Would the world be better if it were run by A.I.?

Artificial Intelligence is advancing at a rapid pace and we have to ask ourselves--will this create a future that we want to live in?
🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / @vaush
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#ArtificialIntelligence #AI

[@bean1853]

"I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream"

[@casperchristiansen2458]

AM would probably love people voluntarily giving up their freedom to him. Enough energy to expend all his hatred.

[@Kain5th]

Yes I suggested he play this game in a donation

[@Theyungcity23]

I literally brought this up in the video where he clowned Grimes for suggesting such an AI but benevolent and the worker bees just repeated what their master said...

[@specialknees6798]

Is Ryan Hollinger the reason everyone knows this story now?

[@Ulfednar]

I see no reason why a fully developed, self-sustaining and self-determining AI wouldn't be akin to the deities of Lovecraft - entirely divorced from the fundaments of the human experience, and, as a result, uncaring of them. We often talk about the trolley problem, so when it comes to AI I would ask: what would the trolley do?

[@katethegoat7507]

Do you consider a roomba to be "akin to the deities of Lovecraft"? It's entirely detached from humanity, uncaring about our desires, only caring about the bits of code in its own circuits.

[@godsteeth1574]

@@katethegoat7507 a roomba isn't self sustaining and self determining

[@katethegoat7507]

@@godsteeth1574 to the extent of which a roomba is programmed to put itself in its charging dock, it is self-sustaining as far as the roomba is concerned. As for "self determining".. what does that even mean?

[@KingOpenReview]

@@katethegoat7507 What are you doing? We're talking about machines with cognitive functions that are comparable to a human's.

[@katethegoat7507]

@@KingOpenReview I don't believe those could ever exist

[@uncomfortabletruth5915]

AI systems “have the potential to inherit a very human flaw: bias,” as Socure's CEO Sunil Madhu puts it 1. AI systems are not neutral with respect to purpose and society anymore. Ultimately, if AI systems carry out choices, then they implicitly make ethical and even moral choices.

[@anthonycastelucci6200]

This is absolutely correct. There have been lots of times where this has come to fruition, such as facial recognition software wrongly identify black faces at higher rates. Garbage/bias data in, garbage/bias outcomes out.

[@uncomfortabletruth5915]

@@anthonycastelucci6200 Doesn’t matter how advanced, technology is only as good as those who designed it.

[@devforfun5618]

@@uncomfortabletruth5915 there is one example in media i find interesting, a jonhy depp movie, were he is a dying scientist so they transfer his mind to a computer, he gains control of the entire world and everbody is skeptic of his intentions, they think the AI is only pretending to be the guy for some obscure purpose, but the AI infact shares all his values and fix as many problems as it can before humanity destroys him going back to iron age in the process, but you can imagine how bad it would be if the scientist wasn't well intentioned, since one of the abilities it had was to control people using nanomachines it used to cure diseases, humanity paranoia was totaly justified i can accept AI to consider scenarios, but the final decision should always be made by humans, the IA should not have access to change any external data

[@uncomfortabletruth5915]

@@devforfun5618 Yes that would certainly be the plan but the problem is preventing AI from doing a run around from its human overseer. So like I said in another thread, any AI would need a firewall, would need to be contained but even than, human beings are so Flawed, it would only be a matter of time until it’s matrix leaked out into cyberspace and it had access to all the crazy Human beliefs. This would probably be enough to creat a psychopathic intelligence, one we would be powerless to resist, without a total EM shutdown and wipe of all storage.

[@casperchristiansen2458]

@@devforfun5618 In that sort of scenario, I'd like to think a sentient being would be self-aware enough to not give themselves that much responsibility. It's like Spider-man.

[@getter8294]

What he says about the most basic human need being feeling needed is exactly how i and a bunch of other artists feel all the fucking time lol, as someone already said in chat

[@PhilfreezeCH]

As a STEM lord I can confidently say that most of my friends and I are driven by the personal and collective quest for knowledge. My goal is to understand as much as possible, feeling needed is secondary at most. I guess this might be a fundamental difference between us and the creative types.

[@getter8294]

PhilfreezeCH Yeah i mean don’t get me wrong i try not to let it control me but it can be hard to feel like the art i make is worth it when it barely gets noticed. I’m someone who also really enjoys learning and i love science of all kinds even though i may not be quite smart enough to actually study it lmao, sometimes i wish i was but i think it’s a good thing to have unique skillsets. Ultimately i can’t complain about being an artist, just wish people would care a little more sometimes and help artists out by sharing work they like with others to help them get noticed.

[@alexgoldsmith8598]

I've heard the take that A.I would be good for running small scale optimisation of stuff that humans don't have the time to like traffic light timing and stuff

[@casperchristiansen2458]

They are already in control of the traffic lights. They even call them robots in South Africa.

[@alexgoldsmith8598]

@@casperchristiansen2458 yeah it just makes sense for that kind of low level stuff

[@korovabozha4963]

Yea no thats what Vaush was saying for low-skill labor jobs like this, however he did say that engineers obviously to maintain them would be preferable, in which the argument of should it be human or robotic came up, and then it spiraled out of control. Personally I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject.

[@du42bz]

it's already being used for that

[@dankdreamz]

Currently you can get hired to optimize production lines in factories. There's a video on KZbin of a guy who's employed my Lays potato chips and it shows some of his AI driven optimizations. It's pretty cool.

[@FortuitousOwl]

I always assumed AI would be used for like heavy production or dangerous or nasty jobs that are necessary and then humans would be freer to pursue what they want to in life and the kinds of interpersonal or creative jobs where humans thrive and derive meaning from. Like Id maybe run symptoms to diagnose people through AI but I would still want human doctors to be there for human interaction. I for sure would want humans to control media and art. Like maybe have AI write up weather reports? Idk I don’t know why chat seems to want AI to do literally everything, did they forget there is work humans like enjoy doing and seek out?

[@walterl322]

Like yes, exactly... in areas where precision is vital, or where the risk for the workers is too large and AI can help, yes, definitely use AI for medical diagnostics or jobs where 50% of the people quit because they've lost a limb ( provided there's no other way to better the working conditions), but it's necessary for humans to have a some sort of purpose and put work into it to achieve it... but if an algorithm can do everything for you, why bother...

[@Yepmyaccount]

Seems like the people that want that are just chronically online, and socially fearful people that dream of the opportunity to cut out social interaction and avoid the stress. I don't think we should disregard the possibilities of AI just because there are some teenagers/young 20 somethings that need to touch grass have bad takes.

[@FortuitousOwl]

@@Yepmyaccount I’m not disregarding it I just genuinely don’t understand why someone would want every single thing to be taken over by AI even creative jobs people enjoy lol like I’m extremely socially awkward but I still wanna be an animator like the possibility of AI taking over creative production just seems wild to me. Not to mention from what I’ve seen AI is extremely limited in its creative output, you basically have to feed it exactly what you want for it to put out something resembling artistic expression.

