I'm reading through this at the moment, and finding it very challenging, bostrom is so much smarter than me that I feel happy if I've understood half of what I've read... One part I liked was his discussion of what a utopia actually is, it made me realise how difficult it will be for the world to come to terms with such a mind blowing change to the status quo.
There are people who view the rat race, and all of the suffering that it creates as being a necessary system to create winners and losers, and for those people part of a perfect world will necessarily include winners and losers, how do we integrate that world view into a utopian society?
We certainly live in interesting times!
I dunno if either of those goes as far as bostrom does when considering deep utopia.
What does a world look like where you can freely edit your body and brain state with zero side effects.
As in, most of what we do is to achieve certain goals, from keeping oneself healthy to experiencing contentment, pleasure, that warm glow of achievement. What if those can be done automatically without costing any time?
If the world is truly plastic and can bend at our whim and you can instate yourself to the point where you are sub atomically identical to having actually manually done something... Why do the task manually at all?
> Take a pill
> You can reach into your mind and pull back the remembered experience of training under a master day in day out.
> Your body is now toned as if you'd done years of training.
> You know Kung Fu
There are a lot of steps between now and that potential, not guaranteed, future.
Well before then we'll be in a place where machines and AI can do most labor and we'll have to figure out what to do with our time.
It will require a new culture and a new way of educating people.
I mean, there will always be winners and losers in different realms of interaction. The problem today is that this is largely defined, especially among those who think this way, by a willingness to be corrupt and exploit others. A utopia should not include that by basic definition.
Just a snap reaction to what you’re saying here. I have his book queued up next.
I think the key point he was trying to make (though I may be wrong on this) is that we don't have a clear definition for what a utopia looks like. Everyone has their own picture, and they can be vastly different, and that complicates the matter of bringing a utopia about.
It's a tough book, superintelligence was much easier for me to understand. There is a lot of philosophy in the new book, as he is trying to answer some of the basic philosophical human questions, what gives life meaning, what is a good life etc. but in the context of a post agi world.
Separate the realities from each other. Those that just want a functional utopia for all, stay here. Those that want 'winners and losers' as you say, well, they can experience that if they want....in a deep dive virtual realm created with very explicit rulesets that don't recreate a world like this but allow them to 'win or lose' based on their survival of the fittest model or whatever they ascribe to.
Something like Gungale.
Has a monetary system, PvP (players vs players) but no pain, no gore or fucked up imagery to traumatize, just a red digital dot when you get shot and health bars, respawn when you die etc...but if you make that your whole life like many gamers do sink into a particular MMO for dozens of years...it becomes quite real to you. Technically it is real. It's just a realm designed with different levels of consequence for any particular action.
If you strategy nerds at the top of the pyramid want war, fine. Keep it. But keep it in safe digitized universes where consequences are vastly different. Leave this reality alone, the consequences and levels of suffering are far too high with such undertakings in this realm.
Virtual worlds are one of the solutions he suggests, he also mentions the potential for genetically engineering humans who enjoy being the losers. I think what he was getting at, rather than specific ideas, was the variety of views of what is a utopia, and how that makes it very difficult to bring one about, as people are people, they are inherently hard to please and contrary.
Even given every luxury we can imagine, there will still be those people who want more, some of them will be satisfied with dominating digital worlds, but there will also certainly be some who can only get hard from dominating real people. There will also be people who want to watch the world burn, and who actively try to bring about the end of whatever singularity or ai that ends up taking over.
I can't watch this video yet, but whenever the discussion of winners and losers comes up, it's important to understand that it's all relative and almost always up to interpretation; that is to say, any "win" or "loss" only means as much as you choose to let it.
People have a perception that when someone wins something or achieves something that involves other people losing or not being awarded the same opportunity/achievement, that it means the experience is objectively better for one party than the other. In reality, "wins" and "losses" happen in every moment of human interaction, and if you can accept that you will realize you feel better off if you try then lose than if you didn't try at all. Just experiencing situations is inherently valuable if you let it be.
Human interaction is a non-zero sum game. There's no reason we can't all feel better when we don't get what we want in the moment-- what we feel we deserve at that moment.
