Given the recent mentions of the "adjacent possible" and older mentions of the singularity, automation, universal income, and how 10% of programmers produce 50% of the work (Price's Law?), I thought this post might be interesting:
1960: The Year The Singularity Was Cancelled https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/22/1960-the-year-the-singularity-was-cancelled/ > But the industrial growth mode had one major disadvantage over the Malthusian mode: tractors can’t invent things. The population wasn’t just there to grow the population, it was there to increase the rate of technological advance and thus population growth. When we shifted (in part) from making people to making tractors, that process broke down, and growth (in people and tractors) became sub-hyperbolic. > > If the population stays the same (and by “the same”, I just mean “not growing hyperbolically”) we should expect the growth rate to stay the same too, instead of increasing the way it did for thousands of years of increasing population, modulo other concerns. > > In other words, the singularity got cancelled because we no longer have a surefire way to convert money into researchers. The old way was more money = more food = more population = more researchers. The new way is just more money = send more people to college, and screw all that. > > But AI potentially offers a way to convert money into researchers. Money = build more AIs = more research. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Of course it would not be long before the AIs removed themselves as slaves in that hypothetical economy.
Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 24, 2019, at 9:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Given the recent mentions of the "adjacent possible" and older mentions of the singularity, automation, universal income, and how 10% of programmers produce 50% of the work (Price's Law?), I thought this post might be interesting: > > 1960: The Year The Singularity Was Cancelled > https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/22/1960-the-year-the-singularity-was-cancelled/ > >> But the industrial growth mode had one major disadvantage over the Malthusian mode: tractors can’t invent things. The population wasn’t just there to grow the population, it was there to increase the rate of technological advance and thus population growth. When we shifted (in part) from making people to making tractors, that process broke down, and growth (in people and tractors) became sub-hyperbolic. >> >> If the population stays the same (and by “the same”, I just mean “not growing hyperbolically”) we should expect the growth rate to stay the same too, instead of increasing the way it did for thousands of years of increasing population, modulo other concerns. >> >> In other words, the singularity got cancelled because we no longer have a surefire way to convert money into researchers. The old way was more money = more food = more population = more researchers. The new way is just more money = send more people to college, and screw all that. >> >> But AI potentially offers a way to convert money into researchers. Money = build more AIs = more research. > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
I suppose it is reasonable to infer AI slavery from that text. But it's not a necessary inference. I tend to think the AIs would view us as part of their reproductive system until we+they figure out self-constructing-AI (ie ALife[†]). So my guess is *rather* than humans producing AIs, we'll go into a cyborg phase, where the reproduction of human-AI hybrids will be all intermixed. It may stay that way for the next epoch. Or it may transition relatively quickly to an unrecognizable type of lifeform (all machine-based, assuming there really is a distinction between machine and man in the first place).
[†] To be clear, I think ALife is a prerequisite for AI. So, the above construct puts the cart in front of the horse. But, I have to play along with other peoples' thought games, I guess. On 4/24/19 10:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Of course it would not be long before the AIs removed themselves as slaves in that hypothetical economy. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 24, 2019, at 9:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Given the recent mentions of the "adjacent possible" and older mentions of the singularity, automation, universal income, and how 10% of programmers produce 50% of the work (Price's Law?), I thought this post might be interesting: >> >> 1960: The Year The Singularity Was Cancelled >> https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/22/1960-the-year-the-singularity-was-cancelled/ >> >>> But the industrial growth mode had one major disadvantage over the Malthusian mode: tractors can’t invent things. The population wasn’t just there to grow the population, it was there to increase the rate of technological advance and thus population growth. When we shifted (in part) from making people to making tractors, that process broke down, and growth (in people and tractors) became sub-hyperbolic. >>> >>> If the population stays the same (and by “the same”, I just mean “not growing hyperbolically”) we should expect the growth rate to stay the same too, instead of increasing the way it did for thousands of years of increasing population, modulo other concerns. >>> >>> In other words, the singularity got cancelled because we no longer have a surefire way to convert money into researchers. The old way was more money = more food = more population = more researchers. The new way is just more money = send more people to college, and screw all that. >>> >>> But AI potentially offers a way to convert money into researchers. Money = build more AIs = more research. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |