The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Can societies even EXIST post-scarcity+post-AI?
Sorenson
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I very, VERY briefly touched upon this idea when I launched that "Is Communism/Socialism Inevitable" thread a while back, but it's been bugging me as of late and I'd like to toss it out and see what kind of response it gets.
Societies exist primarily as a survival mechanism: while, if given the motivation, intellect and strength to do so, we can exist individually and independently in a self-sufficient manner, our ability to survive and thrive greatly increases as we band together and cooperate. The more people grouped together in a given society, the more hands available to accomplish a given task, the greater the diversity of the society's skill set. Granted, we may have vastly differing beliefs at times and may wind up hating everybody else's guts to one degree or another, but the benifits of staying put and working together far outweigh the benifits of striking out on your own, and so we tolerate one another as best we can.
When looking at the advancement of a society, there are two primary restrictions that prevent further growth and progression. The first, scarcity, is due to the limited availability of resources - energy, food and water, minerals and materials, so on. As a society grows, its rate of consumption of available resources also grows and eventuall the society's size becomes greater than that which can be supported by the available resource base, resulting in blackouts, famines and droughts, and material shortages.
Secondly, though not as prominent as scarcity, is intellectual capability. A society's technological and social advancement is closely tied to the mental capabilities of its citizens, primarily - though not completily - in a scientific sense. The development and manufacturing of new technologies hinges upon the ability of the society to apply its mental abilities to the tasks of exploration and experimentation, mapping out the mechanisms by which the universe functions and how the society can exploit these mechanisms to advance itself.
As these two are the primary barriers that halt or slow the advancement of a society, the ability to surpass them is also looked at as the crowning achievements of any advanced society. The end of scarcity takes many forms, ranging from the more base concept of free energy to high-end concepts such as atomic-scale manufacturing or even energy-to-matter conversions - for the sake of discussion, let's assume the high-end manifestation. The pinnacle of intellectual capability, however, is most typically manifested in the endeavour to create functional Artificial Intelligence - an independently-capable digital entity whose scientific prowess, magnitudes greater than that of a society's greatest minds, serves as the launching point for many a technological singularity in varying works of fiction. By passing these two hurdles and developing these two technologies, a society can be freed of all restrictions and enter a utopian state of limitless development.
This creates a problem, however. With the rise of post-scarcity technologies and machinery, people are no longer reliant upon one another to provide the physical neccessities that keep a society functioning - energy, raw materials and finished goods - as anything and everything is available at the push of a button. With the rise of AI and the kickstarting of the technological singularity, people are no longer reliant upon one another for scientific and social developments and any task which requires an intelligence to perform - the AI is capable of self-replication and recursive refinement with the only need being the supplying of additiona components by the user, and an AI with mental capabilities magnitudes beyond the average being will inevitably be capable of mimicing those mental capabilities, capable of creating an on-demand society in accordance with whatever the user truly wants.
Post-scarcity and post-AI removes a society's interdependence between members - it cannot, however, remove the various biases, prejudices and outright hatred that various members will feel towards one another. With the need to cooperate gone, then, why should society members tolerate one another? Why not simply abscond into their own one-man utopias with convincingly-sapient AI as company - or outright destroy those members that offend or reject your beliefs?
The OP in the 3D printing thread from a while back noted how several members of the 3D printing community had provided schematics for various weapon components, including a magazine and lower receiver for an AR-15. Considering that post-scarcity manufacturing systems will be magnitudes more capable than what current plastic-based 3D printers are capable of, what's to stop individuals from manufacturing weapons of varying magnitudes in order to eliminate the now-unneccessary aspects of society they detest? As shown in the 3D printing thread, the blueprints to manufacture weapons can easily be obtained due to the ability of people to share said information; if such blueprints are thoroughly removed, the AI can replicate the blueprints usings its incredible engineering and scientific prowess; and if the AI is prohibited from doing such due to one form of programming or another, various individuals will have developed ways to bypass these limitations.