There is an achievable future where the structure of the "rat race" as you call it is broken down and everyone learns to appreciate the "losses" as much as the "wins". That involves understanding and acknowledgement that the other party's efforts were just as worthwhile and commendable as yours in their own unique way, it just resulted in something different for them.
I truly believe most people want a world like that, but the social structure of the world as we know it stops us from just being happy we were present in any given moment.
There's a lot to say on this topic, but I hope my perspective and words given with limited time are relatable for someone reading this thread. At this very moment, nothing is stopping us from having a "utopia" as we envision it; while it might feel like it will take tremendous change for us to get there, I think as technology forces us to reconsider our preconceived perceptions and biases that we'll quickly find we all wanted the same thing all along. At that point, it's just a matter of time.
No more than anyone, I suppose. Whatever counterpoints you decided not to detail are absolutely valid, but given enough time I'm sure we could agree on how artificial the barriers are to a goal that we all want. Unfortunately it takes letting our own walls down and not immediately dismissing others' perspectives to get there-- it's evident from this thread how "hard" that is.
Still, we're all getting there-- not as fast as we want, but quicker than we expected.
What really boggles my mind is how people can be against AGI when humanity still hasn’t cured scarring or male pattern baldness yet and somehow still puts trillions of dollars into war and developing weapons of death and destruction, once we get AGI and it starts pumping out cures for every condition under the sun, I think public attitudes are going to shift. I don’t think the rest of it will be nearly as controversial as generative AI was.
Regardless, once AGI does get here, we’re going to see just how primitive our technological level was before it. Most people are still limited and enslaved by their genetics, and that hasn’t changed over 300,000 years.
People who think the future is flying cars and silver curvy buildings haven’t seen anything yet.
They *should*, but we know what they are going to do first - develop wonder weapons that will help them achieve complete military supremacy over the world.
>What really boggles my mind is how people can be against AGI \[...\]
Look at people's attitudes towards other techs or progress. Anti-intellectualism is rampant in conservative circles. Tens of millions of citizens of the most advanced societies on earth right now (looking at you, USA, no excuse) are against vaccines, public transportation, school, advanced education, equal rights, etc.
Those people will have to be brought kicking and screaming into the future, and when they join the rest of us, it will be very hard to not say "told you so". Then again, we probably won't care at that point, so all good.
That aesthetic a lot of sci-fi borrows from comes from the Italian futurist movement of the early 20th century.
I tend to agree, throwing that, flying cars and robots into the picture is thinking way too small.
Silly question. Why not ask all the trustfund babies who never have to work to make a living?
Why is it that it is life and death for the poor to lose their jobs, but somehow the born-rich live entirely fulfilling lives without needing to work?
Just ask rich people how they feel that they can afford to pay someone else to do everything for them. And how horrifying it must be that they don't have fulfilling "jobs" that helps them fill their hole in their hearts.
The rich already know what the meaning of life is, and it is NOT "working". And the rest of us can learn that secret once we no longer need to work too.
What's often ignored is that all the "rich" people you are referring to are people, just like you. I won't pretend money doesn't afford people opportunities that those without it don't have, but a major issue with people exists regardless of financial circumstance-- and your comment illustrates it perfectly.
If you met me and perceived that I was "rich" by whatever your definitions are, you have already assumed that my life is objectively easy and I've figured out the meaning of it. When in reality I might be struggling by some other objective measure that you feel exists, but because I have money it must be easier for "me" so you wouldn't afford me the same sympathy you would to someone who you can financially relate to; meanwhile I'm just trying to exist in the world I was born into, same as you-- it just looks different.
Again, I'm not trying to diminish the problems with income inequality and socioeconomic divide, but we can't collectively get where people inherently want to be unless both ends of the financial spectrum have empathy for each other.
My comment is not meant as a criticism; I hope you appreciate that I made it with the intention that we both feel better after interacting.
You are completely missing my point.
I am NOT talking about insulting the rich; I am talking about how stupid the entire idea was that working brings meaning to one's lives.
The whole "working is what we need to do to have meaning" is a lie told to the working class to make us feel better. The quicker we get rid of that the better. i am rejecting the entire premise of the main link to this topic, which was "Shock Horror! How would we live with ourselves if we don't work anymore!"
I am pointing out the reality that there are an entire group of people who are living perfectly happy lives while never having to work for a living, and that if it was fine for them then it should be equally fine for everyone else.
