I feel as though you're ignoring the most important part of that sentence. I assume you meant to write;
I believe that AGI will be a net benefit to whomever controls it.
I would argue that if a profit driven company rents something valuable out to others, you should expect it would benefit them just as much if not more, than those paying for that privilege. Rented things may be useful, but they certainly are not a net benefit to the system as a whole.
No, I believe AGI will have a net benefit for all of humanity. The telephone system was a net benefit for all Americans even though for a time AT& T (Ma Bell) controlled it.
AGI is fantasy at this point and your assumption that AGI would give OpenAI unprecented powers is the Musk/Yudkowsky/Hinton argument that AI will dominate and enslave us.
Drop those assumptions and my point stands that throughout history, monopolistically-controlled transformative technologies (telephones, electricity, vaccines, railroads) have still delivered net benefits to society, even if imperfectly distributed. This is just historical fact.
> AGI is fantasy at this point and your assumption that AGI would give OpenAI unprecented powers is the Musk/Yudkowsky/Hinton argument that AI will dominate and enslave us.
Yeah, like I said, room for improvement. I find the argument that AGI or sAGI should be feared, or is likely to turn "evil" absurd in the best case. So your arguing against a strawman I already find stupid.
Telephones, increased the speed of information transfer, it couldn't produce on it's own. Electricity allowed transmission of energy from one place to another, and doesn't produce inherent value in isolation, vaccines are in an entirely different class of advancement, (so I have to idea how you mean to apply it to the expected benefits of AGI? I assume you believe AGI will have something to do with reducing disability), railroads again, like energy or telephones, involved moving something of value from one place to another.
AGI is supposed to produce a potentially limitless amount of inherent value on its own, right? It will do more than just move around components of value, but more like a diamond mine, it will output something valuable as a commodity. Something that can easily be controlled... oh but it's also not concrete, you can never have your own, it's only available for rental, and you have to agree to the ToS. That sounds just like all previous inventions, right?
You're welcome to cite any historical facts you like, but when you're unwilling or unable to draw concrete parallels, or form convincing conclusions yourself, and hand wave, well most impressivive inventions in the past were good so I feel AGI will be cool too!
Also, the critical difference (ignoring the environmental differences between then and now) between the inventions you cited, and AGI, is the difficulty in replicating any technology. Other than "it happened before to most technologies" is there reason I should believe that AGI would be easy to replicate for any company that wants to compete against the people actively working to increase the size of their moat? copper wire, and train tracks are easy to install. Do you expect AGI will be easy for everyone to train?
oh, sorry dude... I wasn't expecting the indirect insult to be the only thing you read... my intent was less for you to take offense, and more to point out how you're arguing against something I never said and don't believe. I would have been interested in the reasoning behind the claim, and the parallels you saw, but was unwilling to tolerate the strawman.
Thanks. I'm sorry I jumped to the conclusion that you were making the doomer arguement. I see now your argument is much more subtle and raises some interesting points. If I understand it correctly, it's like what if one company owned the internet? But worse than that, what if one company owned access to intelligence? I'm old so I remember when AT&T owned the American phone system. We couldn't hook up anything to the phone jack without permission, so intuitivly I did understand your argument, but my opposition to doomer arguments (pause research! regulate!) got in the way.
I feel as though you're ignoring the most important part of that sentence. I assume you meant to write;
I believe that AGI will be a net benefit to whomever controls it.
I would argue that if a profit driven company rents something valuable out to others, you should expect it would benefit them just as much if not more, than those paying for that privilege. Rented things may be useful, but they certainly are not a net benefit to the system as a whole.
No, I believe AGI will have a net benefit for all of humanity. The telephone system was a net benefit for all Americans even though for a time AT& T (Ma Bell) controlled it.
Your pattern matching skills leave a lot of room for improvement.
Information interconnection is meaningfully different from AGI, and the environment ATT and Bell existed within no longer exist.
AGI is fantasy at this point and your assumption that AGI would give OpenAI unprecented powers is the Musk/Yudkowsky/Hinton argument that AI will dominate and enslave us.
Drop those assumptions and my point stands that throughout history, monopolistically-controlled transformative technologies (telephones, electricity, vaccines, railroads) have still delivered net benefits to society, even if imperfectly distributed. This is just historical fact.
> AGI is fantasy at this point and your assumption that AGI would give OpenAI unprecented powers is the Musk/Yudkowsky/Hinton argument that AI will dominate and enslave us.
Yeah, like I said, room for improvement. I find the argument that AGI or sAGI should be feared, or is likely to turn "evil" absurd in the best case. So your arguing against a strawman I already find stupid.
Telephones, increased the speed of information transfer, it couldn't produce on it's own. Electricity allowed transmission of energy from one place to another, and doesn't produce inherent value in isolation, vaccines are in an entirely different class of advancement, (so I have to idea how you mean to apply it to the expected benefits of AGI? I assume you believe AGI will have something to do with reducing disability), railroads again, like energy or telephones, involved moving something of value from one place to another.
AGI is supposed to produce a potentially limitless amount of inherent value on its own, right? It will do more than just move around components of value, but more like a diamond mine, it will output something valuable as a commodity. Something that can easily be controlled... oh but it's also not concrete, you can never have your own, it's only available for rental, and you have to agree to the ToS. That sounds just like all previous inventions, right?
You're welcome to cite any historical facts you like, but when you're unwilling or unable to draw concrete parallels, or form convincing conclusions yourself, and hand wave, well most impressivive inventions in the past were good so I feel AGI will be cool too!
Also, the critical difference (ignoring the environmental differences between then and now) between the inventions you cited, and AGI, is the difficulty in replicating any technology. Other than "it happened before to most technologies" is there reason I should believe that AGI would be easy to replicate for any company that wants to compete against the people actively working to increase the size of their moat? copper wire, and train tracks are easy to install. Do you expect AGI will be easy for everyone to train?
You insulted me twice so this conversation is over
oh, sorry dude... I wasn't expecting the indirect insult to be the only thing you read... my intent was less for you to take offense, and more to point out how you're arguing against something I never said and don't believe. I would have been interested in the reasoning behind the claim, and the parallels you saw, but was unwilling to tolerate the strawman.
Thanks. I'm sorry I jumped to the conclusion that you were making the doomer arguement. I see now your argument is much more subtle and raises some interesting points. If I understand it correctly, it's like what if one company owned the internet? But worse than that, what if one company owned access to intelligence? I'm old so I remember when AT&T owned the American phone system. We couldn't hook up anything to the phone jack without permission, so intuitivly I did understand your argument, but my opposition to doomer arguments (pause research! regulate!) got in the way.
There isn't AGI
Exactly. That's why I called them speculative.