I found this essay to be a refreshing take from the usual analysis longtermists hold. I hope this writing inspires more discussion in the EA space on the fundamental nature of transformative technologies and the capacity of the community to realistically anticipate the value change over the coming millennia if not century.
To play a devil’s advocate though, I would not discount current longtermist policies altogether. There is a non-negligible chance that transformative technologies might not see mass adoption for a long time. The plans may be contributing to a body of knowledge which future institutions may adopt through an iterative process. If the systems improve welfare prior to a paradigmatic shift, it may not be entirely meaningless.
Another counterpoint might be that these transformative technologies might in fact enhance planning capabilities. This would likely occur if transformative technologies saw consolidation by a small group, which I find unfavorable. Nonetheless, a small group may theoretically apply those technologies to provide robust enough systems that improve the long run future.
I have not thought too seriously on the above issues, so I suspect there are many reasonable counterpoints. I suppose my only request is to not treat contemporary longtermists too uncharitably given the same uncertainty that underpins these theoretical arguments.
I realize the above was more or less advocated for in the paper when it writes on the adoption of these technologies.
Well, I appreciate your counterpoint but dont know why you bother to take it back. First, you counterpoint on mass adoption is valid, I myself am from a poor country in south asia and most of my friends think of ai as ‘entertaining chatbot’ nothing else. Even though technology advanced radically, most people do not access. Many don’t have smart phone or device, most don’t have sufficient knowledge. What’s going on in the world doesn’t matter to them. But you have to see how much things are changing rapidly. Who could have thought half a century ago that most people in future will use wallet size computer within their pocket which is far more powerful than the computer nasa used to send people on moon. How future might turn out simply beyond us. We can’t predict if adoption will be slower or faster. Most people in my country is addicted to facebook (even my parents ); just 10 years ago it was completely unthinkable for me; mobile was luxury, my parents only had buttons phones to use. Things changed rapidly before my eyes.
your second point is absolutely valid. Our planning quality will improve drastically. But I’m afraid it still wont be able to predict exponentially changing future. There’s tons of wall street quants trying to beat the market with there math more complex than quantum physics. but, end of the day, their return is slightly better than the market average.
Well, as human being it’s our desire to predict the future. We afraid uncertainty more than anything. today, we can predict the lifetime of a star millions of lightyear far from us, but can’t predict our own future back in earth. And that is something that we dont like. We will try to predict future and keep doing this even if it just serve our own curiosity. I think we should keep going no matter how many times we fail.
I found this essay to be a refreshing take from the usual analysis longtermists hold. I hope this writing inspires more discussion in the EA space on the fundamental nature of transformative technologies and the capacity of the community to realistically anticipate the value change over the coming millennia if not century.
To play a devil’s advocate though, I would not discount current longtermist policies altogether. There is a non-negligible chance that transformative technologies might not see mass adoption for a long time. The plans may be contributing to a body of knowledge which future institutions may adopt through an iterative process. If the systems improve welfare prior to a paradigmatic shift, it may not be entirely meaningless.Another counterpoint might be that these transformative technologies might in fact enhance planning capabilities. This would likely occur if transformative technologies saw consolidation by a small group, which I find unfavorable. Nonetheless, a small group may theoretically apply those technologies to provide robust enough systems that improve the long run future.I have not thought too seriously on the above issues, so I suspect there are many reasonable counterpoints. I suppose my only request is to not treat contemporary longtermists too uncharitably given the same uncertainty that underpins these theoretical arguments.I realize the above was more or less advocated for in the paper when it writes on the adoption of these technologies.
Well, I appreciate your counterpoint but dont know why you bother to take it back.
First, you counterpoint on mass adoption is valid, I myself am from a poor country in south asia and most of my friends think of ai as ‘entertaining chatbot’ nothing else. Even though technology advanced radically, most people do not access. Many don’t have smart phone or device, most don’t have sufficient knowledge. What’s going on in the world doesn’t matter to them.
But you have to see how much things are changing rapidly. Who could have thought half a century ago that most people in future will use wallet size computer within their pocket which is far more powerful than the computer nasa used to send people on moon. How future might turn out simply beyond us. We can’t predict if adoption will be slower or faster. Most people in my country is addicted to facebook (even my parents ); just 10 years ago it was completely unthinkable for me; mobile was luxury, my parents only had buttons phones to use. Things changed rapidly before my eyes.
your second point is absolutely valid. Our planning quality will improve drastically. But I’m afraid it still wont be able to predict exponentially changing future. There’s tons of wall street quants trying to beat the market with there math more complex than quantum physics. but, end of the day, their return is slightly better than the market average.
Well, as human being it’s our desire to predict the future. We afraid uncertainty more than anything. today, we can predict the lifetime of a star millions of lightyear far from us, but can’t predict our own future back in earth. And that is something that we dont like. We will try to predict future and keep doing this even if it just serve our own curiosity. I think we should keep going no matter how many times we fail.