From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 06:32:27 MST
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 09:24:24PM -0500, Nathanael Allison wrote:
>
> I think for some reason people are not reading or responding to things I
> post. Makes me wonder why, especially with all this ad hominem talk.
Someone once remarked that the best posts never got replies - everybody
agrees, and don't feel up to responding in kind. The worst posts cause
flames or an embarrased silence. And the mediocre just roll on.
> Will people all across the world start to feel powerless? Already I
> question the amount of impact one person can really make in the world.
> I often wonder if these great technologies such as AI and nanotech
> will make a "power elite" in the world. That the people that
> understand and control these technologies will have the real political
> power. 1)that these will decide who has the military and economic
> superiority 2) that these people will be able to use these
> technologies directly to give themselves even more power
Reminds me a bit of the discussion in
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/31/knowledge/index.html But as
he points out, it is very much a cultural thing. One of the more
interesting things one can learn from the failure of marxist thought and
the study of social psychology, is how much the power distribution in a
society does not hinge on material factors. The real issue is whether
any new technologies would empower elites to a greater extent than
ordinary people. Information technology does not seem to have that
effect.
> Did previous technologies create a power elite group? I would have to
> say that the few people who knew how to build a nuke in 1945 could
> have had substantial power if they didn't already. Although the
> nuclear technology didn't make that big of an impact in nonmilitary
> areas. Also the nuclear technology in no way could be used to directly
> benefit an individual.
How much power could Oppenheimer, Sakarov and Teller really wield? None
of them could have made themselves president. The answer seem to be that
their knowledge just gave them some leverage in terms of connecting with
the elite, and the power of the elite was not increased tremendously
even by nuclear weapons (the power distance of people in the US hardly
increased during the postwar period; maybe the worldwide power distance
did increase).
> I fear that the world could enter a stage where a small percentage of
> people less than .1% could control over 99% of the world. 1) only the
> elite will be given the latest upgrades, nano machines
Given by who? Are you not making a lot of hidden assumptions about what
kind of society this happens in? I suggest that you try to spell out the
assumed background society, then we can start analysing whether this
will happen or whether the society itself is likely to come about.
> 2) only the elite will be able to control AI to any extent
Will be able or will be allowed? Again, the Salon article makes a good
point about current security paranoia and educational failures pushing
towards elitism. But again, we have to look at underlying assumptions
about the nature of the society and elite to really be able to say
whether this is likely or not (or good/bad).
> Eventually all jobs will be of the advanced technologies performed by the
> highest AI systems those may or may not incorporate human minds.
Do you think a super AI finds cleaning floors fun? And how much does it
want in salary?
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 06:35:48 MST