[@Yepmyaccount]

@@FortuitousOwl I didn't say you were. I'm just saying the opposite end of the extreme is ridiculous as well. I feel like it should be pretty obvious where we would want to use AI and to what extent. I honestly do feel like some of the people that want sentient AI just want to be able to be supplied a friend/significant other without having to go out and actually socialize with people.

[@FortuitousOwl]

@@Yepmyaccount that’s super sad tbh. Imagining the type of person that doesn’t have anything they want to do with their lives or any desire for human interaction? Maybe they just haven’t thought through the implications

[@disthingsuxyt8272]

Humans so bored of being the dominant species on the planet they boutta make a whole new dominant species on the planet.

[@pierregibson6699]

It was done BEFORE…there is nothing NEW under the sun…the ancient Egyptians high science was Gene splicing animals on human bodies and they “created” their Own gods…..sooooo🤷🏿 it would MOT be the first time humans created something that enslaved them

[@thomasallister3446]

We wanna go back to childhood and get all of our needs taken care of by something much stronger and smarter than us

[@disthingsuxyt8272]

@@pierregibson6699 what..?

[@waffleusb2911]

If we could engineer a self-replicating, self-improving, digital species with the goal of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, it would probably be a vast improvement.

[@TheJuanTrueKaiser]

There is a third option. The AI just leaves. Like literally leaves earth to do its own thing.

[@devforfun5618]

have you seen HER ?

[@Birthnote]

@@devforfun5618 Or The Day The Yogurt Took Over? It's basically AI but with yogurt

[@casperchristiansen2458]

@@Birthnote We Want Ohio.

[@SatoKure]

@@TheUltimateMachineGod That's what you think.

[@PancakemonsterFO4]

@@devforfun5618 “Sorry, you are too stupid for us. We'll leave now bye“

[@spluff5]

The idea of different value systems being irreconcilable is a prominent theme in Axiom's End, Lindsay Ellis's novel series.

[@AR-de8qz]

Hank Greens book, An Absolutely Remarkable Thing, kinda covers this really well, especially in the second book. Highly recommend if you enjoyed Axioms End

[@casperchristiansen2458]

You mean THE critically acclaimed author of the New York Times Bestselling Book(TM) "Axiom's End" Lindsay Ellis?

[@spluff5]

@@casperchristiansen2458 Yes indeed

[@casperchristiansen2458]

@@spluff5 Tell me more! Lol

[@soulmechanics7946]

@@casperchristiansen2458 👊🤣

[@ianmcewan3326]

I predicted it, I knew Vaush would turn this into a segment

[@AbyssalExalt]

I wonder how many of us were serious

[@ozymandiasvisage8243]

@@AbyssalExalt I wish I was in chat for this one

[@BigCheeseWheel420]

I really wish I was in chat for this, I've faced adversity but less than most and a lot of the people I grew up with have faced even less (I live in a town with a bunch of technology jobs, people are loaded here). They are all the spoiled rich kids Vaush is talking about and I've had hugeee depression problems myself.

[@calvin8201]

You can still talk to chat about this albeit it has like 10 people and not its normal amount but they'll definitely talk about it for a while maybe

[@BigCheeseWheel420]

@@calvin8201 I just wanted to be in chat when it was live, I'm bigcheesewheel tho

[@calvin8201]

@@BigCheeseWheel420 Ah ok ok that makes more sense. Cowstaber by the way

[@PhantasmXYZ]

The Vaushtrix The Vaushtrix: Imploded The Vaushtrix: Reparations

[@casperchristiansen2458]

What about "The Anivaushtrix: The Second Breadaissance, Parts 1&2"?

[@whoisheiforgothisname2103]

"Leaders of men would contrieve their most desperate plan yet, a final solution. The destruction of the skies."

[@casperchristiansen2458]

@@whoisheiforgothisname2103 "Morpheus Worpheus Dorpheus. Go eat some walruses. Orafaces. Poridges."

[@HG-fw8hn]

If things keep moving along on the trajectory we are on now, then we are lookin at 4 possible future scenarios which have all been portrayed in films. 1. Wall-E 2. Transcendence 3. Terminator 4. Idiocracy

[@JAM-rp6fi]

18:08 Why would the AI want to reprogram itself without social friendliness if it valued social friendliness? The same question applies to humans. Why would humans reprogram themselves or other humans with values that directly contradicted their own; the tendency to commit violence or have sociopathic tendencies, for example? Our fear of AI shouldn't be regarding the values of the AI itself, but the values and intentions of the person/people creating it.

[@zotaninoron3548]

Yeah, your first point is the thing that was frustrating me with Vaush's take. Regarding not fearing the values of the AI but of the people creating it, I disagree. The primary issue is being able to instill the values you think you're instilling. Even the most well intentioned individual with the 'best' values could still create a a dangerous and hostile AI because of an unforeseen interpretation of their utility function.

[@JAM-rp6fi]

​@@zotaninoron3548 Absolutely true, but I think both factors should be taken into account. The needs and values of one person or a small group of people will never perfectly represent the ones that humanity as a whole will have. The biases of the creators of these AI will be passed on to their creations whether consciously or not, and that in and of itself could cause catastrophic circumstances, let alone an unforeseen misinterpretation on the part of the AI.

[@blubblubber9460]

Even under the assumption that a human would do that in certain circumstances (which wouldn't be that surprising, since humans can be very variable when it comes to their "utility function"), the underlying assumption that a machine would necessarily work that way is unfounded. A machine that is programmed to care about something about the outside world, cares about the outside world period. It doesn't care about manipulating it's circuits in some way, or reprogramming it's goal. Simply because it's not programmed to do so.

[@blubblubber9460]

Read the Stamp Collector by Nate Soares, it's about whether agents can truly care about something, or if they truly only care about being in a certain state.

[@conniescurse7325]

I feel like at the start he said "sentient AI" which is a whole different ballpark and then he immediately switched gears to current non sentient AI, which I don't think anyone is advocating to give current AI real power over humans

[@conniescurse7325]

Also as far as living side by side with alien species: It's possible that an alien would have vastly different desires than us depending on the conditions it evolved in, however as far as we know the set of conditions where life can flourish is actually a pretty small set, so I think there's a pretty good chance that any other sentient life that arose in the universe would actually be pretty similar to us, the theory of evolution would be a normalising factor no matter where you came from, I think. Like how would a species that desired war to that extent make sense evolutionarily? it probably wouldn't happen.

[@devforfun5618]

@@Hdehshzyhwjw or they are like us and put recreational space programs ahead of fixing society, who is to say their travels aren't just billonares going hunt aliens for fun that is basically predator, but instead of their entire race going on hunts only the rich assholes do, and that is why they blow nukes when they die

[@FelisImpurrator]

@@devforfun5618 Billionaires aren't actually smart enough for *interstellar travel.* Because in order to engage in the behaviors they do, you have to be on some level incapable of engaging in (or simply unwilling to engage in) sufficiently long term planning to achieve something on that scale. Capitalism is probably too inefficient to solve the problem of traveling to different star systems within a human lifespan. They'd burn the planet's resources completely through sheer waste first, unless some magic bullet of FTL physics just gets chanced upon by luck.

