| Totally fair points. > I cannot make the leap from "super intelligent" to "has access to all the levers of social and physical systems control" without the explicit, costly, and ongoing, effort of humans. Yeah this is a fair point! The super intellect may just convince humans, which seems feasible. Either way, the claim that there are 0 paths here for a super intelligence is pretty strong so I feel like we can agree on: It'd be tricky, but possible given sufficient cleverness. > I see no reason to believe that the emergent properties of a highly complex system will include free will. I really do think in the next couple years we will be explicitly implementing agentic architectures in our end-to-end training of frontier models. If that is the case, obviously the result would have something analogous to goals. I don't really care about it's phenomenal quality or anything, it's not relevant to my original point. |
Agreed, although I'd modify it a bit:
A SI can trick lots of people (humans have succeeded, surely SI will be better), and the remaining untricked people, even if a healthy 50% of the population, will not be enough to maintain social stability.
The lack of social stability is enough to blow up society. I don't think SI survives either though.
If we argue that SI has a motive and a survival instinct, maybe this fact becomes self-moderating? Like the virus that cannot kill its host quickly?