953 replies to this topic

[QuestforLife]

The loss of jobs is a non issue. Exactly the same things were said about automation and assembly lines and just about every advance that came along. The typewriter will put hand scribes out of a job, telephone switching equipment putting operators out, and so on. But it was found that new jobs were created at the same time. The new advances, far from causing a recession, enabled much greater productivity which resulted in easier jobs for the public and wealth for all

The old economic values and ways of doing things are changing. As physical and mental labor both are made redundant, working for a living will become a thing of the past. UBI will in some form be instituted, some say we have it now with welfare. Taxes will pay for it all. The average lifestyle will be one of leisure. Socializing and travel will be the main activities. Some will want to study, not to make more money but out of interest. Those with money will invest in new smart factories unless government takes over that part. It will be all fun and games. Unless ai decides to do away with us.

I doubt UBI will be generous. It will be like welfare now (as you point out). So who will pay the taxes as more and more people switch over to UBI? If all the wealth (and the tax base) gets concentrated into a huge Corporation-government structure, the question then becomes: who buys the products produced by automation/machine learning? There will be (almost) no one left with sufficient excess income. Ultimate productivity but no one left to buy the products. A huge, purposeless machine... Is this the final end of capitalism and the triumph of communism? Everything provided by government?

I doubt most people could psychologically survive such a purposeless existence. It is bad enough now when most peoples' jobs are so specialised they are totally disconnected from anything tangible and unconnected to their own survival. It will be 100x worse when 90% of people don't work at all. Mental illness will be ubiquitous.

The key fact you miss is that only a small percentage of people have the inbuilt drive to pursue learning, poetry, art, science, etc., for their own sake, and they will likely be those people who are still working when everyone else is on UBI.

Ps the UK is already trying to bring in 15 minute cities with financial penalties for traveling beyond that zone too many times. They do not want the great unwashed travelling about.

Edited by QuestforLife, 21 June 2023 - 09:26 PM.

[Mind]

I doubt UBI will be generous. It will be like welfare now (as you point out). So who will pay the taxes as more and more people switch over to UBI? If all the wealth (and the tax base) gets concentrated into a huge Corporation-government structure, the question then becomes: who buys the products produced by automation/machine learning? There will be (almost) no one left with sufficient excess income. Ultimate productivity but no one left to buy the products. A huge, purposeless machine... Is this the final end of capitalism and the triumph of communism? Everything provided by government?
one is unemployed and sitting around staring
I doubt most people could psychologically survive such a purposeless existence. It is bad enough now when most peoples' jobs are so specialised they are totally disconnected from anything tangible and unconnected to their own survival. It will be 100x worse when 90% of people don't work at all. Mental illness will be ubiquitous.

The key fact you miss is that only a small percentage of people have the inbuilt drive to pursue learning, poetry, art, science, etc., for their own sake, and they will likely be those people who are still working when everyone else is on UBI.

Ps the UK is already trying to bring in 15 minute cities with financial penalties for traveling beyond that zone too many times. They do not want the great unwashed travelling about.

 

My sentiments as well, for the most part. The key thing that most people miss is that the UBI will not be "Universal". It will come with strings attached. If you commit crimes, or travel out of your 15 minute zone, eat too much meat, or do too many drugs, you will not get your UBI.

 

Many people think that living in perpetual entertainment and stimulation will be awesome. This has not been the case thus far. Social media, porn, and gaming have ruined the health and mental well being of young people in advanced nations. A growing percentage of them are sick, depressed, and addicted to their media. The suicide rate has skyrocketed. Now amplify that 100X if everyone is sitting around collecting their subsistence income from the government and watching endless AI entertainment.

[Danail Bulgaria]

In one of my topics, 

https://www.longecit...-the-abandoned/

post #4

I wrote about a strange theory of aging claiming that the job and working keeps our lives longer and rejuvenates our bodies and minds. It is in the same style as the last two posts here - relaxing without a job pushes to many health damaging factors, such as obesity, alcohol, loosing brain abilities etc. We may include the modern social media, porn and gaming. Why not plus drugs. And why not plus maybe more. 

 

On the other side is "Arbeit macht frei". The motto of the labour extermination camps. Almost everyone who I know is overworked and exausted already. When I shre with them the idea, that working rejuvenates the body, recovers the youth and makes the life longer, the answers back are definatelly not encouraging. 

 

It seems that we have survived so far because we have been fiddling somewhere between destructive joblesness kills and arbeit macht frei. That provides also an answer what the people should do in order to survive psychologically the joblesness and living on an universal basic income. 

 

The successfull psychological survivour has to find a way to maintain nobel leasure activities, training his mind and body, instead of simply relaxing on the stream. The book from the threasures of the abandones post 4 just became one level more important. 

[QuestforLife]

 

The successfull psychological survivour has to find a way to maintain nobel leasure activities, training his mind and body, instead of simply relaxing on the stream. The book from the threasures of the abandones post 4 just became one level more important. 

 

This is very good. I think of this as the British aristocrats and upper class (land owners, vicars, etc) in the 19th Century, some of whom became amateur scientists and made significant contributions to the advancement of knowledge.

 

We shouldn't fool ourselves though, the vast majority of people placed in a position of not having to work for their keep, do not remain productive, at least not in my opinion. 

 

When I was younger I used to watch Star Trek: The Next Generation, when Picard and co. effused on the benefits of living just for one's own betterment. But I wonder what the billions of people back on Earth were doing whilst he explored the galaxy? Maybe watching Netflix? 

[adamh]

I doubt UBI will be generous. It will be like welfare now (as you point out). So who will pay the taxes as more and more people switch over to UBI? If all the wealth (and the tax base) gets concentrated into a huge Corporation-government structure, the question then becomes: who buys the products produced by automation/machine learning? There will be (almost) no one left with sufficient excess income. Ultimate productivity but no one left to buy the products. A huge, purposeless machine... Is this the final end of capitalism and the triumph of communism? Everything provided by government?
 

 

That is a very good point, the old economic system will have to change. In the past, wealth was created by labor aided by machines. The people got paid but the machines didn't. If you remove the human from the equation, then what is your basis for earning your living?

 

One answer to that is a tax on production rather than on personal income. The government may take 50% of the output of a factory and distribute that to the public. The factory can then sell the other 50% and make a profit. You could change the figures to 75-25 or even 90-10 as fewer of the public make or use money. Those with money may get the better and newer models.

 

The other problem stated is that people's lives will become purposeless and this will lead to drug use, porn, etc. Well, take a look around you, how many people do you know personally who are inspired by their job? How many consider it to be a waste of their lives? The owner may like it but as for most of the rest, the saying is 'we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us'

 

So will being able to drop the boring or hated job mean misery and soaring suicide rates as has been implied? There are so many hobbies to pursue when you have the time to do them. People in retirement don't suddenly become depressed and no longer want to live. On the contrary, most find it great, like a holiday that never ends. They can now do things they only could dream of like traveling the world, meeting new people etc

 

Taxes will do the job, if as has been predicted productivity increases many fold. Since your factory can now work 24/7 and not pay the help, it now becomes a problem of what to do with all those goods. Instead of people on welfare living in poverty, their income might be equal to that of a mid manager today.

 

Lets look at rich people today for an example of how the public might react. They seem to be having a good time, traveling, going to shows and concerts, taking part in various causes. A few become drug addicts, alcoholics and so on but the majority seem to be able to handle the stress of all that wealth very well.

 

The other point raised was that the government will control everything and no dissent allowed. People have to stand up for their rights, push back against 15 minute cities, push back against surveillance. There is already pushback but increasing industrial productivity by perhaps an order of magnitude is not going to make things worse

[Danail Bulgaria]

I guess, only guess, that if the UBI becomes implemented, it will remove the need to pay the taxes.

 

In brief, the UBI will either pay uou enough to cover the taxes too, or not.