Consider the extrordinary depths of depravity and hatred that we see in our society: serial killers, powermongers, terrorists, crusaders. Now give each of the individuals that resides within these depths the power to try and force their will upon the rest of the world. Even if a total police state were to emerge, these individuals would be able to make their way through the screens sooner or later and carry out their will. And even if only a tiny fraction of these individuals succeed, how many of these attacks can a society withstand? How many times can a society be nuked, gassed and poisoned before it suffers a complete breakdown and the individual members flee for their own lives?
Given the nature of humanity and the ability of its worst to manifest and lash out against the best and the rest, I believe that total societal breakdown is an inevitability post-scarcity and post-AI. Once we no longer have a reason to rely upon one another for laborous and intellectual resources, we also no longer have a reason to tolerate one another: we either leave to form our own little pocket utopias out in the middle of nowhere or we wind up fully embracing our prejudices and killing everybody who doesn't conform to our beliefs.
Societies exist primarily as a survival mechanism: while, if given the motivation, intellect and strength to do so, we can exist individually and independently in a self-sufficient manner, our ability to survive and thrive greatly increases as we band together and cooperate. The more people grouped together in a given society, the more hands available to accomplish a given task, the greater the diversity of the society's skill set. Granted, we may have vastly differing beliefs at times and may wind up hating everybody else's guts to one degree or another, but the benifits of staying put and working together far outweigh the benifits of striking out on your own, and so we tolerate one another as best we can.
When looking at the advancement of a society, there are two primary restrictions that prevent further growth and progression. The first, scarcity, is due to the limited availability of resources - energy, food and water, minerals and materials, so on. As a society grows, its rate of consumption of available resources also grows and eventuall the society's size becomes greater than that which can be supported by the available resource base, resulting in blackouts, famines and droughts, and material shortages.
Secondly, though not as prominent as scarcity, is intellectual capability. A society's technological and social advancement is closely tied to the mental capabilities of its citizens, primarily - though not completily - in a scientific sense. The development and manufacturing of new technologies hinges upon the ability of the society to apply its mental abilities to the tasks of exploration and experimentation, mapping out the mechanisms by which the universe functions and how the society can exploit these mechanisms to advance itself.
As these two are the primary barriers that halt or slow the advancement of a society, the ability to surpass them is also looked at as the crowning achievements of any advanced society. The end of scarcity takes many forms, ranging from the more base concept of free energy to high-end concepts such as atomic-scale manufacturing or even energy-to-matter conversions - for the sake of discussion, let's assume the high-end manifestation. The pinnacle of intellectual capability, however, is most typically manifested in the endeavour to create functional Artificial Intelligence - an independently-capable digital entity whose scientific prowess, magnitudes greater than that of a society's greatest minds, serves as the launching point for many a technological singularity in varying works of fiction. By passing these two hurdles and developing these two technologies, a society can be freed of all restrictions and enter a utopian state of limitless development.
This creates a problem, however. With the rise of post-scarcity technologies and machinery, people are no longer reliant upon one another to provide the physical neccessities that keep a society functioning - energy, raw materials and finished goods - as anything and everything is available at the push of a button. With the rise of AI and the kickstarting of the technological singularity, people are no longer reliant upon one another for scientific and social developments and any task which requires an intelligence to perform - the AI is capable of self-replication and recursive refinement with the only need being the supplying of additiona components by the user, and an AI with mental capabilities magnitudes beyond the average being will inevitably be capable of mimicing those mental capabilities, capable of creating an on-demand society in accordance with whatever the user truly wants.
Post-scarcity and post-AI removes a society's interdependence between members - it cannot, however, remove the various biases, prejudices and outright hatred that various members will feel towards one another. With the need to cooperate gone, then, why should society members tolerate one another? Why not simply abscond into their own one-man utopias with convincingly-sapient AI as company - or outright destroy those members that offend or reject your beliefs?
