They did find it though, and then AI took it away from them.

> But I've also worked with plenty of people for whom their job and their overall identity are inexorably intertwined.

Is that an argument for or against jobs? Because one way to look at it is that they didn't develop a personality and identity at all, because they just attached themselves to a job. When that inevitably ends anyway, sooner or later, one way or another, a deep pit of nothing. That's one reason to rip the bandaid off right away.

But IMO even more importantly, how much room do people who do what the environment tells them, who let their job tell them who they are, have for inner dialogue? The worst things in the world were and are enabled by people "just doing their job", and if they have no identity outside of their job, there's someone just following orders waiting to happen. So from what would distress them, being rid of a crutch and an ear piece where a person would otherwise grow, follows that it is in their and all of our best interest to pay no mind to it.

Their new job will be to get a life and become a person. Maybe someone can print out some papers that make it look official, and they can get a monthly letter telling them they earned N personality dollars this month, good job, keep it up, thanks, company.

> what force would continue to drive you even after your kids have grown up and there's nothing of value you can do for another human?

Building things I'm interested in with and for people I care about. That might look like code or gardening or relationships or all sorts of things. There's so much to do. So many things to want to get out of bed for, and for the days when there aren't, slow cozy mornings are nice too.

Why do you suppose there will be nothing of value you can do for another human just because the machines are better/faster at most things? Just caring about someone without being programmed to will seem to become quite the most valuable thing?

Outside of work I am a hobby brewer, I have a lot of home maintenance that needs doing, and landscaping that uses up a lot of my time.

Give me stability and no job, I'm still going to be a busy person.

These things have value and satisfaction for me.

Yeah I'm sure you're right, it's just used as a "Meanwhile, somewhere with a different take on how this could all play out...."

TBH I was just looking for an excuse to share that link because the stupidity on display there has blown my mind.

I've been thinking along similar lines recently. It seems to me that the earlier form of nonhuman intelligence is a corporation (or any group which is not under one individual's control.) Each person following their own incentives can result in emergent behavior where the corporation follows its own incentives. If we can't reliably "align" corporations, and corporations create AI, will AI be aligned as well?

It's not totally disconnected, though. A corporation is constrained by what its members are willing to do. I read that the reason Gemini has fallen behind is because Googlers have been quitting over Google's DoD contract. Conversely, if engineers are willing to work hard for you, you can go far. I suspect this is behind both Anthropic's success and also Tesla/SpaceX.

On mobile about half my screen is ads. Love that I get downvoted for not wanting to be bombarded with the enshittified web.

I think you've entirely missed what I'm trying to say.

If your objective is to expend as little energy as possible, it would be irrational to expand into space - that's a waste of effort.

If your objective is to experience as much of Earth as possible, it would be irrational to expand beyond the solar system - there's nothing there that could aid experiencing Earth.

If your objective is to exterminate all life on Earth, it would be irrational to leave the planet - everything you need to accomplish your objective is right here.

"rationality" is when you understand the impact of your own choices. "irrationality" is when you act in a way counter to your own goals, due to misunderstanding or lack of self-control. Whether one is rational or irrational is entirely separate from what their goals are.

Creating a non-human intelligence necessarily means it might have non-human goals. It is absolutely not the case that those goals would require leaving the planet, or be optimally accomplished by leaving the planet.

In other words, being intelligent does not mean somehow being interested in the same things intelligent humans are often interested in. Your argument is critically flawed because it assumes that only certain goals are "rational goals", when in reality an intelligent being could have any objective, including objectives that are alien to most humans.

I completed a 6-month course at the Word Police Academy in Scranton with top grades. I am fully licensed.

"Eschatological" is extremely obscure, and the vast majority of readers will not understand what is being said. I've seen the word in the wild probably on two occasions in my entire life.

Plus, "doomsday" doesn't need to be synonymous. This particular post was exactly referring to an obsession with doomsday scenarios. The aspects of eschatology relating to afterlife, judgement, salvation, and so on, were not at all the point.

Yes... poor 6 always gets left out.

We're like 3 years into these things being able to write a coherent sentence and you're finding comfort that only some people are dating these systems?