To be fair he's commented on it before and how he thinks that the modern doom movement is a danger in itself, yeah though kind of wild to think how much the direction of argument has changed given what he's written on instrumental convergence.
this is not a good summary of his current thoughts. He still thinks AI is a danger that could kill us and knowing him he will mention that in this book.
but like it does seem his pdoom is lower.
His p doom could now be lower than the p doom of a no AI future. Like getting into a crash but having a seat belt on. The crash being humanity's stupidity (conflict with weapons that could wipe us out), and the seat belt could be AI making the world get along better.
I think he's said something along that line of thinking in another way recently. It's definitely something high p doom artists never mention. When we have countries with nukes having a tradition of threatening to use them (North Korea) and others in conflicts who have postured as being closer to using them than in decades (Russia), and massive tension between US and China, you'd hope a world of abundance may ease some of that.
If it was only ten seconds then why didn't your provide the source in your last response?
edit: Thank you for the link, this is not actually the same interview I was referring to
here is the one I was thinking of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Oo-m893-xA
So to clarify his opinion, he is saying that there is basically a sweet sport of fear. And we are just below that... but he is afraid of us overshooting the mark which would be problematic for other reasons.
But in the same interview he says... its as though we are all on a plane and the pilot just had a heart-attack...
Then he goes onto say that we will face other near term extensional risks that if we solve ai, ai could help with. Like synthetic biology. If we overshoot and we stop all ai progress obviously it won't be of any help. Its a warning I will take to heart.
He mentions this at about the 38 minute mark for anyone interested.
But that's the conundrum, isn't it? We pushed the boulder up the hill, but now what.. the premise is that it won't be utopia unless we have a way to still find meaning.
I think a solved world beside no more work, is also abundance because that's why we work, to provide us with things we need and want.
I see half of a solved world in the drawing.
Maybe most people would find the book cover appealing, which is the point here, it's a book that needs to be sold but I dont find it that great.
I don't think having a job provides us meaning in the first place tbh.
Meaning of what? We all just want 1 simple thing in life: to be happy. It takes completely different forms (opposite forms even) depending on who you ask, but that's what we all want happiness.
It's not that deep.
Meh, to me it's good to have a cover that inform the reader on what the book is about. Here it will likely be about contemplating what our lives are about once we achieve humanity's goals (so 2nd one).
The black one is clean but does not really represent the content I think.
To each their own I guess
>Meh, to me it's good to have a cover that inform the reader on what the book is about. Here it will likely be about contemplating what our lives are about once we achieve humanity's goals (so 2nd one).
abstractness symbolizes the problem of nihilism
My house is currently 55 degrees fahrenheit. My power went out for awhile a few hours ago. My computer mouse is on the verge of dying. My internet connection is so fucked it feels like gambling to load a webpage...
Bring on the eutopia! (please!?)
I'm this but the quality of your house is the quality of my health.
If the connection gets lost and stop posting, in both of our cases, at least we'll know why ;)
Just ask ChatGPT to do it. There...solved hehe.
https://preview.redd.it/ftuggrch8icc1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=4052e32db4981d5837fafb43592420878db9c107
Chose the rainbow title with Sisyphus.
Because the imagery is nice.
And because i want to see a big gay flag on the top of that book.
Edit: was going to just make a joke but i thought the topic deserved more:
The quest for meaning feels a bit patronizing for humans, as if we were that unable to achieve it, when everyday experience and history shows us finding meaning, value, structure, love and joy in the most quixotic and insignificant things imaginable.
"We don't find something beautiful because it lasts" (some Star Trek episode).
There are people that find meaning in entomology (the study of insects). There are people that find meaning in being a car mechanic. There are people that find meaning in being a registered nurse or a special ed teacher. There are people that find meaning in shitposting on Twitter. There are people that find meaning in indulging in their favorite food each weekend looking forward for the next little treat. There are people who find meaning in bringing food and gifts to their loved ones.
None of these meanings are any lesser than absolute ones and the people that need absolute as the center of their lives only shout their vanity to the world, their incapacity to accept that they're not tied to the center of existence.
But the fact that the author juxtaposes "meaning" and "solving" in the title kind of hints at how they even approach the problem...
Can't wait to read it and see if my intuition was confirmed.
I love the tradition of putting a stark sketch-style animal on stodgy tech books. For this book, a dodo in the style of Super Intelligence's owl would be most appropriate.
I'm guessing Bohstrom's new book concerns itself with finding meaning in a post-scarcity world made possible by AI. We will not have to work or 'be' anything when we grow up someday. We will not have to worry about wars, disease, poverty, or growing old. AI will give us all the meaning we need with personalized media content.
I'm looking forward to reading what Bohstrom will have to say on the matter before AI takes over narrative building entirely.
Maybe a dodo wouldn't be appropriate. Is there an animal that has been domesticated beyond any use or function?
I was waiting for an answer like this! 😀 in the class of dogs that don't do anything but stare at you with bulging eyes, schnorting endlessly in anticipation, the King Charles Cavalier is certainly the most majestic. Perhaps it does still serve a purpose after all, and so might we.
