[tegmark]

these upsides are a sirens song. it wont matter how advanced science is or whatever benefit you can imagine if human society is destroyed. the upsides will be pointless. destruction of human society is inevitable and intrinsic to artificial intelligence.

[brutusborn]

Got an argument for that conjecture?

AI existential risk isn’t “inevitable” in the same way that eg heat death of the universe is.

[Vecr]

I think it's less popular that in was at one point, but lots of people (thousands, not that many people think much on the subject on an absolute level) essentially define the "win condition" for humanity as trillions of humans on hundreds of planets across many star systems, with suffering minimized as much as possible, in some people's conceptions even to the extent of using highly coercive methods against people who would prefer some level of suffering (e.g. effectively being sterilized and unable to have children unless living in an approved minimal suffering environment, in many conceptions ruling out any common lifestyle in any country on earth, including the US and Norway). In many of these people's conceptions, not reaching the "win condition" as soon as reasonably achievable is a moral wrong along the same lines as murdering multiple people would be to a standard person, so ASI (artificial super intelligence) must be developed as soon as possible to solve all the implementation and coordination problems required to reach the "win state". This viewpoint does not lead to the same decisions as standard AI risk mitigation theories, as those have much lower upsides to developing ASI, but share the same catastrophically massive downsides.

[tegmark]

i do. do you have one for the conjecture of your camp? i certainly havent seen it. if you want to hash it out then lets do a twitter space. im not going to waste my time typing it out for you to gloss over. and unlike you, i take this matter seriously.

[brutusborn]

I don’t have a camp, only curiosity and skepticism.