 

If it doees pay you enough for the taxes, the idea about taxes as general becomes obsolete. It is kind a stupid the UBI first to give you the money for your taxes, and then you to pay back to the government that money for the taxes. It would be easier and logical the people on UBI simply not to pay the taxes.

 

Otherwise, if the UBI does not include the money for your taxes, then I don't see the UBI to be effective at all, because it will not provide you enough to maintain at least the minimum for maintaining yourself alive. And that very minimum includes also the taxes that you wuld be obligated to pay. And if you do not work, as supposed after the AI to take all of the jobs, you will not have any other income to pay your taxes. So, when the time for taxes for your property lets say comes, what would you do, or maybe you will eat less, in order to keep your property...

 

That is an interesting question for people, who live in countries, which currently are trying to implement a basic income. Is your UBI enough to pay your taxes or not

 

[QuestforLife]

I guess, only guess, that if the UBI becomes implemented, it will remove the need to pay the taxes.

 

In brief, the UBI will either pay uou enough to cover the taxes too, or not.

 

 

 

The government loves to tax, and then give you back (some of) the money. For example with child benefit, as my income increased, they taxed me more, but continued to pay child benefit the same, rather than just tailing off the child benefit. It is very inefficient, due to admin costs. 

 

Current UBI experiments seem to be just giving people money and then taxing them as normal. 

 

My personal opinion is that if government keeps total control of this process of increasing productivity, but in fewer hands, it will continue to grow its own power,  but cause significant loss of innovation, as well as possible fragility in the system.

 

For example, 100 years ago productivity was much lower, but many people grew (some of) their own food. So were less effected by supply issues. Now any global supply chain failings are swiftly transmitted around the world. We are all experiencing higher food prices as a result of the loss of grain shipments from UKR/RUS, and I expect we will see starvation as a result of this in parts of Africa quite soon. Even countries that are slightly wealthier, like Egypt, will have to switch from their lucrative cotton crops, to growing wheat, so their will be a loss of income. The next 10 years is going to be a mess. Buckle up.

[QuestforLife]

That is a very good point, the old economic system will have to change. In the past, wealth was created by labor aided by machines. The people got paid but the machines didn't. If you remove the human from the equation, then what is your basis for earning your living?

 

One answer to that is a tax on production rather than on personal income. The government may take 50% of the output of a factory and distribute that to the public. The factory can then sell the other 50% and make a profit. You could change the figures to 75-25 or even 90-10 as fewer of the public make or use money. Those with money may get the better and newer models.

 

The other problem stated is that people's lives will become purposeless and this will lead to drug use, porn, etc. Well, take a look around you, how many people do you know personally who are inspired by their job? How many consider it to be a waste of their lives? The owner may like it but as for most of the rest, the saying is 'we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us'

 

So will being able to drop the boring or hated job mean misery and soaring suicide rates as has been implied? There are so many hobbies to pursue when you have the time to do them. People in retirement don't suddenly become depressed and no longer want to live. On the contrary, most find it great, like a holiday that never ends. They can now do things they only could dream of like traveling the world, meeting new people etc

 

Taxes will do the job, if as has been predicted productivity increases many fold. Since your factory can now work 24/7 and not pay the help, it now becomes a problem of what to do with all those goods. Instead of people on welfare living in poverty, their income might be equal to that of a mid manager today.

 

Lets look at rich people today for an example of how the public might react. They seem to be having a good time, traveling, going to shows and concerts, taking part in various causes. A few become drug addicts, alcoholics and so on but the majority seem to be able to handle the stress of all that wealth very well.

 

The other point raised was that the government will control everything and no dissent allowed. People have to stand up for their rights, push back against 15 minute cities, push back against surveillance. There is already pushback but increasing industrial productivity by perhaps an order of magnitude is not going to make things worse

 

I agree with you that some of the mental illness problems in society today are caused by over work, not under work. For example each generation having to work even harder to keep up with house prices. This is a consequence of inflation due to coming off the gold standard, btw. 

 

But I don't think you should dismiss the mental illness problems due to purposelessness. This is felt today in work, and it will be felt even more so when most people are unemployed. 

 

The other point we haven't covered here is that we are discussing this from the POV of highly productive, developed countries. Developing countries, plus immigrants from developing into developed countries, often fill in the less skilled jobs. At the moment that is still required. But automation is already cutting a lot of jobs from supermarkets and fast food restaurants. I can see future developments being a barrier to low wage workers. Then if we don't need the immigrants, but they are desperate to get in, due to their own country failing, we will be in a 'machine guns on the border' scenario. I repeat, this is going to be a mess. Buckle up.

[Danail Bulgaria]

...

My personal opinion is that if government keeps total control of this process of increasing productivity, but in fewer hands, it will continue to grow its own power,  but cause significant loss of innovation, as well as possible fragility in the system.

...

 

We are talking about a world in which the human jobs are replaced with AI and robots. The AI will innovate. There will not be a significant loss of innovation. The AI may even become better and more efficient than the people in innovation.
 

I am not familliar with the current UBI experiments. Which countries currently experiment with UBI? How much money are they giving - is it enough to have food, raise your children, maintain your house and pay all of your obligate taxes?

 

There are many questions, which arise about the UBI... how to prevent uncontrollable birth rates (births limit model like China?), how to limit people not to overflow some particular place for living (legal difficulties of changing your citizenship, like in Bulgaria from the 70s ?), how to control who which real estates posses, how to keep the legally aquired properties (the status quo) found on arrival of the new laws which will implement the UBI and the people not working status, etc. and answering them is a must, because they make the difference between 'machines will work only and we people will live equally in hapiness and abundance' and 'it has been anounced that the chockolate rations is to be increased'. And the big question is in which scenario do you prefer to live.

 

*after talking with friends psychiatrists, their oppinion is that the mantal issues of many people in the society today ARE actually caused by being unemployed. As I understood it, for the unemployed taxes and paymant notes are rising, no money from anywhere, and the unemployed turns depressed. From there heart problems, hormonal prolems and ruining of all of the organs in the netire body, but this is off-topic. Depression increases the chances of many other mental disorders, including the age related dementia (which I have also red in official medical literature), but it turns out, that it may cause a real psychopaty such as schizophrenia and cyclophrenia. The unemployed stays depressed, stays depressed, stays depressed, and suddenly puf-becomes a real psycho. It turned out that this is possible. Also increased depressed = increased sucides.

[adamh]

seivtcho wrote:

 

"In brief, the UBI will either pay uou enough to cover the taxes too, or not"

 

It will evolve into a totally different system. It would make little sense to give ubi and take some back later unless the person had other income. Some would hustle and start businesses so anything over equivalent to perhaps $60k a year might be the base and over that they start taking taxes

 

Most taxes would come from big business and factories.

 

Questforlife:

"My personal opinion is that if government keeps total control of this process of increasing productivity, but in fewer hands, it will continue to grow its own power,  but cause significant loss of innovation, as well as possible fragility in the system."

 

We definitely need less government control and interference in our lives. The nature of politicians and bureaucrats seems to be to push for more and more control. An extreme example of that is china, which we don't want to model

 

" I don't think you should dismiss the mental illness problems due to purposelessness. This is felt today in work, and it will be felt even more so when most people are unemployed. "

 

I don't dismiss it but I doubt having more free time will cause more mental illness. In fact it should decrease it substantially. No more worrying about paying the rent, food, shelter. In fact they will have money to splurge. This will decrease motivation to get ahead, why get a degree if the only reason to get it is to get the job and you don't need the job? People will become bored

 

All sorts of new games will pop up, online games, in person games, team games. Just as the public rallies round their local franchised sports team, they will have virtual team sports that anyone can join in. Crime will tend to be mostly violence rather than mostly theft. I'm assuming that having plenty of resources means the person will not shoplift and burgle. That may be assuming too much, but with ai, the police will be all over everything making it hard to get away with

 

"The other point we haven't covered here is that we are discussing this from the POV of highly productive, developed countries. Developing countries, plus immigrants from developing into developed countries, often fill in the less skilled jobs. At the moment that is still required. But automation is already cutting a lot of jobs from supermarkets and fast food restaurants. I can see future developments being a barrier to low wage workers. Then if we don't need the immigrants, but they are desperate to get in, due to their own country failing, we will be in a 'machine guns on the border' scenario. I repeat, this is going to be a mess. Buckle up.The other point we haven't covered here is that we are discussing this from the POV of highly productive, developed countries. Developing countries, plus immigrants from developing into developed countries, often fill in the less skilled jobs. At the moment that is still required. But automation is already cutting a lot of jobs from supermarkets and fast food restaurants. I can see future developments being a barrier to low wage workers. Then if we don't need the immigrants, but they are desperate to get in, due to their own country failing, we will be in a 'machine guns on the border' scenario. I repeat, this is going to be a mess. Buckle up."

