"Humanity is Running Out of Time" Ex Google CEO

AI will benefit humanity in long run, I think. I cant really imagine any great catastrophe happening unless someone becomes stupid enough to give AI control over nukes.

Really, you should be celebrating that AI will make a lot of jobs much easier, and it will also create new jobs. the job of supervising AI is one new type of job, where human worker supervises so that AI doesnt screw up.

We are running out of time to annihilate AI, he is right for the opposite reason.

GG...Do you think that regression is a workable universal strategy?...Luddites tend to make a temporary noise and fuss, but never halt progress.

Ebuc...In the long term would it really matter if there were only 8 million human inhabitants of Planet Earth rather than 8 billion...Though I'm guessing that for some time to come AI will rely upon human dexterity to be able to achieve it's universal ambitions.

Of course, such ideas are based upon an inherent notion of intellectual uniqueness...And we may be right, or we may be very wrong...We and/or AI will have to wait and see if anything else eventually rocks up....Of course, we and/or AI might eventually rock up somewhere else...Unfortunately though, it is unlikely that neither Ebuc, Me or GG will be around to find out...But here's hoping

Ebuc...In the long term would it really matter if there were only 8 million human inhabitants of Planet Earth rather than 8 billion...Though I'm guessing that for some time to come AI will rely upon human dexterity to be able to achieve it's universal ambitions.

All events { action/cause } have reactions/responses > Resultants/Consequences > repeat eternally in eternaly existent, dynamic, finite, occupied space Universe @.

Hi Sarge, I did not finnish the Ex CEO vid and I forget the time lines { if any } he gave AI becoming an issue beyond return for humanity.

8 billion humans is too many for an ecologically sustainable 8 billiong humans, via the the operational systems we have in place now for most countries

Of course, such ideas are based upon an inherent notion of intellectual uniqueness...And we may be right, or we may be very wrong...We and/or AI will have to wait and see if anything else eventually rocks up....Of course, we and/or AI might eventually rock up somewhere else...Unfortunately though, it is unlikely that neither Ebuc, Me or GG will be around to find out...But here's hoping.

Agreed We wait and, however, there are people in the know, that, have some decission power to steer AI in a direction that limits the chances that it can lead to destruction of humanity via this that or some other.

AI could give humanity many optional scenarios, that, ---as Bucky like to state--- ' make the world work '.

.." Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."... - Martin Luther King Jr.

In the long term would it really matter if there were only 8 million human inhabitants of Planet Earth rather than 8 billion

To get to 8 million, first you have to kill 8 billion people, that would really matter.

8 billion humans is too many for an ecologically sustainable

Really? By what statistics? The total landmass of Earth is 149M km^2. We are 8B in population. Imagine if all 8B migrated to live on what is current, active agricultural land, about 58M km^2 [39% of Earth's total landmass, not including the added 10M km^2 arable land [capable of agriculture, but currently idle]. That is impractical, but just to make the point, imagine that migration. That leaves 91M km^2 of land totally void of human population, even our current urban area [3M km^2]. 58M km^2 is the equivalent of 1.8 acres of land for each of 8B of us [1.8 acres = 78,408 sq. ft.] Each person can survive annually with a vegetable/fruit garden of 400 sq ft.

The math says there's plenty of room by landmass for 8B people. We do not have a population problem. Our problem is poor land management and use. Our problem is greed.

Fine Faux.

But the question is, of what use are 8 billion people to an advanced intelligence.

In fact, of what use are 8 billion people, that demand far more than just food and water.

Isn't unchecked species proliferation, the real greed you speak.

The math says there's plenty of room by landmass for 8B people. We do not have a population problem. Our problem is poor land management and use. Our problem is greed.

I iagree greed is a problem as well as operating systems in place for that greed of humanity, above logical, common sense critical thinking, and I believe AI can used properly can help us, as I laid out clearly.

If you think its only about square area of land mass then your not considering that most of the Earth is ocean, not land.

