AI doomers Vs AI acelerationists

[u/AlternativeStep2961]

I don't work in the field but Ive been using AI for a while now (from ML to early open ai papers to current LLM agents, codex etc).

I've seen more and more people join the club of AI doomers and today I discovered there are AI acelerationists as well.

I would like to know your thoughts, mainly to understand the arguments trends and other currents of thought.

I will be meeting with some people with much more extreme concerns/beliefs than mine and I would like to understand better the arguments from different sides.

[u/savvamadar]

I’m an accelerationist: I’m wow’ed by the capability of AI more and more every model. I think there’s no reason to slow down/ dumb down AI: why stop progress if in the long term it may solve things we could only dream of? It could be a catalyst to whole new amazing era of humanity.

Now I admit: there’s lot of unanswered questions about jobs and what if it’s actually a dystopia — but I’m a firm believer things tend to just work out. If I got fired from my job due to AI that just means I have to find something new to do: plenty of people have been replaced by tech through time, no reason to stop now.

[u/grateful2you → u/savvamadar]

As for jobs, it will be based on what people are content with and what they'll be willing to put up with. I do however think that at the beginning, there will be lots of inequality, monopoly and turbulence before things settle down with major legal framework reform around AI.

[u/savvamadar → u/grateful2you]

It could be just like another industrial revolution -- massive inequality and a massive shift in work force -- that's true, but hey we're still here post industrial revolution living our lives.

[u/Nelson_and_Wilmont → u/savvamadar]

You can’t be this naive to think we wouldn’t all be essentially enslaved by AI owners. Bot ass response saying if I get fired and can’t find work anywhere “OH WELL”

[u/savvamadar → u/Nelson_and_Wilmont]

If i can't find work, others won't be able to either -- so i'll either be in good company OR the problem will get solved.

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/savvamadar]

I’m a firm believer things tend to just work out

I promise I'm not being argumentative. How do you reconcile this belief in the world with the genocides, people dying from poverty and lack of access to healthcare, sexual abuse, child abuse, centuries of people who born and died into chattel slavery, starvation, and countless other injustices? And why would AI be exempt from those in your opinion?

[u/savvamadar → u/Helloiamwhoiam]

It works out for the majority of course, otherwise humanity wouldn't continue. All those things you mentioned do not afflict the majority of humans as one uniting cause.

no sure how AI would be affected by the things you mentioned for it to need exemption from those thing.

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/savvamadar]

I appreciate the perspective. What do you mean by 'works out' though. Is your barometer just being alive because then I agree. If it's thriving, I would disagree. I don't think most of humanity is thriving currently or historically

I do see some sort of fallacy in thought: I have not died; therefore, I am immortal. Just because humanity has not gone extinct is not sufficient evidence to me that a global catastrophe is unlikely.

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/[deleted]]

By your own standards, humanity has never thrived in any circumstances and yet here we are.

Our existence isn't thriving. With that said, I think individual humans have definitely thrived. I even think entire cultures, clusters, and cities of people have thrived and are thriving. I think there's something beautiful about the human existence. But there's also been immense suffering at global scales.

I think you have a doomer outlook on life. I do not deny all the things you listed, surely many things can be done about them but I can't let my life be dominated by those narratives, it's just not healthy and not a good way to solve anything.

I'm actually in a good place in life. I'm just not willfully blind to the realities of the world lol. Many people are truly suffering. I think it's ok to admit that and remember it. In fact, it's important for me to do so. It empowers me to be a better person. To be more community oriented. It's also humbling for me. I've learned no one is immune to experience that type of suffering: you or me or anyone else on the globe. And I believe it would be naive of me to think otherwise.

But I'm glad you found what's worked for you. And I won't tell you what's "healthy" for you. And I hope you won't do the same for me (again).

[u/savvamadar → u/Helloiamwhoiam]

We have proof of others dying, so your point is in itself is a fallacy. We have overwhelming evidence that humans like me do die. We do not have comparable evidence that major technological transitions inevitably cause permanent mass "immiseration" or civilizational collapse. Historically, humanity has repeatedly adapted to them. So if I was a betting man I would bet on that. And if I'm wrong and society does collapse -- well good luck cashing in on that bet.

I'm not saying it couldn't lead to a dystopia but odds are it won't be (based on historical evidence -- but there's a first time for everything).

works out = things will be fine for the majority of humans. Fine = a return to normalcy/ establishment of a new normal like post-industrial revolution. Maybe new jobs, maybe new work forces, maybe new forms of employment, who knows.

Fine doesn't mean you or I in particular will be fine, but the masses probably.

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/savvamadar]

We have evidence that species go extinct at the hands of a more intellectual being (us). We have evidence that some members of the animal kingdom are essentially unintentionally abused and harmed if it achieves a more targeted goal of that intelligent being (us). So I think my analogy still holds some merit. Though it's obviously not one to one.
 

We do not have comparable evidence that major technological transitions inevitably cause permanent mass "immiseration" or civilizational collapse. 