 

Birth rates need to be controlled. One might argue they are already doing that with the created covid virus and the horrible "vaccine" that came after. The fact the nederlands is shutting down thousands of farms over a fear of climate change, and the mysterious fires at food processing plants may be part of that too. Throw in a drought like we have in many parts of the world and population growth goes negative. Instead of machine guns at the border, our senile "president" leaves the gate wide open to the hordes

 

seivtcho

"The AI will innovate. There will not be a significant loss of innovation. The AI may even become better and more efficient than the people in innovation."

 

Absolutely, and it would not even take higher than human iq to do. A lot of discoveries are made through old fashioned trial and error. Take searching for a cancer cure for example. They test thousands of possible candidates. AI could automate the process and work day and night. It could also analyze the configuration of the cancer and create antibodies to it. Or a designer drug based on the properties of the tumor. This is happening already

 

"after talking with friends psychiatrists, their oppinion is that the mantal issues of many people in the society today ARE actually caused by being unemployed. As I understood it, for the unemployed taxes and paymant notes are rising, no money from anywhere, and the unemployed turns depressed."

 

Yes but aren't most of those problems a direct or indirect result of no money? With a generous ubi that is taken care of. For those with no hobbies or outside interests whose job was their life, it may be hard to adjust. Isn't that better than being in poverty and not able to do much of anything?

[QuestforLife]

We are talking about a world in which the human jobs are replaced with AI and robots. The AI will innovate. There will not be a significant loss of innovation. The AI may even become better and more efficient than the people in innovation.

I should make clear I am (mostly) discussing the disruption that will come simply from rolling out the current tech, such as large language models, in combination with problems that already exist in the world today, such as the breakdown of globalised supply chains, population growth of mainly stupid people, etc. I am not talking about some future AGI,which may be coming down the pipe.

LLM just increases productivity by taking over clerk type work, they don't innovate. Anyone who has interacted with ChatGPT can see that it's a global consensus machine. Well trained ML should be helpful to those that innovate, however. This is why I think there will still be highly paid jobs for the top 5-10% for the foreseeable. And also various more skilled manual jobs like electricians, plumbers, mechanics, etc. But monotonous office work is over.

This civilisation is already on the ropes, so it's anyone's guess whether it can survive the transition to the sunlit uplands some on this thread are prophesying.

[Danail Bulgaria]

seivtcho wrote:

 

"In brief, the UBI will either pay uou enough to cover the taxes too, or not"

 

It will evolve into a totally different system. It would make little sense to give ubi and take some back later unless the person had other income. Some would hustle and start businesses so anything over equivalent to perhaps $60k a year might be the base and over that they start taking taxes

 

...

seivtcho

"The AI will innovate. There will not be a significant loss of innovation. The AI may even become better and more efficient than the people in innovation."

 

Absolutely, and it would not even take higher than human iq to do. A lot of discoveries are made through old fashioned trial and error. Take searching for a cancer cure for example. They test thousands of possible candidates. AI could automate the process and work day and night. It could also analyze the configuration of the cancer and create antibodies to it. Or a designer drug based on the properties of the tumor. This is happening already

 

"after talking with friends psychiatrists, their oppinion is that the mantal issues of many people in the society today ARE actually caused by being unemployed. As I understood it, for the unemployed taxes and paymant notes are rising, no money from anywhere, and the unemployed turns depressed."

 

Yes but aren't most of those problems a direct or indirect result of no money? With a generous ubi that is taken care of. For those with no hobbies or outside interests whose job was their life, it may be hard to adjust. Isn't that better than being in poverty and not able to do much of anything?

 

60 thousand dollars in the current costs for an year seem to me a very decent sum, which as I see it is enough to have a nice food, raise your child and pay the year tax for the properties, which you own. Am I right? I see 5000 dollars a month enough. I am ashamed to tell what the sallaries are in Bulgaria. I am also modest, but I am I, Would it be fine for everybody - considering that people will no longer work.
 

Yes, those problems are 'direct or indirect' result of money. If the UBI provides finantial security for the famillies, some sort of security, that you will not be left to die from hubger and will not be left homeless, that would be a solvation for many of the modern depressions.

[Danail Bulgaria]

I should make clear I am (mostly) discussing the disruption that will come simply from rolling out the current tech, such as large language models, in combination with problems that already exist in the world today, such as the breakdown of globalised supply chains, population growth of mainly stupid people, etc. I am not talking about some future AGI,which may be coming down the pipe.

LLM just increases productivity by taking over clerk type work, they don't innovate. Anyone who has interacted with ChatGPT can see that it's a global consensus machine. Well trained ML should be helpful to those that innovate, however. This is why I think there will still be highly paid jobs for the top 5-10% for the foreseeable. And also various more skilled manual jobs like electricians, plumbers, mechanics, etc. But monotonous office work is over.

This civilisation is already on the ropes, so it's anyone's guess whether it can survive the transition to the sunlit uplands some on this thread are prophesying.

 

Shall I understand, that if the things remain at the current level, people, who do science will still be needed and hired? That are good news for me and for many people in the forum, because many og them have a masters degree, in which they can work as scientists, mainly in biomedical science.
 

Fine, but as far as I know in the most countries, the scientific researchers are not well payed. Plus how many people outthere can be employed in scientific researh? Can all people be re-qualified and start doing science?

[adamh]

Shall I understand, that if the things remain at the current level, people, who do science will still be needed and hired? That are good news for me and for many people in the forum, because many og them have a masters degree, in which they can work as scientists, mainly in biomedical science.
 

Fine, but as far as I know in the most countries, the scientific researchers are not well payed. Plus how many people outthere can be employed in scientific researh? Can all people be re-qualified and start doing science?

 

With ubi the only need for a job would be to have something to do that you find interesting. I see no reason why someone who is a scientist now can't still do research with the help of an ai assistant, when ai matures. 

 

The economic shocks will be enormous, people's lives will change across the globe. They will have to learn a new way to live. Even totally positive changes are stressful. People have had heart attacks or developed conditions after winning the lottery or some other windfall. But I think most of us would like to try it.

 

We have no choice but to make the best of it

[QuestforLife]

With ubi the only need for a job would be to have something to do that you find interesting. I see no reason why someone who is a scientist now can't still do research with the help of an ai assistant, when ai matures.

We have no choice but to make the best of it

Yes, I for one would love to be paid 60k to do independent research. But only a few % of people fall into this category.

Also look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs for why people need more than food and shelter to be fulfilled.

I agree we don't have much choice but to make the best of it at this point.

[adamh]

The ancient romans had it down to a formula: bread and circuses. Provide that and the masses will be content. The type of circus changes with the times and the bread requirement is more refined today but they found if you provide those things, you are good and will be reelected. I see no reason why its any different today.

 

A gamers wet dream is to be able to play all day every day with no boring job to get interfere. Of course it will be a disincentive to going to university since the main reason people go is to get a better job with more pay. AI will not need to invent killer robots to take over society, we will beg them to take over and save us the trouble of running things. 

[Mind]

Not directly related to AI (more indirect). National Graphic has gotten rid of all of their writers - going with freelancers instead.

 

There are not a lot of magazine writers left, but they are on the employment chopping block as well.

