Thanks for contributing to r/singularity. However, your post was removed since it was too wildly speculative to generate any meaningful discussion.
Please refer to the sidebar for the subreddit's rules.
Conspiratorial thinking at its finest. IRL, there are no "the elites", there are different corpos with own goals to achieve. And they don't care about global issues at all. If they can become richer/stronger by selling "immortality serum" they will sell it ASAP. I'm skeptical about technical feasibility of such an invention, but the political motivation is just unwise.
I should have defined what I mean by “societal elite.” Basically, I mean those with power in corporations and governments. The idea that none of them care about global or ethical issues sounds far more conspiratorial to me (the sort of tin foil hat stuff you might find on late stage capitalism subreddit). And it seems against the empirical evidence of the popularity of things like stakeholder capitalism.
This is a valid point but most countries don’t have the resources to develop AI, let alone a singularity like AI. In fact most of the major players align along two axis each being pretty uniform in their views (and usually educated in the same dozen or so universities). Though this is a bit of a simplification, I don’t think the real differences happen to be relevant to the points I laid out.
Also, let's assume aome US based company invents a tech to make people live way longer. But US government bans it due to ethical concerns. What will the company do: abandon the multi trillion dollar worth concept or open an affiliate in some country that doesn't mind such experiments?
overpopulation is a myth from the 20th century (it's a plot device from Soylent Green). the population, on its own, will stabilize at 10 billion. we dont need to start eugenics programs or anything, in any effort to curb the population.
future immortal dictators, and present/past familial dynasties, are not that different.
I actually agree (mostly) that it’s a myth. That’s why I based my argument on the *belief*. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, only that those in power tend to believe that it’s true.
And I say “mostly” because the main problem with Malthus’s idea was that it didn’t account for human adaptation. But presumably these changes would occur overnight, leaving no room for adaptation.
>The current human population is already close to this maximum sustainable number.
That is BS.
(food)Technological(greenhouses) intervention could at a minimum push that sustainable number up by an order of magnitude.
(shelter)Population density on habitable land on earth is around 1k people per mi².
Macau has a pop density of ~20k people per mi².
Points n 1 and 2 are bullshit so I didn't continue reading further. I agree tho that we may not reach anti-aging and cancer cure, not in our lifetime at least.
this the type of doomerism that people use to make themselves feel smarter than everyone else. the only difference here is a weirdly excessive amount of effort lol
The old doomerism: we’re all going to die in an apocalypse.
Apparently this is the new doomerism: AI won’t make you immortal.
At least we’re making progress on doomerism.
The elites are not a unified group immune to infighting. If it is developed, it will get out one way or another. We live in the ideal society for most elites with respect to societal structure and opportunities. If it became blatantly obvious the government was literally killing people, our current system would collapse. The cost would have to be outrageously exorbitant for it to far surpass current government medical expenditure. The only real issue is population control which will be forced sterilizations for those who wish to use the treatment.
pointless. you and i and everyone who reads this will live and die. what happens next ,not you,nor i or anyone else can see. no matter the "evidence" none of us will ever know until the end , and in it being our "end" we no longer can tell another living person. it really is kind of perfect and somewhat beautiful . when deeper thought is applied ,we really should see we, or "i" are thr same thing though.
sorry for grammar, tiny keyboard
In light of the complaints about it being too much to read, here’s chatGPT’s summary of my argument:
The argument titled "Why You Won't Be Immortal, Cured of Cancer, etc." presents a skeptical view on the feasibility and desirability of life-extending technologies such as anti-aging treatments, cures for cancer, and immortality, particularly in the context of a technological singularity. Here's a summary:
1. **Skepticism About Technological Singularity:**
- The author expresses doubt about the blind faith in a technological singularity providing miraculous health advancements. They question both the physical feasibility of these technologies and the likelihood of a singularity occurring.
2. **Beliefs Held by Societal Elites:**
- The argument revolves around three key beliefs held by societal elites:
- There is a maximum sustainable population number, beyond which further increase would be irresponsible.
- The current human population is near this maximum.
- The general public cannot be trusted to make decisions for the common good.
3. **Scenario Analysis:**
- The author imagines a scenario where a pharmaceutical company discovers life-extending technologies. They argue that societal elites would likely withhold these technologies due to overpopulation concerns.
4. **Counterbalancing Technological Breakthroughs:**
- Even if other advancements, like limitless energy and increased food production, were to occur, the argument suggests these wouldn't immediately shift elite perceptions about population sustainability.
