[Barrin92]

>However if we are talking about 10x more intelligence, then that'd be a whole different ball game.

Research that the US military has conducted has shown that the ability to influence others declines if the intelligence gap between leaders and subjects is too large. Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been a very good influencer of 80 IQ guys compared to Andrew Tate. 1 standard deviation in intelligence is actually just about optimal in terms of leadership.

This is a good example that shows how disinterested AI fear scenarios are in empirical reality and how much it's just psychology of the people who talk about it. Intelligence is one trait among many that contributes to an individuals fitness and like all others has diminishing returns.

If the AI existential risk people were truly rational they would hit the gym and be hotter because it turns out that's much more effective at getting their point across to ordinary people than trying to make intelligent arguments for it.

[jamilton]

I really don't think we can say that research will apply to future AI, given that it was about humans. If intelligent AI exists in the future, it will probably not think exactly like humans. I think you're being overly dismissive.

[Teever]

Why can't a super intelligent AI just make a dumb avatar to trick people?

[machiaweliczny]

Good point and I agree but regarding fitness:

  \* communication
  \* resource usage
  \* procreation
  \* embodiment

I think that digital agents posses very big fitness like real life viruses or malware