Would the world be better off low tech?

Originally posted by Star428
Which is still extremely unlikely. I actually think there's a much greater chance of aliens invading or even zombies rising. LOL.

Depends, I think being intelligent enough to kill humans can be mimicked by a machine even if they lack of "true" intelligence.

Zombies, as far as we know, can't exist in a proper way. Aliens are likely to be very developped in order for them to invade us, so there might be a correlation between their hostility and their ability to attack us. So even if the three events are unlikely, AI might just be the highest possibility if you consider we are actually pursuing such intelligence with a lot of manpower.

Originally posted by Star428
Which is still extremely unlikely. I actually think there's a much greater chance of aliens invading or even zombies rising. LOL.

How do you figure?

It just seems so far-fetched to me. I think the better question is why do you figure that it is likely to happen?

Originally posted by Star428
It just seems so far-fetched to me. I think the better question is why do you figure that it is likely to happen?

I don't think he said it's likely. He said it's the most likely of the three scenarios mentioned. And insofar as there's a plausible technological path to AI, I'd tend to agree with him.

srug

Originally posted by Stoic
Wait a sec, you mean like walking up to someone, and telling them "Hey I know that you will grow up to be a notorious Hacker so you're dead" type of deal? Please say it aint so Bentley. LOL.

Aside from that I got completely taken away by the Ran Prieur Archives last night, and spent hours just reading subject after subject on it. Here's one.

Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat? This long article is about Nick Bostrom and other thinkers who see the danger that a powerful nonhuman intelligence could destroy humanity by seeking a seemingly benevolent goal without common sense. Isn't that what we're already doing with the global economy, a machine-like system programmed to maximize economic growth?

Also in case anyone else may like to check the site out I'd like to post the link.

http://ranprieur.com/archives/044.html

Very interesting ideas for future threads lie on this site IMO.

That site looks like it's dying to give my computer a virus.

Just be careful whose Kool-Aid you drink. Critically scrutinize what you read to see why it might not be true as well. Because likening the global economy to a human-destroying AI should set off some conspiracy-related red flags that demand rigorous justification.

That's nice, Digi. You agree with him. I don't. 😛 ❌

Digi, the site looks pretty clean to me. Either way, here's the copypasta of the post:

"January 13, 2014. Some future predictions while the new year is fresh. The other day I got an email from a reader who recently graduated from high school, asking for advice in these difficult times. Ten years ago I would have said to get some land and learn low-tech skills like foraging and metalworking. Now I'd say the best skills are meta-skills like mindfulness and quickly noticing opportunities, and you should only go low-tech if you love it so much that you don't care if it's impractical.

I'm embarrassed that I ever predicted a technological crash, because the arguments are so hand-wavy. Instead, I expect artificial intelligence and biotech to spice up a decades-long economic depression as the global system muddles through climate change and the end of nonrenewable resources. Low quality manufactured items and industrial food will remain affordable, but good food, transportation, and services from actual humans will be more expensive. I think the best place to live is in a small house with a big yard in a city with a seaport or railroad hub. You want to be close to the supply lines, but have enough land to grow luxury foods like blueberries and good tomatoes. As you move farther into the country, the money you save by growing more of your own food will be less than the money you spend on transportation and shipping. Total self-sufficiency would be a good thing to write a novel about.

My generation was the first in American history to be poorer than our parents. Now the Millennials are poorer than us, and this trend will continue until the global infrastructure adapts to feed from a growing base of renewable resources, maybe around 2060. Meanwhile, if you can stay out of debt and find a low-stress job to build up savings, you'll be relatively well off. "Debt" is exactly as real as we believe it is. Mostly it's a trick to make people feel ashamed that they have no political power. Not that it would work any better if we felt angry. The system is totally locked down, and the most revolutionary political change of the 21st century, the unconditional basic income, will be necessary to keep the system stable, to turn the unemployed majority from hungry militants back into consumers.