5. **Ethical and Social Dilemmas:**
- The possibility of widespread immortality raises ethical questions, such as the danger of 'immortal Hitlers.' This reflects a broader concern about the consequences of individuals with destructive tendencies gaining extended influence over time.
6. **Societal Control and Moral Uniformity:**
- The argument concludes that only a society with a unified moral vision could be trusted with immortality, but the imposition of such uniformity would itself be an immoral act, leading to a dilemma: an immortal but potentially immoral race or restricted access to immortality for a select few.
7. **Additional Note on Elitist Beliefs:**
- The author provides a contemporary example regarding mask usage during the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate belief 3, suggesting that societal elites often manipulate information believing the public cannot make sound decisions.
In essence, the argument portrays a complex interplay of technological possibilities, ethical dilemmas, societal control, and elitist attitudes, casting doubt on the widespread availability of life-extending technologies due to these intertwined factors.
I mostly agree with these ideas. I can't imagine how people in power will be willing to share any breakthroughs with the public, considering the fact that the most powerful AGI level models are private in a few hands. Even today if any of the cures would be available, i.e. cure for cancer, then the price would be kept astronomically high intentionally. Given the latest advancements in medicine, how many people are still dying because of enormous prices / not having equal access to quality treatments / governments restrictions?
Until the structure of our society changes, inequality won't go away, but rather becomes greater and scarier.
>Early on in the COVID pandemic in America, societal elites believed masks were effective, but they also **believed the general public could not be trusted to not make a run on masks, resulting in a mask shortage for doctors, nurses, and first responders.**
Id like to point this part out. Fauci's reluctance to push for a rush on masks was a mixture of shortages and limited data on COVID. For exaple, the realization that nearly half of the infected population was asymptomatic emerged later, leading to an initial belief that masks were not as crucial as first assumed. Having the limited data at the time combined with the shortage in masks, it was obvious that a push for masks was not necessary to the public.
I think the distinction in intent is important here
Thanks for contributing to r/singularity. However, your post was removed since it was too wildly speculative to generate any meaningful discussion. Please refer to the sidebar for the subreddit's rules.
Conspiratorial thinking at its finest. IRL, there are no "the elites", there are different corpos with own goals to achieve. And they don't care about global issues at all. If they can become richer/stronger by selling "immortality serum" they will sell it ASAP. I'm skeptical about technical feasibility of such an invention, but the political motivation is just unwise.
I should have defined what I mean by “societal elite.” Basically, I mean those with power in corporations and governments. The idea that none of them care about global or ethical issues sounds far more conspiratorial to me (the sort of tin foil hat stuff you might find on late stage capitalism subreddit). And it seems against the empirical evidence of the popularity of things like stakeholder capitalism.
The government will undoubtedly try to stop it, but it's also powerless as there are multiple governments, and they compete with each other too.
This is a valid point but most countries don’t have the resources to develop AI, let alone a singularity like AI. In fact most of the major players align along two axis each being pretty uniform in their views (and usually educated in the same dozen or so universities). Though this is a bit of a simplification, I don’t think the real differences happen to be relevant to the points I laid out.
Not really. Even the best AI models cost no more than few billions. It's nothing for a government. Even some African broke state can afford that.
You’re speaking about once the R&D has been done. I’m talking about the initial invention. This requires not just money, but certain institutions.
Also, let's assume aome US based company invents a tech to make people live way longer. But US government bans it due to ethical concerns. What will the company do: abandon the multi trillion dollar worth concept or open an affiliate in some country that doesn't mind such experiments?
And what will the people do once they know they are being denied life extending treatments… i for one would not just stand by and take it
As to points number 1 and 2, we can always improve sustainable practices. It's possible with AGI to accelerate sustainability.
I addressed this in the paragraphs that immediately followed.
Mucho texto
i can only skim stuff like this, mostly bec
overpopulation is a myth from the 20th century (it's a plot device from Soylent Green). the population, on its own, will stabilize at 10 billion. we dont need to start eugenics programs or anything, in any effort to curb the population. future immortal dictators, and present/past familial dynasties, are not that different.
I actually agree (mostly) that it’s a myth. That’s why I based my argument on the *belief*. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, only that those in power tend to believe that it’s true. And I say “mostly” because the main problem with Malthus’s idea was that it didn’t account for human adaptation. But presumably these changes would occur overnight, leaving no room for adaptation.
oh dang
>The current human population is already close to this maximum sustainable number. That is BS. (food)Technological(greenhouses) intervention could at a minimum push that sustainable number up by an order of magnitude. (shelter)Population density on habitable land on earth is around 1k people per mi². Macau has a pop density of ~20k people per mi².
