This thread from user /u/theonlybutler is about agentic goals, power seeking is instrumental goal. It has nothing to do with human language being one way or another. Stop trying to fix nonsense with more nonsense.

No. The power seeking is not result of human language. It's instrumental goal.
I suggest you read something about AI and it's goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence

The reason, why agents seek power is to increase their fitness function. The power seeking is logical consequence of having a goal, it's not product of human language. You are writing nonsense...

>In humans for example, people with the highest intelligence tend to be more empathetic towards life itself and wants to preserve it.

That's such a bad take. Humans are evolved to cooperate and have empathy, AI is just optimizer, that will kill us all, because it needs our atoms.. unless we explicitly align it.

There is another take:

We are the last people, because AGI will kill us all.

The most amount of people alive at any given point is now. Statistically, you are most likely exist at the peak of human civilization.

Okay, with this post, the sub finally reached the bottom.

What is the movie, where the AI starts growing long machine-like black "tentacles" ? Really fast and large ones, can't remember which movie it was

There is Chrome extension, to rename all "OpenAI" mentions to "ClosedAI". It's open source

>Proof of real intelligence?

What is "real intelligence" ?

It is, what it is, Sometimes, it's amazing and sometimes it's "real" garbage.

Quite the opposite, the era just before AI is invented is perfect for simulation. It's the most interesting era in human history. Once AI is invented, humans will not be the ones doing all the progress, they will just watch AI do everything better.

As to, who is simulated and who isn't, that's separate issue. Personally, I chose to treat everyone as equal to me. But I disagree, that just because homeless people exists, the simulation hypothesis is false.

I don't see how solipsism is relevant in any way here. It's completely unrelated philosophical issue

No

Every universe that allows technological civilization will contain many simulations. Therefore, there will be more simulations, than real universes.

You can't compare infinities like that. The infinite sets have different elements, so it's not mathematically correct to say that they are same size, or that probability in landing in any of them is equal.

More importantly, as far as we know, infinities exists only in mathematics - you are creating additional strong assumption here.

The simulation hypothesis only needs very weak assumptions compared to Multiverse AND infinite number of sub-universes

Simulation hypothesis has place in philosophy, whether or not you find it "practical".

The most convincing argument, is that every Universe that allows technological progress will ultimately contain billions (or more) simulations and therefore the probability that, this world is simulation is very high, compared to "real" Universe.

Multiverse hypothesis does not change the probabilities of us being in simulation. Every Universe where technological civilization is possible, will also have billions (or more) simulations. Simulations are natural product of computation.

>Sort of an aside, but I wanted to get ahead of the "we could live in the
matrix already" people as if I haven't deeply probed that question...
heh.

You didn't really address the argument. I am sorry, but you can't remove arguments, by simply mentioning them.

Nothing in laws of physics says, that this "reality" cannot be fully simulated at human perception resolution. Why can't there be large scale simulations with billions of people and be meaningful ? To me, I think there is lack of imagination in saying "All possible VR's are not meaningful"

>VR is just a other meaningless, more advanced entertainment system

It's just lack of imagination to say, that all possible VR's are meaningless.

As I've said, we probably live in simulation right now, and I would say it's not the only meaningful simulation possible.

We most likely live in simulation, so what you define as real - is probably another VR. That makes your whole argument actually pro-VR.

For the VR's that we going to create soon...

Even AI will be constrained by laws of physics. You cannot slow/speed up time, you can't travel faster than speed of light. Lot of experiences are extremely dangerous in real world. They can also be expensive and polluting environment.

Finally, I don't see why we can't have both. It's not competition. Balanced life will probably consist of some VR time and some this-simulation time.

Absolutely not.

Hardware is very messy and it makes no economical sense. You will just order from Amazon, which will have state-of-the-art 3D printers.

Tried to join the waitlist. Works now

Error happened while submitting your request. Please try again later.Error happened while submitting your request. Please try again later.

Join simulation, in the historical time just before the singularity, when the humans are still relevant, but can also experience the onramp of AI and leverage it. Oh wait.

Let people be the judge of what is "monumentally important" or what should they get "in their brain". Write your post, without all that grandiosity and self-importance. I've read posts, that were 1000x times more interesting/novel/profound and none of them started with, how "monumentally important" the post is going to be.

Everyone thinks, his/her post is important. You really do not need to sound like a crack-pot, wannabe prophet (your words).

I scanned the post and there is nothing new. Just points, that are reiterated here million times. Just reduce the grandiosity and self-importance by like 90%.