Most reactions to the impending AI automation of the economy are:
(1) denial, or
(2) simplistic patches like UBI
But the modern social contract is based on states & companies needing human labor.
@luke_drago_ and I outline a more robust way forward in a Time op-ed.
Rudolf Laine
747 posts
For my writing, see here: nosetgauge.com
Joined August 2022
- It is socially unacceptable to call for the end of someone's life, someone's family, or any other group of people. It should be at least as condemned to call for the same for all of humanity. The latter is a superset of the former.Replying to @rcoboothThere's been a fraction of AI guys (not just randos, this includes some luminaries in the field) proudly stating that they would be unperturbed — **if not outright happy** — with the dying-out/extinction/genocide/replacement of mankind at the hands of AI. Here are some examples:
- Replying to @LRudL_First, let's be clear that the whole point of the AGI labs is automating everyone. The "G" is for "general". The idea is that the entire economy is then controlled by a few AGI labs + gov, and they're altruistic & rich enough to pay UBI History is not optimistic about this
- With @luke_drago_, I’m cofounding Workshop Labs, a public benefit corporation preventing human disempowerment from AI. See below for: -impact case -what we’re building -what we hope the future looks like -what we’re hiring forThis post is unavailable.
- If AI totally replaces human labour, that also means no more upwards mobility through your labour, and no more chances for human newcomers or upstarts to disrupt the old order
- AI today: me: oh AI, expert in every domain, distiller of all human knowledge, seer of patterns that span a million gigabytes that mortal man could never understand—tell me, what is the answer? AI: sure, I will do a web search & summarize the top 3 vapid listicles for you
- Replying to @LRudL_In the longer-term, as AIs get closer to a Pareto improvement over even augmented humans: we should work towards control & ownership over AI being widely diffused. As G. K. Chesterton said: the problem with capitalism is that there are too few capitalists
- Replying to @LRudL_So what should we do? In the short-term: extend the window where human labor is economically relevant. Strangely enough, no one's really trying, despite the massive business opportunity. lol.
- Replying to @LRudL_The best future runs through keeping alive pluralism, the division of power, and the scope for human agency. And that future is probably achievable, if only we build the tech that enables it
- Replying to @LRudL_Many solutions to other (very real) AI risks (like AI going rogue and misuse by bad actors) also centralize, making the balance-of-power picture even worse for society. To the full extent possible, we should solve those through R&D and defensive hardening, not centralization
- parts of the AI safety community have been criticized for advocating for a centralized “Manhattan Project” for AGI, given the power concentration risks it entails. but few understand the real play: given modern state capacity, putting gov in charge is our surest route to a pause
- Thanks to @jam3scampbell for very nice words about my most recent essay! I aim to have a bunch more posts up shortly touching on similar themes; you can sign up for emails with the link below:this is one of the best essays I’ve read all year and really cleanly articulates all of the thoughts I’ve been yelling to ppl about for a while
- Replying to @LRudL_Link to (short!) op-ed: time.com/7289692/when-a… To read 20k+ more words on this topic, see intelligence-curse.ai
- Replying to @liz_love_lace and @ESYudkowskyI agree that the political worldbuilding for dath ilan in Planecrash is some of the most interesting I've seen. I wrote a review that summarises that part in detail:
















