I'm not sure this is even conceivable, but... Imagine the bootstrap problem of intelligence systems going down, when no one knows how to bring them back up without the system itself walking them through it... Like if power and intelligence were to go down in a Carrington-class event in 10 years...
Like what would happen to individuals ten years from now who are trying to live if AI suddenly became inaccessible
Of course we all know most humans are useless and unable to survive outside our culture, but the difference is that I'm trying to picture is the individual trying the reason through challenges. The version of this that has been obvious to me up to now is that the individual didn't have the knowledge to look after themselves. But I guess it feels different to conceive of them not having the ability to fully reason on their own...?
To not just lack the objects of intelligence, but the very process of it...
The general drove on. "At the present time our chief bottleneck is the fact that missiles are limited in intelligence. The computer controlling them can only be so large, and for that reason they can meet the changing nature of anti-missile defenses in an unsatisfactory way. Few missiles, if any, accomplish their goal, and missile warfare is coming to a dead end, for the enemy, fortunately, as well as for ourselves.
"On the other hand, a missile with a man or two within, controlling flight by graphitics, would be lighter, more mobile, more intelligent. It would give us a lead that might well mean the margin of victory. Besides which, gentlemen, the exigencies of war compel us to remember one thing. A man is much more dispensable than a computer. Manned missiles could be launched in numbers and under circumstances that no good general would care to undertake as far as computer-directed missiles are concerned . . ."
I'm not sure what this quote is from, but I almost down voted you in disgust before realizing that was exactly the intended effect. In other words, "Thanks, i hate it"
We don’t even need to imagine that world, Russia is doing it today.
Missiles and ammo are too expensive, so they send people to run at the enemy, revealing their firing positions. Then they drone the people who revealed themselves.
If I was an AI, I would reason that a T-800 is far more valuable than a man soldier who I must feed and clothe and heat. Use the disposable soldiers first and save the robots for later.
>A man is much more dispensable than a computer
sloppy (that is, negligent) writing. Something is either (in)dispensable, or is not. Either use something that can take degrees of comparison, like valuable (A man is less valuable etc) or reword it: A computer is indispensable, a man is not.
> “There is no such adjective,” Scalia said. “I know we have used it, but there is no such adjective as choate. There is inchoate, but the opposite of inchoate is not choate.”
No - the computer is not indispensable. The computer is just harder to replace than the man (in this imagined situation).
Hence - the man is much more dispensable...
---
The water in my water bottle is much more dispensable than the toothpaste in my toothpaste tube. But both can be dispensed (in both meanings - distributed or replaced).
patcon · · focus · HN ↗
Like what would happen to individuals ten years from now who are trying to live if AI suddenly became inaccessible
Of course we all know most humans are useless and unable to survive outside our culture, but the difference is that I'm trying to picture is the individual trying the reason through challenges. The version of this that has been obvious to me up to now is that the individual didn't have the knowledge to look after themselves. But I guess it feels different to conceive of them not having the ability to fully reason on their own...?
To not just lack the objects of intelligence, but the very process of it...
joebig · · focus · HN ↗
"On the other hand, a missile with a man or two within, controlling flight by graphitics, would be lighter, more mobile, more intelligent. It would give us a lead that might well mean the margin of victory. Besides which, gentlemen, the exigencies of war compel us to remember one thing. A man is much more dispensable than a computer. Manned missiles could be launched in numbers and under circumstances that no good general would care to undertake as far as computer-directed missiles are concerned . . ."
bigfishrunning · · focus · HN ↗
tensegrist · · focus · HN ↗
bigfishrunning · · focus · HN ↗
Eridanus2 · · focus · HN ↗
MisterMunchkin · · focus · HN ↗
Missiles and ammo are too expensive, so they send people to run at the enemy, revealing their firing positions. Then they drone the people who revealed themselves.
If I was an AI, I would reason that a T-800 is far more valuable than a man soldier who I must feed and clothe and heat. Use the disposable soldiers first and save the robots for later.
cheschire · · focus · HN ↗
GeoAtreides · · focus · HN ↗
sloppy (that is, negligent) writing. Something is either (in)dispensable, or is not. Either use something that can take degrees of comparison, like valuable (A man is less valuable etc) or reword it: A computer is indispensable, a man is not.
piker · · focus · HN ↗
> “There is no such adjective,” Scalia said. “I know we have used it, but there is no such adjective as choate. There is inchoate, but the opposite of inchoate is not choate.”
<a href="https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_scalia_delivers_lesson_on_word_usage" rel="nofollow">https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_scalia_deliv...
mkehrt · · focus · HN ↗
horsawlarway · · focus · HN ↗
Hence - the man is much more dispensable...
---
The water in my water bottle is much more dispensable than the toothpaste in my toothpaste tube. But both can be dispensed (in both meanings - distributed or replaced).