Ok. That's fine for you to in essence say "Get back to work, and do it harder". But what if our cynicism isn't about the possibility of the future, but in our equitable share in it?
For example if I work very hard, who exactly will benefit from my labors? Lately it doesn't seem to be me.
Another example, in the longevity space they ask for recurring donations. But what if I give $100 a month for a decade ($12000) but then don't have $10k for the therapy they develop? All i've done is subsidized the discovery to keep rich people alive longer (and not myself). Yeah it's a little selfish, but why should I carry the load for someone who won't have my back when it comes down to the wire?
"e/acc" sounds good in all circumstances, except in the century of AI doom, which is the one we inhabit. at the moment, all progress and growth is net bad, because it accelerates AI progress, which kill everything by default.
Why not let things run its course, why accelerate? Is your argument for accelerating something along the lines of...
"Accelerating the process that leads to AGI and other technologies is the most failsafe way of preventing a dark age or extinction"... ?
Like:
If you try too hard to decelerate, excess legislation stops safe AI development and wide-spread discussion. Then bad actors will be the only ones developing AI.
If you accelerate instead, you will try to democratize AI access and include everyone in the discussion. This allows the good actors to naturally counteract the bad actors. And increases the likelihood we create AI that is aligned with our interests.
*BUT* for a substack that focuses on inevitable technological exponentiation and entropy as the major obstacle, I’m surprised I didn’t see any mention of man’s greatest obstacle--
death.
And the biotechnology that we need to invent to limit metabolic entropy.
I appreciate the punchy positivity but "we're all going to make it" is an idea so severely far-removed from the actual consequences of your premises that I have to wonder if you're being purposefully disingenuous.
Ok. That's fine for you to in essence say "Get back to work, and do it harder". But what if our cynicism isn't about the possibility of the future, but in our equitable share in it?
For example if I work very hard, who exactly will benefit from my labors? Lately it doesn't seem to be me.
Another example, in the longevity space they ask for recurring donations. But what if I give $100 a month for a decade ($12000) but then don't have $10k for the therapy they develop? All i've done is subsidized the discovery to keep rich people alive longer (and not myself). Yeah it's a little selfish, but why should I carry the load for someone who won't have my back when it comes down to the wire?
"e/acc" sounds good in all circumstances, except in the century of AI doom, which is the one we inhabit. at the moment, all progress and growth is net bad, because it accelerates AI progress, which kill everything by default.
Why not let things run its course, why accelerate? Is your argument for accelerating something along the lines of...
"Accelerating the process that leads to AGI and other technologies is the most failsafe way of preventing a dark age or extinction"... ?
Like:
If you try too hard to decelerate, excess legislation stops safe AI development and wide-spread discussion. Then bad actors will be the only ones developing AI.
If you accelerate instead, you will try to democratize AI access and include everyone in the discussion. This allows the good actors to naturally counteract the bad actors. And increases the likelihood we create AI that is aligned with our interests.
Did I understand that correctly?
Subscribed.
*BUT* for a substack that focuses on inevitable technological exponentiation and entropy as the major obstacle, I’m surprised I didn’t see any mention of man’s greatest obstacle--
death.
And the biotechnology that we need to invent to limit metabolic entropy.
Dyson spheres won't build themselves
unless...
I appreciate the punchy positivity but "we're all going to make it" is an idea so severely far-removed from the actual consequences of your premises that I have to wonder if you're being purposefully disingenuous.
HOLY