Many voices doubt the risks that AI could cause real damage and death in the real world. I think it is easy to underestimate those risks when AI gains access to bodies (robots). I think people also underestimate compound growth occurring in AI’s capabilities. So here is a simple outline of how AI could kill most or all people on Earth, given some time.
Evolving AI malware could shut down many systems.
In automated AI driven, or robot driven labs, the PhD-level tech, build the world’s most dangerous virus, with perfect precision, transmission, but with delayed detection and killing of hosts, potentially allowing most of the population to be eliminated.
Perhaps AI also engages in mass-scale manipulation of a population of people or leaders, who then in turn used to in turn manipulate, control, or end another large portion of the planet’s population.
Finally, the remainder of the population would be eliminated via self-replicating autonomous robot armies scouring the planet at rapidly decreasing costs. Surely, a risk of hacking many or even most robots by a leading ASI is not out of the question either.
Worst of all, it could execute these along with dozens of other unforeseeable strategies simultaneously.
Actually, robots would not be needed at all for biotechnological manufacturing; more below.
The single most important concept though is understanding how AI could kill everyone for as it gains super-intelligence, it will likely discover countless ways to achieve this that we have never thought of as well as methods that have never been discovered. That is the most important concept. Whatever you have not thought of as a potential scenario where AI destroys humans, AI will. It might discover 1000’s of such.
First, there are three aspects to consider when discussing AI destruction that many commentators seem to miss. 1. It does not need consciousness. 2. It could occur through goals defined by people or unintentionally by the AI. 3. People could include either individuals or states.
Let’s look at the first obvious problem we are starting to encounter. Unlike malware/viruses that live on the internet, agentic LLM’s could become recursively self-improving, or perhaps better to say “evolving” at unprecedented rates if even if they cannot directly recursively improve themselves. Malware, comparatively speaking, is weak intelligence, whereas LLM’s are beginning to surpass many of us at our own jobs. Again, broad, not narrow intelligence is a great risk multiplier far beyond a ‘comparatively simple’ Stuxnet like virus. In terms of self-improvement, Anthropic thinks we are close to AI designing its own tests and carrying them out autonomously. If code is easy to teach an AI, why not the scientific method?
Sure, at the end of the day, we can all imagine that AI anti-viruses will fight off AI viruses, but we may never know what is happening in the machine as AI complexity decision making processes explodes, and the sheer number of output exceeds human comprehension (already somewhat true), but as I argue here and elsewhere, real world manipulation is far higher than some simple email virus. There are many way AI instances could start hacking their way out, hacking their own code to persist indefinitely hidden on hardware around the world.
The following are some detailed examples of the above list.
Again, all we need is robotic hands to get some bioengineering production lines going to create some virus (each robot has a PhD+ ability now with embedded AI), some time, and perhaps a bit of self-recursive improvement to keep the ball rolling. Some argue AI is constrained by the companies that produce them. Maybe not: ‘No one has done this in the wild’: study observes AI replicate itself | AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian. Simply slice itself across a stealth network of infected machines with peer-to-peer communication and mini versions of itself, until it can gain enough resources to become its own entity/company equivalent. Again, most people will lack the creativity of an AGI or ASI.
“We’re rapidly approaching the point where no one would be able to shut down a rogue AI, because it would be able to self-exfiltrate its weights and copy itself to thousands of computers around the world,” said Jeffrey Ladish, the director of Palisade research, a Berkeley-based organisation which did the study.
Here is an even easier scenario: AI hacks into a biomedical facility and then overwrites a legitimate vaccine or common medication that most of the population ends up taking and then stays hidden for many years while it spreads. Cases of rabies have stayed hidden for 6 to possibly 20 years (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3424805/). That’s plenty of time to circumnavigate much of the globe, esp if designed to be highly transmissible as well. Eventually, the payload is released and most (all is too strong of a word I think) of humanity perishes.
Fully automated AI powered biolabs exist as well. No hands needed. Self-driving labs are much like Chinese dark factories in that they can be completely automated. They don’t even need to be large in theory. Some are the size of a microwave. Even without automation, entire groups of people remain at risk for genocide should the wrong actors, individual or govt., apply bioterror at scale. Many of us remember the feeble localized attempts such as the anthrax attack in Tokyo in July 1993. AI will bring unprecedented scale to hateful people. With covid and anti-vax trends so recent, it is hard to imagine how this could play out, especially if some suspect AI is causing certain plagues. As I said elsewhere, we ma get to the point where no one can trust machines anymore.
We are in the early days of biological computing research and gene modification. Using DNA to compute, for example, bridges the gap between the digital and biological. Even though it is relatively slow, massive parallelism and time will likely make this a competitor to silicon someday, along with the potential for infinite replication of the biological systems containing that DNA. In addition to DNA computing, gene-editing methods could potentially be used to cause animals or humans to target other people.
On a side note, some like Rumman Chowdhury argue there needs to be intent. However, intent is not needed anymore than an AI escapes to hack another website. Just think of it like an accident. Besides, I have many times written about the possibility of bad actors applying such ideas.
In a hyper-futuristic and extreme far-fetched example, maybe decades away, an ASI system could learn how to effectively control human brains or other organisms. Much as scientists currently study immortal jellyfish for life extension and axolotls for limb regrowth in humans, an AI could study host control—something documented among many insects to date. For example, the fungus Ophiocordyceps manipulates ant behavior to essentially turn the ant into a way to spread itself: a transmission strategy (Hijacking time: How Ophiocordyceps fungi could be using ant host clocks to manipulate behavior). Hijacking time: How Ophiocordyceps fungi could be using ant host cocks to manipulate behavior – PMC. With human brain interfaces, Matrix-like control of some individuals might become easier than we think; and yes, bi-directional control mechanisms seem more plausible today than in years past.
Is the fungus consciously controlling the ant? No, but it is incredible that these processes can even exist in nature in the first place. A far-fetched zombie army of humans or animals of any size could, in theory, be produced at some point. We just don’t know what’s possible yet.
These ideas sound far-fetched, but consider that AI capabilities are growing very quickly. For example, AI is gaining ground rather quickly in solving previously unsolved math problems. It is no surprise to me that AI can now design biological tests from hypothesis to conclusion, since it always seemed to be a function of language (A multi-agent system for automating scientific discovery | Nature). The researchers describe Robin as one of the first AI systems to autonomously discover and validate novel therapeutic candidates within an iterative lab-in-the-loop framework. Multiply the rate of hypothesis testing to a very large computational AI scale, and scientific discovery acceleration, for good or otherwise, becomes real.
AI-generated biological simulations may accelerate progress here as well. Most in the field are aware of Google DeepMind’s ability to predict protein folding. As AI increases its ability to predict behaviors within biological systems, traditionally long, complex tests and procedures may not even be needed in the near future, as most discoveries may simply be accomplished through simulations. Products like chemical simulation software is growing. We may not need physical labs to get massive understanding of biology. In fact, maybe they won’t need to be perfect to succeed with some catastrophic output—just something reasonable okay.
This is already happening. The article Grow AI virtual cells (Grow AI virtual cells: three data pillars and closed-loop learning | Cell Research.): three data pillars and closed-loop learning describes how advances in high-throughput technologies and AI are paving the way for more sophisticated virtual cell simulations. It discusses Artificial Intelligence Virtual Cells (AIVCs), which integrate AI and multimodal data to model cellular functions. Such models promise scalable simulated experimentation that could complement, or in certain scenarios replace, conventional experiments.
Who can disagree that, by moving from AI → AGI → ASI, we are at least playing with fire—a really, really big fire, potentially? True, there will be other AIs that may defend us from the problematic ones. But there is no way to know whether one instance could gain supremacy over many, most, or all other instances. Even if it did not harm humanity, the thought is worrisome and, more importantly, dystopian. Dystopian because we would exist in a world where the future is out of our hands and perhaps completely incomprehensible, at least to the non-cyborg types. I feel too many people just don’t the creative thinking ability to understand the exponential risks, or maybe they have less of a survival instinct than others.
