[ETH_start]

We are not pitted against AI is these match-ups. Instead, all humans and AI aligned with the goal of improving the human condition, are pitted against rogue AI which are not. Our capability to keep rogue AI in check therefore grows in proportion to the capabilities of AI.

[hollerith]

The methods we have for aligning AIs are poor, and rely on the AI's being less cognitively-capable than people in certain critical skills, so the AIs you refer to as "aligned" won't keep up as the unaligned AIs start to exceed human capability in these critical skills (such as the skill of devising plans that can withstand determined opposition).

You can reply that AI researchers are smart and want to survive, so they are likely to invent alignment techniques that are better than the (deplorably inadequate) techniques that have been discussed and published so far, and I will reply that counting on their inventing these techniques in time is an unacceptable risk when the survival of humanity is at stake -- particularly as the outfit (namely the Machine Intelligence Research Institute) with the most years of experience in looking for an actually-adequate alignment technique has given up and declared that humanity's only chance is if frontier AI research is shut down because at the rate that AI capabilities are progressing, it is very unlikely that anyone is going to devise an adequate alignment technique in time.

It is fucked-up that frontier AI research has not been banned already.

[ETH_start]

Given we can use AIs to align AIs, I don't see why the methods we have rely on us having more cognitive capabilities than AIs in certain critical areas. In whatever areas we fall short relative to AIs, we can use AIs to assist us so we don't fall short.

[monkeynotes]

We don't know if a supreme deceiver is aligned at all. If a model can think ahead a trillion moves of deception how do humans possibly stand a chance of scrutinizing anything with any confidence?

[daveguy]

The GP post is about how much better these AIs will be than humans once they reach a given skill level. So, yes, we are very much pitted against AI unless there are major socioeconomic changes. I don't think we are as close to a AGI as a lot of people are hyping, but at some point it would be a direct challenge to human employment. And we should think about it before that happens.

[ETH_start]

My point is, it's not us alone. We will have aligned AI helping us.

As for employment, automation makes people more productive. It doesn't reduce the number of earning opportunities that exist. Quite the opposite, actually. As the amount of production increases relative to the human population, per capita GDP and income increase as well.

[danans]

> As the amount of production increases relative to the human population, per capita GDP and income increase as well.

US Real GDP per capita is $70k, and has grown 2.4x since 1975: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA

US Real Median income per capita is $42k, and has grown 1.5 since 1975. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

The divergence between the two matters a lot. It reflects the impacts of both technology-driven automation and globalization of capital. Generative AI is unlike any prior technology given its ability to autonomously create and perform what has traditionally been referred to as "knowledge work". Absent more aggressive redistribution, AI will accelerate the divergence between median income and GDP, and realistically AI can't be stopped.

Powerful new technologies can reduce the number and quality of earning opportunities that exist, and have throughout history. Often they create new and better opportunities, but that is not a guarantee.

> We will have aligned AI helping us.

Who is the "us" that aligned AI is helping? Workers? Small business-people? Shareholders in companies that have the capital to build competitive generative AI? Perhaps on this forum those two groups overlap, but it's not the case everywhere.

[ETH_start]

Much of the supposed decoupling between productivity growth and wage growth is a result of different standards of inflation being used for the two, and the two standards diverging over time:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stag...

There has been some increase in capital's share of income, but economic analyses show that the cause is rising rent and not any of the other usual suspects (e.g. tax cuts, IP law, technological disruption, regulatory barriers to competition, corporate consolidation, etc) (see Figure 3):

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015a_r...

As for AI's effect on employment: it is no different at the fundamental level than any other form of automation. It will increase wages in proportion to the boost it provides to productivity.

Whatever it is that only humans can do, and is necessary in production, will always be the limiting factor in production levels. As new processes are opened up to automation, production will increase until all available human labor is occupied in its new role. And given the growing scarcity of human labor relative to the goods/services produced, wages (purchasing power, i.e. real wages) will increase.

For the typical human to be incapable of earning income, there has to be no unautomatable activity that a typical person can do that has market value. If that were to happen, we would have human-like AI, and we would have much bigger things to worry about than unemployment.