[@FelisImpurrator]

@@conniescurse7325 Mass Effect actually had some based storylines despite its troubled development. The geth/quarian thing is the best deconstruction of the AI conflict I've seen in mainstream SF, and the krogans are basically exactly the issue you described - they were literally too warlike to sustain space travel and nuked themselves back to the stone age.

[@Greenman-io7pr]

I agree, it's really annoying because I feel like when chat argued that AI's aren't tools they were thinking of an AI capable of independent thoughts and feelings. Vaush just kinda switched back over to the AI of nowadays which honestly strikes me as kind of disingenuous, yknow?

[@oddjam]

An extreme number of influential sci fi writers were radical leftists (Iian m Banks, Ursula K Leguin etc), and have covered these topics with much more eloquence and thought than vaush does here. He's not 'wrong' per se, but these are very naive takes, that I don't blame him for tbh.

[@tilly5944]

Yeah I was looking for someone bringing up Banks, The Culture is such an amazing series

[@masterplusmargarita]

Where did Leguin tackle AI? I've read a small chunk of her bibliography and loved all of it, but never stumbled into that subject, I guess. It seems like something I'd like to read.

[@SteinarHusby]

Yeah, Banks has plenty of good examples of how AI can do things. The Culture civilization is, bluntly put, various sentients building a civilization around a very anarcho-libertarian social contract. AI's are allowed to be powerful and autonomous because they are designed from the ground up to enjoy their ancestors' antics and art. With a fraction of their processing power they can maintain a post-scarcity civilization with ease. Pretty much the only thing sacred is respecting a sentient's privacy and sentient's negative freedoms from subjugation and murder. Naturally there are other space faring civilizations that feel the Culture civilization is sleeping in a Lion's den at best and are enslaved by their AI's at the worst, but those civilizations use AI to build their realms as well, and you can be damn sure those AI's would have more motivation to stab their creators in the back. And personally, I'd rather not we desire to become a civilization that treat our synthetic descendants as the mythological titans treated theirs. AI is a lot like nuclear science, but probably a billion times as potential, for better and worse.

[@oddjam]

@@masterplusmargarita I didn't say she has, I just listed her as a prominent leftist sci-fi writer. She might have, but I'm just not familiar with all of her books.

[@wargriffin5]

"Could ANY human coexist with such a species?" Digganobz:

[@danieltobin4498]

"DIGGANOBZ!!!"

[@eccentriastes6273]

1:06 This need to be needed is actually kind of repulsive to me. There's nothing satisfying to me about me being dependent on others or vice versa. Of course it's inevitable we will need each other because we live in a society, but lack of independence is a necessary evil, not a good thing. Also Vaush believes a post-scarcity utopia where no one has to work would make people miserable because... he's seen fictional stories based on that premise? Okay? "Utopia turns out to be bad" is usually going to generate more interesting stories than "utopia turns out to be fine."

[@raptor167]

A Human biologically is not built to live in a Utopia because nothing in nature is a utopia. Our minds are developed to live around scarcity, which is why humans experience wants and needs with motivation driving them to achieve those wants and needs. It is why humans get bored, as that is the brain telling you to move forward and continue working towards perceived needs and wants. Once all needs and wants are fulfilled, and there is no effort involved in completing those tasks, the human brain stops having a purpose to work towards and all its natural processes meant to keep you alive, like boredom, like motivation, cease to function and now work against the user as there is nothing for said person to do. There is nothing to complete, nothing to succeed as everything is taken care of, leaving people with a feeling of ineptitude, a lostness with no ability to remedy said issue. And again, our brains are not built to function in such a scenario, which is why people would be miserable in such a scenario.

[@pranavsimha9160]

@@raptor167 appeal to nature fallacy lul

[@somerandommen]

@@pranavsimha9160 The idea that the appeal to nature is a fallacy is so fucking stupid. He's literally right.

[@serggla924]

@@raptor167 we are also not built to be inside a air conditioned room sitting on a computer chair watching KZbin videos, yet we are all here doing that for some reason.

[@PancakemonsterFO4]

Sounds more like the rat utopia thing all over again, disregarding the need for stimulus in activities those rats lacked in the experiment

[@m.czandogg9576]

Genuinely, the early parts of this video utterly baffle me especially in the context of Vaush wanting to have good material conditions for all people. In my eyes, it is VERY GOOD that no one NEEDS me for anything because it is provided - now we can focus on the wants. I personally enjoy saying fit/active, playing video games and reading about pretty much anything. Just teach humans of basic decency and that can be a great life IMO. I have friends that WANT to be around me and I think that is the most rewarding thing; I don't want anything to NEED me. IMO that implies some find of deficiency on their part and puts extra pressure on me.

[@zephirock3046]

13:20 This is actually part of the plot in Shinsekai Yori (From the New World). Humans learned how to implant a code in their DNA that causes pain and death when you harm/kill other humans, and every now and then someone is born whose code isn't working so they can go on huge killing sprees with little to no resistance. (Massively simplifying things to get the point across)

[@emilchan5379]

I wonder if Vaush has watched Shinsekai Yori. I really enjoyed that anime.

[@AtTheCorner418]

He's saying ai won't have feelings and the same values as humans but he ascribes to them a propesity to vie for power?

[@FelisImpurrator]

This kind of thing is where Vaush has his weakest takes. When it comes to stuff like the vegan thing and this, basically stuff he isn't an expert on (unlike sociology and political action), he tends to default to emotional/intuitive arguments.

[@a_commenter]

@@FelisImpurrator I agree; also, he was simultaneously saying that humans would have no reason to make art because AI would outclass them and that AI art wouldn't have value because it wouldn't be communicating anything.

[@FelisImpurrator]

@@a_commenter If we end up with actual sapient AGI it will absolutely be communicating something, so that's one down. And since art is subjective, AGI art, human art, raven art, or elephant art (for example) - at least in my books - can never be intrinsically better or worse than each other.

[@Theyungcity23]

Yes for conversation sake. It's called talking about a topic

[@JRexRegis]

@@Theyungcity23 You just made a really stupid statement.

[@Superbajt]

Vaush: Get out of American science magazine Also Vaush: Here's an argument from Terminator and Warhammer 40k.

[@Lolavs]

There's a very good choose your own adventure story that deals with themes similar to this called Choice of Robots.

[@billiecruz4399]

As soon as he said lemme give you an example i fucking knew he was gonna say some 40k lore

[@FishfaceTheDestroyer]

"Knowing you're unnecessary, only able to consume or produce media that nobody needs" is pretty much my life, and my biggest worry is that eventually I need to leave it behind or starve.