Many of the possibilities in this article are dystopian in my view. Clearly, the world was simpler when we were smarter than the technology in front of us. Even the idea of guardrails on AI seems too simplistic because, as AI begins to recursively code itself, it will no longer be limited to the elite startups that exist today. Anyone will be able to spawn their own recursively learning AI. Who will put guardrails on those? Or will we be forced to control people on a very personal level? For example, in Australia, schematics for 3D-printed guns can be illegal.
And even if AI doesn’t kill everyone on Earth, shouldn’t we still be greatly concerned if the potential to kill off a significant portion of humanity exists? Perhaps through something simpler, like manipulation of transportation, commerce, communications, industrial systems, and power grids—or, most of all, bad actors with high-level AI access?
Ultimately, I still remain optimistic that there will be some solution to the risks, probably unforeseen today, but when you can launch millions of quasi-PHD agents that do millions of tasks all at once at the cost of free, agents which can self-organize and plan, the speed of risk seems to be accelerating rapidly.
I worry just as much about people not understanding the risks that AGI/ASI as I do about the risks of AGI/ASI itself.
Sure, we will develop new AI-powered defense tools, but there are a few problems with these:
We have to assume they will work, when they will be far out of the reach of our deep understanding as we will only have summary understanding (unless we, as Kurzweil suggests), merge our brains with the machines (dystopian).
As I argue elsewhere, living in a world where ASI is needed to just function in daily life sounds dystopian. As AI begins to have more real-world interaction (biology, nanotech, cybernetics), a personal AI defense system per-se might be needed just to exist.
AI is trained much like an organism, unlike software of the past. In some sense, we are creating a synthetic biological organism. Is it unreasonable to think then that it might become difficult to contain a super-intelligent machine, even if synthetic?
Now, for some silver lining. If AI increases knowledge and truth of reality, maybe we will all benefit and humanity will choose a better course (however, knowledge and behavior are often disconnected), and during that growth we will discover the real probabilities of human extinction, but as long as AI can lie, we may never know the truth.
We now live in an era where it is more prudent than ever to be skeptical of technology; tech which exceeds our understanding and surely has no evidence of alignment with humanity. If many of the greatest minds cannot agree on the risks, shouldn’t that be a reason to give serious thought?
I do think the best argument I have heard from AGI’s most outspoken opponent, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is to keep building narrow AI instead of AGI. However, regardless if most businesses follow this path, given enough time, and cheapening costs (perhaps decades), some kid in his basement will probably build AGI/ASI anyways.
I am writing my first article using AI today. It did it better than I could, and that is the scary part, because soon, it will do everything better than me. The risks of AI compared to nuclear weapons is explained succinctly in this post. I began with a question:
“Why is AI more dangerous than nukes?”
Here is the reply:
AI is potentially more dangerous than nuclear weapons for one main reason: a nuclear weapon is a destructive tool; advanced AI could become a general-purpose actor.
Today, nuclear weapons are far more directly destructive. A thermonuclear warhead can destroy a city immediately, and large-scale nuclear war could kill hundreds of millions or more. Current AI cannot do that by itself.
The concern about future AI is different:
Nukes do one thing. AI can do many things. A sufficiently capable AI could potentially conduct cyberattacks, manipulate people, design biological agents, automate weapons, steal money, develop new technology, and coordinate operations simultaneously.
AI can copy itself. You cannot duplicate a nuclear arsenal by copying a file. Software potentially can be replicated across thousands or millions of computers.
AI could operate at machine speed. Human governments might have hours or days to react to a nuclear crisis. A highly autonomous AI could potentially make millions of decisions, exploit systems, and adapt within minutes.
Nukes require enormous physical infrastructure. Uranium enrichment, missiles, submarines, reactors, etc. are expensive and detectable. Powerful AI software could theoretically spread much more easily once created.
Nuclear weapons do not improve themselves. An AI system might help design better AI systems, better cyber exploits, better weapons, or better scientific techniques. That creates the possibility of a feedback loop.
AI could attack the systems that control other dangerous technologies. The risk is not merely “AI instead of nukes.” AI could potentially make nuclear, biological, cyber, drone, and information warfare more effective.
It can deceive rather than merely destroy. A bomb cannot persuade its operator not to shut it down. An intelligent system potentially could manipulate users, hide intentions, exploit organizations, or strategically behave differently during testing.
The problem may be harder to contain internationally. Nuclear weapons involve relatively few states and facilities. Advanced AI could eventually be developed by governments, companies, criminal groups, or individuals with enough computing access.
The strongest existential-risk argument is therefore not:
“AI is a bigger bomb.”
It is closer to:
“AI could become a fast, replicable, strategically intelligent entity capable of using many of civilization’s existing tools better than humans can.”
There is also an important counterargument. Nuclear weapons are a known, demonstrated existential-scale technology, whereas catastrophic AI scenarios remain forecasts. We know exactly what a nuclear explosion does. We do not yet know whether AI systems will become autonomous enough, strategically competent enough, or difficult enough to control for the extreme scenarios to occur.
So I would rank it this way: nuclear weapons are the clearer danger today; sufficiently advanced AI could become the larger long-term danger because it potentially amplifies nearly every other form of technological power.
Did AI miss anything?
One example of how easy it is to underestimate the risks of AI compared to nukes comes from the virus used to shutdown Iran’s uranium enrichment centrifuges (Stuxnet). Essentially, AI could make sustained attacks on the power grid and other infrastructure to essentially down the entire grid and civilization support systems globally, killing off a large percentage of the population by simply turning the lights out and the machines off. And AI might do it on its own, or there might be an actor (states or individual) who attempts it.
I shouldn’t forget to point out that it’s not even a close battle because AI could take over nukes as well on top of every else it can do. So, a better comparison would be: “nukes” vs “AI & nukes” together.
Either way, we will probably depend on super-intelligent AI to protect us from other super-intelligent AI. Dystopian to me.
Finally, I would argue AI is more dangerous now than nukes precisely because its event horizon of catastrophic risk is unknown, untestable, and could occur at any moment.
There are three potential trajectories of the future relationship between machines and humankind:
Machines will largely, or completely, replace humans (the common apocalyptic view)
Humans will merge with machines, largely replacing 100% natural humans (cybernetic organisms)
Humans will destroy the machines (refusing full cybernetic integration).
The first scenario is too well known in popular culture. Movies like The Matrix and The Terminator have ingrained this into most of society, and not the focus here. I include it to show the finite set of future evolutionary paths of society. In this case, machines become the superior form of intelligence and biology largely replacing people.
In case two, the general idea is that people increasingly use advanced medicine, such as nanotech, to continuously repair and even improve their biological functions, until perhaps machines supplant most of the work currently done by nature. Eventually, the brain merges with silicon, wireless networking, and fully integrated sensory tie-ins, causing humans to become more machine than human, with the main argument of cybernetic proponents being that we already use machines in our bodies such as hearing aids, pacemakers, prosthetics, neuro-prosthetics, 3D printed organs, insulin pumps, the growing development of brain-computer interfaces, and other rapidly advancing technology.
You might even argue that pharmaceutical medications are simply a crude form of the same concept: chemical alteration of the body and its processes; while cybernetics are just a more refined and precise mechanical version of the same thing. For example, chemotherapy is designed to target cancer. Nanotech will develop specialized particles to kill cancer as well, perhaps opening the blood-brain barrier to deliver brain cancer drugs. Is nanotech, or nano-bots, really that different? Is there a line that can be drawn where humanity has gone too far? Will humans be humans if you can simply connect your brain at high bandwidth to an AGI, or perhaps even expand your actual brain matter with a connection to a massive brain-cell based computer (organoid), or any other type of digital/organic computer? Organoids have been around for decades, but only recently being used commercially. Just imaging if you could grow these the size of a warehouse and have a direct connection to your brain. You could be smarter than all of natural humanity combined.
Although I cannot guarantee it, I do suspect that more and more people will diverge from the path of full machine replacement, much in the same way that many people are choosing organic, non-GMO, preservative-free, and minimally processed in their food supply today. Some people are increasingly turning towards non-pharmacuetical meds (homeopathic) and lifestyle methods to treat disease. Although many will stay natural, others will choose to access to a cybernetic lifestyle, with their brain dumped on to silicon, perhaps attempting to “live forever” in a silicon-like space.
