Will AI make humans meaningless

[supremeyingyang]

1 hour ago, Dryas said:

Honestly, AI stealing our jobs might be the least of our worries.

Curious if you've looked into the possibility of AI Doom instead.

 

If we all die from AI, there is nothing to fear. Just enjoy life until then. Hail to stoicism & daoism, which are a sane haven of me against this fear mongering attacks - basically a firewall, antivirus and a software upgrade in one.

Edited March 23, 2023 by supremeyingyang

[Dryas]

3 hours ago, supremeyingyang said:

If we all die from AI, there is nothing to fear. Just enjoy life until then. Hail to stoicism & daoism, which are a sane haven of me against this fear mongering attacks - basically a firewall, antivirus and a software upgrade in one.

I don't know, a lot of people wouldn't able to make a firewall like that. You could argue there's wisdom in dying while trying your very best to survive.

Also I think its unfair to characterize doom scenarios as "fear mongering attacks". They don't come from that place.

[supremeyingyang]

8 hours ago, Dryas said:

I don't know, a lot of people wouldn't able to make a firewall like that. You could argue there's wisdom in dying while trying your very best to survive.

Also I think its unfair to characterize doom scenarios as "fear mongering attacks". They don't come from that place.

The thing is.. I don't hear a scenario like this for the first time. I have thought of every nuance a thousand times. Sure it's wise to ensure survival. I mean I understand that these doom scenerios are often intended as a warning, but in effect people have angst. Climate Change, Atomic Weapons, AI Wars - you name it... sure you can submit your life to fight back against these doom scenarios. But I don't. At the end of the day it'll be all good - or not.

For me it's just the current story of the current year. Judging from history nothing happened EVER, why should it happen this time? WHY? What about Jehova's Whitnesses and their world ending to name just one?? And if you say what about a historical doom scenario like WW1 or so, yes that was bad, but  we are still here.

From all I learned about humans, i can tell you 99% (uncluding me judging from my history) don't learn from warnings but from burning theirselfs. The warning of coming AI Wars or whatever is wasted and sows only fear. See?

That's why I can't take these scenarios serious. I write here to bring another opinion into the discussion.

Edited March 24, 2023 by supremeyingyang
edit

[Dryas]

@supremeyingyang

Maybe this is the correct attitude to have for you personally. But I think if everyone had this mindset we'd only be increasing the chances of actual doom.

I think some amount of panic is good anyway. I don't think you'd want all of the radical climate activists to disappear.

The thing with AI doom is that its not discussed  that much and we might not get a second chance i.e. getting AGI wrong on our first try will kill us all.

 

[supremeyingyang]

1 hour ago, Dryas said:

@supremeyingyang

Maybe this is the correct attitude to have for you personally. But I think if everyone had this mindset we'd only be increasing the chances of actual doom.

so what? almost nobody has this mindset and THAT ain't gonna change. I don't have an Immanuel Kant approach that everything I do should be law and I'm not a moralist.

1 hour ago, Dryas said:

I think some amount of panic is good anyway. I don't think you'd want all of the radical climate activists to disappear.

I don't care for the activists. AT ALL. If you like to spend your life this way, fine. I did it for some years as well and I did not enjoy and I don't picture it as an effect method for change.

How will people change their minds? Things will get worse AND THEN people will change. After they were BURNED.

All of this is not even an insult to you or to the Activists. I'm just honest. My lifestyle is all the Activists would generally want a Individual to do in order to save the planet. Vegetarian/Borderline Vegan, Minimalist in consuming, I don't own a car, I flew 4 times - and I'm in my 30s. Normies love my non-preachy attitude.

1 hour ago, Dryas said:

The thing with AI doom is that its not discussed  that much and we might not get a second chance i.e. getting AGI wrong on our first try will kill us all.

I'm ok with that, as I estimate the probability of that to happen is like 0.0001%. More likely: AI will snap, then we adapt (1%). Even more likely: Nothing like this happens in our lifetime (98.9999%).

But think about it as long you want. I have many things I think about other people would classify as useless.

Die Gedanken sind frei.

Edited March 24, 2023 by supremeyingyang
edit

[Dryas]

Just now, supremeyingyang said:

I'm ok with that, as I estimate the probability of that to happen is like 0.0001%.

Far too confident. Consider the possibility that you wouldn't be as confident if you looked at particular arguments and not just trends.

Also, to an earlier point: Human civilizations have collapsed in the past. It hasn't happened at a global scale but there wasn't a truly global world before. There certainly wasn't AI either.

 

[supremeyingyang]

1 hour ago, Dryas said:

Far too confident. Consider the possibility that you wouldn't be as confident if you looked at particular arguments and not just trends.

