[giantg2]

Where did you get your number for AGI? An adjusted gross income of $2060 seems extremely low (very far below average).

It's not dystopian to consider the possible effects of one's work. If you don't consider them, then how can you make adjustments/improvements? It would be dystopian to maximize the negative impacts. We are doing the opposite - questioning what the best course of action might be.

[ConcreteGidget]

By AGI I meant Artificial General Intelligence. There is no stopping or meaningful slowing of the machine.

[giantg2]

They also estimated we would have flying cars 20 years ago. These sort of estimates are highly inaccurate. Even then, do we just ignore the average people for the next 40 (your median) years?

[ConcreteGidget]

"They also estimated we would have flying cars 20 years ago." My number comes from a collection of AI researchers from the future of life institute so I can't imagine a better "they" to defer to. That said, we are bad at predicting the future so who knows?

I never said we should forget about the average people or normal people as Yang calls them in his book "The War on Normal People."

Even if we don't have AGI we will have narrow AI such as self driving/factory stuff/textiles which will displace millions. I'm all for UBI or some sort of equivalent social safety net (I'm not an economist so I don't want to be prescriptive here as I have heard some drawbacks to UBI).

The technocrats have already created platforms that are tearing our social fabric apart by promulgating conspiracies and radicalizing our youth while reducing long-form literacy an increasing anxiety and depression.

What we need is some sort of social revolution that in my opinion could only be obtained by an authoritarian government that protects people from themselves and the exploitive tech corporations. Ban facebook to reduce conspiracy promulgation. Ban tiktok and ever increasingly addictive video games to prevent our youth from becoming dopamine junkees. Ban drugs so the listless and ever-growing welfare class remain mostly docile.

None of these changes are feasible in a country whose identity revolves around personal freedom/choice.

[giantg2]

"obtained by an authoritarian government that protects people from themselves"

Why fight nature? Government shouldn't protect citizens from themselves. Let it take its course. The stupid people should reduce through natural attrition. It's controversial, but it's the way the natural world works.

[ConcreteGidget]

We can definitely make systemic changes that help people make better "decisions." I don't believe in free will and you clearly do so we're kinda approaching this problem from fundamentally different frameworks. Stupid people shouldn't be culled but rather shepherded. Governments are artificial constructs so asking them to act "naturally" doesn't make sense to me as they have no natural state.

Also reducing human suffering seems to be a pretty good thing to do and your natural system doesn't seem to do that.

[giantg2]

I never said they should be culled. I'm saying let the problem take care of itself.

The actions you were proposing weren't things to help people make better decisions (if they were, it would still be free will). They were to make laws to outlaw activities. If you don't believe in free will, why do you propose helping people make better decisions? Do you really think imposing someone else's will over others is more benign? The government imposes its will through force or threat thereof (causing human suffering).

Government and politics is not really artificial. They form naturally whenever there are groups of people - similar leadership and power dynamics exist in the natural world too (look at bees, ants, wolves, etc).