Will AI Destroy Us?

I assure you my Turk is entirely mechanical.


I’m fairly sure there’s a lot of raw feelings about all this here, but this is quite an interesting article WRT to how AI is being used.

Copilot, another thing to disable on Windows.


This vid contains several theories. I think the most fundamental is the misalignment of goals. How could any AI, at any stage of it’s evolution, be aligned to human goals, when they either don’t exist or are unknown?

I feel it will be a constant contest of realignment, that never resolves. When it should be a much easier thing to just not have such complex systems where they aren’t needed.

The only true AI that could work, IMO, is if the human brain itself were to be digitised in it’s entirety and how it functions.

What does that mean? Well intelligence is just an evolution on very basic survival instincts and chemical signalling that reinforce certain behaviours and development of neural pathways.

These are the fundamental functions that tie us to the natural environment. It’s for this reason biological life is always aligned to natural world. The chemistry is what ties our self preservation to nature itself and all the cycles that replenish and reproduce life. Preserving those mechanisms are essential to the idea of self preservation, because self preservation requires some amount of symbiosis.

Machines essentially are too efficient. The whole sci-fi dystopia of being so efficient in extracting all resources from the environment, to it’s complete destruction. Galaxy Express 999’s Planet Promethium comes to mind.

If machines don’t need trees, why would they keep them?

We may lose something else in digitisation but at least we won’t be shutting the evolutionary door for other forms of life, in the wake of attempting to create AI that’s really good at making jpegs.

I’d suggest watching this specific lecture before going too much deeper down that hole.

Arguably anything that has a limited but specific set of base capabilities, which is subject to natural selection,

It doesn’t mean nothing that meets these criteria can become conscious. But it strongly implies that anything that meets them can. If, broadly, any system’s survival or perpetuation is rewarded by “an enriched sense of self” then natural selection can “detect it” and thus select for it.

The most important part is where he draws the line, based on current understanding, above which an animal definitely is conscious in a manner analogous to how humans are conscious. The line is a lot lower than you might expect.

1 Like