do you know there even is a right or a wrong?

Empiricism posits that all knowledge comes from experience, observation, and our senses; not reason and logic. But we already know our senses lie to us. We already know experience is subjective and thus its basis as a form of knowledge is quite shaky and needs to be tested thoroughly. We know that observation can be warped by outside influences that we are or even aren't aware of.

Personally, I don't actually see much evidence of unconditional growth. I see much evidence of conditioned and staged growth, gatekeeping, and protection rackets designed to keep people in positions of power, and to pull the ladder up behind them.

 

[DrewJD82]

Yes.

Do you know why I'm doing that?

Go on. Have a guess. I promise it is extremely logical, and also has a good amount of emotional intelligence behind it.

Have a guess, and then I'll deal with all the other stuff you've said. Let's not gish gallop.

To continue playing contrarian rather than spending a second considering the stones weren’t meant for us?

 

[mbenigni]

You measure one way, someone else measures another way. You come to different conclusions. How do you know who is right and who is wrong? How do you know there even is a right or a wrong?

Empiricism posits that all knowledge comes from experience, observation, and our senses; not reason and logic. But we already know our senses lie to us. We already know experience is subjective and thus its basis as a form of knowledge is quite shaky and needs to be tested thoroughly. We know that observation can be warped by outside influences that we are or even aren't aware of.

Personally, I don't actually see much evidence of unconditional growth. I see much evidence of conditioned and staged growth, gatekeeping, and protection rackets designed to keep people in positions of power, and to pull the ladder up behind them.

This conversation goes above my paygrade. My sense is that it's above almost everyone's paygrade. It really comes down to whether you believe the data that the scientific community is broadcasting. (I'm speaking primarily about carbon emissions and climate change here.) I'm not in any position to prove or disprove anything, if I'm just met with blanket skepticism. I feel like I've observed changes first-hand in the course of my half century here - but you're absolutely correct that our feelings often deceive us. Also, half a century is a very tiny data set, subject to anomalies. So. We can't trust first hand information, and we can't trust second hand information. Where does that leave us. I'm not an optimist by nature, so I don't vote for "Let things play out until there's an unmistakable catastrophe." (The worst sort of first person information, and alas, the only kind that's not up for debate.) I also tend to look toward motives, and "rolling with it at our peril" looks to line more pockets (or crucially, more powerful pockets) more generously than the alternatives (despite claims that green initiatives are hoaxes designed for this very purpose.)

As for unconditional growth - yes, things ebb and flow as a rule. What I mean by unconditional is that the nature of corporate and private interests drive things toward growth whether we as a species benefit, or otherwise.

 

[Orvillain]

To continue playing contrarian rather than spending a second considering the stones weren’t meant for us?

No. I'd already considered the possibility.

But it is irrelevant to my perspective. I just don’t find it compelling.

I root my position as I do, because we are here. Right here. Right now. We're not going anywhere. I don't want to live in a world where as a society we plan for the worst, and we expect to fail. I don't want to live in a society that conditions itself for armageddon or apocalypse. I want to live in a world where we care for the people who are here right now.

Your characterisation of me merely playing contrarian is not accurate, nor is it honest, nor is a good faith interpretation of anything I've said.

I'm not being contrarian. I genuinely regard those stones and others like it as an emblem of authoritarianism, technocratic utopianism, cold-war elite thinking, and ultimately at best, just naive about human nature. My issue with the stones isn’t resource awareness or even restraint in principle. It’s what they represent.

Your thought experiment bakes in an assumption that "we can define and enforce the 'correct' population and behaviour without corruption" - and real pragmatic history says, no. You can't.

My position is ultimately:

1. Centralised control is more dangerous than instability
2. Humans shouldn’t be managed like a system variable
3. "Guiding humanity" quickly becomes dominating humanity

On the not having children thing.... I mean, you do you. But as someone who has two kids, who wasn't necessarily prepared for fatherhood, and who had a pretty violent, abusive, and traumatic upbringing myself, I conditioned myself for decades to not have them. Eventually we did, and just speaking as an individual, I strongly regret my earlier anti-natalist stances.

I did find becoming a father very difficult. I had to burn off the parts of me that were no longer conducive to being a caring and thoughtful person. I had to melt away all my selfishness and self-aborption, in order to really become the person my kids needed me to be.

I don’t really see "don’t have children until conditions are perfect" as a neutral or obviously rational stance. It’s just a different value judgment about risk, responsibility, and what makes life meaningful.

I also think you've massively over-simplified the history of the world there. A lot of atrocities do involve resource imbalance, sure. But they’re just as often driven by ideology, power consolidation, identity politics, religion, nationalism, anti-nationalism, or straight-up human tribalism. But the principles in the guidestones don't fix that. They just move the problem elsewhere. Because ultimately that vision of the world involves some moral arbiter, making decisions for the entire planet, on behalf of everyone. Do you really want that? I suspect not.

 

[Orvillain]

It really comes down to whether you believe the data that the scientific community is broadcasting.

There's a level even before that where you have to decide whether the scientific community is actually the scientific community, or whether all voices are represented well enough to give a balanced view.

FWIW my perspective is; climate change is real, humans are a primary driver of it, but it is also a natural phenomenon that happens all of the time without our involvement too. I think our best chance of dealing with it is through technological progression, not through control systems designed to completely change our way of life.

 

[Alex Kenivel]

I don't have a ton of experience with AI but I have been ducking around with it lately. I had used it (Gemini) to do some math for me, and recently used it to figure out some electrical stuff, for which it needed a little hand-holding because actual physical items and real-world spaces were involved.

Then this past week I decided to let it plan out a toolshed build and it couldn't remember left from right, forgot tons of important stuff, forgot a roof, didn't Slope the beams for the sloped roof it would need, and would have really fucked me had I blindly listened to it.

This shit is nowhere near ready to take over the world if it can't correctly wire a blower fan or design a box.