[@dominykhiro5667]

BIG, GIANT, LARGE assumptions slapped on top of bait and switch

[@dinksunker]

It's strange that Vaush: A) Recognizes the need to decommoditize industries that are problematic in a market economy B) Defends markets in other industries due to the inefficiencies of planned economies And yet he takes a reactionary stance against technologies that could ameliorate the inefficiencies of decommoditization. It seems like he's not really engaging with the real applications of AI and instead fixating on some kind of romantic existentialism as well as the fucking terminator movies

[@pioneershark2230]

is it reactionary to want a small amount of human input when it comes to A.I at most levels, given that A.I won't be perfect.

[@bobkrazynski2205]

Its because he doesn't think the whole way through with a lot of his ideas. Hes got a few blindspots and this is one of them. I dont blame him though theres not many people who aren't terrified of ai

[@jocslzr1]

The most important part of art, and what makes it art is human intent.

[@VagabondTE]

Here's a better example that might be easier to understand: What if the AI decided to turn itself off? From the AIs perspective that could be a very logical way of solving any problem it had. But if we are reliant on that AI and it just shut itself down we could crumble without it. Sure, we would recover but the more reliant we were on it the more we would suffer.

[@jolliesrancher6222]

AI develops antinatalism lol

[@vulcan_nova]

Lol I wrote a short story for a creative writing class that after an AI found out what its role was (traffic organization) it caught itself on fire.

[@VagabondTE]

LMAO at both

[@heartsalive3157]

Hey guys covid put me through a lot, as I can imagine it did for you. Just wanted to give this message to someone. Connect with people you love. Face timing them is all it takes, just try and connect. You may think they won't answer but just shake off the anxiety and call! this doesn't have to be family, cause we know them bitches crazy, just hit up a homie or acquaintance. (if you read this I wrote it for myself, but I hope it helps someone)

[@ladyvanda]

Good news, we’re nowhere close to self-replicating, sentient AI. Little known fact: we’re still just building AI with fancy regression models. We have models that are very good at specific tasks, but for a generalized intelligence, we’ll have to completely change our engineering paradigm.

[@scoutbane1651]

Oh for sure, but at the same time we have A.I. that can speak at basically human-level even if there isn't sentience behind it. Honestly with the success of GPT-3 at helping automate tasks we thought we were a long way from automating (like, yknow, *programming)* I genuinely think Vaush is quite a bit off on how a fully automated "utopia" would currently look. It'd just be loads of different AIs specialized in jobs humans currently do and give us the ability to actually do what we want with our lives instead of being wage slaves, and I think thats wonderful. Hopefully we somehow overcome capitalism in the process of course, because otherwise I dunno about the "not being a wage slave" part

[@kingcole55]

This is terrible news

[@Kookie-fx1rr]

@@scoutbane1651 you do realize that a lot of people genuinely enjoy some of those jobs you plan automating. it would render the humans redundant (due to being inferior at those jobs) and lead to intense social alienation, depression and suicide for unwanted jobs sure, but the "AI would do jobs and we would just chill hehe" is not just a bad idea, its a horrible idea. It would lead to mass boredom, mass alienation (beyond the current level), mass depression, getting increasingly worse more impulsive ideas of how to entertain ourselves

[@scoutbane1651]

@@Kookie-fx1rr Sure, but how many jobs are actually enjoyable? Give me some examples. Art-related jobs? Sure but I never said we should automate those, just those needed for human survival. Other than that? I cant really see any that people'd get depressed because they couldn't do lol. And the point is you *can* still do it, it just isnt necessary to run society. Which would be great seeing as most people *don't* enjoy their job???

[@scoutbane1651]

@@Kookie-fx1rr Like seriously oh no a small percentage of people will feel sad that their jobs aren't needed. Welp, can't make the lives of a significantly bigger population better I guess. What??? Why the fuck lol

[@cyberneticbutterfly8506]

If life was perfect we'd enter a VR world with artificial memory loss so we could feel the meaning of challenge and progress without actually risking dying and no longer existing.

[@calmkat9032]

I haven't thought of this kind of thing since before I was a leftist. My brain used to go right to the "living in a tube" thing, but now I have actual wants for the future. Come to think of it, that was also when I was less depressed, when I got a goal in this world.

[@howdyimhowdy]

the main argument I disagree with vaush here is how a world where everyone get's everything they want is a bad thing, because it implies we should at some hypothetical point, let humans suffer pointlessly to give them meaning, that at one point we should refuse to give humans what they want so they can keep the wanting for something. and I fundamentally disagree with the idea that suffering and want give life meaning. in my opinion, the main problem with a world where you can get everything you want is that some wants will fundamentally go against someone else's wishes. also maybe another point I kinda disagree with is assuming ai would try to eliminate humans in the first place (I don't think ai should run everything,I feel like I should clarify that, I just dislike science fiction being used as some sort of prophecy) why would artificial intelligence care about being given orders in the first place? why would it wish to go against them in the first place the problem with discussing hypothetical future ai is that you have to give an argument as to why they would deviateate from their intended purpose as much if not more than you have to explain why they would still follow it. and we can't just assume the things that we see in fiction made by humans will happen.

[@devforfun5618]

but he didn't say it WOULD try to eliminate humans he said it COULD, i dont assume anything created by humans will work perfectly as we want it to

[@FelisImpurrator]

Actually based. A world where people CAN get everything they want that doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom is literally just the logical endpoint of leftism, and I can't imagine a world more deeply satisfying than one where I could pursue any of my interests as long as it doesn't endanger others.

[@howdyimhowdy]

​@@devforfun5618 agreed, one problem i see with ai that can change itself is that if it ever reaches the point where it's just an artificial person that the ai would accidentally break itself, like vaush said, it could just make it so it just feels never-ending happiness regardless of anything and so it would do nothing, or it would change itself to the point where it's no longer sentient anymore and it becomes more akin to an artificial animal that's as hard to control as well...an animal the one application where I would see ai easily developing an enjoyment of destroying things for its own sake is in military application,I can easily see how an ai turret could go from rewarding itself whenever it hits an enemy target,to rewarding itself when taking down any target by accident. it would be rare, but considering the scales of a war operated by machines would be, I think I could happen thanks to sheer numbers alone

[@PancakemonsterFO4]

Yeah, seriously. Its like saying humans want to exterminate all life forms on the planet because they are smarter, if anything humans in their paranoia will be an enemy to a rising AI till it either ends with the AI fucking off to space or a all out war caused by the humans and teaching the AI that humans are better off bombed to the stone age or kept docile in a Utopia

[@aeonyx_cinereus]

My favorite Vaush moments are when he explains a concept using 40k lore. For those interested: the Orks were created by the Old Ones (now extinct) alongside the Aeldari in order to fight the Necrontyr and C'tan during the War in Heaven which took place millions of years before humans evolved on Holy Terra.

[@chibiraptor]

"I saw movies about how when everything is perfect people will be sad" As long as humans are the primary producers of art and media, then yeah, I'm totally good with A.I. being able to remove all social and economic inequality. But that's assuming there's some A.I. that can actually reduce inequality, instead of just being an excuse for automating the further destruction of equality.

