Technology

It seems that you start with the assumption that humanity is destined for a post scarcity utopia

I'm not. Apologies if I was unclear, but I was specifically referencing the fact that you were saying AI was going to accelerate to the point that it replaces human labor, and I was simply stating that I would prefer a world in which human labor is not required for humans to survive, and we can simply pursue other passions, if such a world where to exist, as a result of what you claim is happening with AI. You claimed AI will get so good it replaces all the jobs. Cool, I would enjoy that, because I don't believe that jobs are what gives human lives meaning, and thus am fine if people are free to do other things with their lives.

Or perhaps it’s because you refuse to admit to yourself that your original comment was ill-considered, and thus you are forced to spout this nonsense in order to protect yourself from the emotional ramifications of admitting you may have misjudged the relative harm of nuclear weapons as compared to AI.

The automation of labor is not even remotely comparable to the creation of a technology who's explicit, sole purpose is to cause the largest amount of destruction possible.

Could there hypothetically be an AI model far in the future, once we secure enough computing power, and develop the right architecture, that technically meets the definition of AGI, (however subjective it may be) that then decides to do something to harm humans? I suppose, but that's simply not looking to be likely in any way, (and I'd love if you could actually show any data/evidence proving otherwise instead of saying "it just is" when claiming it's more dangerous) and anyone claiming we're getting close (e.g. Sam Altman) just simply has a vested financial interest in saying that AI development is moving quicker and at a higher scale than it actually is.

Regardless, it’s frustrating to watch you spin this web of sophistry instead of simply acknowledging that you were mistaken.

It’s not so bad to be wrong sometimes, just think of it as an opportunity to learn and become smarter.

It's called having a disagreement and refuting your points. Just because someone doesn't instantly agree with you doesn't mean that I'm automatically mistaken. You're not the sole arbiter of truth. Judging from how you, three times now, have assumed that I must be secretly suppressing the fact that AI is actually going to do more damage than nuclear bombs, just because I disagree with you, it's clear that you are the one making post-hoc justifications here.

You are automatically assuming that because I disagree, I actually don't disagree, and must secretly believe the same thing as you, but am just covering it up. Do not approach arguments from the assumption that the other person involved is just feigning disagreement, or you will never be capable of even considering a view other than the one you currently hold.

I sincerely hope that you did not utilize AI to assist in writing that wall of text.

The fact you'd even consider me possibly using AI to write a comment is ridiculous. Why would I do that? What would I gain? I'm here to articulate my views, not my views but only kind of, without any of my personal context, run through a statistical probability machine.