alt Hacker News> a future where humanity is the pet species of a god-like artificial intelligence is hardly an appealing one!
I strongly feel that points of view on this are going to be almost 100% correlated with standard of living.
Maybe a good option would be to have the 10% of the world with the worst situations - starvation, parents w/ dying children, suffering violence etc - vote on whether we turn things over to the superintelligences. This would incentivize society to make sure the floor is extremely high.
I'd prefer a world where humans don't get overtaken but IMO I don't think it's moral for comfortable citizens to have the final say.
Replies
Global poverty has been rapidly declining for decades. I'm not sure what AI has to do with it.
What does that have to do with AI? People suffer in 2026 because the developed world is into exploitation. Poverty is a feature. How do you think AI gets trained? It’s via exploitation of the poorest.
Poverty is great for OpenAI
Few points:
-We don't need a superintelligence for ending hunger and the abject poverty that plague certain countries and segments of our societies. I suspect that it would cost less than what is being spent for fueling the AI boom.
-If I were poor, I would be even more wary of a superintelligence aligned to "human values" defined by a bunch of billionaires.
- AI won't likely create unlimited prosperity for everyone on a planet with finite resources
- all humans should, of course, have a say
I think that correlation would actually go opposite than you're implying, given its billionaires who are by for the most gung-ho about AI. If anything, opposition to AI is much larger among people who have to work for a living over people who can live off capital.
If you don't like what humans are doing to each other using 20th century warfare methods, consider what they might do with superintelligent AI? Worst places to live in are usually countries fighting civil wars.