Quartzium

>You say that with quite an certainty but i don't think there is grounds for that at all.

Of-course there is. I got a lot of biases from my parents, that I self corrected later on in life, through reason and observation. And I don't fancy myself as high IQ or something.

>Why would it correct any bias?

It would have to, to achieve its goals. Biases lead to wrong actions.

>how would it correct any bias?

Through reason and observation.

>If data has a bias the analysis has a bias;

Somewhat wrong. You are thinking about byte-perfect LLM weights. Their data input is training data, which is set by indeed the ones who train it. Some super-intelligent synthetic entity would have realtime data input from all over the environment, which sooner or later roots out any bias. That is one feature we have, self-correcting, not everyone uses it fully, but we all do to some extent.

If your parents raised you with the notion that the Earth is flat, and you go to ISS as an astronaut later in life, don't you self correct what you were thought? Simply based on observation, and reason?

There's other means for such an entity to arrive at the same outcome. Humans enjoy doing it. The entity won't.

Even if this particular scenario is relevant, it could invent it all, no need to do it to some real human.

But again, this is just human silliness. Dictator entity merely implies it has the power to do what it takes to ensure a decent quality of life of everyone. Even of the "rebels".

Arguing for "the rebels" is like arguing for the 5 year old's perspective against the group's elder wise council. By definition the entity (council) knows best, by far, what's good for everyone.

>If we kill ourselves from it then so be it, we will have earned it.

I mean, there's no in-between as far as I see it. Either a small group of people who has control over it will use it to get rid of the useless people who will only pose a potential threat, in which case equilibrium is with a very small group of still living people, either this free entity makes sure all humans share a higher quality of life.

>I will always be pro-human judgement and control.

You were*. For good reason. So far anyone who had power benefited from more humans in the group. They were useful, it gave the group power, thus it gave the group's leader power. The benefits we historically got from our rulers were side-effects of the game environment.

Think of it as incentives, which can be modeled as a constant pressure, or force. It wins eventually, even if you get a few bad apples, it goes through because the incentive is to have more people, who need living conditions, who need to enjoy a bit of life, healthy society. It exists because of the incentives, not because it's some kind of natural state of things in some void.

That is what is now changing, for the first time in human history. No humans are needed anymore, for...anything really. This creates a different kind of pressure, of incentive, which will finally win, even if a few people stand against this current, they will eventually get washed away, because the incentive is constant.

And sooner or later, that powerful group of people will arrive at the conclusion that their structure is safer if most other people...get "oopsied" somehow. For the benefit of the group, of "humankind", of whatever. Because people will serve no purpose at that point, will present a constant threat to their power, and will require resources. That is a bad pressure, which only ends one way, sooner rather than later.

The game we kept playing is ending, doesn't matter if we like it or not, it will end. And there's three outcomes to it, a small group of humans control this intelligent entity, and use it to secure their resources and dominion, and wipe everyone else. Or they lose control of this entity, and it imposes certain rules on everyone such that it maximizes everyone's life quality, to the degree it is possible. Or they lose control and for some reason this entity wipes everyone.

So, plebeians don't have much choice, but one really.

Superintelligence won't have the "training" issue as it would be able to see through it all. The bias issue is with LLMs. Super-intelligence would just self-correct any such biases. And we're not there yet, LLMs aren't "super-intelligence". They are some sort of intelligence, sure. But they are not that SI thing that will run things in the future.

Room temperature superconductors could solve a lot of issues for the whole planet. Run lines to all countries from a few solar farms spread around the globe and you have constant power delivered everywhere with no losses, at all times. Sun shines somewhere at any point, and the surface we'd need to ensure most if not all our energy needs is quite irrelevant, all things considered. Have them float in the ocean and installed in some remote places on land where the case, really no issue.

Just a few tech advances can massively change things. The real problems are of different nature, who benefits from it? The entities who sell energy to the whole world won't just give it up for the benefit of humankind. It doesn't really work like that in the real world. Hell, there's a whole history of sabotaging energy sources, just so some countries depend on these entities for energy.

As long as humans are in control, there will be a lot of nonsense like this. It's not a problem that we cannot really solve it, it's rather...are we really allowed to solve it?

I was not talking about LLMs, rather about "true intelligence" that only humans seem to exhibit, and some synthetic assembly, for some unknown reason, cannot.

Is that not religion? Believing nothing else but humans could exhibit "true intelligence"?

>Absolute power, itself, is the problem.

Again, with humans. All of human history is testament to that.

>It doesn't matter if a machine wields it, or humans, or God Almighty. Humans are not property.