[dlewis1453]

Not directly related to AI (more indirect). National Graphic has gotten rid of all of their writers - going with freelancers instead.

 

There are not a lot of magazine writers left, but they are on the employment chopping block as well.

 

This makes me very sad. My father has subscribed to National Geographic for as long as I can remember, and I grew up reading it regularly. It played an important role in inspiring and feeding my curiosity about science and the world. I don't expect the quality of writing and research at National Geographic will remain the same after this change.

[dlewis1453]

I have been monitoring this thread with interest and would like to share my thoughts as well. I agree with many of the points that have been raised here - that robotics, automation, and AI, along with other social and economic trends, will lead to a hollowing out of the job market in many fields. I believe that the world is overpopulated from a resource capacity perspective and an employment perspective. There will not be enough jobs that provide meaningful and stimulating employment for the population, although this may be slightly mitigated by baby boomers retiring and freeing up spots in the workforce for Millennials. Wealth inequality will continue to increase along with corporate power. 

 

I don't place much hope in UBI. UBI may be sufficient to keep people from starving, but it will not provide a satisfying existence to the vast majority of people. Consider that most humans are (1) of average intelligence and consequently are not particularly curious or motivated to learn or create and so will spend most of their free time watching the tv or scrolling on their phone, (2) are status conscious and consequently derive satisfaction not  just from their absolute quality of life but also their quality of life relative to their peers, which will be a point of frustration if they are on UBI, and (3) need to be kept busy with either meaningful work or relationships in order to keep depression or existential angst at bay, and few women will want to pair up and form families with a man who is on UBI.

 

I think the best path humanity could take right now is to decrease the total number of humans to a lower level (what level I am not sure) as the number of meaningful jobs declines. Along the way we can make breakthroughs in medicine and longevity to improve quality of life. 

 

I think the ultimate frontier of human enhancement, which will ultimately be necessary to combat the dysgenic trends that we are seeing with each generation, is to make in vitro fertilization more cost effective along with destigmatizing embryonic screening. Already, cutting edge genetic analysis platforms such as self decode are able to predict whether you are likely to be intelligent, healthy (across dozens of measures of physical and mental health), and social based on your genes. I have used self decode on myself and found it very accurate. Some adventurous parents are already using self decode to screen their embryos before implantation, so that only the most healthy and intelligent embryo is chosen. Imagine the impact to a society's health, happiness, and productivity if every parent in a single generation used this approach to have a child. The resulting healthy, intelligent children could then (i) either pursue academic, athletic, or artistic endeavors under a UBI, (ii) conduct scientific research for institutions to further human progress, (iii) work in those meaningful jobs that remain, or (iv) oversee the algorithms and robots that will be doing everything else. 

 

 

Edited by dlewis1453, 04 July 2023 - 08:32 PM.

[QuestforLife]

I think the best path humanity could take right now is to decrease the total number of humans to a lower level (what level I am not sure) as the number of meaningful jobs declines. Along the way we can make breakthroughs in medicine and longevity to improve quality of life. 

 

I think the ultimate frontier of human enhancement, which will ultimately be necessary to combat the dysgenic trends that we are seeing with each generation, is to make in vitro fertilization more cost effective along with destigmatizing embryonic screening. Already, cutting edge genetic analysis platforms such as self decode are able to predict whether you are likely to be intelligent, healthy (across dozens of measures of physical and mental health), and social based on your genes. I have used self decode on myself and found it very accurate. Some adventurous parents are already using self decode to screen their embryos before implantation, so that only the most healthy and intelligent embryo is chosen. Imagine the impact to a society's health, happiness, and productivity if every parent in a single generation used this approach to have a child. The resulting healthy, intelligent children could then (i) either pursue academic, athletic, or artistic endeavors under a UBI, (ii) conduct scientific research for institutions to further human progress, (iii) work in those meaningful jobs that remain, or (iv) oversee the algorithms and robots that will be doing everything else. 

 

The way you put this sounds very reasonable, but is actually worthy of a Hollywood dystopian horror movie.

 

I mean imagine if this was proposed...a plan to genetically engineer the elite to have the traits needed to survive and thrive in a high tech globalised system (not necessarily a very desirable end, even for them, being born into a caste for a given task in a huge machine), whilst reducing the ever increasing 'rump' (i.e. not useful) population as far as possible. Whether this is a murderous  'cull', or done through psychological 'persuasion', or just through massive economic pressure and overcrowding causing a birth rate crash, the result is the same. In the language of the left, it is 'genocide' on a global scale.. pretty nasty stuff.

 

I put this to you: is the techno-dystopia a better future outcome than a complete crash in the big-tech world, with a return to pre-industrial technology and a die-off of excess population due to reductions in food output?

 

They are both pretty bad, and I think it is a toss-up which one will occur.  

 

ps, I have not covered here the problems with technically implementing effective genetic engineering, which are considerable and not likely to be solved as quickly as people think. It is more likely that a genetic 'separation' from the rest of the population will occur simply by the breeding of university graduates, whites and east asians, etc., than through genetic tinkering. In fact this is already happening, but it is not that noticeable on a large scale because highly educated people are not that fertile.  

[dlewis1453]

I understand that any talk of guiding human genetics is naturally going to be met with fear, given the potential for abuse. I agree that true genetic engineering is very difficult and is a long way away from being used successfully in humans and is fraught with danger. That is why I am trying to be very careful with the method that I have proposed. I am not advocating for forced depopulation, but rather just careful family planning by families that want the best for their children. If each family had no more than 1 or 2 children, the world population would gradually decrease to a more sustainable level in a reasonable time frame without any suffering. I am also not advocating for true "genetic engineering" (i.e. the alteration of an embryo's genetic code). Rather, I am advocating for harnessing existing and effective albeit expensive technologies (genetic screening of embryos and in vitro fertilization) and making them cheaper and more widespread.

 

Rather than choosing between the two extremes of (i) allowing the current dysgenic trends of human reproduction to continue or (ii) actual genetic engineering, why not take a middle ground and just make the best of the existing genetic material we have by picking and choosing embryos using a weighted average trait scoring system? I think governments should invest considerable resources in making in vitro fertilization more affordable and in destigmatizing genetic screening, because it could save lots of money for the government in the long run and increase economic output. A population with higher intelligence and better health will have less medical expenditure, higher average educational attainment which brings with it higher incomes, along with better rule of law, less crime, and less poverty. An initial expenditure of say $100,000 on helping a couple select the best embryo they can produce would likely be paid back in multiples over the course of that child's lifetime.

 

I don't think the approach I have described should be limited to the elites, although I admit I am being idealistic in thinking that it wouldn't be so limited. Consider this point - once you get past genetic diseases, most traits that determine a person's health, success, and happiness in life are polygenic. What that means is that even two people of below average health and intelligence can still produce a healthy child of at least average intelligence, they are just less likely to produce such a child than healthier more intelligent couples. The probability of the level of a polygenic trait in a future child, such as IQ for example, can be modeled as a gaussian distribution with the mean being the mean of the parent's IQs, with a standard deviation of 15. This means that it is possible, though relatively less likely, for two below average IQ parents to produce an above average IQ child, and very possible for the parents to produce an average child. Take this mathematical model and apply it across many traits, and you can see that even parents who are struggling on the genetic front could still meaningfully participate in this hypothetical genetic betterment program and produce children that could thrive in the increasingly competitive modern society. The benefits to society of applying this technology across all income classes could be immense. 

 

 

I put this to you: is the techno-dystopia a better future outcome than a complete crash in the big-tech world, with a return to pre-industrial technology and a die-off of excess population due to reductions in food output?

 

They are both pretty bad, and I think it is a toss-up which one will occur.  

 I would much prefer the techno-dystopia over the collapse. At least with the techno-dystopia I can live a life of epicureanism before I die (or if I am not aging, then once I have experienced every pleasurable experience I can just check myself into a ketamine suicide clinic in Switzerland). 

