differences in intelligence will continue to be the distinguishing factor between those who succeed and those who do not. AI will not usurp the mechanism so simply. The most intelligent humans will be the first to implement transhumanist strategies and the most capable at the helm of the AI model.
Suppose a benevolent singularity attempts to optimize for human QOL in the long term and a malignant singularity disregards human QOL in the long term. The first benevolent singularity will need to suppress malignant singularities in all cases. Thus a benevolent singularity that doesn't disregard short term human QOL in some cases is effectively a malignant singularity, assuming that failing to disregard human QOL in the short term introduces the possibility of a malignant singularity arising.
“It is actually sad there are so many people but the only ones capable of making all of the technological progress can probably fit into the last picture. ‘
Not sure I agree with your utopian 80 million people number, but regardless of quibbling over a few million more or less, the real issue is quality of the people remaining in your proposed utopian vision. You hint at that with your comment regarding “living with low quality” people (presumed until appropriate population level achieved).
Population reduction seems meaningless until we first discover how to make “high quality” people. What’s making the world a gawd awful place to live in today are low quality people, or in Woodley’s terminology “spiteful mutants”. Not necessarily too many people. If we don’t reverse this trend—and soon—they’ll be no high quality people left to populate and run your proposed ideal world or for that matter run the current world.
This tells me nothing. First, the top 20% gives us 1.6B people, not 80M or even 800M. But that’s assuming elimination. Let’s assume we don’t go that route. Can we tell who’s who, I.e., destined for citizenship in this brave new world—prior to birth? How? And of course, we’d need to segregate them and raise them and hope a few billion other folk accepted such.
Again, I asked how. Three parts (at least) to a potential answer. The definition of a high quality person, the technique to find or produce them, and then the implementation of populating society at your desired level with these type of people. You given little to no thought here? I find that hard to believe.
Take it easy man
This is so silly, it's like a little kid writing a fiction story
Anyone describing the contemporary world to someone from 100 years ago would have seemed like a little kid writing fiction.
differences in intelligence will continue to be the distinguishing factor between those who succeed and those who do not. AI will not usurp the mechanism so simply. The most intelligent humans will be the first to implement transhumanist strategies and the most capable at the helm of the AI model.
Suppose a benevolent singularity attempts to optimize for human QOL in the long term and a malignant singularity disregards human QOL in the long term. The first benevolent singularity will need to suppress malignant singularities in all cases. Thus a benevolent singularity that doesn't disregard short term human QOL in some cases is effectively a malignant singularity, assuming that failing to disregard human QOL in the short term introduces the possibility of a malignant singularity arising.
“It is actually sad there are so many people but the only ones capable of making all of the technological progress can probably fit into the last picture. ‘
Not sure I agree with your utopian 80 million people number, but regardless of quibbling over a few million more or less, the real issue is quality of the people remaining in your proposed utopian vision. You hint at that with your comment regarding “living with low quality” people (presumed until appropriate population level achieved).
Population reduction seems meaningless until we first discover how to make “high quality” people. What’s making the world a gawd awful place to live in today are low quality people, or in Woodley’s terminology “spiteful mutants”. Not necessarily too many people. If we don’t reverse this trend—and soon—they’ll be no high quality people left to populate and run your proposed ideal world or for that matter run the current world.
It's quite easy to identify the bottom 80%. Top 1 in 5 isn't a very high bar.
This tells me nothing. First, the top 20% gives us 1.6B people, not 80M or even 800M. But that’s assuming elimination. Let’s assume we don’t go that route. Can we tell who’s who, I.e., destined for citizenship in this brave new world—prior to birth? How? And of course, we’d need to segregate them and raise them and hope a few billion other folk accepted such.
top 10% is also not that hard. top 1% is a little harder. an ASI could probably figure it out
Again, I asked how. Three parts (at least) to a potential answer. The definition of a high quality person, the technique to find or produce them, and then the implementation of populating society at your desired level with these type of people. You given little to no thought here? I find that hard to believe.
The AI wouldn't have any practical need to cultivate high quality people but perhaps it could be aligned that way from the get-go.