To add something in brief here, the people I am addressing seem to be thinking that the current wealth distribution and AI stock will be the basis of future property distribution. Not just that there might be some distribution/division of wealth in the future. And they also seem to believe that this isn’t only theoretically possible but in fact likely enough for us to worry about now.
Within the hypothetical of ASIs that won’t just largely ignore humanity (leading to its demise or permanent disempowerment), there is a claim about distribution of resources according to AI company stock. A lot of the post argues with the hypothetical rather than the claim-within-the-hypothetical, which as a rhetorical move is friction for discussing hypotheticals. This move ends up attempting to prove more than just issues with the claim, while ignoring the claim, even as it’s not its intent.
(The claim isn’t ignored in other parts of the post, but what seems wrong with the framing of the post is the parts that are about the hypothetical rather than the claim. To illustrate this, I’ve attempted to defend coherence of the hypothetical, importance of the issue of distribution of resources within it, and the framing of individual humans ending up with galaxy-scale resources.)
Dogs pee on trees to mark their territory; humans don’t respect that. Humans have contracts; ASIs won’t respect those either.
To add something in brief here, the people I am addressing seem to be thinking that the current wealth distribution and AI stock will be the basis of future property distribution. Not just that there might be some distribution/division of wealth in the future. And they also seem to believe that this isn’t only theoretically possible but in fact likely enough for us to worry about now.
Within the hypothetical of ASIs that won’t just largely ignore humanity (leading to its demise or permanent disempowerment), there is a claim about distribution of resources according to AI company stock. A lot of the post argues with the hypothetical rather than the claim-within-the-hypothetical, which as a rhetorical move is friction for discussing hypotheticals. This move ends up attempting to prove more than just issues with the claim, while ignoring the claim, even as it’s not its intent.
(The claim isn’t ignored in other parts of the post, but what seems wrong with the framing of the post is the parts that are about the hypothetical rather than the claim. To illustrate this, I’ve attempted to defend coherence of the hypothetical, importance of the issue of distribution of resources within it, and the framing of individual humans ending up with galaxy-scale resources.)