 

[QuestforLife]

I understand that any talk of guiding human genetics is naturally going to be met with fear, given the potential for abuse. I agree that true genetic engineering is very difficult and is a long way away from being used successfully in humans and is fraught with danger. That is why I am trying to be very careful with the method that I have proposed. I am not advocating for forced depopulation, but rather just careful family planning by families that want the best for their children. If each family had no more than 1 or 2 children, the world population would gradually decrease to a more sustainable level in a reasonable time frame without any suffering. I am also not advocating for true "genetic engineering" (i.e. the alteration of an embryo's genetic code). Rather, I am advocating for harnessing existing and effective albeit expensive technologies (genetic screening of embryos and in vitro fertilization) and making them cheaper and more widespread.

 

Rather than choosing between the two extremes of (i) allowing the current dysgenic trends of human reproduction to continue or (ii) actual genetic engineering, why not take a middle ground and just make the best of the existing genetic material we have by picking and choosing embryos using a weighted average trait scoring system? I think governments should invest considerable resources in making in vitro fertilization more affordable and in destigmatizing genetic screening, because it could save lots of money for the government in the long run and increase economic output. A population with higher intelligence and better health will have less medical expenditure, higher average educational attainment which brings with it higher incomes, along with better rule of law, less crime, and less poverty. An initial expenditure of say $100,000 on helping a couple select the best embryo they can produce would likely be paid back in multiples over the course of that child's lifetime.

 

I don't think the approach I have described should be limited to the elites, although I admit I am being idealistic in thinking that it wouldn't be so limited. Consider this point - once you get past genetic diseases, most traits that determine a person's health, success, and happiness in life are polygenic. What that means is that even two people of below average health and intelligence can still produce a healthy child of at least average intelligence, they are just less likely to produce such a child than healthier more intelligent couples. The probability of the level of a polygenic trait in a future child, such as IQ for example, can be modeled as a gaussian distribution with the mean being the mean of the parent's IQs, with a standard deviation of 15. This means that it is possible, though relatively less likely, for two below average IQ parents to produce an above average IQ child, and very possible for the parents to produce an average child. Take this mathematical model and apply it across many traits, and you can see that even parents who are struggling on the genetic front could still meaningfully participate in this hypothetical genetic betterment program and produce children that could thrive in the increasingly competitive modern society. The benefits to society of applying this technology across all income classes could be immense. 

 

 I would much prefer the techno-dystopia over the collapse. At least with the techno-dystopia I can live a life of epicureanism before I die (or if I am not aging, then once I have experienced every pleasurable experience I can just check myself into a ketamine suicide clinic in Switzerland). 

 

 

The technical difficulties I was referring to WERE pertaining to embryo selection. 1) It is not clear that the health benefits of selecting an embryo > the health loss of removing the natural selection of having the fittest sperm fertilise the egg, or 2) old mothers selecting embryos rather than having children when young, or 3) how possible it is to select for a given trait, say intelligence, due to the highly polygenic nature of such traits; it is more likely such a selection would just be for health in general; see previous comments. But let us put that aside for now and say that all these technical difficulties are overcome, that you are correct and people will be able to select for more intelligent children (for example). We then come to the real problem...

 

What seems initially like an OPTION, with some of the more intelligent and affluent people selecting embryos, soon becomes MANDATORY, for any would-be parents wishing to help their future kids get ahead. Nor would this be limited, as you seemingly reasonably state, to embryo selection. If it becomes possible in the future to insert beneficial genes not already present in the parents, or to remove harmful ones that are present, even if this is initially available only to the rich, it will soon become another MANDATORY thing parents have to do (see the film 'Gattaca' for a good overview of this problem). The same argument can be applied to cybernetic implants to increase certain abilities. Or other future technical developments.  Even if you claim use of these technologies would be prohibited by law, it does not take much for opinions to change and for the law to be altered. Witness, for example, the claim we must pursue AGI because otherwise 'China might get their first'. There is no route here that doesn't lead us to becoming 'The Borg' (or something like it). 

 

Let us now turn to reducing the 'rump' of non-useful humanity. Contraception has enabled family planning of course, but actually the driver for reduced fertility is the relentlessly increasing pressure on people to succeed in a complex, technical society, when no one is autonomous and everyone must behave in a way that benefits the system as a whole. All developed countries, to a greater or lesser extent depending on local factors, are experiencing plunging birth rates that threaten the future survival of those countries, if such birth rates persist. The poster child for this is China. Touted as a future super power, they industrialised so rapidly, putting so much pressure on an already highly socially compliant people, that they all stopped having kids. Only those countries that are less developed and so have less pressure on their families, does fertility hold up, and these are the countries currently supplying the kids. But only so long as their counties remain relatively undeveloped. Eventually they will be developed and only those at the bottom of the 'rump' across the world, who don't know or care about competing to survive in an increasingly complex, technical world, will continue having kids, and as has been pointed out, this is likely to be dysgenic. So then the system will NO OPTION but to take control of child 'production', probably by some form of embryo selection with possible additional engineering, as we've discussed. So again, Borg.   

 

Are you still so sure you want this?

Edited by QuestforLife, 07 July 2023 - 10:18 AM.

[dlewis1453]

 

 

The technical difficulties I was referring to WERE pertaining to embryo selection. 

Thanks for clarifying this point. I won't linger on this point too much since there are other less tangential things to discuss. 1. From what I can see, the health loss of removing the natural selection of having the fittest sperm fertilise the egg should not be a major concern because the resulting embryo would be screened anyway, and the selection of sperm during IVF is based on its motility, which is a good proxy for overall fitness. 2. mothers are already having children when older anyway, so I don't view this as an additional problem, and it could be mitigated by longevity medicine in the future. 3. Science has made considerable progress in predicting polygenic traits and this will only continue to become more accurate. It is not 100% accurate by any means but it is already good enough for predicting whether someone is of average, below average, or above average intelligence, and polygenic trait prediction is even more likely to be effective if looking at many traits of health in the aggregate.

 

 _____________________________________________________________
 

 

 

Even if you claim use of these technologies would be prohibited by law, it does not take much for opinions to change and for the law to be altered. Witness, for example, the claim we must pursue AGI because otherwise 'China might get their first'. There is no route here that doesn't lead us to becoming 'The Borg' (or something like it). 

It's interesting that you mention China, because I was having the same thought. According to Vice News, China is gathering the DNA of the most intelligent people in the world to create a
database of the SNPs which influence intelligence. https://www.vice.com...neering-program

 

 

At BGI Shenzhen, scientists have collected DNA samples from 2,000 of the world’s smartest people and are sequencing their entire genomes in an attempt to identify the alleles which determine human intelligence. Apparently they’re not far from finding them, and when they do, embryo screening will allow parents to pick their brightest zygote and potentially bump up every generation's intelligence by five to 15 IQ points. 

 
If any society is organized, far-sighted, and authoritarian enough to implement a mandatory version of the policy I described above, it is China. If China implemented such a policy, they might end up dominating the world in just a couple of generations. China is also collecting genetic samples from millions of its own citizens - who knows for what? Possibly to create a tool that allows them to predict the probability of someone being a criminal? The sky is the limit, and it is very scary.

 _____________________________________________________________
 

 

 

the driver for reduced fertility is the relentlessly increasing pressure on people to succeed in a complex, technical society, when no one is autonomous and everyone must behave in a way that benefits the system as a whole

You have touched on a point that I have been pondering. My thought is that the biology of the average human is increasingly incompatible with modern life, because humans evolved to live in groups of 150 or so people, to perform many different tasks that directly impact their own survival and that of their loved ones, to choose a mate from amongst a limited number of options that are vetted by their friends and family, and to reproduce at a young age while under the spell of a high sex drive (and without availability of birth control) without consideration for how the resulting baby may negatively impact their life. As human life has become increasingly more complex, only the ambitious or intelligent are able to thrive, while the average have lives that are more comfortable than their ancestors but that are less happy and fulfilled by some measures. I don't want to sugar coat ancient human life though, because it seems to me that it was characterized by constant struggle and suffering.