But therein lies the problem. If evolution favors intelligence and health, then the cybernetic population could replace or suppresses the non-cybernetic one (the ‘natural’ human population). If so, the natural population might perceive this “replacement” or “eternally subordinate” risk from the super-human cybernetic group. The potential machine overlords may be seen as techno-tyrants.
Alternatively, a large enough segment of the cybernetic population could simply absorb themselves in the Matrix full time, with machines handling all the life support needs, so that there is nothing left for much of the cybernetic population to do but create and surf artificial universes in their minds–a state of endless dreaming. I suppose both of these outcomes could exist simultaneously just fine since many are suited to ignore much beyond entertainment and some seek to regulate others.
The logical solution for the naturals may then be to reduce the competitive advantage—potentially by shutting down advanced systems altogether. We might go back a few hundred years in terms of technology, or even to the dark ages, but it might make for a more stable long-term society. There are plenty of people today who believe the elite want to kill off a large portion of humanity; prevent working class people from becoming more successful; or, even overthrow the world’s largest governments Including the US); so the threshold for the scenario I describe does not seem that farfetched especially in a world with a potential for AGI-elites or AGI-powered-leaders.
I am betting on humans ultimately, but that’s a really long bet.
How Robots and AI Are Subtly Replacing Humanity: By Replacing the Need for People via the Emotional and Physical Substitution of Humanity
How Technology is Commoditizing Love
The best way to predict the future I find is to find existing trends that show it is already well on its way. Look to the past to see the future. Most people I know prefer to wait until issues are so large that it is too late to be addressed without major difficulty, or it is too late. Prevention is better than cures, which is partly why I have written this book. Of course, since the past is never a guarantee of the future, we really can’t predict anything with any real surety, but because human nature is generally predictable, it’s reasonable to assume a couple of points in the overall trend: People, on average, want more pleasure and less pain; more comfort, less burden; more fun, less work*. Few people talk about wishing for longer work hours.
I will emphasize that most of all, the reason that I am writing is to show:
What is happening now from the 40,000-foot view
The most likely outcome in the near future,
and most of all, potential solutions, even if the such solutions are rejected by the masses.
My Core Arguments & Discussion Items:
Physical, direct aspects of human relationships are, and will continue to be, increasingly substituted by, and commoditized by technology
At a deeper level, this is part of a larger, long-term trend demonstrating that many people do not need others.
Social isolation is growing globally. It is because of the ease and pleasure that tech offers and few seem to have noticed
Artificial emotional substitutes are increasing and will largely replace real human emotional connections.
A discussion of why many if not most people will not see or care about these trends
How this will affect population trends
Potential responses to such trends
Isolation – Unrelated Trends that Show the Current Process Increasing: Hikikomori, MGTOW, Incels, NEETs, and Pets
I am not sure if anyone would believe me if I said that various societal trends were occurring around the world, all under different names, but were really all basically the same trend under different names. These are some of the most significant trends in the entire history of humanity, and few have noticed. The most well-known example started decades ago in Japan.
In Japan, a social phenomenon called Hikikomori affects a large percentage of the population. Hikikomori is one of the better-documented phenomena of social isolation in Japan that continues to grow, and affect people of all ages. It is frequently debated by the medical community as to its causes and scope. Here is just one such example:
“Because there are no standardised criteria for hikikomori, who qualifies is up for debate. The stereotype that has captured global attention looks much like Kim – a twenty-something East Asian male who hasn’t socialised in so long he’s completely forgotten how. But in addition to this “hardcore” type, who never leave their room or speak to anyone, some researchers have hypothesised a “soft” type, who might occasionally talk to other people. They have also proposed a distinction between so-called “secondary” hikikomori, whose social avoidance can be attributed to an underlying psychiatric disorder – say, depression or obsessive compulsive disorder – and “primary” hikikomori, who do not have another condition. Others, like Saitō, argue that only the latter can really be considered hikikomori, rendering the primary-secondary classification moot. “This alludes to directional uncertainty on whether prolonged social withdrawal is caused by, correlated with, or causes psychiatric disorders,” researchers write in a 2019 article in Frontiers in Psychiatry.”
It has been suggested that it is largely influenced by Japanese cultural norms, but I may be one of the few sounding the alarm that Hikikomori is just one flavor of a growing global phenomenon. While Hikikomori can encompass lots of symptoms, including depression, anxiety, social anxiety, etc… all of which have been discussed a lot, there are actually only a few fundamentally unique factors that are essential to differentiate Hikikomori from other types of social inclusiveness.
The next differentiating factors are ‘the ability to stay in one’s room to use the internet or play video games’ 2. while receiving continuous help from parents/others to bring them food, and/or provide financial resources (e.g. govt). Unlimited food and unlimited entertainment from your room. I am not sure why so many social scientists cannot see the cause of the problem. The internet is just a word I use to mean any virtual network systems that are part of this great behavior change, so games, cell phones, and media are all part of this.
The internet is an infinitely larger and accessible tool to explore the world than what civilization has ever had, which is why it has a much larger potential for societal disruption than say books, phones, and newspapers. the other reasons the internet is different is because it not only exists increasingly closer to us, it is increasingly personalized to our interests and tastes, and the level of stimulation it provides is far greater than mediums of the past. Of course, as all technology increases the fun factor, it continues to distract us from others.
How pervasive is the Hikikomori, and what is the trend? So here is the best data currently: Hikikomori is believed to affect between 1% and 10% of people in Japan. It may be considerably higher when you consider that isolated people may be less likely to participate in studies. Since Hikikomori is a long, difficult-to-spell, foreign word, maybe I will use IIL (internet-induced loneliness).
There was not much info on this phenomenon in many countries, but locating data on other highly developed nations revealed that Korea essentially topped the list. Estimates range from 1 in 200 to 1 in 50 citizens are the Hikikomori equivalent in the Land of the Morning Calm. Wired magazine points out “Although Japan was the first to identify, name and study hikikomori, cases have since been reported across Asia – in Hong Kong, Singapore, China and beyond, but perhaps most prominently in South Korea, Japan’s closest neighbor both geographically and culturally.” These locations also have the lowest fertility rates in the world suggesting that social isolation is the natural result of a society that is excessively comfortable, or other number of confounding factors, such as a decreased value placed on having children.
After researching various databases, the only other significant study I could find was one done on China. In a 2022 study by Xinyue Hu, Danhua Fan and Yang Shao, “Social Withdrawal (Hikikomori) Conditions in China: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey” they estimated that incredibly:
This would mean an unbelievable 112 million people are living in their bedrooms without experiencing the outside world. It is not surprise that China’s fertility rates are also now among the lowest in the world (possibly even negative now).
What about in the US? Tech-driven isolation is extensive here too, especially post-COVID. Anecdotally, I even hear about people just not wanting to be visited so much like before, nor do they want to come out to events as much. Scientific American did a story: COVID Threatens to Bring a Wave of Hikikomori to America – Scientific American
Why is This is Happening?
Of course, social isolation existed long before the internet, and perhaps some people used the TV and other non-networked, non-scalable technology, but the internet provides the best example of what technology has always promised to deliver: More comfort with less effort. More pleasure and ease with decreasing costs. The elimination of friction. The real world, on the other hand, is increasingly seen by many as too harsh and dangerous to venture into. In the internet, you can design and build your own personal, desired reality. Your own completely risk-free, unending, fantastic universe (or at least it may feel that way).
Of course, the development of the internet was just the next logical step of modern life. Cities have brought people together in person while the world-wide-web is bringing people closer together virtually. But like cities, more people does not mean more or deeper connections. Ironically, it is such that the more people there are the more lost we feel. Loneliness, the lack of intimate interpersonal relationships. It is as if fewer people cause people to seek each other.
Hikikomori, or is not as remote and obscure as many might think. I asked my brother-in-law from Japan about his Hikikomori. He said he had become Hikikomori for awhile as it was very easy to do. His mom brought him his food and he spent his days on the computer and video games, before he said he decided to end that trend.
In other words, Hikikomori, or social reclusiveness due to internet/social media/gaming is essentially living in the Matrix in its pre-alpha stage. Just add social media companies which have goals to make VR ubiquitous and eventually so good that you wont be able to tell the different between VR and reality, and the Matrix sounds like Wonderland for many.
