6/26/2026 at 6:14:14 PM
> In other words, with log utility it is optimal to take a 1 in 3 chance of ending human existence in exchange for a 2/3 chance of dramatically raising living standards by a factor of 55.With no evidence that living standards raise by much if any. "Abundance" is macro hand-waving. Existence of AI is not in isolation from all other factors on earth as well. AI will not increase the quantity of enjoyable housing, will not lower the costs of energy, will slightly temporarily increase calorie productivity of agriculture but not nutritional productivity and will not replenish soil, will not improve environmental degradation of soil, air, water, and so on. We'll drown in more plastic than ever. People might do things to improve abundance but probably won't any more than they do today, for usual reasons of convenience and profit.
by quantified
6/26/2026 at 6:23:01 PM
A machine that can perfectly selectively weed eliminating the need for herbicides would be significant.by someperson
6/27/2026 at 7:10:11 PM
"The Turing Option" by Harry Harrison and Marvin Minsky.Sure, but it has to be at least noticeably less expensive per acre per year than chemicals. That gets you more organic food, but you need to replenish the soil and grow slower crops to get better nutrition. Our crops today in the USA have less nutritional value per calorie than those of 50 years ago due to selection of faster-growing/faster maturing varieties, and soil quality is yes a function of various -icides as well as other things, so somewhat more organic is better than not. I'm primarily observing that human behavior and competition is in the way of gains.
by quantified