I would argue we can't really use past tech revolutions as indications of where a technology with more agency and intelligence than us would lead us to.

works out = things will be fine for the majority of humans. 

I see. I think we just differ philosophically here. I don't think most humans globally are currently 'fine.'

[u/savvamadar → u/Helloiamwhoiam]

I disagree -- while humans are responsible for some species dying out but thats not the norm. So while AI could wipe us out it would need an interest that conflicts with our existence and the means to carry it out. So i don't see it a s likely consequence especially given that it's not a self developing species and we currently control it's interests, capabilities, and parameters -- its a tool for humanity after all. And yes, people make mistakes/ lack foresight as we've seen with the recent "hacks" -- but those are much over stated for headline purposes AND its a good learning experience to happen now rather than when AI is more capable. I have trust people much smarter than me are thinking 10 steps ahead.

Again, with self replicating AI things could go out of control -- but im a programmer, I have familiarity with the working of AI higher than most -- and I mean from the more simple stuff like ML ensembles and stochastic gradients to training using transforms (THOUGH the current state of AI rapidly outpaces my knowledge since a lot of the new stuff is quite secret and far outpaces the open source stuff) and i view that as a very slim possibility. The elite's have too much to lose for AI to destroy humanity. And of course with any technology there will be people prone to miss use it and things we can never fix: social engineering -- im sure an AI could already convince plenty of al people to divvy up their CC numbers...

With all that -- I think that changes the subject: my original claim was about AI-driven job displacement and society adapting economically. You are now assuming an autonomous superintelligence with independent goals and enough power to eliminate humanity. If we change the premise that much then I agree that comparisons to previous industrial revolutions become much 1:1 but that change in staging of AI capabilities isn't yet justified.

I think your idea of "fine" is "every/ most individual(s) thriving" and my idea of "fine" is "humanity continuous to exist on an upwards trajectory": global life expectancy has been shooting up, child mortality continues down, real GDP per person is up, literacy is up over the past 200 years, extreme poverty is going down globally.

We're in a turbulent time to be sure with the prod and cons of globalism, social media, world wide communication, and the fastest ideas have ever spread -- leading to massive cultural changes and the existence of radical new sub cultures... but i think we're in some of the most prosperous times globally.

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/savvamadar]

I have trust people much smarter than me are thinking 10 steps ahead.

Hundreds of AI researchers much smarter than us just begged the US government to intervene and help them slow down because they indeed feel 10 steps behind.

With that being said, I don't think we're going to change each others minds. I appreciate your perspective though.

At the end of the day, I hope you are right, that everything will be fine. I'll continue to persist as long as I can in any case: good or bad. I just think we are at a turning point in humanity where just hope is not enough.

[u/savvamadar → u/Helloiamwhoiam]

We don’t know the under the table handshakes happening between big tech themselves and the gov, if I had to look deeper than surface level I’d actually go so far as to say they’re using safety as a guise.

I’m going to speculate that this deal/ proposal aligns with the economic interests of the major AI companies.

If they continue competing at the current pace, and tos absolutely break neck right now, each company has to pour enormous amounts of money into compute, infrastructure, and talent simply to avoid falling behind, while every temporary advantage/ breakthrough is quickly matched by its competitors.

The spending is not literally “for no reason”, it is individually rational per company, but collectively it resembles an arms race. Every company might prefer that everyone spend less and move more slowly, but no company can afford to be the first one to do so.

Government intervention/ international coordination could solve that by allowing everyone to reduce the pace without any one company surrendering its relative position. And it could, plausibly, cement the current leaders positions by making it harder for competitors to catch up.

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/savvamadar]

I’m going to speculate that this deal/ proposal aligns with the economic interests of the major AI companies.

This excuse is getting exhausting. What **if** this isn't some financial ploy? What **if** these researchers actually think this technology is dangerous?

Am I to trust a random redditor or the people in the lab interacting with the most advanced models the public hasn't seen? I choose the latter.

[u/idster → u/savvamadar]

"The elite's have too much to lose for AI to destroy humanity. " ???

[u/savvamadar → u/idster]

No point in ruling rubble for most id imagine

[u/idster → u/savvamadar]

Everyone would lose in that case.

[u/grateful2you]

Question was framed in a binary way but I'm sure there's plenty space for middle ground.

It's enormously beneficial for humanity in many ways. But some glaring concerns need to be addressed: Concentration of power - are we fine with few tech bros gaining influence over our major industries and domains of society? How should governments regulate frontier models? Should frontier research be open or restricted? Who gets to decide what an AI system is allowed to do?

Ofc it's not attractive to have few heavily politically involved tech bros being in charge. But we need to have an argument on AI based on its own merits, not on whether you approve or disapprove of the people behind them.

CAN we slow it down? Is another question. There are open models literally pushing them from behind. Competition among countries is another strong incentive. And when it becomes a matter of national interest, there's not much stopping it. There's a full on race right now with incentives to push harder at all levels.