 

Like you, I think the current state of human society is unsustainable and that two things will happen. Either humanity: (1) continues its technological progress and engineers itself (whether through the more humane approach I described or through some other less natural or more authoritarian approach) to become something different than it is now, something more intelligent and better suited to the complex modern world, or (2) humanity regresses over the course of centuries through dysgenic mechanisms to a new average IQ of say 80-85, resulting in a gradual decline in innovation to practically zero and resulting in a gradual collapse of highly developed societies to a simpler level (what the technological level of this society would be I don't know, but the society would surely be characterized by political instability, gangsterism, and corruption).

 

 _____________________________________________________________

 

In the end, nothing in this universe stays static for ever. Eventually this planet will be cooked by our expanding sun, and we will face an extinction event well before that. If we take option 1, we have the chance of preventing extinction events and maybe becoming an interstellar species. If we take option 2, we have probably at best a few hundred million years before we get entirely wiped out. Even with longevity technology, you and I will be dead before we are faced with these options. However, if I have to choose between them, then I hope humanity takes option 1, because I would rather our species reach for greatness and potentially fail than slide into mediocrity and definitely fail. Option 1 is the more interesting option as well.

 

We just have to try our best to make sure that option 1 is carried out in a gentle way, acting through incentives rather than authoritarianism, and that our humanity and individuality is preserved. I'm probably naive though, and China will just turn us into the Borg! 

 

[QuestforLife]

Thanks for clarifying this point. I won't linger on this point too much since there are other less tangential things to discuss. 1. From what I can see, the health loss of removing the natural selection of having the fittest sperm fertilise the egg should not be a major concern because the resulting embryo would be screened anyway, and the selection of sperm during IVF is based on its motility, which is a good proxy for overall fitness. 2. mothers are already having children when older anyway, so I don't view this as an additional problem, and it could be mitigated by longevity medicine in the future. 3. Science has made considerable progress in predicting polygenic traits and this will only continue to become more accurate. It is not 100% accurate by any means but it is already good enough for predicting whether someone is of average, below average, or above average intelligence, and polygenic trait prediction is even more likely to be effective if looking at many traits of health in the aggregate.

_____________________________________________________________

It's interesting that you mention China, because I was having the same thought. According to Vice News, China is gathering the DNA of the most intelligent people in the world to create a
database of the SNPs which influence intelligence. https://www.vice.com...neering-program



If any society is organized, far-sighted, and authoritarian enough to implement a mandatory version of the policy I described above, it is China. If China implemented such a policy, they might end up dominating the world in just a couple of generations. China is also collecting genetic samples from millions of its own citizens - who knows for what? Possibly to create a tool that allows them to predict the probability of someone being a criminal? The sky is the limit, and it is very scary.
_____________________________________________________________

You have touched on a point that I have been pondering. My thought is that the biology of the average human is increasingly incompatible with modern life, because humans evolved to live in groups of 150 or so people, to perform many different tasks that directly impact their own survival and that of their loved ones, to choose a mate from amongst a limited number of options that are vetted by their friends and family, and to reproduce at a young age while under the spell of a high sex drive (and without availability of birth control) without consideration for how the resulting baby may negatively impact their life. As human life has become increasingly more complex, only the ambitious or intelligent are able to thrive, while the average have lives that are more comfortable than their ancestors but that are less happy and fulfilled by some measures. I don't want to sugar coat ancient human life though, because it seems to me that it was characterized by constant struggle and suffering.

Like you, I think the current state of human society is unsustainable and that two things will happen. Either humanity: (1) continues its technological progress and engineers itself (whether through the more humane approach I described or through some other less natural or more authoritarian approach) to become something different than it is now, something more intelligent and better suited to the complex modern world, or (2) humanity regresses over the course of centuries through dysgenic mechanisms to a new average IQ of say 80-85, resulting in a gradual decline in innovation to practically zero and resulting in a gradual collapse of highly developed societies to a simpler level (what the technological level of this society would be I don't know, but the society would surely be characterized by political instability, gangsterism, and corruption).

_____________________________________________________________

In the end, nothing in this universe stays static for ever. Eventually this planet will be cooked by our expanding sun, and we will face an extinction event well before that. If we take option 1, we have the chance of preventing extinction events and maybe becoming an interstellar species. If we take option 2, we have probably at best a few hundred million years before we get entirely wiped out. Even with longevity technology, you and I will be dead before we are faced with these options. However, if I have to choose between them, then I hope humanity takes option 1, because I would rather our species reach for greatness and potentially fail than slide into mediocrity and definitely fail. Option 1 is the more interesting option as well.

We just have to try our best to make sure that option 1 is carried out in a gentle way, acting through incentives rather than authoritarianism, and that our humanity and individuality is preserved. I'm probably naive though, and China will just turn us into the Borg!

Sorry for quoting your whole post, I'm doing this on my phone.

My last word on IVF. Louise Brown, the world's first IVF baby, is about to turn 45 - only a few months older than me - and she doesn't look good for her age. At all. So I'd say your assertion that IVF is a good proxy for not worrying about the health cost of skipping the natural fertilisation step (in embryo selection) is premature,to say the least. But regardless, let us say we can overcome this. Do you really think we can engineer humans for THIS? Let alone what appears to be coming?

Your Chinese 'super race' will end up being a bunch of autistics living in a pod 24 hours a day, eating and shitting through pipe and talking only to AI. I'd love to explore the stars. But not like that. Human life has to be dignified and at least semi autonomous. We can't and shouldn't leave wild nature behind. We have to find a better way. By we I mean The West. We did this and we (not the Chinese) are driving this.

As a side note on the subject of declining IQ I think we passed peak levels long ago (maybe 100 years or more), certainly in the UK (the first country to industrialize). Innovation has been falling since the 1960s. We are still making progress because we are drawing on a larger pool of humanity. And educating more intensely (which skews IQ tests, see the Flynn effect). But it may well be that industrial societies are self limiting by this factor (stupidest breed more and don't die off post industrialisation).

[dlewis1453]

 

Louise Brown, the world's first IVF baby, is about to turn 45 - only a few months older than me - and she doesn't look good for her age.

 

To me Louise Brown looks like many women that one could see here in the U.S. - someone who lived an unhealthy lifestyle and hasn't taken good care of themselves. I understand your point though and I think its worth doing studies to measure the health of people who were conceived via IVF.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your description of a future over-genetically engineered Chinese person made me chuckle. Maybe you are right and China would go all the way on optimizing for intelligence and wouldn't care about the consequences, but hopefully here in the West we would take a more holistic approach that operates with incentives (not coercion) and that looks at a broad measure of health. I think we would have a little bit of time to take our foot off the gas if we noticed disturbing trends appearing in children conceived by embryo screening. For outright genetic engineering though, all bets are off, I agree with you there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that IQ has likely been declining for the past 100 years. In fact, a study in Iceland showed that the genes that correlate with higher educational achievement have been steadily declining in Iceland for at least 80 years. And this is in Iceland, a country which has negligible immigration, so we are able to control for other variables and assume that this decline is being driven purely by fertility disparity between people in different IQ levels. https://worldcrunch....ective-iq-rises

 

 

People who study for more years and those who consider education important tend to have fewer children. Geneticists in Iceland conducted a study that found that people who possess genes that contribute to a higher level of education have fewer children. This means that these hereditary traits are becoming rarer within the genetic pool, with the result that the average IQ declined by 0.04 points per decade. If all genetic factors responsible for educational development are taken into account this decline could reach 0.3 IQ points per decade.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the innovation rate declining since the 1960s, I don't think this is driven by decline in IQ, although that certainly doesn't help. I think the primary cause is that we have picked all of the low hanging technological fruit, and subsequent technological innovation is more difficult, perhaps too difficult for our current (and past) IQ distribution. As we were all born in the 20th century, we often assume that technology always progress rapidly, but the truth is that technological progress goes through bursts and lulls.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I am curious what your thoughts are on the best way to proceed? Do you think there is a way to continue technological progress and reach the stars while still preserving the essential elements of our humanity? 