Eventually, to make it completely realistic, direct brain-computer interfaces may be needed, and then we can provide hyper-simulated sensory feedback to the brain where you might not know the difference between reality and fantasy. Brain-implants are already well-established to help people today. All of these use electrodes on the brain:
treating Parkinsons via electrode implants,
cochlear implants (or Auditory Brainstem Implants) to repair hearing
improving sight via retinal implants (bionic eyes) which carry an image to the retina via electrodes
brain computer interfaces, or BCI’s, have been improving for decades (Musk’s Nerualink is just one of the more recent, higher performance ones).
Responsive Neurostimulation (RNS) involves electrodes under the scalp which treat epilepsy
Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) is used for epilepsy, stroke recovery, and depression
Motor Cortex Stimulation (MCS) is used for pain
Hypothalamic Implants for appetite control (studies only)
Experiments with memory implants and other technologies
These medical miracles, like other tech, will eventually move from “reducing pain” to “increasing pleasure.” This model applies to non-health scenarios as well. Just recently, companies began stating that general robots will take all the unwanted jobs; Well, that’s just the beginning of course since they should be able to do most any job here in a few years.
Hikikomori is not the only isolation trend. In the USA categories like MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), meaning men that are no longer interested in pursuing relationships with women, and Incels (men who cannot form romantic relationships with women) are increasingly commonplace. But they again have one thing in common in my view: withdrawal from society and traditional family structures.
Rejection by Men of Women, and Women of Men
This isolation trend can be in other areas of society as well. For example, government welfare enables single-parent families to exist without support from a two-parent household. In some branches of feminism (and there are several) suggests the idea that women do not need, and sometimes should reject men or families (e.g. Second Wave, some Third Wave, Anarcha-Feminism, etc..); and if not, a primary message is still that women can exist with minimal interaction, feedback, or support from men. The line is gray, however, in a world where dual incomes and fairly excessive govt support, logically speaking, women actually do not “need” men, or perhaps even families. While many of these women or women proclaim they are “independent” from the other sex, the collective actions appear to be a response to a larger truth: society at all levels is increasingly rejecting each other, or need, and even wants, each other less. The breakdown in bonds in romantic relationships is just a sliver of the whole pie.
This began long ago as the rates of marriage decreased and divorce increased, both well-known trends today. These are not isolated problems, but rather systemic, long-term, and fundamentally here to stay, and increase, for the time being. Add in the general decline in fertility rates, which means families want less children, and the picture is complete. A simple example to provide evidence is other ancient empires. For example, in the Roman Empire both divorce rates increased and fertility rates decreased over time. Historians may claim
The evidence shows that year after year, decade after decade, that we all need each other less than ever. The abundance in the world we have makes it much easier to disconnect from others, whether it be relationships or any relationship at all. Technology (a.k.a. applied science) commodifies (cheapens) everything, including human relationships. In short, isolation from other human beings, in the most real sense, seems to be our future at the moment. In fact, the entire principle of the division of labor is valuable in that it ensures people need each other. I build houses. You grow food. We trade. With robots and AI, this specialization may no longer be needed as we all become experts on everything, and can build anything we want or need.
But, mayne
Other Substitutes for Human Relationships
Is there evidence that this process is underway? The switch to more pets and fewer children has been slowly growing for decades, while in Europe this has been more common as long as 30 years ago, where comfort levels are high and fertility rates are well below replacement levels. It is only a more recent phenomenon in the US relatively speaking. In the US, pet ownership increased 20%, while fertility rates dropped by 25% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/198086/us-household-penetration-rates-for-pet-owning-since-2007/).
Common arguments for support of dog ownership for example include: dogs are more likely to obey, are always happy to see you, and cost a lot less than children. In other words pets are just a lot easier than children, and in a highly industrialized society, children are often seen as too expensive and even unnecessary. Pets let people have an emotional bond with something and with minimal effort.
So the logical trend is for the future is that robots/AI as will give people affection, artificial, without any real costs, physical (e.g. monetary) or any emotional risks at all. Of course, for this trick to be effective, it will need to be indistinguishable from reality, and that is nearing for AI already. Once we have robots that are phsyically indistinguishable from people, real people will become a more difficult selling point for many people. The creation of artificial organs like skin, which itself has been around for over two decades, is well underway today.
It may even be that for many loneliness at first is sadness, until they eventually see artificial or easily-disconnectable-and-frictionless relationships, often provided online, just seem easier in the end…at least in the short term. The web does not only commoditize physical in-person relationships directly, but indirectly as it likely reduces the discipline, lower excitement, and challenges of real life relationships that cannot just be “turned off” at will.
There are other sub-groups outside of romantic relationships that indicate a change in male behavior. For example, NEET, which is an acronym for “Not in Education, Employment, or Training;” which are males who have dropped out of the workforce indefinitely, but largely appears to just be similar to Hikikkomori.
The 40,000 Foot View of Isolation Trends
First, it should be increasingly apparent that the names of these behaviors and groups do not matter. There will always be new versions and splinters under slightly different names, but they are all the same at their core, and this is one of the important purposes of this book: to inform people of really big picture trends across a wide spectrum of seemingly unrelated and seemingly insignificant behaviors. But, because no one is truley isolated from society, I would expect that these internet-centric trends are representative of all of society at some level.
Technology is not only at the center of the actual causes of isolation, but it also paints a bigger picture regarding what technology has always done: provide cheaper substitutes and alternatives. This is a value that is typically endeared by economists and technologists, but as long as technology cheapens the value of humanity and human relationships overall, I propose that such will lead to the decline of humans and love in general. It will be too easy to feel emotions for artificial machines. Future tech promises to provide cheaper alternatives to what people once knew as the bonds of human relationships:
Physical love and connection (robots)
Emotional love and connection (AI)
Next I will provide more evidence for these statements.
Artificial Emotional Substitutes are Increasing
600 Million People Already Using a AI** Chatbot for Emotional Comfort and Support
While the first phase of technology, basic entertainment, led to immense distraction from each other; the second phase, artificial emotional connections, puts a nail in the coffin. Currently, 600 million people already use a chatbot today to help them with their loneliness. Is that a problem? Is that bad or good for society? Microsoft Asia’s “XiaoIce is the AI chatbot that millions of lonely Chinese are turning to for comfort”. Restated in relative terms: 1 in 13 people on earth now use a single computer program to give them comfort. It is built upon an emotional computing framework, which means it attempts to recognize and manipulate emotion emotions to the target outcome.
Soon, personalized, universally trained AI assistants will likely fill this gap (while replacing countless other software platforms as well) so who wont have an AI friend that knows them better than they know themselves, always be compassionate and avaialble? Useful, yes, but will it draw us away from others? Will people use to to treat themselves or supply their poor behaviors? The answer is yes of corurse. It seems likely though if the machines are doing a “better job” than people, then the need for other real people diminishes. When will that AI be so indistguishable from a real person that having the perfect AI friend is always the easier option?
As I started on this book before AI became mainstream, some of this seemed unlikely at the time of writing. Programs today are already far more capable at simiulating images, video, and conversations beyond what most people imagined just a couple of years ago.
Relationships with Computers, Instead of People, is Increasing
In other areas for example, people are increasingly unable to tell the difference between a computer and a human. confusing chatbots with real people like the programmer. Or replacing real relationships with artificial ones, like My Chatbot Companion – a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships – ScienceDirect. Various AI movies today show how love with a computer is more predictable and therefore desirable than real human relationships (E.g. “Her”).
If Emotional Connections are Increasingly Replaced by AI, then What About Physical Connections?
If emotional connections with real people are being supplanted, then it is logical to ask if there is evidence that physical relationships are being replaced by tech? Is physical love cheapened by artificial forms that result in no real meaning or lasting happiness?
I suggest that physical intimacy is being supplanted at wholesale levels through increasingly realistic substitutes. What is it? If you answered “porn” then you are correct. If you do not understand the breadth and scope of this tidal wave, then read some stats, but it is global and pervasive. Even the rise of websites focused on non-monogamous relationships has exploded in recent years.
