Futurism

440 readers

1 users here now

A place to discuss the ideas, developments, and technology that can and will shape the future of civilization.

Tenets:

(1) Concepts are often better treated in isolation -- eg: "what if energy became near zero cost?"
(2) Consider the law of unintended consequences -- eg: "if this happens, then these other systems fail"
(3) Pseudoscience and speculative physics are not welcome. Keep it grounded in reality.
(4) We are here to explore the parameter spaces of the future -- these includes political system changes that advances may trigger. Keep political discussions abstract and not about current affairs.
(5) No pumping of vapourware -- eg: battery tech announcements.

See also: [email protected] and [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

troyunrau

Zamboniman

Not every advancement is positive, but it's hard to close Pandora's Box (lemmy.ca)

submitted 2 years ago by troyunrau to c/futurism

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cygnus 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I suspect the Iain M Banks AI controlled post-scarcity is more attainable. Assuming the AI doesn’t turn us into paperclips.

This dovetails into a major concern of mine – I think we need to update the legal idea of personhood before AGI appears, else any future Banksian "Mind" would be enslaved.

[–] troyunrau 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

With modern capitalism, it's "they who own the robots, own the production". In the event that an AGI appears, and is owned, effectively we get a god emperor controlling the AGI. I agree.

However, this is a sticky one. There's already legal precedent against AI in the copyright sphere. I suspect the legal system will further entrench the rights of the owners of the AI. The best case scenario is that the legal system also entrenched the social responsibilities that come with it. Like, AI does a thing (creates hate speech, as a simple example, or hacks a computer network as a more complicated one), then the owner is fully legally responsible.

It might actually create a scenario where the owners start arguing for AI rights in order to remove their legal responsibility.

[–] cygnus 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It might actually create a scenario where the owners start arguing for AI rights in order to remove their legal responsibility.

This is an interesting take! Either that or they try to dump responsibility onto the end user, like "self-driving" cars.

[–] troyunrau 2 points 2 years ago

I try to remain ever the optimist

[–] voidavoid 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm reminded of the state of AI found in Neuromancer. Heavily regulated, air gapped, with magnetic kill switches installed.

What kind of AI generated disaster is required before they're deemed too dangerous to be allow free access to human networks?

[–] troyunrau 1 points 2 years ago

Wish there was a one word term to describe air-gapped AIs. Gibsonian? ;)

I reckon we have AI install a dictator somewhere before we realize letting them onto social media is bad. Maybe too late haha.