The OP in the 3D printing thread from a while back noted how several members of the 3D printing community had provided schematics for various weapon components, including a magazine and lower receiver for an AR-15. Considering that post-scarcity manufacturing systems will be magnitudes more capable than what current plastic-based 3D printers are capable of, what's to stop individuals from manufacturing weapons of varying magnitudes in order to eliminate the now-unneccessary aspects of society they detest? As shown in the 3D printing thread, the blueprints to manufacture weapons can easily be obtained due to the ability of people to share said information; if such blueprints are thoroughly removed, the AI can replicate the blueprints usings its incredible engineering and scientific prowess; and if the AI is prohibited from doing such due to one form of programming or another, various individuals will have developed ways to bypass these limitations.
Consider the extrordinary depths of depravity and hatred that we see in our society: serial killers, powermongers, terrorists, crusaders. Now give each of the individuals that resides within these depths the power to try and force their will upon the rest of the world. Even if a total police state were to emerge, these individuals would be able to make their way through the screens sooner or later and carry out their will. And even if only a tiny fraction of these individuals succeed, how many of these attacks can a society withstand? How many times can a society be nuked, gassed and poisoned before it suffers a complete breakdown and the individual members flee for their own lives?
Given the nature of humanity and the ability of its worst to manifest and lash out against the best and the rest, I believe that total societal breakdown is an inevitability post-scarcity and post-AI. Once we no longer have a reason to rely upon one another for laborous and intellectual resources, we also no longer have a reason to tolerate one another: we either leave to form our own little pocket utopias out in the middle of nowhere or we wind up fully embracing our prejudices and killing everybody who doesn't conform to our beliefs.
Sorenson on
0
Posts
But in response to the question I defer to Aristotle: Whosoever is delighted in solitude, is either a wild beast or a god.
If you assume that one day interstellar travel becomes technologically possible, then you can also assume unlimited lifespans are equally likely. A constantly accelerating expansion.
We will grow so big so fast, that there won't be anything you can do to avoid human interaction.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
1) People have no difficulty getting guns now. Being able to print a gun doesn't change that. Once you move beyond personal firearms, there's raw-material requirements. The best schematics in the world don't build you an Abrams tank without 60+ tons of steel. And a home 3d printer wouldn't be built to weld 9" thick plate or pour massive slabs of steel.
2nd point: post-AI threads are all dumb, because the AI is a conjecture created to serve the conclusion the OP wants.
Really, prejudices are so impossible to eleminate that a near omniscent AI, with limitless resources can't eliminate them. Also most people don't hate everyone, and generally prefer to not be alone.
I though this AI is also orders of magnitude smarter than the smartest people ever?
Why would that outcome be inevitable? Did the AI fall asleep? Forget to lock the back door? Get distracted by the women in the red dress?
The self-replicating, auto-refining AI, and its army of sci-fi weapon wielding robots that it can print at will indefinitely?
I think your notion of how much "evil" is out there is massively distorted. How many people do things just because they are "evil"? As a percentage of all "bad stuff happening", so much of it comes down to scarcity.
Your examples were:
Serial Killers: So, crazy people... This is such a small proportion of the population, I dont think it would ever be significatnt.
Power Mongers: What is power post-scarcity? The dynamic of this would be unrecognisable. Most powermongers, when it boils down to it, want resources, money, and the power that comes with it.
Terrorists: While this would be an interesting topic re: ideologies, the desperation and sence of injustice that fuels this and provides the people willing to die, would have gone.
Crusaders: Isnt this a combination of the above two?
I guess what I'm saying, is that if everyone can effectively live the life they want, you're taking away the biggest motivator to behave in the way you're describing.
I love when people get all worried about what happens when we finally are cut off from the need for social interaction/work/love/play/whatever. As though we don't have the option of forgoing any one or all of those right now, but find the idea abhorrent.