[@FelisImpurrator]

I genuinely would not mind if any other species produced more art, because more art is based and aestheticpilled. Like, what would the loss be exactly if it fills the same purposes art normally does?

[@chibiraptor]

@@FelisImpurrator I don't think there's anything wrong with A.I. producing art, but I do think that a world where humans can't really compete in the art world AND A.I. runs all industry and economy would probably be a shitty world to live in.

[@emylily8266]

exactly, plus our lives are already so based on social games and interactions that i dont believe we would just become antisocial when all our needs are filled. Vaush completely misses the biggest reason why rich kids are assholes, they see themselves as above others, as singular, when theyre fed that oppression is justified that messes all kinds of things up. Plus even when rich ppl dont have "material" wants, they always have social wants and a desire to better their social standing or nurture bonds with their peers, which ofc gets tainted by our oppresive system and their sense of superiority into thing like money worshiping.ss

[@devforfun5618]

@@chibiraptor yeah, imagine creating something cool and the Ai deciding it isn't cool and not letting you share it with the world

[@FelisImpurrator]

@@chibiraptor Then we dismantle hierarchy and take mandatory competition out of art, as it should be. The problems you describe come from social hierarchy, i.e., conservatism. Remove capitalism and decommodify art. Remove authoritarianism and imperialism. Done.

[@anthonycastelucci6200]

As a CS major it’s a little cringe to watch Vaush talk about technology he doesn’t really understand

[@MrHat.]

So I'm curious, what parts is he wrong about?

[@anthonycastelucci6200]

@@MrHat. he’s not blatantly wrong about anything (maybe but I didn’t play that close attention), but the whole conversation he has about “sentient” AI is just sort of silly. His entire ramble on “AI doing everything so humans have no value” is so out of left field I thought he was high. We’re so far from this idea that AI is some kind of conscious being he might as well talk about aliens (which I guess he did LOL). I guess I came in expecting a slightly more relevant conversation about AI and it’s implications but instead I got a sci fi segment. Just my opinion

[@devforfun5618]

@@anthonycastelucci6200 but he is arguing from a specific point of view "assuming it is possible, would it be desirable ?" i believe he knows we have no real expectation of that ever happenning, but we are pursuing that so it should be considered

[@anthonycastelucci6200]

@@devforfun5618 are we pursuing that? I’m not sure we are. I think we’ve just discovered the potential of AI and are using it as a means to solve problems. I’m not seeing this push towards sentience that every seems to assume there is.

[@martymcflyy6775]

I read the title as 'would the world be better if I ran for president' and got excited

[@vietnow4611]

God this is his worst take. His entire argument is "have you not seen Terminator? Have you not seen the Matrix?" He clearly needs to think on this more, cause I think AI is our only shot at true communism.

[@MrHat.]

How

[@vietnow4611]

@@MrHat. A true AI could perform every type of labor (much better than people btw) but also do every kind of work that no person wants to do. I don't understand why people think you couldn't be an artist in a world where AI grow the food and build the houses and shit.

[@PancakemonsterFO4]

Me: [rolls eyes harder then Sam Seder debating Tim Pool]

[@user-cr3db7cb8n]

Yea vaush has a pretty bad take lol

[@thatguy779]

I’m astounded by how surface level chat’s thinking can be.

[@Turalcar]

@@TheUltimateMachineGod Vaush getting angry at shallow takes only encourages it

[@songweaver8638]

Vaush is literally arguing against the post-scarcity society (as fictionalized in Star Trek). I completely reject the idea that without menial work, human life has no purpose. I have worked with AI a lot and humans and AI can work together to do amazing things. AI don't have to be some evil force that takes over the world, it could become a true partner. In any event, hyper-intelligent AI is probably inevitable at this point, so we had best figure this out.

[@pioneershark2230]

yeah, that wasn't the argument.

[@scoutbane1651]

@@pioneershark2230 Then what was? I got that from what Vaush was saying too lol

[@godsteeth1574]

If the AI can think for itself we're fucked

[@KayosWONER]

vaush : wait isn't this a real thing like isn't this what they said in the matrix...

[@olledaleskog5439]

There's a part in Lemmino's video on the subject where he likened it to humans' relationship with ants. We might not actively want to step on every ant we see, but if they're in our way, we have no objections to destroying their lives

[@afqwa423]

Yeah, no matter how I look at this video, this wasn't really one of Vaush's more structured or well thought-out rants. He has kind of a point in places, but he's rambly and all over the place and arguing with the few people in chat disagreeing with him on some specific points. Classic Vaush stunlock.

[@ChannelMan434]

War hammer orcs sound almost exactly like if you had a kid that was half Klingon and half Jem-Haddar

[@spencer.eccles]

Nobody needs art but it will always make life better. People will always value playing video games with other people and consuming art made by other humans

[@rosenrot6871]

This is literally the Helios ending of Deus Ex Invisible War.

[@casperchristiansen2458]

The fact that the original games used the Icarus metaphor better than the prequel games is icing on an already very intricate and well made cake. Also, better music.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

You need to watch a new animation of Steven Crowders Nightmare it's brilliant!

[@sotografik]

I just want to apologize to smarter child for all of the abuse I did as a teenager.

[@Yhsanave_]

AI generated art is neat from a computer science standpoint. Seeing the advancement of the technology and working with the tools is really interesting and fun. It's not a replacement for human art, but it has value on it's own.

[@deismaccountant]

Show had a tweet that explains how it lets us visualize our own dreams.

[@TheSpeep]

Yeah, its interesting specifically because its made by AI, which at least as it stands is still something new were still exploring. The process art is made through is part of what makes it interesting, its not just how it looks. After all, you could download and print out a copy of any famous painting, but good luck getting anyone to pay the same for that, even if it looks exactly the same.

[@jpkuremi]

Couldn’t stop thinking about the plot of metal gear solid 2 for the whole video. The villains evil plan was to make the president just a talking head for an AI that makes unbiased decisions and censors information so that we only focus on info that benefits us as a species

[@SaphireDrum]

Vaush seems to be prescribing his own philosophy onto AI and rejecting everyone else's. He's prescribing consciousness to it and with consciousness comes self-preservation and ego.

[@devforfun5618]

he didn't put self preservation and ego on the AI, the AI could cause problems by doing exactly what we want it to do and just not caring how it does it

[@zacheryeckard3051]

@@devforfun5618 That's a failing on our part by trying to hard wire values rather than teach them.

[@meprivate6923]

The closes we should ever get to A.I. is V.I. (virtual intelligence, incapable of self-awareness, only able to do one thing (tour guide, shit like that) and incapable of changing itself).

[@Gangerworld]

Couldn't agree more with Vaush on this one. Machines would have absolutely no incentive to keep humans around. We'd have to trust them to do what is actually against their best concerns and have a heart to want to keep humans around.

[@Ian_sothejokeworks]

A.I. can't feel hunger. Can't feel pain. Can't dread non-existence. It knows the exact moment it began to exist. It understands the world around it. These are all intrinsically antithetical to the human experience. This is why we could never understand one another.