I think it's pretty unlikely that human-like AI will be developed, as I believe that both governments and companies would recognize that it would be an extremely dangerous asset for any party to attempt to own. Thus I don't see any economic incentive emerging to produce it.

[danans]

> There has been some increase in capital's share of income, but economic analyses show that the cause is rising rent and not any of the other usual suspects (e.g. tax cuts, IP law, technological disruption, regulatory barriers to competition, corporate consolidation, etc) (see Figure 3):

> https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015a_r...

The paper referenced by the that article excludes short term asset (i.e. software) depreciation, interest, and dividends before calculating capital's share. If you ignore most of the methods of distributing gains to capital to it's owners, it will appear as though capital (at this point scoped down to the company itself) has very little gains.

The paper (from 2015) goes on to predict that labor's share will rise going forward. With the brief exception of the COVID redistribution programs, it has done the opposite, and trended downwards over the last 10 years.

> I believe that both governments and companies would recognize that it would be an extremely dangerous asset for any party to attempt to own.

We can debate endlessly about our predictions about AIs impact on employment, but the above is where I think you might be too hopeful.

AI is an arms race. No other arms race in human history has resulted in any party deciding "that's enough, we'd be better off without this", from the bronze age (probably earlier) through to the nuclear weapons age. I don't see a reason for AI to be treated any differently.

[ETH_start]

The study does not exclude interest and dividends. It still captures them indirectly by looking at net capital income.

>AI is an arms race.

What I'm trying to convey is that the types of capabilities that humans will always uniquely maintain are the type that is not profitable for private companies to develop in AI because they are traits that make the AI independent and less likely to follow instructions and act in a safe manner.

[monkeynotes]

> We will have aligned AI helping us.

This is an assumption, how would you know if you have alignment? AGI could appear to align, just as a psychopath appears studies and emulates well behaved people. Imagine that at a scale we can't possibly understand. We don't really know how any of these emergent behaviors really work, we just throw more data and compute and fine tunings at it, bake it, and then see.

[ETH_start]

We would know because we have AI helping us at every step of the way. Our own abilities, to do everything including gauge alignment, are enhanced by AI.

[salawat]

You cannot tell the difference between the two veins of AI. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?

[ETH_start]

That is simply not true. We have accountability methods employed that are themselves AI-assisted, that help us gauge the alignment of various AIs.

[monkeynotes]

So you have two AIs colluding against you now. Who is holding the AI-assist to account? It's like who polices the police, except we understand human psychology enough to have a level of predictability for how police can be governed reliably, we don't understand any truths about an AGI because an AGI will always have the doubt of it deceiving, or even making unchecked catastrophic assumptions that we trust because it's beyond our pay-grade to understand.

There are so many ways we have misplaced confidence with what is essentially a system we don't really understand fully. We just keep anthropomorphizing the results and thinking "yeah, this is how humans think so we understand". We don't know for sure if that's true, or if we are being deceived, or making fundamental errors in judgement due to not having enough data.

[ETH_start]

The AI would have no interest in colluding. They are not a united economic or social force like a police department. For the purposes of their work, each is a completely independent entity with its own level of alignment with us, not impacted by the AI that we are asking it to help us in assessing.

[danans]

> Instead, all humans and AI aligned with the goal of improving the human condition

I admire your optimism about the goals of all humans, but evidence tends to point to this not being the goal of all (or even most) humans, much less the people who control the AIs.

[ETH_start]

Most humans are aligned with this goal out of pure self-interest. The vast majority, for instance, do not want rogue AI to take over or destroy humanity, because they are part of humanity.

[danans]

> The vast majority, for instance, do not want rogue AI to take over or destroy humanity, because they are part of humanity.

A rogue AI destroying humanity (whatever that means) is not a likely outcome. That's just movie stuff.

What is more likely is a modern oligarchy and serfdom that emerge as AI devalues most labor, with no commensurate redistribution of power and resources to the masses, due to capture of government by owners of AI and hence capital.

Are you sure people won't go along with that?

[ETH_start]

Addressed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42485831