Please tell me if I’m understanding this correctly. The main arguments are:
There are currently a lot of humans because we can do more things with more humans.
With advancing technology (specifically AI) we won’t need more humans to do more things.
From these two arguments the assumption is that AI will have an incentive to keep human population numbers low or at zero. If my understanding to this point is correct, what do you believe humans now should do knowing these assumptions?
That summary doesn’t sound to me to be in the neighborhood of the intended argument. I would be grateful if you pointed to passages that suggest that reading so that I can correct them (DM me if that’s preferable).
Where I see a big disconnect is your conclusion that “AI will have an incentive to do X.” The incentives that the essay discusses are human incentives, not those of a hypothetical artificial agent.
Please tell me if I’m understanding this correctly. The main arguments are:
There are currently a lot of humans because we can do more things with more humans.
With advancing technology (specifically AI) we won’t need more humans to do more things.
From these two arguments the assumption is that AI will have an incentive to keep human population numbers low or at zero. If my understanding to this point is correct, what do you believe humans now should do knowing these assumptions?
That summary doesn’t sound to me to be in the neighborhood of the intended argument. I would be grateful if you pointed to passages that suggest that reading so that I can correct them (DM me if that’s preferable).
Where I see a big disconnect is your conclusion that “AI will have an incentive to do X.” The incentives that the essay discusses are human incentives, not those of a hypothetical artificial agent.