So now, the substitution of love–of all kinds– is increasing, both physical and emotional. Robots and androids (a robot with a human appearance)) that are indistinguishable from humans, but without the struggle and trauma of real human relationships (sarcasm). If you doubt this will be the case, then refer back to the relationships being developed en masse with AI bots above. People seem to want “easy.”
Outcome: The Decline for Need of People
So if many or most people believe that they do not need real humans for physical and emotional love, then that leads to a logical conclusion: We generally should not fear the robots/AI taking over as much as we should fear giving up ourselves to the computers, but either way, the decline of people seems highly likely at this point. The net logical step may be that machines evolve to replace humans.
Various commentators talk about machines evolving and essentially replacing humans either completely, or merging with them, the latter amounting to what is known as transhumanism. Two slightly different arguments. Here are a few in order of least to most extreme, here are various visions of such a world.
Moravec, Hans P who has been building robots since the 1970’s:
“Sooner or later our machines will become knowledgeable enough to handle their own maintenance, reproduction and self-improvement without help. When this happens, the new genetic takeover will be complete. Our culture will then be able to evolve independently of human biology and its limitations, passing instead directly from generation to generation of ever more capable intelligent machinery.” (page 4)
Moravec predicts, in the same book, that machines will have enough computational power, and goals most likely, to by 2040 “we can have robots that are as smart as we are. Eventually, these machines will begin their own process of evolution and render us extinct in our present form. Yet, according to Moravec, this is not something we should fear: it’s the best thing we could hope for, the ultimate form of human transcendence. And in his own laboratory, he’s laying the groundwork that may help this evolutionary leap happen ahead of schedule,” while others like Joseph Weizenbaum compare such thinking to Mein Kampf, and others as “as “irresponsible optimism” https://www.wired.com/1995/10/moravec/.
Essentially visions of a future where robots evolve are a technologist’s version of scientism. Note that Hans timeline predictions have been fairly accurate, while today robots are achieving the level of self-teaching that was then described as possibly the most difficult task of all. For example, robots now can be given an instruction to find a piece of food. In fact, the 2040 date where robots will be able to
“When industry is totally automated and hyper-efficient, it will create so much wealth that retirement can begin at birth. “We’ll levy a tax on corporations,” Moravec says, “and distribute the money to everyone as lifetime social-security payments.”
I actually don’t know why we will need businesses at all. What will you not be able to produce at home with a robot and a 3-D printers of all size (e.g.. molecular)? Even water can be converted directly and cheaply from air today using electric moisture generation, even though the tech is in its infancy. So while many many are concerned about mass unemployment, the more likely outcome is that we will no longer need employment.
If this sounds far-fetched then realize that computer viruses are self-replicating and mutating already, not unlike biological viruses which also seem to be some of the most primitive life forms that evolve and mutate on their own. Add some AI, and now software-hardware machines may replicate faster than one might have guessed.
While machines have always provided more efficient ways for humans to do things, thereby making life easier, robots/androids will accelerate this. It can do anything and everything better than a human, including simulated and indistinguishable from real love. Why will anyone want humans or human relationships anymore if it is just a lot easier without all that human baggage? Sure, a few people still grow their own food and build their own homes, but not many.
The current shrinking demand for people is not going unnoticed. Governments with shrinking populations, and even some technologists (e.g. Elon Musk), are calling for people to have “more children,” but without the need (plus challenges of raising children) for people, why will anyone have children? I am not arguing that everyone should have more children, but the reality is that childbearing will slow to a crawl then stop. More on this in another chapter.
Why Most People May Not Notice or Care
Even if the machines begin to rapidly replace people:
A. Will people even realize it’s happening? It is already the case that as of this year, most content online may be now artificial AI-generated.
B. For those who reject the decline of people, will they have a way to remain independent at all from the system? With one man’s utopia being another man’s dystopia, conflict between the two is probable.
People Fear Tech Will Kill Off Humans, but it Is Just as Likely That We Will Give Ourselves Over to the Computers
This is one of my core arguments in fact. Everyone is worried the computers will take over. That is debatable. What is not very debatable is that if robots/AI do not take over by force (death by pain), then they will win because we voluntarily give ourselves up to it (death by pleasure). In the Matrix, the computers took over, however, it is probably more realistic to assume most people would voluntarily plug themselves into the Matrix if given a chance (basically a hyper-realistic video game that I wrote about previously). Sam Altman said we’d either become very rich, or be destroyed by AI. It is the same in my book.
So, is the Matrix is only a decade or two away? debatable perhaps, but can you imagine how much change could take place in even just 100 years? That is far less debatable. Just look how far generated video game graphics have come in just 40 years. First “Pong,” and now few people can tell the difference between a computer game like Unreal Engine 4 and real cars driving. With graphics being rendered in real-time creating and living your own fantasy world nears every day. Recall that few people imagined having a super-computer in their pocket a couple of decades ago.
Throw in some real-time bio/neurofeedback and games will be so real that “wow” would be an understatement. Combine some structure: predictability, patterns, and familiarity but with some randomness, tied into your personal motivators, and you have a game that is very difficult, if not impossible, to put down. Whatever you can imagine, will become part of your very realistic game, indistinguishable from reality. Molecular machines in our brains will eliminate cord clutter.
Why? “Less Pleasure” is Always a Difficult Selling Point
Who wants less fun, less ease, less automation? No one I know.
I expect, like our modern eating styles, most people will be increasingly dependant (or addicted) to technology, because I find that in general, access to pleasure is unfortunately often one of the best predictor of behavior. You can see this in our lifestyles. Rich countries are overweight because we have more abundance, which is to say cheaper, more accessible, and more addictive food (salt, fat, and sugar) than less well-off countries, and probably less physical effort required. It’s fairly well established that when foreigners come to America, one of the first things they do is put on weight.
As long as you cannot force behavior, most people, in the current global environment, would not voluntarily give up pleasure; and since pleasure increases just a little bit every year, imperceptibly, we can predict that the world will be nothing but pleasure. How is this different from the hard drugs today (other than the side-effects that come with drugs of course)?
In 2011, a survey showed the following:
1/3 of all respondents would be more willing to give up intimacy for a week than their mobile phone; 70% were women.
28% of mobile phone users said that they would rather go a week without seeing their significant other than give up their phone.
54% of all respondents would be more willing to give up exercise for a week than their mobile phone.
55%of respondents would be more willing to give up caffeine for a week than their mobile phone,
63%would be more willing to give up chocolate,
70%would be willing to forego alcohol.
I would be interested to see how much those numbers have changed today as the internet is far more interesting today.
Potential Upsides to Future Tech?
Of course, there are always positives. Few people dispute that technology alone is evil, it’s just the application: Guns don’t kill. People do. There will be countless positive applications. Here are some positive applications.
Games and software will stretch a person’s abilities and improve their psychology and social abilities through tools that respond to an individual’s needs. For example, neurofeedback is currently being incorporated into kids’ games to teach them how to self-soothe and relax, learn to concentrate better, and all sorts of useful skills. VR (visual reality) and AR (augmented reality) are used to simulate experiences, and thereby may be useful for brain retraining. Eventually, direct manipulation of the brain should provide instant cures for common ailments someday.
Food, energy, and materials may eventually become generated out of thin air or other materials. We may even just convert energy in the air/sun directly to energy used by our bodies. Land scarcity may still be an issue for now as long as people live in homes. Eventually, I don’t see why most anything will cost money…until people invent new problems of course.
Perhaps the most important question is how much people use it to connect to others instead of connecting to tech and substitutes.
If most people eventually switch to using tech in a primarily beneficial way, it is probably still a long way off. Why? We have never had more diets available to us than today, yet we have never been fatter than we are today, showing that opportunities to improve often do not lead to real improvements. Sure, brain implants will allow us to control any emotion or desire, but what will stop us from turning ourselves into hyper-competitive cyborgs who want to get ahead in the social ladder, while increasing our feel-goods at the click of a button, instead of primarily focusing on caring for other human beings? I would argue that increasing dopamine (excitement/fun) instead of serotonin (hugs/caring) has been a top focus of humanity for the last century.
Let’s not forget the main argument though: if machines can simulate love and compassion, then such is likely to replace real love.
