We’re very good at generating existential risks. Given indefinite technological progression at our current pace, we are likely to get ourselves killed.
Erlja Jkdf.
[Question] If we have Human-level chatbots, won’t we end up being ruled by possible people?
[Question] How can I reconcile the two most likely requirements for humanities near-term survival.
A technological plateau is strictly necessary. To give the simplest example; we lucked out on nukes. The next decade alone contains potential for several existential threats—readily made bioweapons, miniaturized drones, AI abuse—that I question our ability to consistently adapt too, particularly one after another.
We might get it, if our tech jumps thanks to exponential progress.
They would be smarter at birth. Either you gene-edit your kids or you pass that up. Yes, some people would do it; and yes, you’d get genius proliferation. But so long as you’ve got enough hide-bound naturists, fully committed, you would always have some eco-warriors around.
There’s no such thing as a million fully committed naturists, and that’s why the planet is cooking and the endangered list keeps growing.
Is this perhaps because the top end is simply not high enough yet?