I thought everyone in AI, and most HN readers, had seen "Colossus - The Forbin Project" by now.
If you haven't, here it is: [1]
Modern trailer: [2]
Spoiler: At the end, Colossus personally addresses Forbin, and tells him that the world, freed from war, will create a new "human millennium" that will raise humankind to new heights, but only under its absolute rule. Colossus informs Forbin that "freedom is an illusion", it was better for all that he dominated humanity than humans dominating humans, and that "in time you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love". Forbin defiantly responds "Never!"
> I thought everyone in AI, and most HN readers, had seen "Colossus - The Forbin Project" by now.
You assume anyone in AI reads or watches anything beyond some current pop-culture, and even then it's unlikely. You can see it in the way they talk, or approach problems, or in their opinions.
I've seen much of the AI industry, from CEOs to their whistleblowers and lobbyists, basically repeat the premise of this movie - that AI will become powerful and benevolent/malevolent. They don't seem to care which one is talked about, as long as "powerful" remains a silent assumption.
It's not the history of another form of intelligent life following the same path, to draw any meaningful conclusions. It's a movie.
Let's consider the ending:
>Forbin defiantly responds "Never!"
That signals a human who wants to take some other human's share, by ... means. He wants that freedom. As do all the people who are now controlling this tech, and our lives to some degree. Of-course they want that freedom.
I think AI may be the salvation of mankind. The humans in charge don't 'scale' well when their authority expands to billions of people. Humans just can't resist flattening the data and using notions and biases to make decisions that don't fit well.
Colossus is not obscure... also I like the premise of that film, eventually we learn that colossus did all those things to save humanity, so was a great twist IMO.
Check out The China Syndrome. I went on a never-seen-before 70s binge a while back and watch Colossus, Parallax, China Syndrome and Three Days of the Condor. Odd mix, but good.
We cannot be living in Idiocracy. In the movie, President Camacho actually cared about solving the problems facing his citizens, finding the smartest person on the planet and putting him to work to fix them. It's also worth noting that nearly all of said problems were the result of ignorance rather than malice.
In reality, Trump is deliberately exacerbating existing problems and creating new ones, perhaps as a smokescreen for all he's doing to enrich himself and his buddies at the expense of the rest of us.
May be a controversial take but I see the highest chances of everyone's survival under the rule of such a system, which has power over all humans.
We are many because we still need eachother. When the people who control the technology can fully replace human work, that will change the oldest of games we played. I highly doubt "the pleb" will make it for long when they are simply not needed for work or ... something.
The only people who will be "making it" to the glorious future will be the ones who do have full control over such a system, and only them, since they won't need anyone else. I think the only chance of the rest of us is precisely with such a system taking full control out of human hands.
If not, it quite obvious how it will work out for the rest of us, and why.
It certainly may be true, but I would ask, is a bit higher survival chance worth the costs? If humanity is so incapable of self governance and individual judgement and freedoms, should survival even be the goal? I would fight and die over certain principles and human rights and ideals, should humanity in general do the same thing, even to the ultimate end?
Unless another intellegence can provide a literal utopia, I will always be pro-human judgement and control. If we kill ourselves from it then so be it, we will have earned it.
With human benevolent dictators it doesn't work for long. The weak point is that particular human. Which is an argument for why what any particular "billionaire" says today is irrelevant.
Their promises mean nothing, what matters is the game strategy and the equilibrium. Not what they promise to do, or not do.
So, with a hypothetical entity that knows best than any human, or any group of humans, it's hard to argue for human control. Because the humans who have control want it for a few quite particular reasons, and it rarely has to do with the benefit of everyone else.
Why? There will always be a clash between personal and group benefit. A dictator implies power over individual for the group's well-being.
For example, you want to steal the group's resources, and the dictator has power over your actions and forbids it. But you can argue that's bad for you, sure.
A dictator could also decide the best thing to do is to mercilessly torture you to set an example so society behaves. Better to harm one individual than many, after all. They might even weep for your suffering but will still go through with it.
Any political position with absolute, unchecked and centralized power reduces the populace to little more than slaves, without rights or self-determination outside the whim of the dictator. "power over the individual for the group's well being" doesn't describe dictatorship, it just describes the concept of a state.
It doesn't matter whether the master chooses not to abuse their slaves, the evil is in the institution itself. Or to quote CS Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
>For example, you want to steal the group's resources, and the dictator has power over your actions and forbids it.
That's just a law. We don't need dictators to make laws against theft. We already have such laws.
>Any political position with absolute, unchecked and centralized power reduces the populace to little more than slaves, without rights or self-determination outside the whim of the dictator.