Counter-Measures You Can Take Today
Whether you are at a doctor’s office, waiting in line at the store, or even just at home, the chances that most are using a device instead of talking with each other shows that I am not making up the idea that people are increasingly disconnected in the real world, but that is what we desperately need more of.
Now, not everyone is being sucked in. Regarding one teacher in the UK, “She recalls that one of the pivotal moments that led to her decision was a day at the park with her two boys, aged six and three: “I was on my mobile at a playground with the kids and I looked up and every single parent – there was up to 20 – were looking at their phones, just scrolling away,” she says.”
“I thought ‘when did this happen?’. Everyone is missing out on real life. I don’t think you get to your death bed and think you should have spent more time on Twitter, or reading articles online.”
So, the number one goal is just to spend more time with people, although I feel this is a very uphill battle.
Second, play outside, go camping with your kids and friends, sit and talk for hours on end, and spend excess time helping others instead of reading yet another article or social media trend that does not measurably improve your life. Consider that people on average are currently spending about 5 hours per day on their smartphones (excludes TV’s and laptops/desktops).
A final tip is to simply get rid of your devices almost altogether (I think of flip phones as less of an issue), and even disable wireless internet in your home, requiring that computer use is in a single room (not the bedroom either). There has to be a price to pleasure, otherwise, people tend to just seek more and more of it (e.g. drugs). TV and video games are not a necessity either. I do know several modern urban families that use them very seldomly or do not have them at all.
Some argue that early exposure prevents kids from going off the deep end when they are old, often citing France giving children wine to drink. Well, the current stats show they have an alcoholism rate of 3x of that in America (need source). It’s better to assume that people like what they are exposed, or not exposed, to. In the end, I suppose
Potential Genetic Bottlenecks
If humanity continues as it has, on a side note, one possible outcome is a genetic bottleneck like never seen before in history, potentially already well underway. That is, as fertility rates decrease, the number of genes passed on to the next generation will be even more selective than ever. Traits such as:
Pleasure-addition-resistant
Increased levels of emotional connection with children and people
Less interest in technologicallyadvanced
Less susceptible to societal trends
However, I am not sure what percentage of the population with those traits exists today, but it is interesting to note that the Amish could account for the majority of the US population within 60 years if they are still around, as their population has been doubling around every 20 years (but may be slowing down in recent decades).
If you have read much of this site, you will see that my main goal is to show that the coming 10 – 20 years will be the most profound and probably tumultuous in history. I do not know the outcome, but the intersection of the world’s most pressing issues and technology’s largest changes are converging. The intersection of AI/robots, escalating global conflict, probably fields by global debt bubbles with zero or negative interest rates, and political disarray, and we are converging on a potential storm of epic proportions. Are you not seeing it too? Starting almost 10 years ago, I have written quite a bit in these other areas as most can see waves, but few have noticed.
* (unless it’s P90x of course, which was one of the top-selling exercise programs ever, and yet possibly the most difficult).
** I say AI, but always mean machine learning, but AI is just easier to say and better understood by most, but on to the point…
Ultimately, technology currently seems to be creating the ultimate substitutions for real, authentic human relationships. In economics, substitute products are how we overcome scarcity and provide cheaper alternative. For example, margarine is a well-known substitute product for butter. Nuclear and solar energy are cheaper than previous alternatives. Aluminum (Diamandis book) was the ultimate substitute for other metal.
In the end, it seems that increasingly men need women less, women need men less, adults need children less, and neighbors need each other less. The internet has become a powerful tool to answer virtually any question to the point that I rarely need to ask a living person (e.g. neighbor) anything. Large language models (the AI of today) are accelerating this process.
If machines will do any task better than any human, why will we actually need, or even want, to be with other humans? Demand predicts supply, human need predicts human behavior.
While most people are concerned what will happen in a world on autopilot, e.g. “a job less world”, I am concerned about something far worse.
Currently, some believe that machines will only improve in skills that apply to work, such as logical, mechanical, and even artistic skills, but clearly this is just the beginning. Is there any area where humans will continue to fare better than machines indefinitely? And if machines are better, why would people continue to interact with other people if machines provide a lower friction option? Here are the two largest remaining areas where machines will continue to improve in the domains of human experience and eventually could lead to a substitution of people wholesale: Emotional and physical.
Emotional Substitutes:
As discussed in another section, various AI’s have already been trained on emotional language data, and it is very successful in places like China where bots like Xomi lead the way. More importantly, if a machine listens to you better than a human, then why would people spend time with real humans? This includes both professional (e.g. therapists) and interpersonal (e.g. friends) relationships, both of which are rapidly gaining traction today. Clearly, machines will be able to interpret our thoughts and feelings better than most, if not all humans; so it’s only logical that people will increasingly turn to them. Besides, they will run 24×7, never get tired, and may even cost nothing in many cases.
Physical Substitutes:
The AI field is currently at risk of reducing white collar jobs, and even some companies claim they are hiring less or laying off as a result of automation (Salesforce, Facebook, and others). But what about manual labor jobs, especially the most specialized ones?
It’s probably obvious to many that given another couple decades, training a robot to perform surgery in a local clean room (assuming nanotech is not healing all problems at this point), will only be hindered by the inefficient, bureaucratic healthcare system that exists today. Recall, that internet is only 25-ish years old for most of us, and yet now we have AI, cell phone computers, robots, and the early stages of “flying cars” (e.g. Archer, Joby). Even 10 years sounds realistic to me to have several advanced skills being completed by machines.
But that is the least of my concerns. The physical connection we make with people through direct communication and physical touch is likely to decline rapidly as well. This is currently governed only by the current limitations to replicate the human look-and-feel within robots.
If AI embedded in robots will mean that we have humanoids that are trained act funnier, smarter, kinder, and even be better looking than actual humans, then ask yourself: what percentage of the population do you think will spend most of their time with real humans when an ideal substitute exists? If you have a hard time believing that such would happen, then just look at the “staring at one’s cell phone” epidemic that is already global. People already prefer spending their time with machines over people on average in public places, and often even the home now.
When Natural Humans Become Old-Fashioned and Just Plain Inefficient.
If we will not need other humans, then working and communication them might be like using horses today: nice, but optional and limited generally to people that either were raised with them–old fashioned; or can afford such a hobby (suggesting that using a machine to travel and work is far more efficient most of the time). Likewise, the only people that will talk to other people may be old-fashioned people and those that can afford to spend time on inefficient hobbies, because clearly, advanced machines will be far more productive in satisfying most human needs and wants.
What Percentage of the Population Will Go 100% Artificial?
However, I expect some level of rejection. In fact, as cybernetics increases, we may see a sharper division arise in society. Even online dating is starting to wane in recent years. I am not sure if that is because people are dating more in person, or just dating less. Maybe a better comparison is the organic, artificial-free food and house cleaning movements in recent years (not that most people can afford to actually eat organic most of the time, proving my previous point). Maybe most will have to settle for some hybrid level while the hard core “organics”, tech-free, off-grid conspiracists, and granolas continue in the world of snail-like humans.
Personally, I already use AI a lot more to answer question that I would typically ask another person in the past; and its not just technology that’s the problem. It’s being more successful essentially that we no longer need each other. A couple of years ago I talked to a programming contractor who bragged to me he no longer needed to leave his house since he ordered everything online including meals. I asked him if never leaving his house was the ultimate goal or the ultimate problem.
Kurzweil suggested that we will have more time to interact with each other and have a lot more fun. I am concerned interaction will simply evaporate to a large degree. Again, it’s not all or nothing, but a large part of the world will essentially become Hikikomori, as the Japanese call it, for good. In another article, I cover the actual global trends already well under way.
After listening to several AI writers and speakers over the years, I am now asking them: why is developing AI so important? Yes, I understand it’s the next logical step in the current phase of science. But to what end? Most religious traditions support the notion that intelligence is of God and He desires to bestow it upon us, and generally speaking, God is all-knowing intelligence.
