5 ms·

But that will never happen! Walk the logic tree.. AGI says "socialism is better, we need publicly funded health care for all". Do you think the result will b

• mdp2021 8d ago
  But you are using a simplified model that does not take account e.g. of the virtuous circle given by the extra intelligence available for the population, which will rise at least part of it. > most humans I have to repeat it here very often: populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there: the difference between virtuous and vicious is whether the role-distribution is healthily regulated or randomic (or even perverse) (if Jack the suave drinker works in reception or as a teacher or in a brewery; if Jackie the corrupt naturalist works as a guide or as a clerk or as a judge). Already help in fixing this makes a world of a difference. Mechanisms that help making decisors taken from the pool of talented decisors make a world of a difference. Extra good judgement injected in the system facilitates that. > the logic tree Logic says that the availability of facilitators is intrinsically better. The logic walk says that other factors should be injected to get the proper mechanism running. (It is akin to the democratization of knowledge, from Diderot n D'Alembert to the WWWeb and the chatbots: greatly beneficial for a part of the population, the rest must be helped towards it not to be entangled in the side effects.)
  • b112 7d ago
    If you ask people to become as children, to give up agency and belief and control to an external entity, you will have absolute rejection. If you force them to become as children, you will have war. If you ask most people to listen to any type of machine or even another person, and then follow that advice, while also throwing away their own beliefs, they will laugh and never do that. The only exception is religion. The only exception is words from a deity. That is the only type of blind obedience humanity will accept. So, do you plan to deify AGI? Do you plan for people to kneel, and bow, and pray to AGI? Because that is the only type of response that will work. There's an immense, and vast difference between telling somebody truthful information, and telling them what to do with that information. Truthful information already abounds. It can be found if you look for it. The only difference AGI has is taking that information and providing a context specific output to that knowledge. I appreciate that you're coming at this from an intellectual angle, but that angle is ignoring reality on the ground. It's ignoring how human beings act and behave, both in groups and individually. And the difference between knowledge for all, as you cite, and being told how to apply that knowledge is so immense and so vast and such a hit upon the human psyche, that it will not be accepted by the common person. At best, they will listen to the opinion of the AGI and then turn around and debate it, argue it, and say it's not true if they disagree. They will not reassess their opinions. They will not believe. This is humanity. Frankly, while I appreciate why you think it would be nice, at the same time it is also a horrible, dterrible future that you evoke. The concept that a human might walk up to a machine and ask about an important life choice, then throw up his hands and say, well I don't believe this but this machine told me so I'm just gonna do what it says like an automaton, is an end to humanity's agency, future and self-determination. It is an end to all all that makes humanity great.
    • mdp2021 7d ago
      But you have delirated a large number of assumptions over what I had written - you have "filled in the gaps" with assumptions of your choice without much care for the due diligence of doubt. (One example is the idea - entirely yours - of leaving agency to the machine.) That is a cognitive vice. Education contributes against them. Education passes through teachers. Teachers should be intelligent, wise and proficient. See: if you had the enabling possibility of exchanging with an entity successfully built to those aims, your thought would be cleaner. > This is humanity Just a piece of it.
      • b112 7d ago
        Assumptions! Any assumptions you presume I made, are the size of a gnat, compared to the wild and incredible presumption that you have, about AGI. That somehow, it will possess a truth better than ours. You speak of teachers, and they can be of great value. Yet people who are learners, learn their entire life. I've learned many, many multiples of what any teacher taught me, on my own. And that's really the rub, isn't it? Teachers serve a purpose, but that purpose ends. A person must learn for themselves, for that is a critical, vital part of thought. Teachers should not be "guiding" people throughout their lives. This is the problem you seemingly do not understand. You've cited that more "teachers", eg AGI, will "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_. Which of course is absurd on its own. Beyond that, you seem to be in a weird place, where you think that an intelligent being, if made of silicon, or if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk. AGI #1 and AGI #2 won't agree on everything, why would they? It's weird to think they'd just all agree. So what happens when they do agree? And these throngs of people you think, will sit at the feet of these AGIs, and listen to their holy 'teachings'? Will their followers fight? Seek to destroy the "wrong" AGI? The problem starts when you think that "external thing" will "set everyone right". That is the true borked cognitive process here.
        • mdp2021 7d ago
          Replacing "judgement" with "truth" is a dangerous bending of what was said. To possess a better view than that of Average Andy is very, very easy. I have no idea what you mean with «ours». Your interpretation in «more "teachers", eg AGI, [would] "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_» is utterly distorted. You are arbitrarily conflating two different ideas: the instanced Intelligence in "properly implemented Intelligence would authoritatively call BS what is BS" and the general Intelligence that makes people grow when exposed to proper intellectuals. > if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk Yes, assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment. > external thing External things do absolutely influence the internal thing. > set everyone right I have no idea what made you understand that. Again: you are discussing your own guesses triggered by what I wrote. You said that people are in aggregate emoters (and would deal with AGI with that tint), and I replied with a grin that if AGI will be achieved it will not use the tints of emoters. You said that people will remain emoters, and I countered that availability of virtue can reduce vice. Look: maybe a reflection over the «respond to the strongest plausible interpretation» in the guidelines will help you restore the understanding of what you read?