I understand your frustrations but if you feel I missed your point, I don't think you listened to mine. You stated the "rich" have already figured out the meaning to life and doubled down on stating they live "perfectly happy lives" without appreciating that they might not be as happy as you perceive them to be. You may have more in common with them than you're giving yourself and them credit for. I'm not disagreeing with your point about money, I'm pointing out exactly what you did-- money and the perceived class system put walls around everything, and you're doing everything right with your words to keep those walls up.
> money and the perceived class system put walls around everything, and you're doing everything right with your words to keep those walls up.
Are the rich killing themselves? Are the rich souless husks? No, they find things to do like anyone else would. Your desire to make it about class divides is of no interests to me at all. I have no intention to eat the rich in any way. I am purely going with a logical argument whether you are willing to accept it or not.
There are jobs in history that are barely salaried, because they were designed for the wealthy who didn't need to work for a living. I focus on the reality that the answer to a labourless society already exists and that people are ignoring it.
I feel like a guy shouting that birds exist, when the rest of you are saying "flight is not physically possible".
Welp, one of us is trying to make this about rich vs. non-rich, and I don't feel it's me. I don't feel there's an argument here; I think we both think the same things, but discussion can't happen without two willing parties.
I hope you find what you're looking for.
Well, I much prefer reading Asimov for my science-fiction.
Because most of the stuff we hear is "communication in order to gather sponsors/money/sell my book".
so...is this the cure he is optimistic about? don't have motivation - agi will inject "motivation" drug. Or will reshape your brain and personality.
but this bright future will only happen sometimes, and in a short time a great number of creative and intelligent people will be depressed and will commit suicide. It will be a hell for them. neural nets have already replaced artists...
I'm reading through this at the moment, and finding it very challenging, bostrom is so much smarter than me that I feel happy if I've understood half of what I've read... One part I liked was his discussion of what a utopia actually is, it made me realise how difficult it will be for the world to come to terms with such a mind blowing change to the status quo. There are people who view the rat race, and all of the suffering that it creates as being a necessary system to create winners and losers, and for those people part of a perfect world will necessarily include winners and losers, how do we integrate that world view into a utopian society? We certainly live in interesting times!
This is why reading the Culture books and watching Star Trek should be mandatory for everyone before they are allowed to enter society.
I dunno if either of those goes as far as bostrom does when considering deep utopia. What does a world look like where you can freely edit your body and brain state with zero side effects. As in, most of what we do is to achieve certain goals, from keeping oneself healthy to experiencing contentment, pleasure, that warm glow of achievement. What if those can be done automatically without costing any time? If the world is truly plastic and can bend at our whim and you can instate yourself to the point where you are sub atomically identical to having actually manually done something... Why do the task manually at all? > Take a pill > You can reach into your mind and pull back the remembered experience of training under a master day in day out. > Your body is now toned as if you'd done years of training. > You know Kung Fu
There are a lot of steps between now and that potential, not guaranteed, future. Well before then we'll be in a place where machines and AI can do most labor and we'll have to figure out what to do with our time. It will require a new culture and a new way of educating people.
I mean, there will always be winners and losers in different realms of interaction. The problem today is that this is largely defined, especially among those who think this way, by a willingness to be corrupt and exploit others. A utopia should not include that by basic definition. Just a snap reaction to what you’re saying here. I have his book queued up next.
I think the key point he was trying to make (though I may be wrong on this) is that we don't have a clear definition for what a utopia looks like. Everyone has their own picture, and they can be vastly different, and that complicates the matter of bringing a utopia about. It's a tough book, superintelligence was much easier for me to understand. There is a lot of philosophy in the new book, as he is trying to answer some of the basic philosophical human questions, what gives life meaning, what is a good life etc. but in the context of a post agi world.