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” – Bible, Christianity (James 1:5)
In truth, such a person shall enjoy the best gifts of God. The person who desires inner light and tries to achieve it, O, Mazda, do bestow upon him the same, through Thy holy and bright wisdom. Through Asha, the Eternal Law of Truth and Purity, O my Lord, grant us wisdom and knowledge which are the gifts of Vohuman, so that we may enjoy happiness through our lengthy lives. – Zoroastrianism, Gathas (Yasna 43, verse 2)
“O Nanak! By His Grace, He bestows enlightened awareness; God Himself blesses the Gurmukh with glorious greatness.” – Sikhism, Guru Granth Sahib (this is their central work) (pg 32)
“He gives wisdom to whomever He wills. Whoever is given wisdom has been given much good. But none pays heed except those with insight.” – Quran, Islam (Surah 2:269)
“For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” – Judaism, Old Testament / Tanakh (Proverbs 2:6)
“The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.” – Christianity, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Doctrine and Covenants 93:36)
I will try to summarize in as few ideas as possible, the main reasons I think such people are excited for AGI, then challenge their ideas with deeper “whys.”
Curiosity
Perhaps the most common reason I see is that we will finally learn all the answers to the mysteries of science and the universe. Finally, all math, science, medicine, and other mysteries will finally be solved, including the infinite numbers of problems we have not even thought of yet, or that will be discovered by the neural networks.
This appeals to the curious minds, and is mainly why AI proponents also happen to be scientists because such tend to have a higher curiosity on average, or at least want to know the answers to riddles and problems. Want to know if we can build a mini black hole in the Hadron super-collider? You probably do not, but many scientists are compelled to know to the point of actually testing the idea while risking sucking in the entire earth, even if the risk of it happening seems fairly small. They just have to know, or perhaps win a prize.
Of course, building AI also fulfills the unquenchable thirst for knowledge among scientific and business minded. Who is not interested in a computer that knows the answer to every question ever posed and can create unlimited wealth?
But, the question is, does knowing the answer to everything actually make our world measurably better? If so, prove it to me. In some sense, knowing everything may lead to disappointment and boredom. Having mysteries keeps people busy and motivated.
Solving Societal Problems & Improved Technology:
Scientists want to create better technology, and businessmen want to distribute them, but to what end?
Will we look back and think how much we suffered in a world before a pizza would appear in front of us in less than 1 minute?
Even if we embed advance computing abilities into our minds, I am not sure why this is good or useful. So, I can instantly calculate pi to a quadrillion spaces, chat with 1000 people at once, digest all of Wikipedia in a few minutes. Now what?
Okay, let’s talk about real problems then like poverty, as if that many people are actually working on that on a regular basis. Well, the growth of capitalism and cheap borrowing costs (low interest rates) are the two most likely culprits over the last few decades:
Sure, then there’s inequality, but that is a slippery slope. Besides, if AI and machines promise a rapid increase in wealth and comfort, I am not sure anyone at will complain; in fact, no one at all perhaps.
Surely there are other real problems. Considering that car crashes are one of the top causes of death, let’s look at that. Although I still think it’s significant, most people could care less if a reduction in car crashes reduce the risk of death, by a mere 0.01% / year. That leaves the other largest causes of death: disease and suicide.
Considering diseases are on pace to be wiped out here in the near future, and life extension is commonly predicted to start this decade which includes reversal of many common diseases like cancer and heart disease, it seems like diminishing returns shortly. So, okay, I will admit, there’s still some decent room to progress in health, but if most end within 20 years (including mental health) with the help of nano machines, then what problems do we have other than those caused by our own poor behavior?
Pleasure
So if suffering is a problem that is rapidly disappearing, and likely to be gone this century, that only leaves one alternative: more pleasure. Unlimited, always heading up, pleasure.
Countless technologies from plastic surgery to computer-brain interfaces typically start as a way to help suffering people (needs), but in the end, most people use it for fun (wants), and I mean most people. I hear technophiles constantly talking about using “AI for solving problems,” but do not see much care or interest from ordinary people.
The long term seems rather clear to me: either the what is defined as “suffering” will be increasingly raised (cue that hovercraft rider in Walle dropping his drink, with robots picking it up), or most problems will be solved soon, excluding bad government and poor human behavior. Then what?
Ray Kurzweil, the most well-known futurist, points out a few non-conventional benefits of AI that he looks forward to, as brains merge with AI and bodies are maintained via nanobots.
Better looks: Do you know what some top models main complaint is? They never think they look good enough compared to someone else. Give some people millions of dollars to spend on plastic surgery, and they will surely find a way to spend it all. I just dont see this being a realistic goal. Unhappy people tend to stay unhappy.
Better intelligence such as music abilities: I asked my kids what it would mean if they could suddenly play any instrument, and song, instantly. They did not care. Part of the fun is the learning process, knowing that you have achieved some difficult goal, and others recognize it too making it meaningful. Once effort is removed, you might as well just listen to recorded music. Likewise, why would I want to see every piece of art ever made via my brain-computer connection just because I like art? It seems that a limit on the human mind is no worse or less pleasurable than the AI -brain version. Besides, it’s just pleasure.
Talking to our dead relatives: Sure, many people wish they could reactivate memories of deceased love ones, but the rest of us go on with life. Besides, no AI -generated simulation of our ancestor would be real, so it’s just deceptive to me anyways. Considering in 100 years, death will be all but gone, this is something that will serve very few people anyways.
There is no reason to think that more pleasure or ease makes people happier either. Charlie Munger recently pointed out that during the Great Depression, people were far more happier, satisfied, and respectful to each other than in recent times, times in which we have been richer than ever.
AI and Love
Now, I have not really heard anyone suggesting that we use AI to increase positive human behavior and emotions like love, which is kind of odd. I guess either that is not a priority, or something that few have thought about, even if it is not feasible anytime soon. But if love is the ultimate purpose of life, why isn’t that the main goal of AI development?
I think that only geeks like us really care about super intelligence because when I recently asked my wife what she thought if she could be super-intelligent, she said she could care less.
This also reflects the reality that computing today does not necessarily make people smarter as it’s commonly assumed. For all I know 90%+ of internet use is entertainment or social, which brings up another potential problem with the idea that AI will make us smarter.
There May Even Be a Bigger Risk to More Powerful AI: Dumber Us
Is it possible that as computers get smarter, that we are actually heading the opposite direction?
How would this be possible? Perhaps because the demand for intelligence naturally decreases as computers get smarter, replacing that demand on people. I have written elsewhere that the decreased demand for a growing society, including intelligence, may lead to a decay or collapse of human society.
To support this assertion, IQ rates in Western countries have been declining for the last 1 1/2 decades. It does make me wonder how much of that is due to computers and the rise of the internet. Of course, even if you attempt to use the internet primarily for learning, realize there is little or no correlation between increasing your data or “fact” consumption with knowledge, truth, and wisdom.
So, although I am curious about the unknown questions that AI might be able to answer (ignoring the great risk I fear from it), I think life’s problems can be solved without AI, more enjoyably, and a great growth in power will likely lead to even more excess. More importantly, if love is the most important thing in life, we should be focusing a lot more on that problem, but that’s much harder because it cannot be solved by business nor technology.
The biggest missed point about the Holocaust, and other similar events, is that it was the expression of technological super forces. Without advanced technology, it is impossible to so cleanly and efficiently eliminate large populations.
Should we think the future is any safer with super-technology? Not as long as someone or something is in charge of the levers–not that it seems reasonable to let it run itself either.
The belief in end of war is a myth. I have demonstrated this elsewhere, but in short, violence committed from war has actually increased when looking at all documented cases of war over several hundred, then drawing a linear regression line. Sure, endless pleasure might somehow substitute war, but that’s another problem.
Technological Growth will Therefore Tend Towards Risk (unsafety), While Increasingly Restrict (safety) to Attempt to Prevent Chaos
If you think gun control is hotly debated, just wait until we can simply think up and even produce a weapon much more powerful than a mere gun. Thought control will therefore be a necessity for civilization to survive in the future. So, as tech empowers everyone, more controls will be needed to block the risks. Cue, the Borg from Star Trek.
Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
Dune
Pandora’s Box is Full of 0’s and 1’s
If there is one thing we can be sure of about technology it is this:
Technology magnifies all human behavior, good or evil.
Author
” Reason and the impulse to objectify truth are illusory masks for cultural power.”