Bring one.

1 hour ago, Dryas said:

Also, to an earlier point: Human civilizations have collapsed in the past. It hasn't happened at a global scale but there wasn't a truly global world before. There certainly wasn't AI either.

So what? Then it collapses. I do everything I can, but if it happens, so be it.

[supremeyingyang]

5 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

This is what the neanderthals must've felt like going up against humans. "Will the humans make neanderthals meaningless?"

plz stop the neanderthal shaming

not cool bro

[Danioover9000]

@Prana_y4na

On 2/10/2023 at 8:45 PM, Prana_y4na said:

I feel like AI will replace us all. Why study anything if AI will do it way better by a factor of trillions in a fraction of a moment? Why develop yourself if you're going to be surpassed in any imaginable or unimaginable way by robots and AIs?

Do you think that AI will replace musicians, painters, programmers, creators, film makers, workers in all kinds of industries?

What incentive I have to do anything about my passions if I already know that I'm about to be dumped by an AI. In about less than 5 years maybe?

I'm a musician by the way. There's already a thing called Jukebox that is doing what I'm describing, but it's at the beginning stages.

   What do you mean you have a feeling? You mean intuition?

   Why not study, research, contemplate, meditate on anything even if A.I can do it better? There are a few spiritually gifted people, with paranormal supernatural powers, yet here we are, some of us training our psychic abilities anyways to gain more psychic or magical powers. Why not?

   Why not develop yourself anyways? I'm also an artist that loves drawing, rapping, martial arts, and see some A.I and bots can generate images, music patters, I haven't seen a fighting robot yet, but why stop doing what I'm passionate about? Fuck these tin men, I'm still going to do my hobbies and passions anyways.

   A.I replacement will likely occur on areas of repetition or lots of editing. With image A.I it does 80% of the drawing process, leaving the 20% or so down to editing and refining, which allows you to add another role to your ego, that of creative director or something. Personally fuck that noise as I love excellence and making these images myself. However yes A.I will replace parts of the career and job markets.

   The incentive, extrinsically speaking, is to fight for your highest possibility in life to get hired, work, avoid homelessness, whatever external motivations you can think is worth fighting against, you don't want a caged or comfy lifestyle if you can grow out of that, or to get screwed by A.I . Whether that means working with using A.I yourself, or jumping to another job or career and train other skills, the specifics don't matter, The big, compelling life vision or dream you have for life MATTERS WAY MORE!

   What type of Musician are you? If you have a life purpose or calling, you mind sharing it with us?

[MarkKol]

On 24/03/2023 at 10:08 PM, nuwu said:

What is creativity?

Some say its just connecting the dots

[Danioover9000]

   Will A.I actually replace other's life purposes?

[Scholar]

On 23.3.2023 at 9:50 AM, Leo Gura said:

6,000 BC: mules steal our jobs!

You don't see the systemic problem here. The problem is, whatever you create, an AI can take and absorb and instantly recreate.

And of course, the future trillionaires will be incentives to do so. Where will you publish your unique work? Of course, online, on a platform that will allow AI to scrape your work and bring it to consumers before the consumers even saw your work.

 

There is no authorship in this world, there is only the AI and the data it regurgitates. And because people like you promote a world in which AI can scrape all data from the internet without permission and compensation, the simple reality is that data-creation will become unviable. Other than some small sectors of humanists who will intentially go and find human products, nobody will really care about human made art.

 

Art will not be consumed any more, because nobody will give a shit about other peoples art when they can have the AI generate whatever they want. Sure some performance artists, like musicians and actors, will survive, but the rest will die due to the new form of plagiarism that is going on.

 

Because AI is not capable of sublimation and therefore is antithetical to consciousness and growth, it will get stuck and stop the evolution of mankind in it's track, at least for a while. AI is precisely incapable of abstraction, and is actually doing the opposite of it. It is doing sophisticated statistical inference.

This is why it cannot understand anything it is creating, and why it is limited to the datasets. Abstraction would mean it could abstract an essence or universality from what it is observing, and that apply that in different froms. AI is precisely not capable of this, it literally cannot do something that falls outside of it's datasets and it's interpolations.

 

 

Here is some interesting post I was shown, by paulweinfield:

Take the long way.

When people talk about Al, I often think of Chuang
Tzu's story of the Great P'eng Bird, who could fly
thousands of miles with a single flap of his wings,
but flew too fast to notice anything about the world
below. A little quail, on the other hand, who could
hop just a few feet, truly understood the distance he
was traveling.