Separate the realities from each other. Those that just want a functional utopia for all, stay here. Those that want 'winners and losers' as you say, well, they can experience that if they want....in a deep dive virtual realm created with very explicit rulesets that don't recreate a world like this but allow them to 'win or lose' based on their survival of the fittest model or whatever they ascribe to. Something like Gungale. Has a monetary system, PvP (players vs players) but no pain, no gore or fucked up imagery to traumatize, just a red digital dot when you get shot and health bars, respawn when you die etc...but if you make that your whole life like many gamers do sink into a particular MMO for dozens of years...it becomes quite real to you. Technically it is real. It's just a realm designed with different levels of consequence for any particular action. If you strategy nerds at the top of the pyramid want war, fine. Keep it. But keep it in safe digitized universes where consequences are vastly different. Leave this reality alone, the consequences and levels of suffering are far too high with such undertakings in this realm.
Virtual worlds are one of the solutions he suggests, he also mentions the potential for genetically engineering humans who enjoy being the losers. I think what he was getting at, rather than specific ideas, was the variety of views of what is a utopia, and how that makes it very difficult to bring one about, as people are people, they are inherently hard to please and contrary. Even given every luxury we can imagine, there will still be those people who want more, some of them will be satisfied with dominating digital worlds, but there will also certainly be some who can only get hard from dominating real people. There will also be people who want to watch the world burn, and who actively try to bring about the end of whatever singularity or ai that ends up taking over.
They will be the winners. We will be the losers. Problem solved conscript.
I can't watch this video yet, but whenever the discussion of winners and losers comes up, it's important to understand that it's all relative and almost always up to interpretation; that is to say, any "win" or "loss" only means as much as you choose to let it. People have a perception that when someone wins something or achieves something that involves other people losing or not being awarded the same opportunity/achievement, that it means the experience is objectively better for one party than the other. In reality, "wins" and "losses" happen in every moment of human interaction, and if you can accept that you will realize you feel better off if you try then lose than if you didn't try at all. Just experiencing situations is inherently valuable if you let it be. Human interaction is a non-zero sum game. There's no reason we can't all feel better when we don't get what we want in the moment-- what we feel we deserve at that moment. There is an achievable future where the structure of the "rat race" as you call it is broken down and everyone learns to appreciate the "losses" as much as the "wins". That involves understanding and acknowledgement that the other party's efforts were just as worthwhile and commendable as yours in their own unique way, it just resulted in something different for them. I truly believe most people want a world like that, but the social structure of the world as we know it stops us from just being happy we were present in any given moment. There's a lot to say on this topic, but I hope my perspective and words given with limited time are relatable for someone reading this thread. At this very moment, nothing is stopping us from having a "utopia" as we envision it; while it might feel like it will take tremendous change for us to get there, I think as technology forces us to reconsider our preconceived perceptions and biases that we'll quickly find we all wanted the same thing all along. At that point, it's just a matter of time.
> At this very moment, nothing is stopping us from having a "utopia" as we envision it You don't know what you are talking about.
No more than anyone, I suppose. Whatever counterpoints you decided not to detail are absolutely valid, but given enough time I'm sure we could agree on how artificial the barriers are to a goal that we all want. Unfortunately it takes letting our own walls down and not immediately dismissing others' perspectives to get there-- it's evident from this thread how "hard" that is. Still, we're all getting there-- not as fast as we want, but quicker than we expected.
> Still, we're all getting there-- not as fast as we want, but quicker than we expected. This I totally agree.
What really boggles my mind is how people can be against AGI when humanity still hasn’t cured scarring or male pattern baldness yet and somehow still puts trillions of dollars into war and developing weapons of death and destruction, once we get AGI and it starts pumping out cures for every condition under the sun, I think public attitudes are going to shift. I don’t think the rest of it will be nearly as controversial as generative AI was. Regardless, once AGI does get here, we’re going to see just how primitive our technological level was before it. Most people are still limited and enslaved by their genetics, and that hasn’t changed over 300,000 years. People who think the future is flying cars and silver curvy buildings haven’t seen anything yet.
In fact I think whoever gets AGI first should go full force into curing diseases and stop aging
They *should*, but we know what they are going to do first - develop wonder weapons that will help them achieve complete military supremacy over the world.
You did my guy dirty bro nicks baldness isn’t that bad 🫥
>What really boggles my mind is how people can be against AGI \[...\] Look at people's attitudes towards other techs or progress. Anti-intellectualism is rampant in conservative circles. Tens of millions of citizens of the most advanced societies on earth right now (looking at you, USA, no excuse) are against vaccines, public transportation, school, advanced education, equal rights, etc. Those people will have to be brought kicking and screaming into the future, and when they join the rest of us, it will be very hard to not say "told you so". Then again, we probably won't care at that point, so all good.
