Spiders have been a human fear for two million years, but I'm not too worried about them causing our downfall as a species. Just because we're afraid of AI doesn't mean it's actually worth fearing.
Yes, even if something is worth fearing, it's not simply because people are afraid of it already. Did something I write make you think I was arguing otherwise?
As an aside, I would argue that this deep rooted human fear of AI is related to the general ancient fear of humans being wiped out by other bands of more technologically advanced humans. Which for most of human history has been the single biggest danger by far.
People also have deep instinctual fears of things like spiders and snakes for the same reason- they were serious hazards in the environment where humans evolved.
One could say we have evolved these instincts to fear them, because they are worth fearing... not the other way around.
> Did something I write make you think I was arguing otherwise?
At the risk of having boring meta-commentary about comments, I feel like I see people often forgetting that their comments are in the context of a larger conversation and are going to be read as responses to the parent comment that they are, well, responding to. And then they get confused when their comments are interpreted in that context, rather than as completely standalone statements. So let's backtrack:
(A) AGI is a threat to human civilization. (B) Actually, its risk is marketing hype. (You) It's not marketing hype. Our fear is deep-seated.
It's not that weird to interpret the 3rd comment as disagreeing that the fear is just hype. When in fact, you were disagreeing only with the word "marketing". It's "innate" hype, not "marketing" hype. That's a much -- for lack of a better word -- weaker comment, because it is nitpicking about a minor word choice ("it's marketing hype") rather than the sentiment of the comment ("it's just hype"). So now you're asking "why did you assume my comment was interesting, and not just a little nitpick!?"
> One could say we have evolved these instincts to fear them, because they are worth fearing
But now you're back to saying AI is worth fearing, right? Isn't that what you're telling me I was wrong to assume you're saying? This feels like a needlessly difficult conversation.
All that aside, your additions to the conversation are interesting. I actually really like your take on it being a fear of technologically superior tribes. It just doesn't feel like it needs to be quite so adversarial. You established an adversarial attitude with "it's not marketing hype".
Technologically superior tribes always needed land. Their technology was advanced, but not in a way in which land is rendered useless, i.e. land price equals to zero.
Two reasons mainly for land price not equating to zero. First: buildings could not be extended upwards. Second: chloroplasts could not be produced just with air and sun.
These two problems will be solved in less than 10 years both. Land price worldwide will collapse to zero, or near zero. Buildings will be built using a flexible material, very strong and lightweight, i.e. graphene. Food will be produced using genetically modified spirulina, alongside with pharmaceutical substances and narcotics.
Also, just to reply to a parent comment, Matrix was a philosophy movie, Terminator was a comedy with some scary parts, and 2001 i didn't understand any of it. Was i supposed to be afraid of something in 2001?
The seriousness of AGI risk is a big conversation our society is having right now, and I am not interested in laying out my position on it in detail on here... only that dismissing the fear of AGI as marketing hype is a straw-man argument - and ignores all of the history, discussions, and arguments on both sides of this debate going back decades, or arguably even thousands of years.
Sure, it is fair to suspect that, because I am making that point, that I might also think AGI is a real threat to human civilization. The debate is so widespread right now, with mostly aggressive and dismissive bad faith arguments on both sides, that it sounds pretty exhausting and pointless to discuss.
I share your concern, and objection to making discussions needlessly adversarial. In general, I've seen a huge rise recently in internet discussions mostly reducing to people yelling at each other that the other person is a narcissist. Even in niche technical and hobby forums, it is becoming the norm for disagreements. I feel it is infecting me as well, and it might be time to take a break from the internet and talk to people I actually like in real life more.