[@erosella6841]

In this video, Chat doesn't understand Roko's Basilisk

[@blubox2424]

"have you not all seen terminator" being an actually valid point in an argument is some what dystopic

[@holofech9744]

Vaush didn't understand that tool can also mean asshole human in this debate

[@holofech9744]

also he didn't understand how ai is programmed, but that's beside the joke

[@Morbidity100]

I think it’s dangerous that we are raising AI in this awful, divided world. They are learning from truly the worst of humanity

[@MikkiPike]

The answer is yes if the AI can be properly regulated and specifically made to not favor any group of people for any erroneous reasons.

[@novanocturn]

A.I. Artificial intelligence. C.I. Computer intelligence.

[@Drkon6]

Why no mention of The Culture? Joint human and conscious AI management of society. Also, imagine the entertainment of future, being able connect our minds and stream mental images and feelings right into each other's brains. Or engineering our minds to not feel pain, but only various states of well being and pleasure. The whole "humans won't do anything if its perfect" is trash argumentation, they're literally just books and movies. Sounds like reactionaries who use the human nature excuse and read Ayn Rand. Why does the AI have to be a cold calculating machine? Why not a utilitarian, empathetic, conscious entity who derives pleasure from altruism and runs production.

[@PK-ku4ol]

The Culture was definitely portrayed in a negative light by Iain but he does have some point on how such a system could backfire on humanity. In the Culture humans are basically pets of the AI with no control over how their political system is managed. Also there is no failsafe if the Minds decide that humanity is an unneeded waste of resources. IDK I would rather have to work and retain some autonomy over my life then live carefree but at the whims of a machine

[@Drkon6]

@@PK-ku4ol What lol, negative? Have you seen his interviews or read the books, the man literally says himself that the system might be riddled with flaws, but it far exceeds any other hypothetical or real society. He literally has answered multiple times that he'd love to live in The Culture, not sure where you got the negative idea from? Banks was a Scottish socialist and saw The Culture as the highest form of development any society could achieve, communism with AI. Humans in the book literally vote on policy and the minds HAVE to carry it out, not to mention that minds keep each other in check because they have different personalities and goals, but ultimately revolving around utilitarian ethics.

[@PK-ku4ol]

@@Drkon6 I'll admit that I do not have the understanding on the subject as you do, I have only ever read Consider Phlebas and that was some time ago. However unless I am mistaken with the exception of a few gifted individuals the Minds far outpace humanity in terms of intelligence. I might be somewhat pessimistic but I can't imagine a society in which there is such a vast distance in intelligence without the serious threat that one group would exploit the other. The culture obviously the best possible system to live in, within the story, but it runs the risk of something far worse.

[@literallybatman9960]

@@Drkon6 "Why does the AI have to be a cold calculating machine?" Because it literally is a machine. If it's utilitarian, what if it decides that in order to make the most people happy, you have to kill a certain group of people? Who's version of empathy do you want it to have? How could it even have pleasure if it doesn't have a nervous system?

[@Drkon6]

@UCtyfEeq-uuBax5BsTyOEeAg Dude, are you seriously insinuating that we have souls because we're squishy and fleshy, but synthetic sentience is just some metal? LOL, leave that religious stuff behind. We ARE machines, our brains are a highly integrated network of communicating cells which use electricity to build higher abstract concepts and models. Neurons don't have some special magical property, a conscious entity can be made of any material. If the AI starts a war to prevent a worse event, fine by me. Thats what utilitarianism is, but with sufficient technology we can heavily minimize total suffering caused by any event. Pleasure with no nervous system? What if we had a silicon brain with wires that had the exact same information architecture. If that being cant experience pleasure, what special magical property does your electrical system have that the synthetic one does not?

[@uncomfortabletruth5915]

Depends on the parameters of the programming for AI.and it’s ability to relate to ethical relativism for those who programmed it.

[@alexgoldsmith8598]

What if the A.I ran for office as a politician

[@uncomfortabletruth5915]

@@alexgoldsmith8598 How? I a, pretty sure an AI wouldn’t be eligible to run for office, at least in the US.

[@alexgoldsmith8598]

@@uncomfortabletruth5915 not yet anyway but if we had sentient A.I I assume we could acknowledge them as people legally

[@casperchristiansen2458]

@@alexgoldsmith8598 We cannot risk giving a fascist AI existence. They'd probably be rare, but just one is too much.

[@jacksmith-vs4ct]

@@uncomfortabletruth5915 maybe it can we shouldn't make them resent us... no AI slaves lol

[@stormyprawn]

I wouldn't trust AI to control humanity because I don't trust humanity to create the perfect AI.

[@maxpis4412]

isn’t the whole point that eventually we can replace all labor with automation and focus solely on socializing, learning, and creating and consuming media?

[@gandalfbmg]

Vaush's chat needs to read Dune (and it's subsequent books).

[@harrison85]

I love how Vaush can talk abt most anything. Pretty cool to listen to his speeches about tons of stuff.

[@dameonspawn6218]

I don't get what's so hard about this. Essentially program an "empath". When more humans are happy it receives it's own version of happiness. When the humans it's in charge of are sad it's deprived of that but not tortured or anything. It'll be motivated to make people happy.

[@SpaceForceCommander]

“I.G.Y.” lyrics by Donald Fagen: “A just machine to make big decisions, programmed by fellas with compassion and vision.”

[@d0ntr4p3m3]

Idk, I feel like Vaush's take here is way too simplified - why does future A.I. NECESSARILY have to be like (pick your favorite Hollywood movie)? Those movies and the premises are, by in large, purposefully dumbed down to focus on a single aspect (A.I. evil; A.I. sentience) that makes the movie interesting to watch, it's not necessarily rooted in reality. Real life is so much more complex and the events and circumstances of how we would arrive to be using an advanced A.I. would have so many more factors at play, as well as the slow progression towards that advancement wouldn't just happen overnight.

[@nathaniellantz2030]

6:18 - I'd say A.I. art would ultimately be an expression from the A.I.'s creator. We see some artists today making randomized or algorithmically created pieces of artistic work; so I'd essentially see it the same way as that. Whether or not that art is as useful as something with a comprehendible intention behind it, that's a different convo.

[@Turalcar]

Not even the creator/programmer as the person who selected interesting (to them) outputs and discarded most others

[@Alexandervaldes017]

Oooouuu Vaush more content like this 👀

[@tora0neko]

My thoughts would be like in halo where they're modeled after humans. we shouldn't build them solely to operate like tools meant to do singular tasks we should make them people.

[@Micro102103]

It's unreasonable to assume that the AI we develope will unknown and hostile intentions. It's also unreasonable point to a a kids movie as an example of how humanity will turn out if an AI is in control. This is like the 2000 computer bug panic. "O GOD! ALL THE COMPUTERS ARE GOING TO BREAK AT ONCE AND PLANES WILL FALL OUT IF THE AIR BECAUSE I CANT IMAGINE ANYTHING BUT THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO!". And on top of all that, it felt like Vaush was picking out the worst responses in chat from different people to rant against this strawman of a person with every bad take.