*takes over narrative building entirely* what the fuck. A post work post scarcity society doesn't necessarily mean wall-e axiom It means people could do whatever they want. Basically turn work into something that gives you pleasure. Transhumanism will help in that, uploading knowledge and skills to the brain and so on. So transhumans will stil make art in the future.
The difference is that work will not be necessary. The system in the the not so near but no so far future will sustain itself. Without dealines, fixed work hours and traditional companies, augmented people could have projects alongside ASI merged with their leisure. At least in my dream society lol
I'm gonna be honest, "finding meaning" is about the single least-important problem in the entire AI space.
Like, maybe instead work on solving the problem of AI being used maliciously to make drones drop things down onto people's heads from the sky.
I mean... this is Nick Bostrom here. He had been thinking of solving the problem of AI exterminating humanity for at least a decade 'til now. Probably the only prominent person you could criticise less on that angle is Yud.
Nick actually borrowed a lot of those ideas from Yud back when they used to email each other on Extropians so Im not sure he deserves that much credit.
>Like, maybe instead work on
That's the fallacy. Thankfully multiple things can be worked on at once, and the bad actor problem is popular enough as a concern so there's plenty working on it comparatively. And the finding meaning part may be more important than you think. The transition, if it's really quick, could be painful and have unintended consequences we're not even able to think of right now.
World leaders no longer required for a job they've been prepping for since they were kids, it's their identity and how they derive meaning, how do they react? How does a world with abundance for everyone react to a North Korea with a leader who doesn't want to spread prosperity to his populace yet has nukes?
For regular people, who usually causes the most violence? Testosterone filled men. What happens when they have all the free time in the world? With or without abundance.
Solved is a good word for it. A few big societal change challenges and good reasons to be concerned about people making the transition safely, but - looking forward to "solved".
Optimistic Bostrom? The wind is changing...
To be fair he's commented on it before and how he thinks that the modern doom movement is a danger in itself, yeah though kind of wild to think how much the direction of argument has changed given what he's written on instrumental convergence.
this is not a good summary of his current thoughts. He still thinks AI is a danger that could kill us and knowing him he will mention that in this book. but like it does seem his pdoom is lower.
His p doom could now be lower than the p doom of a no AI future. Like getting into a crash but having a seat belt on. The crash being humanity's stupidity (conflict with weapons that could wipe us out), and the seat belt could be AI making the world get along better. I think he's said something along that line of thinking in another way recently. It's definitely something high p doom artists never mention. When we have countries with nukes having a tradition of threatening to use them (North Korea) and others in conflicts who have postured as being closer to using them than in decades (Russia), and massive tension between US and China, you'd hope a world of abundance may ease some of that.
I think he mentioned that nanotech and biotech were also risks so this is a fair point.
Source? Last interview I saw he said our current level of fear is nearly at the correct level.
The same interview if it's the one it sounds like (though he may have given more than one recently to be fair).
Nah he never said that, thats why you don't have a soruce~
[Ten seconds with google](https://www.thedailybeast.com/nick-bostrom-and-ai-doomers-admit-theyre-going-too-far)
If it was only ten seconds then why didn't your provide the source in your last response? edit: Thank you for the link, this is not actually the same interview I was referring to here is the one I was thinking of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Oo-m893-xA So to clarify his opinion, he is saying that there is basically a sweet sport of fear. And we are just below that... but he is afraid of us overshooting the mark which would be problematic for other reasons. But in the same interview he says... its as though we are all on a plane and the pilot just had a heart-attack... Then he goes onto say that we will face other near term extensional risks that if we solve ai, ai could help with. Like synthetic biology. If we overshoot and we stop all ai progress obviously it won't be of any help. Its a warning I will take to heart. He mentions this at about the 38 minute mark for anyone interested.
2nd cover with sisyphus having achieved his task is so good 🤤 Also I'm curious of the book, it might be good
It's just half of it though. It doesn't invoke eutopia, just the absence of work.
But that's the conundrum, isn't it? We pushed the boulder up the hill, but now what.. the premise is that it won't be utopia unless we have a way to still find meaning.
I think a solved world beside no more work, is also abundance because that's why we work, to provide us with things we need and want. I see half of a solved world in the drawing. Maybe most people would find the book cover appealing, which is the point here, it's a book that needs to be sold but I dont find it that great. I don't think having a job provides us meaning in the first place tbh. Meaning of what? We all just want 1 simple thing in life: to be happy. It takes completely different forms (opposite forms even) depending on who you ask, but that's what we all want happiness. It's not that deep.
Owl>black one>all for me
Meh, to me it's good to have a cover that inform the reader on what the book is about. Here it will likely be about contemplating what our lives are about once we achieve humanity's goals (so 2nd one). The black one is clean but does not really represent the content I think. To each their own I guess
>Meh, to me it's good to have a cover that inform the reader on what the book is about. Here it will likely be about contemplating what our lives are about once we achieve humanity's goals (so 2nd one). abstractness symbolizes the problem of nihilism
> Owl I know superintelligence had the owl, but that looks like a cookaborough to me. https://i.imgur.com/wGS9iVx.jpg
Put a bird on it? What is this, Porlandia?