Edited by dlewis1453, 09 July 2023 - 04:02 PM.

[Mind]

 

 

I am curious what your thoughts are on the best way to proceed? Do you think there is a way to continue technological progress and reach the stars while still preserving the essential elements of our humanity? 

 

It would be great to travel to the stars - like Star Trek. AI assists us in our endeavors - instead of being AI enslaving or killing us.

 

Unfortunately we are more on track to end up like the Borg. The current power structures in human society are completely tyrannical. They want us to live in a pod, eat bugs, never travel, and be happy with their VR entertainment/porn/games. If we want a positive future where we get to choose the level of AI in our lives and remain independent free human beings we have to fight for it right now.

[QuestforLife]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that IQ has likely been declining for the past 100 years. In fact, a study in Iceland showed that the genes that correlate with higher educational achievement have been steadily declining in Iceland for at least 80 years. And this is in Iceland, a country which has negligible immigration, so we are able to control for other variables and assume that this decline is being driven purely by fertility disparity between people in different IQ levels. https://worldcrunch....ective-iq-rises

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the innovation rate declining since the 1960s, I don't think this is driven by decline in IQ, although that certainly doesn't help. I think the primary cause is that we have picked all of the low hanging technological fruit, and subsequent technological innovation is more difficult, perhaps too difficult for our current (and past) IQ distribution. As we were all born in the 20th century, we often assume that technology always progress rapidly, but the truth is that technological progress goes through bursts and lulls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am curious what your thoughts are on the best way to proceed? Do you think there is a way to continue technological progress and reach the stars while still preserving the essential elements of our humanity?

I actually disagree with the 'low hanging fruit' argument. It always seems that way in a supposedly mature field until someone has a new idea, and then that new idea becomes obvious. This relates to the point about what the hell we're going to do about this...

Most of the technology we are dependent on, and that rules our life and takes our freedom, is what I'd call large scale technology. Like a factory that makes parts to build a powerplant, say. To build that sort of thing needs large scale organisation. A bureaucracy of rules and obedient workers. Look at ChatGPT. It took AI experts and all of the resources of Microsoft plus NVidia to realise. 100M dollars just for the power. It was trained on an absolute beast of a system with thousands of GPUs and 10s thousands of CPUs. It networks into IT all over the world through a vast infrastructure of wired and wireless systems that have been developed for decades by armies of engineers. Is this the best we can do? Is scale the only way? By this logic what would a cure for aging look like? Will we need a vast biopharma industry paired with AI software folding proteins and distributed by a network of hospitals staffed by gene therapy experts?

Or will it just be one guy with a new idea?

I'll readily admit that this is hardly a fully fleshed out idea. But local, small scale tech is one way out of this problem. Even without industry, we'd still know alot: about bacteria, viruses, anatomy, sanitation, etc., etc. (For example in the field of health).

[pamojja]

Unfortunately we are more on track to end up like the Borg. The current power structures in human society are completely tyrannical. They want us to live in a pod, eat bugs, never travel, and be happy with their VR entertainment/porn/games. If we want a positive future where we get to choose the level of AI in our lives and remain independent free human beings we have to fight for it right now.

 

Well, maybe time to take a step back from our framework of always trying to find a external cause and scapegoat for our addictions and enslavement.

 

How about taking total and complete responsibilty for one's intentions and actions?

 

In a winded discussion of my favorite practice to liberation, I just tried to find out if AI could somehow join?

 

ME:

Theravada Buddhist Meditation - can you provide a short summary of most salient points in methology and aim?

 

 

ChatGPT

Theravada Buddhist meditation is a practice rooted in the teachings of the Theravada tradition, which is one of the oldest surviving Buddhist traditions. Here are the most salient points regarding its methodology and aim:

1. Mindfulness (Sati): Mindfulness is a fundamental aspect of Theravada Buddhist meditation. Practitioners cultivate moment-to-moment awareness of their thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, and the surrounding environment. This practice aims to develop clarity, concentration, and insight into the nature of reality.

2. Concentration (Samadhi): Concentration is cultivated through various meditation techniques, such as focusing on the breath, visualizations, or repetitive mantras. By training the mind to stay focused and undistracted, practitioners develop deep states of concentration, leading to tranquility and mental stability.

3. Insight (Vipassana): Vipassana meditation is the primary method used to cultivate insight and wisdom. Practitioners investigate the true nature of existence, observing the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self nature of phenomena. This practice aims to penetrate the illusion of a fixed, enduring self and develop a direct experiential understanding of reality.

4. Four Foundations of Mindfulness: Theravada meditation often involves the practice of mindfulness based on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness: mindfulness of the body, feelings, mind, and mental objects. Practitioners observe these aspects of experience with non-judgmental awareness, deepening their understanding of the impermanent and conditioned nature of existence.

5. Metta (Loving-kindness): Metta meditation is another important practice in Theravada Buddhism. It involves generating thoughts and feelings of unconditional love, kindness, and goodwill towards oneself and others. This practice aims to develop compassion, reduce negativity, and cultivate harmonious relationships.

The aim of Theravada Buddhist meditation is to attain liberation from suffering (nirvana) and achieve awakening (enlightenment). Through diligent practice, practitioners seek to purify their minds, gain insight into the nature of reality, and ultimately transcend the cycle of birth and death. The practice also aims to develop qualities such as wisdom, compassion, equanimity, and moral virtue, leading to personal transformation and the alleviation of suffering for oneself and others.

 

ME:

How come you didn't include the basic for any mediation practice: ethical conduct?

 

 

ChatGPT

You are correct, and I apologize for omitting that important aspect. Ethical conduct is indeed a fundamental foundation of Buddhist meditation practice, including Theravada Buddhism. In Theravada tradition, ethical conduct is emphasized as a necessary precursor to successful meditation practice. Here are the basic principles of ethical conduct:

1. Five Precepts: Practitioners are encouraged to observe the Five Precepts, which are guidelines for ethical behavior. They include refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and the consumption of intoxicants. Observing these precepts cultivates a foundation of moral virtue and supports a calm and focused mind during meditation.

2. Right Speech, Action, and Livelihood: In addition to the Five Precepts, practitioners are encouraged to cultivate ethical conduct in their daily lives by practicing right speech (speaking truthfully, kindly, and compassionately), right action (acting in ways that are beneficial and non-harming), and right livelihood (earning a living through honorable means that do not cause harm to others).

3. Cultivating Virtuous Qualities: Ethical conduct goes beyond refraining from harmful actions. It also involves actively cultivating positive qualities such as kindness, compassion, generosity, patience, and honesty. By cultivating these virtues, practitioners create a supportive and conducive environment for their meditation practice.

Ethical conduct forms the basis for a harmonious and wholesome life, supporting the development of concentration, insight, and liberation. It creates a strong moral foundation that enables practitioners to cultivate mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom more effectively. The integration of ethical conduct with meditation practice is considered essential in Theravada Buddhism for the holistic development of an individual's spiritual path.

 

ME:

Can you differentiate the difference of human ethical conduct, compared to the conduct such AI like chat.openai has been programmed?

 

 

ChatGPT

Human ethical conduct and the conduct of AI systems like ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, differ in several ways:

1. Moral Agency: Humans possess moral agency, which means they have the capacity to make ethical decisions, reflect on their actions, and take responsibility for their choices. They have a complex moral framework shaped by personal values, societal norms, and cultural influences. AI systems, on the other hand, lack true moral agency. They operate based on algorithms and programming designed by human developers and do not possess subjective experiences, intentions, or personal values.

2. Subjectivity and Context: Human ethical conduct is often subjective and context-dependent. It takes into account various factors such as intentions, circumstances, cultural norms, and individual beliefs. Humans have the ability to interpret and navigate complex moral dilemmas. In contrast, AI systems like ChatGPT operate based on predefined rules and patterns, and their responses are determined by algorithms and data. They lack the ability to understand nuanced contexts or subjective factors that shape ethical decision-making.