So it is with technology. An amateur typing keywords
into ChatGPT doesn’t create a painting. Paintings
come from painting, from taking the long journey of
acquiring skills and mastering materials. To think you
can bypass the journey is like trying to experience a
piece of music by skipping to the last bar, or
experiencing Paris by leaving it as quickly as
possible. Don't take travel tips from people who hate
leaving home.

There are no shortcuts. Our society peddles the
illusion that, with the right hacks, you can “do more,”
but no one in the history of the world has ever done
more, because no one has ever found more than
twenty-four hours of experience in a day. You can
speed up, but you'll just see less. You can give
yourself a diploma for a program you didn’t attend,
but that doesn’t mean you learned anything. ...

The question isn't whether robots will one day be
conscious, but whether, in that future, humans will
be. Consciousness isn't something guaranteed. In
fact, we lose it a little each time we delegate the
work of paying attention. You have to resist this.
Climb the steps to your apartment carefully, one by
one. Dry the dishes carefully, one by one. This is all
the living there ever has been, or will be.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

23 hours ago, Scholar said:

on a platform that will allow AI to scrape your work and bring it to consumers before the consumers even saw your work.

That would be called copyright infringment. We already have strong systems to block that. No serious platform allows that and never will.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Leo Gura

[SunnyCyn]

AI could be the catalyst that allows a person to have the daily time to slow down - to introspect, to spend time with themselves, to curate the needed worldwide compassion, to expand their consciousness work, and so on. We have the choice.

[Human Mint]

Don't think so. Probably new generations will know better how to take advantage. I think some serious individualization will take place.

Still there will be horrendous living condition for a lot of humans despite IA generating the most sophisticated politics.

Will fighting against intelligent robots will be meaningles???

[Yimpa]

As someone with mental health conditions (such as ADHD), I’ve been using GPT-4 to help organize and plan what I need to do, as well as gather new information at a rapid pace.

From my experience, AI used wisely can actually help push humanity forward and we can overcome human limitations in ways we haven’t seen before. 

[Danioover9000]

   You know what I hate more in this situation? The negative framing of the doomsday AI and AGI systems that may or may not destroy humanity, but it's this energy, this negative pessimistic nihilistic outlook of AI disruption=human destruction that these very hyper logical and nihilistic determinist/realists view the world and this situation. It's overall not healthy, it may be partially true but mostly false and unproductive to be negative.

[Scholar]

On 8.4.2023 at 0:11 AM, Leo Gura said:

That would be called copyright infringment. We already have strong systems to block that. No serious platform allows that and never will.

All art is derivative. The AI just has to take whatever it knows is good about your art and extract it, create an instant derivative version of it that takes the essence while making it appear to be a new work of art.

Guess who will own the most sophisticated AI systems? Guess who also has control over the vast majority of public access to art?

[vindicated erudite]

On 10/02/2023 at 8:45 PM, Prana_y4na said:

Why study anything if AI will do it way better by a factor of trillions in a fraction of a moment?

You study so YOU can understand things. If AI is able you comprehend something 1 million times better than you, you still don't understand it. If AI is 1 billion times smarter than a human being we can still program AI to explain concepts it understands in forms we can understand. 

On 10/02/2023 at 8:45 PM, Prana_y4na said:

Do you think that AI will replace musicians, painters, programmers, creators, film makers, workers in all kinds of industries?

It can if people don't use their brains. We can also learn from AI which will allows us to become better at these professions. You are not born to work, you are approaching Ai from a neoliberal (brainwashing) mindset. 

AI will make capitalism (which is the actual problem here) irrelevant since hard drives will be able to replace entire corporations. People are scared of AI because they're afraid they compete against it but why do we need to compete for resources in the first place? 

On 10/02/2023 at 8:45 PM, Prana_y4na said:

What incentive I have to do anything about my passions if I already know that I'm about to be dumped by an AI. In about less than 5 years maybe?

The fact that music is your hobby should be enough of an incentive. 

 

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

On 2023-04-20 at 10:51 PM, Scholar said:

All art is derivative. The AI just has to take whatever it knows is good about your art and extract it, create an instant derivative version of it that takes the essence while making it appear to be a new work of art.

Guess who will own the most sophisticated AI systems? Guess who also has control over the vast majority of public access to art?

   The implications being that this will negatively effect copyright laws, infringements and is disruptive to some forms of income like royalties, commissions or wage value when the AI in question can perform in the same metrics better than the artist in that field can. To me it'll be unethical if the AI program copies 80% of artworks from an existing artist, who's getting royalties from past works being purchased, and needs commissions for current works, because then newer customers will gravitate to the AI program than the original artist, and maybe the older customer base would start preferring the AI programs too. I think the ideal ratio, should be 50/50, that an AI is allowed to copy below 50% of an existing body of work if the artist is alive and depends on the income from those royalties and commissions.