[rrgok]

Forgive if I'm gonna rant a little bit under your comment. The phrase "the more we get, the more problems we will create, it is just human nature." struck a chord that I cannot myself stop ranting about.

I'm gonna ask again as I've done in some other post. Why we consider ourselves the most intelligent species if we don't stop and ask ourselves this: for how long are we gonna face challenges? What is the supposedly end goal that will terminate this never ending chase? Do humans really want to solve all problems?

I don't really understand and I'm 32 years old. I've been asking this question for a long time. What is the point of AI, raising consciousness, curing cancer, hell beating death, if we don't have a clear picture of where we are going. Is it to have always problems and solving them incrementally or just solving all problems once and for all? If it is the latter, there already is a great solution to it. If it is the former, then I'm afraid I have to break it up to you (not specifically the parent poster, but you as in the reader): you have sick mind.

[eep_social]

I think the way you’ve framed “problems” is off the mark. I’ll try to explain my view but it’s not straightforward and I am struggling a bit as I write below.

The way I see it, what the GP is getting at is the idea that human societies require challenges or else they stagnate, collapse, and vanish. We can observe this on an individual level and GP is generalizing it to societies which I agree with but I doubt this is “settled”.

On a personal level, if you have achieved some form of post-scarcity, you will still complain — about the weather, the local sports team, your idiot cofounder, whatever. A less fortunate person might be complaining that they can’t afford time with their kids because they’re at their second job. The point is that everyone will find problems in their life. And those problems are a form of challenge. And a life truly without challenge is unbelievably boring. Like kill-yourself boring. If there is no struggle, there is no point. The struggle gives humans purpose and meaning. Without struggle there can be no achievement in the same way that shadows require light.

So, with all of that in mind, I think the point is that even with AGI, humans will require new challenges. And if AGI enables post-scarcity for ~everyone, that just means ~everyone will be inventing challenges for themselves. So there is no end game where the challenges taper off and we enter some kind of stability. I, and I think GP, think that stability would actually be an extinction level event for our society.

Person by person, I think the kind of challenge varies. What do you dream of doing if you had no constraints on your time? How many years would you spend smoking weed and playing video games before you got bored of that? Video games that hold your attention do so by being challenging (btw). It was about a year, for me.

> Do humans really want to solve all problems?

No, we want challenges that provide a sense of accomplishment when they have been overcome.

Thank you for reading my ramble, hope it helps.

[nullsense]

>What do you dream of doing if you had no constraints on your time?

I imagine if I were a bored and aggressive, egotistical, charismatic individual then I perhaps might try to conquer the neighboring village.

[elijahbenizzy]

The end goal? Does life have a purpose? Is it possible to "solve all problems"? To even have a picture of where we are going? We move forward because there is nowhere else to go.

Perhaps there is a general state of societal enlightenment, but I've read too many sci-fi books to be anything but a skeptic.

[nullsense]

I've grappled with the same question for a long time now.

I came to the conclusion that the Neolithic Revolution was probably a mistake, albeit a fun one. The total set of problems faced by humanity in it's original form basically boiled down to "what am I going to eat today and where am I going to sleep tonight?". Those two problems never go away. All you can do is shift them around. Every single novel problem we solve in our entire lives is just those two problems endlessly shifted around.

[ramoz]

Bro don’t be a robot.

We do what we do to live better lives.

You’re lucky you don’t have to figure that out at 32 with an unfortunate circumstance such as cancer. It’s sad that you may never without such a thing.

[ericmcer]

Philosophy is boring so it doesn't really play well in political discussions. I agree though, when we argue about something like AI without any kind of philosophical underpinning the argument is hollow.

AI is "good" in the sense of what goal? Becoming a space-faring civilization? Advancing all technology as fast as possible? Building a stable utopia for life on earth?