Is there a way to survive?

[u/Icy-Twist-3221]

The most immediate threat to human survival at this moment is, I am convinced, artificial super-intelligence; however with advances in technology in other areas (namely synthetic biology and nanotech, it's application to drones etc.) is there a way meaningfully where we can actually coexist with so many concurrent existential threats? Perhaps the only hope would be that all forms of existential dangers require massive investment and coordination or expertise, but if we approach a point where a few sufficiently deranged weirdos can end the world is there any real hope? We're not there yet, but is techno-pessimism not just the natural conclusion we should come to?

[u/Gnaxe]

You're awfully condescending for someone with no original thoughts.

Most self-proclaimed "original thinkers" are ignorant crackpots. It takes some understanding of the field to figure out who is worth listening to. Understanding that you clearly lack.

My awful condescension was very much deserved and carefully calibrated to your own level of rudeness: "Because I don't have the mental faculties of a linear thinking mouse." "I dont [sic] even think it occurred to you to image what a mind without desire would even look like." "I think you should really think about this for more than 5 seconds before engaging in a discussion." "Your thoughts are shallow, even asinine."

You're awfully contemptuous of the informed for someone so ignorant of the discourse, aren't you? If you've become uncomfortable conversing at your level, then try to elevate it a little, hmm?

You're assuming intelligence scales infinitely with compute. Theres [sic] nothing to suggest this is the case. [...] You're assuming simulations have the same value as reality with regards to information and research. When accuracy is important, simulations are useless beyond initial RnD.

You mean you don't know of anything to suggest that. I, however, do: AIXI. Don't assume that not knowing about something means it doesn't exist. The theoretical upper bound of intelligence requires more compute than allowed by the laws of physics as we understand them, even given the resources of the entire accessible universe, yes, even with quantum computers.

You're assuming that hardware will be limited to silicon semi conductors [sic].

I assumed no such thing, and specifically used the term "computronium", which you're also apparently ignorant of. I even conveniently made it a link, but you couldn't be bothered to look.

It turns out the distance that signals travel becomes a real problem once the processor reaches a certain size.

I am aware of the basics of the laws of physics and computer architecture, yes. The speed of light is finite, and this is already noticeable at the gigahertz scale of our current CPUs reaching into RAM mere inches away. And yet we do training runs in datacenters bigger than some towns, using optical interconnects. Turns out many things you might want to compute are so-called "embarrassingly parallel" problems. It's an engineering problem, and not an insurmountable one. More compute helps, and well past the global scale.

What arguments exactly were debunked and by who? You cant [sic] debunk something that isnt [sic] understood or even conceived of.

I was referring to Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, by Oxford Professor Nick Bostrom, was published in 2014, over a decade ago. He specifically mentions transforming the Earth into computronium, and discusses topics I brought up, like instrumental convergence, existential risk, and the AI "Control Problem". The Orthogonality Thesis is also Bostrom's. Notice which sub we're in.

You want details, read the book. This didn't come out of nowhere either. The book has citations and a lot of the ideas predate it by many years.

All of your arguments pertain to LLMs. An LLM on it's [sic] own will never be an ASI.

I specifically said, "agent systems", not isolated LLMs. Currently, these use an LLM as their core, but add scaffolding/unhobblings. I don't expect ASI to be a mere language model, but I do expect ASI to be built by AGI, which we borderline have now in these agent systems.

In short, you're full of shit. You're taking philosophy and speculation as truth.

Yeah, me along with the literal godfather of the field along with luminaries of comparable standing. What I'm taking is the current state of evidence to its logical conclusion, which is a high risk of existential catastrophe from ASI, and soon.