[bryanlarsen]

Disruptions in the past have almost always been good for society overall, but there have also always been significant localized negative effects. For example, a farrier may have been thrown out of work and had to switch to unskilled labor, but their sons and daughters were better off.

The issue is that as change comes faster and faster, a higher proportion of people fall into the "disrupted" category.

[eloff]

I agree, I said as much about winners and losers being created.

It’s still a good thing for society - the alternative is halting or slowing progress.

[bryanlarsen]

But what if >50% of people are in the "disrupted" category?

[eloff]

Then you get a revolution and the whole system is torn down and rebuilt in a different form. That's highly undesirable, and as I mentioned, is a real tail risk to consider.

[ImHereToVote]

Progress towards what?

[slashdev]

Don't be pedantic. From Oxford dictionary: "advance or development toward a better, more complete, or more modern condition"

[ImHereToVote]

I'm not being pedantic. What the definition of "better" in this context is. Is everything.

[slashdev]

You are being pedantic. You also came by with a three word troll comment. Why don't you make your argument properly and then I'll spend the effort to address it.

[ImHereToVote]

It's important to consider the goals and motivations behind the development of AGI. Who is in control of this technology and how will it be used? The current power structure in our society is not interested in creating a better future for everyone. There is a growing concern that the development of AGI could be driven by the interests of a small group of people with a lot of power and money, rather than being used to create a better future for all people.

In this context, I think it's important to ask "progress towards what?" and to define what we mean by "better". We need to ensure that the development of AGI is done with a goal of benefiting everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful. This requires a shift in our political and economic systems, so that power is more evenly distributed and the needs of all people are taken into account.

I'm not saying that AGI is inherently bad, but we need to be cautious and intentional about its development and use. It's possible that AGI could be used to further entrench the power and control of the wealthy elite, rather than to create a better future for all people. To avoid this, we need to work towards creating a more democratic society where the benefits of technological progress are shared by all.