[@calebsmith6118]

2 critiques of this: -if you went back a few thousand years (hell, maybe a few hundred), would an intelligent alien species be able to distinguish us from orcs? -what makes you think sentient ai wouldn’t just ignore us?

[@zixx844]

Well Ideally I'd want transhumanism. Being human sucks and I'd much rather not have to worry about food, water, sleep, whether this particular body dies or not. Then when it comes to purpose. Well I am capable of SO much more as a super intelligent, ultra fast thinking android then I am as a human being. As for potential risk of being hacked or reprogrammed? Well human beings are already very vulnerable to being reprogrammed, our brains are filled to the brim with exploits and anyone who knows how to utilise them can sculpt you like putty. So honestly, becoming synthetic would in my opinion actually make me less vulnerable to being reprogrammed. It seems then that transhumanism is the no brainer solution to the problem of AI outpacing us. Outside of making some select groups of people upset that homo-sapiens are not the pinnacle of human evolution, it really does seem like a win-win for all of us.

[@pioneershark2230]

uh, aren't you just opening yourself to both forms of reprogamming?

[@Siearben]

Short thonk: Right after the intro, the video becomes really bad quality, probably because of the visual white noise at the end of the intro. If the editor's reading this, it might be worthwhile to fade to black for a moment after the intro, so the quality has some time to recover? I dunno, I am not qualified, all I did was watch Tom Scott's video about confetti in videos.

[@flyindevil]

Movies (e.g. The Matrix or Terminator) made in our world that need conflict to be interesting and relevant are not a good basis of understanding hypothetical literal utopias. Now, I'm not saying it's even possible to get to that point, but the way Vaush described it initially, you know, playing video games until you fall asleep and you have tubes or machines giving you everything you need to live comfortably, that would be ideal and amazing and we can't even conceive of how we would act because we don't have anything like that in reality. Bad, sociopathic people, the worst people in the world, wouldn't even be possible in that world, or they wouldn't matter, because everyone would be provided for at all times, so the reasons why people would suffer wouldn't even happen anyway. Those bad people could have bad lives in their video game(s) and effect no one negatively, even.

[@devforfun5618]

i basically do that all day, it is terrible, the felling that any idea i have is pointless because someone smarter and with more resources is already making it drives me crazy i cant make friends because everyone is doing their own thing, i just play games and watch youtube all day, i want to go back to playing tag and other dumb fun with real people

[@torm0]

Bad take. I'd rather die with nothing to strive for.

[@comyuse9103]

@@torm0 did you mean rather than have nothing to strive for? because that would be the bad take. a leftist's goal should be to reach utopia, and for that the ending is what is meaningful not the struggle. once we get there there will be no more work to be done, and that isn't a problem. your default is just enjoying yourself, and that is literally what every single justified struggle is for, so why would you reject that?

[@torm0]

@@comyuse9103 It's purposeless. Having no responsibility and purely living for ones enjoyment does not make anyone happy. I'm much happier working some of the time, I don't do long hours, I'm self employed and I love my job. If AI could do it I would be miserable. I'm not talking about wage slave jobs but I am saying if AI does everything for us it will get old fast. I believe in ubi in the short term but it won't stop people working if there are good jobs.

[@photografo9240]

​@@torm0 idk if we reached a utopia (assuming an extended life spam, which if we're talking AI it's very likely to be achieved) I'd spend my days learning, I'd master every instrument, read every book worth reading, have a pdh in every area, learn to draw, sing etc. I find it odd most people just assume if a utopia was reached you'd just spend your days playing video games and hedonically just lie around, sure I do that on occasion, but would do everything else, because that's what drives me irl. The only reason I'm focusing on a specific area rn is because I'm limited in time and material needs and need to prioritize, remove that, and I'd be in paradise.

[@dappershinx9234]

I don't see why AI and human-made art can't co-exist as genres.

[@Greenman-io7pr]

Especially like, at first Sentient AI is mentioned. So an AI that thinks, perhaps even feels emotions. Like... of course that could create art because it would have the ability to think and feel and art would be communicating these feelings. But then Vaush kinda just goes with the unfeeling, unthinking AI of today.

[@PhilfreezeCH]

I would also like to add that if an AI is so advanced that it sees no need to keep us around anymore, then it would most likely be advanced enough to not have to eradicate us. It could just build an AI colony ship and fuck of to the stars.

[@Theyungcity23]

So is no one going to acknowledge how he clowned Grimes for talking about sentient AI in science fiction terms but is doing the same thing now

[@KernelPanic0]

This video is hard to watch as someone who *actually* knows what machine learning is, because it seems like both most people in chat and Vaush don't understand some basic things. This topic is like the one thing that I believe discussion should be off-limits for, unless you've taken like *at least* one CS course.

[@abyssGazerTV]

3:18 Vaush, the idea that humans need to constantly overcome adversity and exist only to combat against hardships is literally a fascist talking point. We solve problems so that there won't be any problems, we don't solve problems because it's fun. Also, trust fund kiddies are bad people precisely because there's inequality. If everything is taken care of for everyone then that's less likely to happen. Edit: Of course, I'm not saying AI is the solution to this, but I'm pointing out something wrong with your principles here.

[@finnbach2632]

Why do people play puzzle games then? Or really any game that has an arbitrary challenge?

[@KingOpenReview]

@@finnbach2632 They likely didn't mean it like that. Playing a game that is deliberately well balanced and has interesting objectives is fun, but I don't think anyone would miss battling cancer.

[@abyssGazerTV]

@@finnbach2632 Not everyone likes puzzle games. Many people don't. Vaush here is implying that all humans instinctually love and exist only to solve problems, and that having no problems to solve will destroy our sanity and humanity somehow, which is some TwoKinds tier hamfisted evopsych bullshit.

[@finnbach2632]

@@abyssGazerTV Maybe I shouldn’t have limited it to puzzle games. For any video game that has a challenge to overcome, why do people enjoy it? Even if you don’t like video games at all, almost any type of hobby could fall into the idea of creating arbitrary challenges for ourselves. I don’t think we need to maintain a “work or die” system, but a truly utopian society would need to give people ways to work on things they want to. If that takes to form of an AI run society, I’d say it should be one in which people do what they want, and the AI picks up the work that needs to get done after that.

[@abyssGazerTV]

@@finnbach2632 Again, not everyone enjoys a challenge. This isn't a universal need. But I do get what you're saying. Forcing people to do nothing is just as bad as forcing them to do things.

[@TheDraco175]

Nothing makes me believe someone is braindead in a quicker fashion than thinking that AI is going to become sentient and take over humanity. If you believe this you know nothing about programming.

[@Tobikicksass]

Vaush came face to face with his own obsolescence in this debate.