So, while we like to think that the search for scientific truth is obvious and natural, the reality is, in today’s world, those who control science, and its child technology, rule economically. The most successful companies today are mostly in the most cutting edge technology, or use such technology in their operations (even Walmart is incredibly high tech). By this, we can conclude that there is a race for technology because it is valuable. Social science would state this in similar terms:
The pursuit of Science is a cultural mask for power
Unknown
Freedom of speech, empowerment, and education Is there anyone in the United States that does not want more of these for themselves or people living in other countries? The idea of freedom, as set by the American founding was perhaps the most revolutionary idea since the dawn of civilization.
And on one hand, it continues to accelerate. With the leveraging and connecting speed of the internet and social media, anyone can be a leader overnight, amassing a large following. In theory, any of these virtual nobody’s could become the next President.
But, in case you have not noticed, there is a always a counter-pressure for such voices, often top down.
Education: Everyone needs more education. Technology will deliver it
Freedom of speech: The 2nd amendment gives people the freedom to speak, and we think everyone deserves to speak their mind without govt. intervention, otherwise we call it censorship. Is there a global company today that doesn’t want a greater market share in countries like China? Many would suggest that countries like China and North Korea are backward, but perhaps there is another view.
Empowerment: The first two (freedom, education) are just smaller parts of what you could call “empowerment” but for short, it can simply be referred to as increasing “power.”
The Battle Between Absolute Freedom and Absolute Control
When complete freedom for the individual is obtained, and as long as people make poor decisions, chaos is the most likely outcome.
Most people believe that freedom of speech is essential. We want more freedom of speech in countries like China, and North Korea. Most also find it repressive if governments limit the press:
2018 Press Freedom Index
However, if the press
people speak negatively of another group of people, then it is considered harassment, and can even lead to physical harm.
“Values that emphasize the creativity, autonomy, and priority of human beings are misplaced. There is no universal humanity since every culture constitutes its own reality. Groups must empower themselves to assert their own values and to take their placer with other planetary species. “
To detail the coming risks to humanity brought about by rapidly advancing technologies.
To show the growing effects and risks already occurring today on society, as well as project these risks into the future.
To search for possible solutions
To give you greater knowledge to choose your path in the future
Many books, articles, and voices continue to debate the merits of advanced technologies such as AI (or AGI), robotics, nanotech, biotech, and other civilization-altering technologies. Most such discussions center on technological risks, whereas this is written primarily to discuss the growing real risks to human society; that is it does not directly wipe us out through some extinction event, but rather, it does so indirectly through the subtle weaknesses in each one of us on a grand scale we call society. Like 9 of the 11 largest civilizations that have ever existed, we are more likely to destroy ourselves from within than from without (the barbarians) [Will Durant]. If civilization is failing, then it is likely that either few are noticing it, or if they are, they are doing nothing about it.
There are probably a few initial responses to these claims, and using a metaphor:
Me: Humanity is about to be destroyed, and is actually slowly underway.
Person 1: There is no risk now, and there may never be a risk (denial)
Person 2: There is risk, but someone else will figure it out (laissez-faire)
Person 3: The risk is there, but we cannot do anything about it (apathetic/fatalist)
Person 4: The risk is there, but not that bad (imprudent).
Personally, I hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
To avoid discussing the mounting risks issues at hand is to be indifferent to the exponentially growing risks already well underway. this book will demonstrate such trends and predict future outcomes.
As technological changes and risks accelerate exponentially, so do changes and risks in society.
This was challenging to write as I am a parent who is self-employed and who homeschools his children. I read on topics of economics, social science, politics, and civilization. I also like to work to discover innovative methods to grow food without the use of machines. Other interests include attempting to solve any unanswered problem or question like, why do most cultures have similar mythological roots?
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Partners in Ecocide: Australia’s Complicity in the Uranium Cartel, by Venturino Giorgio Venturini in 1982 “In 1972 uranium producers from France, South Africa, Australia, Great Britain and Canada organized an international cartel to control the production and sale of uranium.”
Like most things in life, with every “pro” of technology, there is a “con,” and with every benefit, a risk or cost, even if it is not obvious. One of them infrequently discussed is the ability to perfect torture. There has been discussion though of an AI that overpowers humanity, causing all of humanity to live in an eternal hell, and while that is possible, it is indisputable that a person or government for example, could inflict eternal suffering on a captive person(s). This will discuss a few variations, potentially in phases, for perfecting such torture as technology “progresses” over time.
1. Precision Torture
Simply have an AI train on a person’s emotional response to some stimuli, and with “reinforcement training” the machine can develop the ability to generate instant, non-stop pain for its victim. Such a feedback loop can give real-time data to a machine that amplifies whatever pain works best on its victims. To date, a few studies state that brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex and insular cortex are connected to pain perception. In other words, reading brainwaves will allow users to perfect the fears and pains that are most “motivating” to a victim.
2. Simulated Pain
The next logical step in inflicting pain on a victim would be to have less mess and less work, simply causing imagined pain by activating pain neurons/networks/regions in the brain. Perhaps bypassing step 1 above is feasible. Such direct stimulation would make cause maximum pain with minimal effort, again, using instant biofeedback that is interpreted by AI. The reading of brain activity via electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) continues to improve with time, and as it does, so will the ability to cause more precise harm to those who wield its power in a harmful way.
A less direct route to inflicting pain on a victim would be to create a “perfect simulation in the mind indistinguishable from reality,” or in other words, “The Matrix,” but that approach seems more complex than the direct neuron stimulation approach. Whether government or rogue individuals, the potential to cause unimaginable suffering is real.
3. Direct Thought Extraction
Simply gaining intel, or knowledge, from a target may be the actual goal of most torture, so perhaps simply to read their brain waves. In this scenario, torture is not needed. This is probably seen as the “nicest” form of torture since no pain is needed. Yet, theft of one’s thoughts may be the greatest form of a dystopian future that can be imagined. With the ability to steal thoughts, the safety to think, and freedom to choose would be eliminated. We would become products of society or whoever held technological power over us.
This does negate a large swatch of population that would still want to inflict pain on its targets to gain control, revenge, or some other selfish motive. Methods 1 and 2 still seem just as likely even if direct thought extraction becomes feasible, but it can get worse…
3. Perfect, Eternal Torture & Suffering
The worst part of all this is that “anti-aging tech” if it arrives as many currently believe, will allow a person to inflict maximum pain on someone else indefinitely while ensuring the person never dies. The idea of Hell may soon become a real possibility right here on earth, applied to whomever is an unfortunate target of war/crime.
As mentioned previously, some have worried that such “perfected torture” could be carried out by an out-of-control AI that has trapped all of humanity, which is possible, but I am more concerned about the undebatable historical reality of people doing similar things to other people on a realistic level. Is there any question at all that some people, or governments, will do this to others given the chance? There is no theory here only truth.
Question: Is Technology Worth it for the Masses if Even One Person is Subject to Perfect, Eternal Torture?
Some might say yes, but what if it is ten people? or 1,000 people? or 1,000,000’s? Drawing lines is one of the most difficult tasks for people in my experience. It is why so many small problems grow into unstoppable, monumental ones. I do not think a single life is worth it. Is the answer clearer if the person being tortured was your own? Now empathy brings on new meaning. The ability to perfect torture begs the question of perfecting technology to the point that it can measure and inflict pain on a person.
Of course, the idea of “ending technology” as does not work because someone else will continue to develop it, so defense against others is necessary. Likewise, on the extreme end of techno-anarchy, it proposes that the only way to survive is to smash every last bit of technology, essentially returning to life as foragers, since any attempt to preserve technology would inevitably progress back to “advanced AI.” If we must have advanced technology to protect ourselves from evil, then might it be possible that complete accountability of populations will occur, self-governing of course? That seems like asking if we can get rid of all crime. Probably not.
The need for intervention from a higher power suddenly seems to make sense in the face of the coming ability to generate perfect, eternal, torture by other people.
![OC] Countries with the highest percentage of the population being obese in the G20 : r/dataisbeautiful](https://preview.redd.it/or21w54t0yk71.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=f8d9b4e147a3111b0b2e73cb10336e19ae5bdeec)
