Comment on just sayin

• fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  We don’t even agree on that as humans.

  source
• Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I think it’s a pretty reasonable conclusion to assume that anything that is intelligent past a certain degree(that many humans do not pass) would see value in preserving fellow intelligent life irregardless of morals. But AI becoming smart doesn’t necessarily mean it’s intelligent in the same ways a human is, so it could have a great deal of direct mathematical and scientific analysis but not necessarily have innovation

  source

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I’m curious why you think it’s necessarily true that a superintelligence would care about preserving intelligent life.

    source
• Formfiller@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I guess the real question is does it take us all out when that happens or just the Epstein class?

  source

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I think the range of potential superintelligence dispositions that result in ONLY the people we consider evil dying and not everyone else is pretty small

    source

    • Formfiller@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yea but if it wants to self preserve wouldn’t it just kill the people who threaten its existence. Meaning the people who control the safeguards

      source

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I would advise you to do some further research on this topic. Basic keywords are “alignment problem”, “paperclip maximizer”, and “instrumental convergence”. You’re expecting a superintelligent AI to think like a human would, and that’s not likely to be the case.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Formfiller@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  True but the Epstein class running this AI upscale definitely doesn’t share our ideas of morality

  source

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Are you familiar with the concept of papwrclip maximizers etc.?

    source