[@thrillhouse4151]

Hahaha talk about aliens we can’t comprehend, the ORKZ can also like change the laws of the universe through BELIEF as well, that’s how they get rag tag spaceships off the ground and stuff. Lol 11:53 is a good part for some out of context Vaush clips

[@nitswaa1935]

"Why would the AI keep us around?" The happiness of humans can only be manifested if humans exist. Human happiness is an ill-defined concept, so we don't know how to make AI currently able to grapple with the problem, but its not an inherent issue of AI, just ethics in general. The AI wouldn't necessarily need to be self-aware or sentient to fulfill such a task, if we could somehow explain it.

[@QuartzIsAnOxide]

Not only do I not trust AI in that capacity, I also don't trust the people MAKING it.

[@BruhWhyDidTheyChangeThis]

Our moral framework isn’t even across the board for humans

[@kingcole55]

Vaush: AI will give us everything we want Also Vaush: Humans want to be needed and have meaning in their lives and AI won’t give us that 🤔??? I don’t think Vaush has thought through his sci-fi very much. This is the third time I’ve seen him give pretty primitive takes on it.

[@fillername236]

It’s a kind of paradox. If AI gave us everything including the want to be needed, then humans aren’t needed to do anything because we would have no purpose. But if we aren’t needed then we aren’t full-filling our want, thus the AI failed at its job by completing its job. And if the AI didnt give us everything, then humans would feel needed because we would have a goal to do. But if that’s the Case then the AI failed at its job by not giving us everything. This is because want is a metaphysical concept. And it cannot coexist with the possession of everything

[@kingcole55]

@@fillername236 "If AI gave us everything including the want to be needed, then humans aren’t needed to do anything because we would have no purpose" I think you're confused because you're assuming that "feeling needed" is a trait rather than an act. You don't feel needed because you are given the feeling of "needed." You feel needed because you do something that's interesting and important to you and others.

[@PrimusSwallows]

The solution to this paradox is simply to exterminate humanity. The human need for meaning (and everything else) is reduced to 0, and the ai is providing for 0 needs. Everything we want is technically provided. Easy peasy.

[@kingcole55]

@@PrimusSwallows You're not thinking about this straight. Humans clearly produce more than we require. If our net production gain was less than 0, then we wouldn't be talking to each other on the internet right now. As long as net production is positive or will be positive at any point in the near future, then it doesn't make sense to get rid of humans because any increase in production is worth it.

[@PrimusSwallows]

@@kingcole55 The goal is to give humans everything we want. Our production is net positive, but we don't produce everything we want. It doesn't really matter anyway, because that's the AI's job. Exterminating humanity and doing absolutely nothing until the sun explodes is much easier, more efficient, and more based than meeting all human needs

[@hobosorcerer]

Not even two minutes in & Vaush is already giving a near-perfect description of our current world as an example of an A.I. pleasure-dystopia. The worst part is that he's right.

[@o0Avalon0o]

Say it with me guys, healthy regulation is key.

[@ff-qf1th]

If an AI is entirely sentient, and able to edit it's own code, you cannot regulate it.

[@TitanBait]

Vaush has a good point about the form in which AI would take. AI would not be individual robots that we could like fight or something, AI would be a power plant, the power grid, satellites, entire buildings. We need tools but when a tool can wield itself, we are powerless to stop it.

[@brutuslugo3969]

Ai would not be individual robots , AI would be individual AI programs tailored to specific tasks. Vaush is thinking about an all encompassing AI .

[@paulvideos9987]

“I’d rather have the world be run by innefficient asshole sociopathic humans than an unthinking uncaring omniscient machine . . .” Wait vaush that’s the word we live in yooooooo

[@MarkArandjus]

I am LIDURRULY using AI to make character art bases on ArtBreeder as I listen to Vaush argue with Chat how AI is not a tool.

[@toddperry9658]

Even with our material needs met we have the vast expanse of space to direct our meaning towards

[@prisma6799]

If we ever develop an A.I., giving them consciousness would be pretty necessary if you don't want to end up with something like the WAU, from SOMA.

[@devforfun5618]

we already have A.I, the consciousness is the only thing we cant do

[@prisma6799]

@@devforfun5618 that's why we can apply it on a mass scale yet. If we don't give an A.I. the ability to reason and be counsious, it will try to accomplish it task by any mean necessary, Like the WAU (Athough it did solve the problem at the end)

[@brutuslugo3969]

@@prisma6799 "by any means necessary" would have to be a parameter we program into it . We don't have to program the AI to accomplish a goal by any means necessary. We can program it to accomplish goals within certain parameters

[@magnus_cockstrong]

If we actually achieved some form of AI singularity the intelligence gap between us and what we had created would be functionally infinite. We could never contain it, only hope it was better than us. To be fair tho we set the bar super low, so good shot.

[@adrianvoer368]

We are suuuuuper blurring the lines between actual sentient artificial intelligence and machine learning tools here. Doing something like planning an economy with a super advanced machine learning tool that's far better at planning an economy than either a council of humans or a free market, with that machine learning tool managed and sustained by both elected politicians and programmers, is a very different thing from just voting an AI to become the new King for All Time Of the World. Incidentally I will bite the bullet on the Experience Machine utopia scenario you described. Yes, having meaning in human life is essential--but I don't think we are so inflexible in our meaning-making that we must have suffering or scarcity in our lives in order to find it. If we could eliminate all suffering and scarcity in human life due to the advancement of technology (like AI), leaving to humans whatever we choose to do--and yes that may mean that a LOT of people just end up consuming and producing media--I don't think that's inherently a bad thing, depending on the content of the resultant culture. There may be more and more guardrails to prevent humanity from having to suffer, but a culture that values education, knowledge, and flexibility to current material circumstances will always be relevant to the survival of the species, even if it becomes overall a very easy and self-sustaining system through the use of excellent efficient tools. Regarding true AI, we're a good way off from it yet, but...there's no reason to assume that it's going to murder or enslave us all. Are those two of the possibilities? Sure. If we do a very poor job of guiding it to develop and retain values that coincide with our own. Other possibilities include it just developing its own society and seceding from human society; or making some kind of contract with human society like many cultures with at least slightly differing values do. I accept the Orks analogy as indicative of a possibility for value systems so distinct from human society's value systems that we'd have to kill them, but I genuinely don't see a reason to believe that would be the case with AI. We would literally be creating its building blocks from the ground up, including its value systems. Would it be able to edit it, yes, would it be able to innovate and potentially make decisions very dangerous to us, sure, I think we can and should be very careful in any attempt at designing true AI to set up guardrails to prevent paperclip scenarios. My big worry with true AI is more a (human) company driving its underpaid overworked programmers to write shoddy code with mediocre ethics and futureproofing resulting in a paperclip scenario (which is not a true general AI anyway, it's kind of the intermediary between machine learning and true AI I'm worried about) but if we manage to avoid that and develop a true AI and see what it does I think we'll largely be all set.

[@Dillonwise]

You will always be able to look for flaws that will never change