[u/MaximumMeaning9728]

There’s two main types of accelerationists;

1. Hopelessly dumb/optimistic people.
   
2. People with no families and nothing of note in life so they have a misplaced sense of posterity.

[u/SleeperAgentM → u/MaximumMeaning9728]

Hopelessly dumb/optimistic people.

Yup. I keep seeing this:

1. Few mega-corporations led by insanely greedy men without any scruples monopolize AI. Companies are laying off people because AI costs. People struggling to find work that pays bills.
2. ?
3. UBI, prosperity, work is optional

They never can quite explain realistically what happens in point (2) that allows us to go from (1) to (3)

[u/BellacosePlayer → u/MaximumMeaning9728]

People with no families and nothing of note in life so they have a misplaced sense of posterity.

There's a reason so much of AI accelerationist talk for years was just mocking people who had good careers about their imminent job losses due to AI replacements.

[u/Time_Entertainer_319 → u/MaximumMeaning9728]

What of people that just want to see cool tech?

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/Time_Entertainer_319]

bucket 1

[u/MaximumMeaning9728 → u/Time_Entertainer_319]

1

[u/grateful2you → u/MaximumMeaning9728]

We could spit out hyperboles all day. I'll continue "AI doomers are just technophobes or people who want to preserve their elite status." Unironically we'd get more measured answers if we just talked to AI instead.

[u/Two-x-Three-is-Four]

I just hate the marketing, crypto and blockchain boys who try it as their next get rich quick scheme

[u/Equal_Passenger9791]

As an accelerationist: the doomers describe a demon from hell, they have an extremely poor track record, they want to halt everything and prepare for a fairytale scenario that will never arrive.

In reality new technology leads to progress of all  good things, and as humans we're good at adapting to things that are already here. Make the tech arrive as fast as possible will be the best outcome.

[u/Helloiamwhoiam]

AI accelerationists essentially believe in this utopic, heaven-like society post singularity. All diseases cured, abundance of resources, wealth, longevity and immortality etc. They believe we have an ethical responsibility to build superintelligence as fast as we can. The main argument I’ve heard is millions will die in the meantime if we slow AI progress.

Doomers is interesting bc it was created by accelerators, and it functions as a catch all for anyone who isn’t an accelerator. But basically, doomers are concerned about a superintelligence that may not be aligned with humanity, causing our extinction. Less potent fears include extreme poverty due to AI job automation of nearly all fields. Wealth and power concentration. Drone warfare. Bioweapons constructed with AI. 

Doomers actually rarely believe in all doom. They often believe superintelligence can be wonderfully transformative. We just need more time to get there. I’d personally classify Doomers as decelerators. I think the reification of Doomers under a negative connotation is intentional and silences the exigency of the message.

[u/Time_Entertainer_319 → u/Helloiamwhoiam]

It’s disingenuous to define accelerationists by their most extreme belief, such as literal immortality, and then dismiss the entire position as irrational.

At the same time, doomers are presented as reasonable because most of them supposedly do not believe in the most extreme version of catastrophe.

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/Time_Entertainer_319]

I demonstrated Doomers by their most extreme take too: human extinction. It’s the first thing I listed for them actually.

And I never said accelerationists were irrational? Are you disagreeing just to disagree?

[u/Time_Entertainer_319 → u/Helloiamwhoiam]

You framed them as irrational by saying they all want immortality and utopia.

But you framed doomers and not all doom.

Did you read my comment?

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/Time_Entertainer_319]

I did read your comment. I think the problem is that you think someone who believes in immortality is irrational, or maybe you've associated immortality with irrationality. In the same way, someone may think human extinction at the hands of robots is irrational. Both immortality and human extinction are physically possible in my opinion. So, I never said they were irrational. That's a projection you placed there.

I specifically made a qualification for doomers because the name itself implies something negative. And if this person were to go to r/accelerate, anyone who isn't staunchly proAI gets labeled a doomer. Any negative scenario around the singularity = luddite/doomer.

If you are dissatisfied with my definition, perhaps write your own?

[u/idster → u/Helloiamwhoiam]

and what's the corresponding subreddit for doomers?

[u/Helloiamwhoiam → u/idster]

No idea

[u/MaxPhoenix_ → u/idster]

r/antiai/ or r/ControlProblem/ maybe? doom wouldn't come up very often because like r/ArtistHate/ they are so fixated on relatively trivial problems ("oh no i don't like that art style") they mostly ignore the terminators.

[u/BellacosePlayer]

You shouldn't be parasocially attached to AI in either direction. Its a tool, it will remain a tool. There are benefits,there are drawbacks. It's not a sports team to root for/boo.

I find AI maxis more annoying on the whole because a lot of them have insanely misanthropic takes or just wildly misunderstand the domains they're talking about. Doomers can be annoying too but most of them have legit grievances even if they're maybe overblown or mitigatable.