On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 2:10:21 PM UTC-5 jessem wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 8:26 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > >> So, I think insect-level AGI will cause a rapid transition to a machine >> civilization. This will lead to a new biology of machines with insect >> level intelligence ending up wiping out all life on Earth due to >> pollution, similar to the great oxygenation event: >> > > Are you assuming insect-level AGI would also be small like insects and > could self-replicate just as rapidly using commonly-found materials as > "nutrients"? If we had insect-level AGI but they were larger and easier to > spot, and also took much longer than an insect to self-replicate (and > perhaps required external infrastructure or uncommon materials to do so), > it seems hard to imagine a scenario in which humanity wouldn't be able to > prevent them from going into runaway self-replication mode. > > I think the possibility of relatively "dumb" self-replicating machines, > even if large and relatively slow like Eric Drexler's concept of a > "clanking replicator" (see > http://wfmh.org.pl/enginesofcreation/EOC_Chapter_4.html ), could disrupt > society for a different reason--they could spell the end of capitalism, or > at least radically change its nature. If there were commercially available > machines that could replicate themselves, those who owned them could make > copies for just the cost of raw materials and energy, and if they were > competing to sell them, competition would tend to drive the cost down to > materials/energy cost or barely above it, basically destroying profits for > any good that isn't forced into artificial scarcity by intellectual > property laws. This would likewise go for any other goods the machines are > capable of replicating. If self-replicating machines could also extract > resources (fully automated mining facilities, say), then profit would still > be possible if raw materials returned > raw materials invested (akin to > 'energy return on energy invested' in energy economics), but if companies > were making profits by just setting up mining machines and then sitting > back and doing nothing, this would probably cause political instability, > both in democracies and autocratic systems, where either the people or the > politicians would likely prefer to be the ones reliably getting back more > than their initial investment with no work needed. Perhaps instead of > totally ending capitalism, we might end up with a hybrid system where some > sort of intellectual property laws would still be in place so companies and > individuals could still profit from those, but actual production machinery > would mostly be publicly owned, and people (along with retail companies) > could order up any good from a database of designs, receiving something > like a basic income in raw materials and energy (funded by mining and > energy generation facilities which could also be publicly owned). > > Arthur C. Clarke, in his 1962 nonfiction book Profiles of the Future, > commented about how a self-replicating machine which could also replicate > other goods, which he just called a "Replicator", would disrupt our current > economic system: > > "The advent of the Replicator would mean the end of all factories, and > perhaps all transportation of raw materials and all farming. The entire > structure of industry and commerce, as it is now organized, would cease to > exist. Every family would produce all that it needed on the spot — as, > indeed, it has had to do throughout most of human history. The present > machine era of mass-production would then be seen as a brief interregnum > between two far longer periods of self-sufficiency, and the only valuable > item of exchange would be matrices, or recordings, which had to be inserted > into the Replicator to control its creations. > > "No one who has read thus far will, I hope, argue that the Replicator > would itself be so expensive that nobody could possibly afford it. The > prototype, it is true, is hardly likely to cost less than > £1,000,000,000,000 spread over a few centuries of time. The second model > would cost nothing, because the Replicator's first job would be to produce > other Replicators. It is perhaps relevant to point out that in 1951 the > great mathematician, John von Neumann, established the important principle > that a machine could always be designed to build any describable machine -- > including itself. The human race has squalling proof of this several > hundred thousand times a day. > > "A society based on the Replicator would be so completely different from > ours that the present debate between Capitalism and Communism would become > quite meaningless. All material possessions would be literally cheap as > dirt. Soiled handkerchiefs, diamond tiaras, Mona Lisas totally > indistinguishable from the original, once-worn mink stoles, half-consumed > bottles of the most superb champagnes – all would go back into the hopper > when they were no longer required. Even the furniture in the house of the > future might cease to exist when it was not actually in use.” > > Probably this book was a major influence on Gene Roddenberry's vision of a > post-scarcity future in Star Trek, see his comments quoted at > https://arthurcclarke.org/site/how-arthur-c-clarke-helped-save-star-trek/ > where he specifically references Profiles of the Future. For a more > cyberpunk depiction of how fully automated self-replicating machinery could > lead to a transition to a new kind of economic system, I recommend Cory > Doctorow's recent sci fi novel "Walkaway". > > Jesse >
All of that would require an enormous amount of energy. That is one thing that would put a limit on this. LC > > > > >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event >> >> And as I pointed out earlier, I think this is a universal phenomena that >> all intelligent life is subject to. The whole point of being intelligent >> is to let as much of the work be done for you by entities that are >> dumber than you. But in that process that leads to faster and faster >> economic growth, its inevitable that at some point you are going to >> crate autonomous systems that will grow exponentially. The point where >> the transition to artificial life starts is going to be close to the >> minimum intelligence level needed for exponential growth. >> >> If you make it hotter and hotter in some closed space, a fire will break >> out, this is going to happen close to the minimum required temperature >> for ignition, not at some extremely high value for the temperature. >> Nature shows us that the minimum amount of intelligence required for >> efficient self-maintenance and reproduction that yields exponential >> growth is very low. >> >> Saibal >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08-09-2022 14:09, John Clark wrote: >> > This is an interview of the great computer programmer John Carmack, he >> > thinks the time when computers can do everything, not just some >> > things, as good or better than humans is much closer than most people >> > believe, he thinks there is a 60% chance it will happen by 2030. Like >> > me Carmack is much more interested in intelligence than consciousness >> > and has no interest in the "philosophical zombie" argument. As far as >> > the future history of the human race is concerned the following >> > quotation is particularly relevant: >> > >> > "___It seems to me this is the highest leverage moment for a single >> > individual potentially_ _in the history of the world._ [...] _I am >> > not a mad man in saying that the code for artificial General >> > intelligence is going to be tens of thousands of lines of code, not >> > millions of lines of code. This is code that conceivably one >> > individual could write, unliker writing a new web browser or operating >> > system._" >> > >> > The code for AGI will be simple [1] >> > >> > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis [2] >> > >> > b30 >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > Groups "Everything List" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> > an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> > >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZEbXXVjs803%3Dutjc2pvkCgpZGA%2Bad_OWBhue-5kxDJQ%40mail.gmail.com >> > [3]. >> > >> > >> > Links: >> > ------ >> > [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLi83prR5fg >> > [2] https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis >> > [3] >> > >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZEbXXVjs803%3Dutjc2pvkCgpZGA%2Bad_OWBhue-5kxDJQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d4b54074fe283e5c198ff6a6d709b143%40zonnet.nl >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bf5f67c4-b319-459e-8eae-d8c4a4fd271an%40googlegroups.com.