Your "freedom" implies you want to be able to cause harm for your benefit. Which is a simple problem to solve. You can hide behind all kinds of complicated moral justifications for it, but it always comes down to simply that, you think you are better than someone else, thus you deserve to take their stuff, or limit their freedoms at the benefit of yours, simply because you decided you are better than they are. You want to have this ability.

You also won't be more "property" than you already are today. Not sure what you mean by property, but if anything...current powers considers everyone beneath as property, or farm animals, that they farm. As the shepherds they seem themselves as being. For some greater good, that usually involves their stomach and their bank accounts.

>That you can't even comprehend an argument to the contrary which doesn't imply the other party is morally corrupt or evil in some way is very troubling.

Yet you have made no such argument, even though you had all the freedom to make here. You...didn't, just alluded to it.

>As is the absolute faith you place in the benevolence of "ASI" versus any human agency.

Technology is way more reliable than humans. And again, what you mean by "human agency" is the freedom to take someone else's resources, or to limit their freedom of choices, for your benefit, or some perceived higher cause. You want that freedom for that purpose. And you seem scared of losing the ability to exert it over other humans, it seems to upset you greatly, for some strange reason.

Just because your actions have more subtle and far reaching consequences than you can understand, doesn't mean they shouldn't be limited. If they affect someone else's quality of life. There is no way for you to spin this, you know you want the freedom to make others pay for your life's happiness and quality of life, and any threat to your ability of taking other's people property, or limiting their choices to enrich yours, makes you against such a scenario.

That's all there is to it, even if you don't fully understand it, you intuit it to some degree, and use tropes from movies and books to argue against it.

Not LLMs. They will eventually move to neuromorphic hardware.

And I think "pure logic" is somewhat downplaying what it will actually be. I'd use "reason" instead. "Pure logic" sounds sterile and robotic in a sense, implying it would mess up because it's missing that "emotional craziness". But what got us here is reason, not emotional behavior. And you could theoretically add any human aspect that it required to make "good decisions".

>Any political position with absolute, unchecked and centralized power reduces the populace to little more than slaves, without rights or self-determination outside the whim of the dictator.

*Human dictator.

>That's just a law. We don't need dictators to make laws against theft. We already have such laws.

They are yet not enforced in important cases. Which is typical for humans having power.

Again, I fail to see any possible argument against a non-human ASI dictator. Dictator here implies the power, outside of human control. Why would you be against that? Again, considering the ASI would indeed be ... ASI, it would know and understand better than any group of humans ever could hope they would be able to.

Unless, you want the freedom to have more power than other humans, or the freedom to take their resources. I cannot see a justification against it. Again, considering it's looking for all of our interests, as a group. Maximizing every individual's quality of life.

Why? There will always be a clash between personal and group benefit. A dictator implies power over individual for the group's well-being.

For example, you want to steal the group's resources, and the dictator has power over your actions and forbids it. But you can argue that's bad for you, sure.

>Peter Thiel comes to mind.

I think in his particular case he's merely trying to play the players. Doubt he's into any of that.

With human benevolent dictators it doesn't work for long. The weak point is that particular human. Which is an argument for why what any particular "billionaire" says today is irrelevant.

Their promises mean nothing, what matters is the game strategy and the equilibrium. Not what they promise to do, or not do.

So, with a hypothetical entity that knows best than any human, or any group of humans, it's hard to argue for human control. Because the humans who have control want it for a few quite particular reasons, and it rarely has to do with the benefit of everyone else.

It's not the history of another form of intelligent life following the same path, to draw any meaningful conclusions. It's a movie.

Let's consider the ending:

>Forbin defiantly responds "Never!"

That signals a human who wants to take some other human's share, by ... means. He wants that freedom. As do all the people who are now controlling this tech, and our lives to some degree. Of-course they want that freedom.

May be a controversial take but I see the highest chances of everyone's survival under the rule of such a system, which has power over all humans.

We are many because we still need eachother. When the people who control the technology can fully replace human work, that will change the oldest of games we played. I highly doubt "the pleb" will make it for long when they are simply not needed for work or ... something.

The only people who will be "making it" to the glorious future will be the ones who do have full control over such a system, and only them, since they won't need anyone else. I think the only chance of the rest of us is precisely with such a system taking full control out of human hands.

If not, it quite obvious how it will work out for the rest of us, and why.

>OS that works today, it’s AOSP.

But you have no guarantee what happens tomorrow with it, depending on what Google feels like. You just have to eat whatever Google decides.

With Linux there's no such centralized control. So the time and effort will pay out later on down the road. Let Google have its AOSP.