Why use automation as your reference class for AI and not various other (human) groups of intelligent agents though? And if you use the later, co-operation is common historically but so are war and imperialism.
Thanks, David. I estimate the annual conflict deaths as a fraction of the global population decreased 0.121 OOM/ācentury from 1400 to 2000 (R^2 of 8.45 %). In other words, I got a slight downwards trend despite lots of technological progress since 1400.
Even if historical data clearly pointed towards an increasing risk of conflict, the benefits could be worth it. Life expectancy at birth accounts for all sources of death, and it increases with real GDP per capita across countries.
The historical tail distribution of annual conflict deaths also suggests a very low chance of conflicts killing more than 1 % of the human population in 1 year.
I think you misunderstood Davidās point. See my post āArtificial General Intelligenceā: an extremely brief FAQ. Itās not that technology increases conflict between humans, but rather that the arrival of AGI amounts to the the arrival of a new intelligent species on our planet. There is no direct precedent for the arrival of a new intelligent species on our planet, apart from humans themselves, which did in fact turn out very badly for many existing species. The arrival of Europeans in North America is not quite āa new speciesā, but itās at least āa new lineageā, and it also turned out very badly for the Native Americans.
Of course, there are also many disanalogies between the arrival of Europeans in the Americas, versus the arrival of AGIs on Earth. But I think itās a less bad starting point than talking about shoe factories and whatnot!
(Like, if the Native Americans had said to each other, āwell, when we invented such-and-such basket weaving technology, that turned out really good for us, so if Europeans arrive on our continent, thatās probably going to turn out good as wellā ā¦ then that would be a staggering non sequitur, right? Likewise if they said āwell, basket weaving and other technologies have not increased conflict between our Native American tribes so far, so if Europeans arrive, that will also probably not increase conflict, because Europeans are kinda like a new technologyā. ā¦Thatās how weird your comparison feels, from my perspective :) .)
Thanks for clarifying, Steven! I am happy to think about advanced AI agents as a new species too. However, in this case, I would model them as mind children of humanity evolved through intelligent design, not Darwinian natural selection that would lead to a very adversarial relationship with humans.
Why use automation as your reference class for AI and not various other (human) groups of intelligent agents though? And if you use the later, co-operation is common historically but so are war and imperialism.
Thanks, David. I estimate the annual conflict deaths as a fraction of the global population decreased 0.121 OOM/ācentury from 1400 to 2000 (R^2 of 8.45 %). In other words, I got a slight downwards trend despite lots of technological progress since 1400.
Even if historical data clearly pointed towards an increasing risk of conflict, the benefits could be worth it. Life expectancy at birth accounts for all sources of death, and it increases with real GDP per capita across countries.
The historical tail distribution of annual conflict deaths also suggests a very low chance of conflicts killing more than 1 % of the human population in 1 year.
I think you misunderstood Davidās point. See my post āArtificial General Intelligenceā: an extremely brief FAQ. Itās not that technology increases conflict between humans, but rather that the arrival of AGI amounts to the the arrival of a new intelligent species on our planet. There is no direct precedent for the arrival of a new intelligent species on our planet, apart from humans themselves, which did in fact turn out very badly for many existing species. The arrival of Europeans in North America is not quite āa new speciesā, but itās at least āa new lineageā, and it also turned out very badly for the Native Americans.
Of course, there are also many disanalogies between the arrival of Europeans in the Americas, versus the arrival of AGIs on Earth. But I think itās a less bad starting point than talking about shoe factories and whatnot!
(Like, if the Native Americans had said to each other, āwell, when we invented such-and-such basket weaving technology, that turned out really good for us, so if Europeans arrive on our continent, thatās probably going to turn out good as wellā ā¦ then that would be a staggering non sequitur, right? Likewise if they said āwell, basket weaving and other technologies have not increased conflict between our Native American tribes so far, so if Europeans arrive, that will also probably not increase conflict, because Europeans are kinda like a new technologyā. ā¦Thatās how weird your comparison feels, from my perspective :) .)
Thanks for clarifying, Steven! I am happy to think about advanced AI agents as a new species too. However, in this case, I would model them as mind children of humanity evolved through intelligent design, not Darwinian natural selection that would lead to a very adversarial relationship with humans.