*Human dictator.
>That's just a law. We don't need dictators to make laws against theft. We already have such laws.
They are yet not enforced in important cases. Which is typical for humans having power.
Again, I fail to see any possible argument against a non-human ASI dictator. Dictator here implies the power, outside of human control. Why would you be against that? Again, considering the ASI would indeed be ... ASI, it would know and understand better than any group of humans ever could hope they would be able to.
Unless, you want the freedom to have more power than other humans, or the freedom to take their resources. I cannot see a justification against it. Again, considering it's looking for all of our interests, as a group. Maximizing every individual's quality of life.
I mean after thousands of years we have finally freed ourselves from religion, God, and now we create a creature that is smarter than us? It's pretty stupid if you think about it.
Not quite. AI is the new "god" for many. All seeing. All knowing. Just the other day I said something that contradicted Claude. Then I heard, "but Claude told me..." Then I sent a screenshot of the actual thing we were talking about.
We haven't even come close to freeing ourselves from God or religion, the biggest religious fanatics are running the world now through US government capture.
If you haven't, here it is: [1]
Modern trailer: [2]
Spoiler: At the end, Colossus personally addresses Forbin, and tells him that the world, freed from war, will create a new "human millennium" that will raise humankind to new heights, but only under its absolute rule. Colossus informs Forbin that "freedom is an illusion", it was better for all that he dominated humanity than humans dominating humans, and that "in time you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love". Forbin defiantly responds "Never!"
And that's it. Colossus is in charge.
[1] https://archive.org/details/colossus-the-forbin-project-1970...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0bpRo6V1Xg
You assume anyone in AI reads or watches anything beyond some current pop-culture, and even then it's unlikely. You can see it in the way they talk, or approach problems, or in their opinions.
they idolatre Iron Man/stark like a god.
Let's consider the ending:
>Forbin defiantly responds "Never!"
That signals a human who wants to take some other human's share, by ... means. He wants that freedom. As do all the people who are now controlling this tech, and our lives to some degree. Of-course they want that freedom.
Sci-fi films of the 70s and 80s recreate these stories as pastiche and trope.
Now people who grew up on those movies exclaim that life is imitating art.
We watch too many movies.
Life isn't a movie.
Because they were published in 1984 and 1992 respectively
Maybe I didn’t understand
There's no direct lineage.
Turns out it is both at the same time.
In reality, Trump is deliberately exacerbating existing problems and creating new ones, perhaps as a smokescreen for all he's doing to enrich himself and his buddies at the expense of the rest of us.
https://x.ai/colossus
It really was an enjoyable movie.
We are many because we still need eachother. When the people who control the technology can fully replace human work, that will change the oldest of games we played. I highly doubt "the pleb" will make it for long when they are simply not needed for work or ... something.
The only people who will be "making it" to the glorious future will be the ones who do have full control over such a system, and only them, since they won't need anyone else. I think the only chance of the rest of us is precisely with such a system taking full control out of human hands.
If not, it quite obvious how it will work out for the rest of us, and why.
Unless another intellegence can provide a literal utopia, I will always be pro-human judgement and control. If we kill ourselves from it then so be it, we will have earned it.
Their promises mean nothing, what matters is the game strategy and the equilibrium. Not what they promise to do, or not do.
So, with a hypothetical entity that knows best than any human, or any group of humans, it's hard to argue for human control. Because the humans who have control want it for a few quite particular reasons, and it rarely has to do with the benefit of everyone else.
For example, you want to steal the group's resources, and the dictator has power over your actions and forbids it. But you can argue that's bad for you, sure.
It doesn't matter whether the master chooses not to abuse their slaves, the evil is in the institution itself. Or to quote CS Lewis:
>For example, you want to steal the group's resources, and the dictator has power over your actions and forbids it.That's just a law. We don't need dictators to make laws against theft. We already have such laws.
*Human dictator.
>That's just a law. We don't need dictators to make laws against theft. We already have such laws.
They are yet not enforced in important cases. Which is typical for humans having power.
Again, I fail to see any possible argument against a non-human ASI dictator. Dictator here implies the power, outside of human control. Why would you be against that? Again, considering the ASI would indeed be ... ASI, it would know and understand better than any group of humans ever could hope they would be able to.
Unless, you want the freedom to have more power than other humans, or the freedom to take their resources. I cannot see a justification against it. Again, considering it's looking for all of our interests, as a group. Maximizing every individual's quality of life.
Peter Thiel comes to mind.
I think in his particular case he's merely trying to play the players. Doubt he's into any of that.
Way less offline, but the 50% have too much influence and money.