Nostr Web Client

There are two distinct camps forming on the topic of AI:

1. It is going to kill us all

2. It could bring unprecedented human flourishing

The statists, democracy-fanbois, people who believe in nonsense like “intellectual property”, essentially those who defer to authority and hierarchy fall in to the first camp.

The individualists, anarchists, “information wants to be free” types in to the second.

You can more-or-less guess what someone’s opinion on AI is going to be by inferring from other points of their worldview.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

captain ☦️ 2y ago

It seems like a mixed bag to me. Information becomes abundant, but a good social group and natural resources may be difficult to obtain.

Technomancer 2y ago

Guess my view based on my posts and conversations

StackSats.IO 2y ago

Second camp

Technomancer 2y ago

You are correct, however humany has a good chance of destroying itself before we reach that point.

StackSats.IO 2y ago

Depends on what you mean by destroy. I don’t think humans will be the end of humanity, only nature could truly end our species.

Stuart Bowman 2y ago

I'm not afraid of AI, I'm afraid of what governments will do with it given the chance. To me it seems like AI in its current form (massive LLMs that have to be run in data centers) naturally favors the further centralization of power. If AI becomes accessible in a more decentralized and permissionless way I could see that changing the balance and leading to human flourishing. My two sats

yort 2y ago

i’m no expert, but studied statistics in uni, so occasionally i can know a thing or two - my take:

not a lot of people know about the “AI Winter” which was a period in the 1970’s where out of the hype of the 1960’s everyone thought it would only be a handful of years before artificial general intelligence (AGI) will be doing everything and anything

hype died down, funding died down, projects abandoned, etc.

same thing happened in the late 80’s and early 90’s too

this is not to say chatGPT isn’t really fucking cool, and that it’s not going to be extremely useful and valuable

clearly it will be, you just have to use it to figure that out, even if it just improves search and learning it’ll be a masssivvve win

BUT, i think it will be very good in some specific domains, then everyone will think that means it will be very good in all domains, but then we’ll discover that it’s still just not up to scratch in some areas

the cool part (i think) is that this process helps shine a light on things that are inherently and distinctly human, and a lot more complex to solve than it would initially seem at face value

i could of course be entirely wrong, and the future AI overlords will roast me for writing this message at some point in the future 🤣

time will tell ig

StackSats.IO 2y ago

> the cool part (i think) is that this process helps shine a light on things that are inherently and distinctly human

“Distinctly human” is the important part.

We exist in the physical realm in a way that AI does not, and without a bridge, will not.

Bitcoin is a unique technology in that it is essentially a bridge in to the digital realm that blends physical (your brain) with digital (blockchain/seed), without ever giving up sovereignty over the physical.

AI can only really bridge to physical with something like Neuralink where humans “absorb” it however you would be giving up your sovereignty as we can’t know the dividing line between human and technology then.

I’m sure some retards will want to do this, I’m of the opinion this is behind the push for “trans rights” - it’s actually about accepting “transhumans” rather than “transgenders” and this culture war crap is merely a step on a longer path.

But so long as there is a clear sovereign divide between physical and digital, or at most a one-way from physical to digital like Bitcoin, then I don’t see that AI will subsume us like the doomers are saying.