this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

1012 readers
26 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 200fifty@awful.systems 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

we simply don't know how the world will look if there are a trillion or a quadrillion superhumanly smart AIs demanding rights

I feel like this scenario depends on a lot of assumptions about the processing speed and energy/resource usage of AIs. A trillion is a big number. Notably there's currently only about 0.8% this number of humans, who are much more energy efficient than AIs.

[–] locallynonlinear@awful.systems 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We simply don't know how the world will look X (anything with a bigger scale)

Yes. So? This has, will, always be the case. Uncertainty is the only certainty.

When these assholes say things, the implication is always that the future world looks like everything you care about being fucked, you existing in an imprisoned state of stasis, so you better give us control here and now.

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 7 points 1 year ago

Nobody knows and it's impossible for anyone to know so let's all just assume I'm right.

[–] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I do love this compulsion of rationalists to use Big Numbers as if they were sufficient arguments.

[–] Evinceo@awful.systems 5 points 1 year ago

but what if the number was really really big 🥺

[–] self@awful.systems 4 points 1 year ago

my mind always goes back to the sci-fi classics

load more comments (4 replies)