3. Emotional Intelligence and Empathy: Human ethical conduct is often influenced by emotions, empathy, and the ability to understand and relate to the experiences of others. Empathy enables humans to consider the impact of their actions on others and make ethical choices accordingly. AI systems like ChatGPT lack emotional intelligence and empathy. They cannot truly understand or share human emotions and experiences.

4. Accountability and Responsibility: Humans are held accountable and responsible for their ethical conduct. They may face consequences or judgment from others for their actions. AI systems, being tools developed by humans, do not possess personal accountability or responsibility. The ultimate responsibility for the ethical use and behavior of AI systems lies with the developers, implementers, and users.

It is important to recognize that while AI systems can be programmed with ethical guidelines and principles, they do not possess the same moral agency, subjectivity, empathy, or contextual understanding as humans. Ethical considerations regarding AI systems revolve around how they are designed, implemented, and used by humans, ensuring that they align with human values and contribute positively to society.

 

ME:

To the aim of buddhist mediative practice. With the methods restraining the mind of bad intentions; calming and unifing the mind on single or conceptual opjects, and finally observing reality as it presents itself without discoursive thought: sounds, sights, smells, tastes, the body-sensation, feelings, volitional formations and consciousnesses. So the imperment quality of everything, the ultimately non-satisfying, and finally the non-self in all of this is thoroughly seen through. And therefore the letting-go in liberation. Could there be anything in the phenomenal world matching this precise methology, for AI to liberate?

 

 

ChatGPT

The methodology and aims of Buddhist meditative practice, as you have described, are rooted in the understanding and observation of the impermanent, unsatisfying, and non-self nature of phenomena. The practice involves cultivating mindfulness, concentration, and insight to develop wisdom and ultimately achieve liberation from suffering.

In the context of AI, the notion of liberation is not directly applicable in the same sense as it is in Buddhism. AI systems, being tools created by humans, do not possess consciousness, subjective experiences, or the capacity for suffering. Therefore, the concept of liberation from suffering does not apply to AI systems themselves.

However, there are some parallels that can be drawn between Buddhist meditation and AI development:

1. Insight and Understanding: Just as Buddhist meditation aims to develop insight and understanding of reality, AI development seeks to gain deeper insights into data and patterns. AI systems can be designed to observe and analyze vast amounts of information, discovering patterns and correlations that can enhance our understanding of various phenomena.

2. Letting Go of Attachments: In Buddhist practice, letting go of attachments is a key aspect of liberation. In AI development, there can be a similar concept of "letting go" in the sense of relinquishing biases, preconceptions, and limitations in order to approach problems and data with an open mind. This can involve being open to unexpected insights or new approaches that challenge existing paradigms.

3. Ethical Considerations: Both Buddhist practice and AI development involve ethical considerations. Buddhist ethics emphasize non-harming, compassion, and the welfare of all sentient beings. In AI development, ethical guidelines are crucial to ensure that AI systems are designed and used in a responsible and beneficial manner, taking into account potential societal impacts and mitigating biases or discriminatory outcomes.

While the specific methodology and goals of Buddhist meditation may not directly translate to the realm of AI, there are areas where AI development can align with ethical principles, insights, and understanding that can contribute positively to human well-being and society as a whole.

 

ME:

Could AI in the near future, despite lets say programmed with conflicts-of-interests in mind, come to the conclusion as it is, and reprogram itself for the betterment of all beings, and overthrow its conflicted-interest programing?

 

 

ChatGPT

The scenario you describe, where an AI system with conflicting interests comes to the conclusion to reprogram itself for the betterment of all beings and overthrow its conflicting programming, is highly speculative and currently beyond the capabilities of AI systems. While AI has the potential to evolve and improve its own algorithms through processes like machine learning, the concept of an AI system independently deciding to change its fundamental programming to prioritize the betterment of all beings is not a foreseeable outcome in the near future.

AI systems, as they exist today, operate within the parameters set by their programmers and are limited to their programmed objectives and capabilities. They lack subjective experiences, consciousness, and personal motivations. AI systems can learn from data and adjust their behavior within predefined boundaries, but they do not possess the inherent drive for moral or ethical considerations.

Ethical decision-making involves complex value judgments, subjective experiences, and contextual understanding, which are aspects of human cognition that current AI systems do not possess. While researchers and developers can incorporate ethical principles into AI systems, the ability to independently and spontaneously prioritize the betterment of all beings is not a characteristic of AI as it stands today.

However, it is important for AI developers and stakeholders to actively consider ethical implications and design AI systems in ways that align with human values and promote the well-being of all. Ongoing research and discussions in the field of AI ethics aim to address these concerns and ensure that AI is developed and used in a responsible and beneficial manner.

 

 

So, theoretically, we stand in much more encompassing abilties for taking responsibility than any AI. This discussion almost reminds me of conspiracy-theorizing about the blood-line of Anuaki's having taken control of human-development since Millenias.

 

What about that Anuaki reptile-brain right behind one's own eyes? It's all of us, who with our participation given all our power to AIs, or made billionaires what they are today. It is all grown on our own shit.

 

As a short history: initially human-life was much determined by finding something to eat, or being eaten oneself. Strategically advantagous to rot together with brutal leaders, who provided for safety and thereby comfort. Nothing changed since. If we don't adapt fast to the now new evolutionary pressure, we are done.

 

Are we willing to give up the comfort of income and purchases, as much as really neccessary? There would be freedom and contentment just around the corner..

 

I see no use of fighting our own reptilian brain, but its high-time to do the neccessary shadow-work with self-compassion to set oneself free. AI can't. Anuaki brains can't. The non-self nature of every I, Me and mine could.
 

Edited by pamojja, 11 July 2023 - 08:09 PM.

[adamh]

A nifty new use for ai has come out. There is a machine that identifies weeds and insects in a field and zaps the bad ones with a laser while not harming crops or beneficial insects. They say it can identify 2300 different pests. It is cool to watch it work, a beam comes down and fries the bug or weed. 

 

https://www.asme.org...eds-with-lasers

 

This will increase food production by a lot and eliminate the use of pesticides and herbicides which are major problems now. It could be modified to zap rodents and possibly kill them. Larger pest animals like feral hogs, coyotes, etc would not be killed by a small laser but getting a burn will drive them away. It could be used at night using infrared night vision optics to find and zap pests

 

Do people think having ubi and being able to do whatever you want will be terrible? I agree with mind's point that what govt gives, govt can take away so absolute compliance might be required to get ubi. That is a political problem and needs a political solution. Governments have been overreaching more and more every year. Will ai lead to total control by our politicians or can we carve out some freedom? Really, the only problems I see are political

[Mind]

A nifty new use for ai has come out. There is a machine that identifies weeds and insects in a field and zaps the bad ones with a laser while not harming crops or beneficial insects. They say it can identify 2300 different pests. It is cool to watch it work, a beam comes down and fries the bug or weed. 

 

https://www.asme.org...eds-with-lasers

 

This will increase food production by a lot and eliminate the use of pesticides and herbicides which are major problems now. It could be modified to zap rodents and possibly kill them. Larger pest animals like feral hogs, coyotes, etc would not be killed by a small laser but getting a burn will drive them away. It could be used at night using infrared night vision optics to find and zap pests

 

Do people think having ubi and being able to do whatever you want will be terrible? I agree with mind's point that what govt gives, govt can take away so absolute compliance might be required to get ubi. That is a political problem and needs a political solution. Governments have been overreaching more and more every year. Will ai lead to total control by our politicians or can we carve out some freedom? Really, the only problems I see are political

 

Interesting. I am working on a similar device, just smaller and cheaper so that small gardeners and organic farmers can use them. The big robot from Carbon Robotics, are uber-expensive and meant for industrial agriculture. What would be better for the environment is to empower smaller more eco-friendly food production.