The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

Avicebron

https://archive.ph/7ZHUG

rayiner

I don't understand this angst over AI replacing humans. We already have models like the Gulf states, where only 10% of the population is citizens and all the work is done by people who are, from the perspective of citizens, quasi-human automatons. That arrangement seems to work fine for the citizens. It seems to me that AI and robots solves the principal problem with that arrangement (the mistreatment of the non-citizen population that does the work).

BoredPositron

People like that will never start with themselves.

derektank

> As it becomes possible to direct our own evolution as a species — and potentially even create a new species that surpasses us — we have to decide: How do we know to what extent it does make sense to transform ourselves using technology? What kinds of augmentation do we want, and what kinds do we absolutely not want? What do we wish, ultimately, to become? This is a moral question, even a spiritual one, and it demands a spiritual response. Is it a spiritual question? We’re constantly transforming ourselves with technologies. Taking the most direct example, medicine, how many people considered it a spiritual question when they decided to start taking semaglutide or tirzepatide for weight loss? Or to take SSRIs? I think the most likely outcome here is that people will continue to alter themselves to meet their immediate needs (hold a job, find love, stay healthy) without a lot of foresight or long term planning. This will likely lead to us increasing our own intelligence, it’s a useful capability across nearly every human endeavor. Whether or not this will happen at a pace that allows us to keep up with and retain control over artificial systems is the first big question, and what the relationship will be between augmented and unaugmented humans is the second. As a humanist, I hope we’re able to answer both questions in such a way that the fundamental dignity of all human beings is respected.

lucamark

This assumes that “more intelligence” is the objective. Higher intelligence does not imply better values, and even “better values” depends on whose moral framework gets encoded.

amelius

Maybe we should first try to understand consciousness and qualia, and build an AI that we are absolutely sure is enjoying the work it is doing.

bix6

Hello everyone just a reminder that 99% of the world isn’t interested in AI replacing us. If you work at a big tech company, there are other ways to make money. I’m always disappointed by how few people start their own thing. Small business is amazing.

IAmGraydon

More psychosis within the industry. The mental disconnect that is required to go from using an LLM to believing they are working on a replacement for humanity is staggering. It’s not going to work, and when it doesn’t, these imps will try to sink back into the darkness. We can’t let that happen.

jleyank

No well-paid workers (or UBI), no consumer economy. Their call.

hexator

These people should be treated as insane, because they are.

andai

> Since they believe AIs could become our moral superiors, they argue it’s actually wrong to try to keep the machines down, or even to align them with human values, as most AI companies aim to do. It's possible that human morality is not sufficient to solve the problems with the world. It wasn't designed to operate at that scale. It's also quite likely that a "superior" morality — the one that's actually built for a global scale — would be incomprehensible (likely requiring superintelligence to even access), and alien or disturbing from our vantage point. i.e. it would look immoral to us. (There's also the thing about civilization already being aligned against the ecosystem and against the happiness of its constituents, but that's kind of a separate discussion.) In other words, what is good for our sanity or our lakes may be bad for GDP. (Well I guess you don't need superintelligence to tell you that.) We already know what we need to do and we're already not willing to do it.

asdsg

Humanism needs to be taught in schools again and regain its status as a respected discipline in academia. We thought it was a waste of time because the 1990s were relatively peaceful and tech optimism surged. But you need to teach the classics, philosophy and even religion. No tech people should be allowed near politics in any capacity.

gherkinnn

I admit I didn't finish the article. The views it presented are frankly too deranged for me to entertain. And I am a friend of the absurd.

theptip

> trying to preserve the human species as it is would be silly There are a few related concepts being conflated here. The quote above is a Transhumanist position; they think that humans need to evolve. I don’t think most transhumanists are AI successionists, though one path is “merge with AI” whatever you think that means. Genetic engineering being the other obvious path. You could argue in some sense that “post-humans” succeed humans, but I think most would argue for a gradual transition where it feels more continuous and values are transmitted/preserved somewhat. e/acc just says “accelerate AI”. Many VCs seem to think AI will remain a tool, they don’t want to be dethroned. Some e/acc are of course successionist, this is Musk and Beff with their talk about “all that matters is the light of intelligence is spread through the universe”. Conflating all this is the fact that true successionism is way outside the Overton window and so people likely won’t be honest about their wishes. Larry Page famously espoused the view that it was “speciesist” for Musk to not want machines to replace humans. Most people find this position repugnant of course.

Bender

I can only hope there are enough of us that would destroy the data-centers and robots involved at the first sign of this. Hold on to some of those massive non-computerized bulldozers and excavators, we may need them. Oh and bring back the sanitariums.

jmyeet

Transhumanism doesn't get mentioned enough in these conversations. I'm glad this article does mention it but it doesn't really do it justice. Transhumanism is very big with Silicon Valley billionaires but it's actually pretty dark. First, it's an extension of meritocracy (in the capitalism sense where poverty is a personal moral failure) as well as Protestant prosperity gospel. That is, you are superior if you're rich. Period. So Homo Sapiens 2.0 is really just "my progeny" from the billionaire's perspective. It's also why the likes of Elon has so many children. Second, it's just eugenics. There is an alternate future where humanity gets to enjoy the fruits of automation and AI where we have to work less and have richer lives. That's not where this is going. We are instead bouldering towards vastly increased wealth inequality. How I see this going is towards the cutting of all public services except policing. AI will enable and enhance the police and surveillance state to protect wealth while everyone else sees lowering real wages and increased desperation. This will give rise to more fascist, apartheid states as some out-group (eg migrants) will be blamed for these ills. And as always happens, the in-group will increasingly shrink. Ultimately, this leads to neu-fuedalism where the only jobs and housing are on the estates of trillionaires. People own almost nothing. And if it doesn't go this way, it's going to be very, very violent.

delichon

I see the scenario where AI kills us all as an optimistic one. I'm more afraid of the one where they keep us around and align us with their needs, like https://i.imgflip.com/2s99vy.jpg

daveguy

Well, this definitely got pushed down in the HN ranks. 49 points in 1 hour, but let's not talk about anything that might cause people to rethink technofascist human replacement. 1984. Brave New World. We.

dmccarty2829

It might be due to my age ( 65 ) but ideas like this are just nightmare fuel

tim333

I figure once you get AI that can do all the stuff humans can you'll effectively get a new species whether you want it or not. Maybe the robots/AIs can go do their thing on Mars or in a Dyson sphere and Earth can be something like a nature reserve for us humans?