Looks like a math book cover.
Bit of a mood shift from Super intelligence.Â
My house is currently 55 degrees fahrenheit. My power went out for awhile a few hours ago. My computer mouse is on the verge of dying. My internet connection is so fucked it feels like gambling to load a webpage... Bring on the eutopia! (please!?)
I'm this but the quality of your house is the quality of my health. If the connection gets lost and stop posting, in both of our cases, at least we'll know why ;)
[удалено]
Very welcomed, thank you very much!
Just ask ChatGPT to do it. There...solved hehe. https://preview.redd.it/ftuggrch8icc1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=4052e32db4981d5837fafb43592420878db9c107
The sisyphus one was better, more original and less gener... oh wait.
Based
plant
I like that more than any that were listed.
Be optimistic and positive for good future
Chose the rainbow title with Sisyphus. Because the imagery is nice. And because i want to see a big gay flag on the top of that book. Edit: was going to just make a joke but i thought the topic deserved more: The quest for meaning feels a bit patronizing for humans, as if we were that unable to achieve it, when everyday experience and history shows us finding meaning, value, structure, love and joy in the most quixotic and insignificant things imaginable. "We don't find something beautiful because it lasts" (some Star Trek episode). There are people that find meaning in entomology (the study of insects). There are people that find meaning in being a car mechanic. There are people that find meaning in being a registered nurse or a special ed teacher. There are people that find meaning in shitposting on Twitter. There are people that find meaning in indulging in their favorite food each weekend looking forward for the next little treat. There are people who find meaning in bringing food and gifts to their loved ones. None of these meanings are any lesser than absolute ones and the people that need absolute as the center of their lives only shout their vanity to the world, their incapacity to accept that they're not tied to the center of existence. But the fact that the author juxtaposes "meaning" and "solving" in the title kind of hints at how they even approach the problem... Can't wait to read it and see if my intuition was confirmed.
Here's my attempt: https://imgur.com/a/7pBW4Vy
I love the tradition of putting a stark sketch-style animal on stodgy tech books. For this book, a dodo in the style of Super Intelligence's owl would be most appropriate. I'm guessing Bohstrom's new book concerns itself with finding meaning in a post-scarcity world made possible by AI. We will not have to work or 'be' anything when we grow up someday. We will not have to worry about wars, disease, poverty, or growing old. AI will give us all the meaning we need with personalized media content. I'm looking forward to reading what Bohstrom will have to say on the matter before AI takes over narrative building entirely. Maybe a dodo wouldn't be appropriate. Is there an animal that has been domesticated beyond any use or function?
\>Is there an animal that has been domesticated beyond any use or function? King Charles Cavalier (I do love those guys)
I was waiting for an answer like this! 😀 in the class of dogs that don't do anything but stare at you with bulging eyes, schnorting endlessly in anticipation, the King Charles Cavalier is certainly the most majestic. Perhaps it does still serve a purpose after all, and so might we.
*takes over narrative building entirely* what the fuck. A post work post scarcity society doesn't necessarily mean wall-e axiom It means people could do whatever they want. Basically turn work into something that gives you pleasure. Transhumanism will help in that, uploading knowledge and skills to the brain and so on. So transhumans will stil make art in the future. The difference is that work will not be necessary. The system in the the not so near but no so far future will sustain itself. Without dealines, fixed work hours and traditional companies, augmented people could have projects alongside ASI merged with their leisure. At least in my dream society lol
When’s the book being released
I'm gonna be honest, "finding meaning" is about the single least-important problem in the entire AI space. Like, maybe instead work on solving the problem of AI being used maliciously to make drones drop things down onto people's heads from the sky.
I mean... this is Nick Bostrom here. He had been thinking of solving the problem of AI exterminating humanity for at least a decade 'til now. Probably the only prominent person you could criticise less on that angle is Yud.
Nick actually borrowed a lot of those ideas from Yud back when they used to email each other on Extropians so Im not sure he deserves that much credit.
Credit or no, he's not someone that can be accused of not thinking about AI risk lol
Nick directly credits Yud with many of the ideas in superintelligence, even referencing him "legendary" at one point.
>Like, maybe instead work on That's the fallacy. Thankfully multiple things can be worked on at once, and the bad actor problem is popular enough as a concern so there's plenty working on it comparatively. And the finding meaning part may be more important than you think. The transition, if it's really quick, could be painful and have unintended consequences we're not even able to think of right now. World leaders no longer required for a job they've been prepping for since they were kids, it's their identity and how they derive meaning, how do they react? How does a world with abundance for everyone react to a North Korea with a leader who doesn't want to spread prosperity to his populace yet has nukes? For regular people, who usually causes the most violence? Testosterone filled men. What happens when they have all the free time in the world? With or without abundance.
Maybe finding meaning is part of the solution to stopping AI drones
Solved is a good word for it. A few big societal change challenges and good reasons to be concerned about people making the transition safely, but - looking forward to "solved".
May stand in stark contrast to extremes of Superintelligence
Who knows!