[Skyy93]

Perhaps there is some belief in this that an AGI can save us from our biggest problems? Energy Crisis, Environmental Pollution, Waging Wars.

But I agree with you ... it is not really urgent since we know answers for the most of the problems but do not like the solution.

[xpe]

A “solution” that isn’t viable nor palatable isn’t a true solution; it is often merely a hope that people are not people.

[lttlrck]

Viability is a given. But palatability? That's like giving up and saying there are no solutions to hard problems.

[xpe]

I take your point. Palatability can change.

> That's like giving up and saying there are no solutions to hard problems.

Not at all. I'm simply defining a solution as one that has some probability of traction.

[tharne]

You’re presupposing every problem has a nice solution. This is almost certainly false

[Qwertious]

Lots of problems could be at least severely mitigated if you could throw literally millions of bodies at the problem - if AGI could deliver a $50 chip that could substitute for a human, then could shove each one into a roomba wired to an arm, and you basically have an infinite free workforce.

[gretch]

Yeah except, how do you manufacture them? And distribute them to where the work needs to be? And what type of fuel do they use - we don’t have infinite free energy for an infinite free workforce.

[ang_cire]

Any solution is a nice solution depending on your frame of reference. There is no such thing as objectively good or bad without defining the acceptable and unacceptable effects.

[xpe]

I take your point but...

1. There are a set of things that are nearly objectively true across nearly all cultures. For example, random killing for selfish purposes is not ok.

2. I'm not a moral relativist, in two senses. First, the "weak" sense: I would prefer to live in some moral systems more than others. Second, in "nearly-strong" sense: some moral systems are 'nearly' objectively better than others (see point above). (Note: my definitions are imprecise; still working on how to square them with existing philosophical writings.)

3. Even for people that evaluate the morality of something according to its effects (consequentialists), there is considerable room to debate the relevant time frame.

[nine_k]

There is an implied frame of reference that requires the continued existence of humans.

Any solution that violates this boundary condition is "objectively bad", that is, cultures that follow this solution disappear and thus lose the evolution game.

[xpe]

> You’re presupposing every problem has a nice solution.

Not at all. Where are you getting that?

[Skyy93]

Than there will be never be a solution to some problems.

[garblegarble]

>we know answers for the most of the problems but do not like the solution.

What an absolutely wonderful insight put extremely succinctly, thank you!

[sschueller]

A true AGI would determine the only solution to our crisis is the elimination of the human race...

[dartos]

Are you just basing that idea off of sci fi novels?

[charlie0]

It would probably be the simplest solution to a naive super intelligent agi. Just take a look at how humanity dealt with dangerous animals. They are mostly no longer around unless in a zoo.

[esrauch]

Humans don't put ants in zoos because the ants overconsume their localized habitat though. A naive super intelligent agi has no reason to care if global warming makes the planet 150 degrees F on average, if it's self-interested it would surely be able to be "ok" on a planet under those conditions.

[charlie0]

Sure, but at some point it will be asked to solve those problems and if it's not properly built, could easily arrive at that conclusion from a problem solving perspective. Self interest doesn't have to come into play at all here.

[Auracle]

If it’s tasked with solving those problems it can also be done with constraints such as “without killing humans.”

[hskalin]

Not if you add a constraint that ensures survival of humanity.