Technology will promise revolution, but in practice ninety percent of the new powers will be used to keep the remaining ten percent from doing anything dangerous. By the year 2200 there will be no poverty, no disease, and no opportunity for anyone to make a difference, except by more quickly closing off the opportunity for anyone to make a difference. Reasonable people will know that they're better off than we were, but still fantasize about living in our time. Suicide will be the leading cause of death, and by 2300, any death not from suicide will be global news. By 3000 we will either be extinct or moved to another level of reality through some technology of consciousness that would seem completely loony if you described it today."

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Digi, the site looks pretty clean to me.

It was a crack on the 90's-era layout.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
"January 13, 2014. Some future predictions while the new year is fresh. The other day I got an email from a reader who recently graduated from high school, asking for advice in these difficult times. Ten years ago I would have said to get some land and learn low-tech skills like foraging and metalworking. Now I'd say the best skills are meta-skills like mindfulness and quickly noticing opportunities, and you should only go low-tech if you love it so much that you don't care if it's impractical.

I'm embarrassed that I ever predicted a technological crash, because the arguments are so hand-wavy. Instead, I expect artificial intelligence and biotech to spice up a decades-long economic depression as the global system muddles through climate change and the end of nonrenewable resources. Low quality manufactured items and industrial food will remain affordable, but good food, transportation, and services from actual humans will be more expensive. I think the best place to live is in a small house with a big yard in a city with a seaport or railroad hub. You want to be close to the supply lines, but have enough land to grow luxury foods like blueberries and good tomatoes. As you move farther into the country, the money you save by growing more of your own food will be less than the money you spend on transportation and shipping. Total self-sufficiency would be a good thing to write a novel about.

My generation was the first in American history to be poorer than our parents. Now the Millennials are poorer than us, and this trend will continue until the global infrastructure adapts to feed from a growing base of renewable resources, maybe around 2060. Meanwhile, if you can stay out of debt and find a low-stress job to build up savings, you'll be relatively well off. "Debt" is exactly as real as we believe it is. Mostly it's a trick to make people feel ashamed that they have no political power. Not that it would work any better if we felt angry. The system is totally locked down, and the most revolutionary political change of the 21st century, the unconditional basic income, will be necessary to keep the system stable, to turn the unemployed majority from hungry militants back into consumers.

Technology will promise revolution, but in practice ninety percent of the new powers will be used to keep the remaining ten percent from doing anything dangerous. By the year 2200 there will be no poverty, no disease, and no opportunity for anyone to make a difference, except by more quickly closing off the opportunity for anyone to make a difference. Reasonable people will know that they're better off than we were, but still fantasize about living in our time. Suicide will be the leading cause of death, and by 2300, any death not from suicide will be global news. By 3000 we will either be extinct or moved to another level of reality through some technology of consciousness that would seem completely loony if you described it today."

If you throw enough poop at the wall, eventually something sticks. All I see here is a bunch of half-baked, unsourced opinions that, if they come to pass, are in spite of the fact that he has no empirical justification for any of it. Anyone who deems to talk about what the year 3000 will look like (or even the next 100 years), and isn't either dedicating an entire novel to the possibilities and/or writing a work of fiction, cannot be taken seriously. He's thousands of GDF internet posters in the history of discussion boards. He just decided to make a website.

Originally posted by Star428
That's nice, Digi. You agree with him. I don't. 😛 ❌

Yeah, that's fine. It's all just opinions. I just happen to agree because we're actively working towards it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_intelligence_projects

Whereas, beyond the biological hurdles that make it functionally impossible, the list of zombie projects pretty much looks like this.

Oh, I'm not saying that his/her predictions should be taken seriously. It's just fun speculation as far as I'm concerned.

Meh, different strokes then. Speculation is just a waste of time to me when it lacks credibility. Thought experiments and randomly coming up with ideas is fine; it can breed creativity and actual insight. But he's mistaking those things for probable, plausible, worthwhile conclusions, and skipping several steps that turn ideas into credible hypotheses.

I can also understand the appeal of taking an idea - however flawed - and discussing it. But a little intelligence mixed with a lot of ignorance (and, often, a blindness to that ignorance) can lead to all kinds of falsities and flaws. Surely better sources exist to stimulate and spark discussion, no? Some cursory exploration on technological advances as it relates to global quality of life would be one entry point. And that's off the top of my head; there may be others.