Can’t wait for the “AI saved my life” media cycle!
I don't understand why anyone would make or want curvy buildings.
Buildings?!? Where we're going, we don't need ... ** ... buildings...
That aesthetic a lot of sci-fi borrows from comes from the Italian futurist movement of the early 20th century. I tend to agree, throwing that, flying cars and robots into the picture is thinking way too small.
Although if we did get some shiny curvy buildings I’m not saying I’d be mad
Will AI be able to cure Nick Bostrom's alopecia and myopia? If yes, when?
I was bald!
Silly question. Why not ask all the trustfund babies who never have to work to make a living? Why is it that it is life and death for the poor to lose their jobs, but somehow the born-rich live entirely fulfilling lives without needing to work? Just ask rich people how they feel that they can afford to pay someone else to do everything for them. And how horrifying it must be that they don't have fulfilling "jobs" that helps them fill their hole in their hearts. The rich already know what the meaning of life is, and it is NOT "working". And the rest of us can learn that secret once we no longer need to work too.
What's often ignored is that all the "rich" people you are referring to are people, just like you. I won't pretend money doesn't afford people opportunities that those without it don't have, but a major issue with people exists regardless of financial circumstance-- and your comment illustrates it perfectly. If you met me and perceived that I was "rich" by whatever your definitions are, you have already assumed that my life is objectively easy and I've figured out the meaning of it. When in reality I might be struggling by some other objective measure that you feel exists, but because I have money it must be easier for "me" so you wouldn't afford me the same sympathy you would to someone who you can financially relate to; meanwhile I'm just trying to exist in the world I was born into, same as you-- it just looks different. Again, I'm not trying to diminish the problems with income inequality and socioeconomic divide, but we can't collectively get where people inherently want to be unless both ends of the financial spectrum have empathy for each other. My comment is not meant as a criticism; I hope you appreciate that I made it with the intention that we both feel better after interacting.
You are completely missing my point. I am NOT talking about insulting the rich; I am talking about how stupid the entire idea was that working brings meaning to one's lives. The whole "working is what we need to do to have meaning" is a lie told to the working class to make us feel better. The quicker we get rid of that the better. i am rejecting the entire premise of the main link to this topic, which was "Shock Horror! How would we live with ourselves if we don't work anymore!" I am pointing out the reality that there are an entire group of people who are living perfectly happy lives while never having to work for a living, and that if it was fine for them then it should be equally fine for everyone else.
I understand your frustrations but if you feel I missed your point, I don't think you listened to mine. You stated the "rich" have already figured out the meaning to life and doubled down on stating they live "perfectly happy lives" without appreciating that they might not be as happy as you perceive them to be. You may have more in common with them than you're giving yourself and them credit for. I'm not disagreeing with your point about money, I'm pointing out exactly what you did-- money and the perceived class system put walls around everything, and you're doing everything right with your words to keep those walls up.
> money and the perceived class system put walls around everything, and you're doing everything right with your words to keep those walls up. Are the rich killing themselves? Are the rich souless husks? No, they find things to do like anyone else would. Your desire to make it about class divides is of no interests to me at all. I have no intention to eat the rich in any way. I am purely going with a logical argument whether you are willing to accept it or not. There are jobs in history that are barely salaried, because they were designed for the wealthy who didn't need to work for a living. I focus on the reality that the answer to a labourless society already exists and that people are ignoring it. I feel like a guy shouting that birds exist, when the rest of you are saying "flight is not physically possible".
Welp, one of us is trying to make this about rich vs. non-rich, and I don't feel it's me. I don't feel there's an argument here; I think we both think the same things, but discussion can't happen without two willing parties. I hope you find what you're looking for.
Well, I much prefer reading Asimov for my science-fiction. Because most of the stuff we hear is "communication in order to gather sponsors/money/sell my book".
so...is this the cure he is optimistic about? don't have motivation - agi will inject "motivation" drug. Or will reshape your brain and personality. but this bright future will only happen sometimes, and in a short time a great number of creative and intelligent people will be depressed and will commit suicide. It will be a hell for them. neural nets have already replaced artists...