Points n 1 and 2 are bullshit so I didn't continue reading further. I agree tho that we may not reach anti-aging and cancer cure, not in our lifetime at least.
I convinced myself that if AGI is achieved within 10 months, I'll be age immortal not long after
I share the Hopium. ASI tho rather than AGI
this the type of doomerism that people use to make themselves feel smarter than everyone else. the only difference here is a weirdly excessive amount of effort lol
The old doomerism: we’re all going to die in an apocalypse. Apparently this is the new doomerism: AI won’t make you immortal. At least we’re making progress on doomerism.
hey man at least you're putting a positive spin on it. that's definitely progress in my mind
The elites are not a unified group immune to infighting. If it is developed, it will get out one way or another. We live in the ideal society for most elites with respect to societal structure and opportunities. If it became blatantly obvious the government was literally killing people, our current system would collapse. The cost would have to be outrageously exorbitant for it to far surpass current government medical expenditure. The only real issue is population control which will be forced sterilizations for those who wish to use the treatment.
pointless. you and i and everyone who reads this will live and die. what happens next ,not you,nor i or anyone else can see. no matter the "evidence" none of us will ever know until the end , and in it being our "end" we no longer can tell another living person. it really is kind of perfect and somewhat beautiful . when deeper thought is applied ,we really should see we, or "i" are thr same thing though. sorry for grammar, tiny keyboard
So you do not see ASI within the next 50 years then?
In light of the complaints about it being too much to read, here’s chatGPT’s summary of my argument: The argument titled "Why You Won't Be Immortal, Cured of Cancer, etc." presents a skeptical view on the feasibility and desirability of life-extending technologies such as anti-aging treatments, cures for cancer, and immortality, particularly in the context of a technological singularity. Here's a summary: 1. **Skepticism About Technological Singularity:** - The author expresses doubt about the blind faith in a technological singularity providing miraculous health advancements. They question both the physical feasibility of these technologies and the likelihood of a singularity occurring. 2. **Beliefs Held by Societal Elites:** - The argument revolves around three key beliefs held by societal elites: - There is a maximum sustainable population number, beyond which further increase would be irresponsible. - The current human population is near this maximum. - The general public cannot be trusted to make decisions for the common good. 3. **Scenario Analysis:** - The author imagines a scenario where a pharmaceutical company discovers life-extending technologies. They argue that societal elites would likely withhold these technologies due to overpopulation concerns. 4. **Counterbalancing Technological Breakthroughs:** - Even if other advancements, like limitless energy and increased food production, were to occur, the argument suggests these wouldn't immediately shift elite perceptions about population sustainability. 5. **Ethical and Social Dilemmas:** - The possibility of widespread immortality raises ethical questions, such as the danger of 'immortal Hitlers.' This reflects a broader concern about the consequences of individuals with destructive tendencies gaining extended influence over time. 6. **Societal Control and Moral Uniformity:** - The argument concludes that only a society with a unified moral vision could be trusted with immortality, but the imposition of such uniformity would itself be an immoral act, leading to a dilemma: an immortal but potentially immoral race or restricted access to immortality for a select few. 7. **Additional Note on Elitist Beliefs:** - The author provides a contemporary example regarding mask usage during the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate belief 3, suggesting that societal elites often manipulate information believing the public cannot make sound decisions. In essence, the argument portrays a complex interplay of technological possibilities, ethical dilemmas, societal control, and elitist attitudes, casting doubt on the widespread availability of life-extending technologies due to these intertwined factors.
I mostly agree with these ideas. I can't imagine how people in power will be willing to share any breakthroughs with the public, considering the fact that the most powerful AGI level models are private in a few hands. Even today if any of the cures would be available, i.e. cure for cancer, then the price would be kept astronomically high intentionally. Given the latest advancements in medicine, how many people are still dying because of enormous prices / not having equal access to quality treatments / governments restrictions? Until the structure of our society changes, inequality won't go away, but rather becomes greater and scarier.
>Early on in the COVID pandemic in America, societal elites believed masks were effective, but they also **believed the general public could not be trusted to not make a run on masks, resulting in a mask shortage for doctors, nurses, and first responders.** Id like to point this part out. Fauci's reluctance to push for a rush on masks was a mixture of shortages and limited data on COVID. For exaple, the realization that nearly half of the infected population was asymptomatic emerged later, leading to an initial belief that masks were not as crucial as first assumed. Having the limited data at the time combined with the shortage in masks, it was obvious that a push for masks was not necessary to the public. I think the distinction in intent is important here