[namaria]

> As long as AIs don't play golf and don't have fathers, we are quite safe.

Until it becomes 'who you exchange bytes most efficiently with" and all humans are at a disadvantage against a swarm of even bellow average intelligence AGI agents.

[semi-extrinsic]

But why would it become this?

[namaria]

Because, as unlikely as it is, if we're discussing risk scenarios for AI getting out of hand. Well then a monolithic superintelligence is just one of the possibilities. What about a swarm of dumb AIs that are nonetheless capable of reasoning and decision making and they become a threat?

That's pretty much what we did. There's no super intelligent monkey in charge. As much as some have tried to pretend, material or otherwise. There's just billions of average intelligence monkeys and we overran all Earth's ecosystems in a matter of centuries. Which is neither trivial nor fully explained yet.

[datadrivenangel]

Hey some of us are below average.

But yes, the corporations and swarm behavior are already doing poorly for our biosphere.

[semi-extrinsic]

The difference is that we have 100% complete control of these AIs. We can just go into the power grid substation next to the data center and throw the big breaker, and the AI ceases to exist.

When humans developed, we did not displace an external entity that had created us and that had complete power to kill us all in an instant.

[namaria]

If shutting down datacenters is your solution to AI getting out of hand, it isn't as much a solution as fall out.

[semi-extrinsic]

Look at the measures that were implemented during covid. Many of them were a lot more extreme than shutting down datacentres, yet they were aimed to mitigate a risk far less than "existential".

[namaria]

That's a post hoc conclusion. At the time we were all uncertain.

[novia]

Friedrich Nietzsche might disagree