Your not considering the actions of humanity are affecting our oceans and biologic life in them.

I think there is much you do not consider as being significant.

of what use are 8 billion people, that demand far more than just food and water.

Well, I happen to think humanity is the root of innovation because few other living species on Earth have high tech, which has, all things considered, improved life expectancy, let alone created A.I. We are of tremendous value to ourselves.

Isn't unchecked species proliferation, the real greed you speak.

No, it isn't. Greed is the effort of those who can to purposefully limit human proliferation to the end that "more for me" is the desired result. One of the three fundamental sins, from which all others derive, is possession. The other two are pride and power. You willl note that it was just these three sins boy which Satan tempted Christ, and failed. Sin is the deliberate attempt to limit the fundamental right of man to exist, thrive, and produce. All living organisms naturally seek reproduction, and only unnaturally pursue its limitation.

your not considering that most of the Earth is ocean, not land.

No, I am not ignorant of the fact that water exceeds land mass on Earth, and there is purpose in that because fresh water is a basic life requirement, not just for man. We have the technology to make fresh water from ocean water, or other water that cannot be called "fresh," so, its abundance was always necessary and is necessary for life on other planets in greater abundance than land for supporting a population. And we do and have proven that we can survive for long periods underwater - demonstrated at least by Jacques Cousteau, whom I met in France in 1969 and who had underwater labs and living spaces on the Mediterranean offshore Marseille about 30m deep and later Nice about 100m deep.

We are of tremendous value to ourselves.

Well, unless there is an ulterior motive, I would say that being of tremendous value to ourselves is basically greed.

Though I do always promote the idea of a greater universal purpose, of which we might be integral players...Nonetheless, I still question whether we actually need 8 billion players.

Okay, so we do because we are inherently greedy and selfish survivalists...I do realise that...And for sure, how many numpties does it take to create a genius to create AI....Sort of a logical evolutionary strategy I suppose.

Though a question has just sprung to mind Faux:

If there was an omnipotent GOD, a la the bible , why would it need us to sort out the universe?

Which helps to confirm my suspicions that deistic GODS are simply analogical... Naively representing the various necessities of evolution and eventual universal resurrection.

"I cant really imagine any great catastrophe happening unless someone becomes stupid enough to give AI control over nukes."

You really cant imagine that given all the things people trust govt to do. Also there is no limit to human stupidity. Those two combined make it almost a sure bet AI will be put in control of nukes.

I still question whether we actually need 8 billion players.

in that argument, "need" derives its assumed power on the basis of assuming we have limited resources. I maintain our resources are not limited; therefore, "need" does not impose limitation on population. or, rather, our stupid, but willful imposition of population packing in a heavily urban environment. We just do not "need" to live on top of one another, like rats, when 8B of us can occupy nearly 2 acres, each, and not occupy more than 39% of the landmass we have.

why would [God] need us to sort out the universe?

Simple, and two-fold answer:

1. Just because God is omnipotent does not mean he is compelled to act omnipotently 100% of the time. Do you always use all the power you have? No, you don't. Neither must he.
2. As #1 is true, we do not need God to do everything for us, and, in fact, he expects us to do more than we think we can simply because we exist to grow and progress to be more tomorrow than we are today to ultimately, in a glorious future day, become as God is now, while he continnues to progress further, himself. It's called eternal progression, and that is the road we're supposed to be on. Of course, we have the choice to be lazy and eternally dependent, but that's just entitlement, and God is not about that, at all, even though the universe is populated by such. Satan and his minions are members of that group, and they are going nowhere. We are not only here to populate Earth in mortality, but to populate stars in immortality. And we do that with eternally available resources by organization [some call it creation] of chaotic material and energy into orderly material and energy. It is the nature of God to duplicate himself by us, and us to duplicate ourselves by the same eternal progression,. That means God has a God to whom he owes alligiance, and that is an eternal cycle. it has always been so, and will always be so. That's what eternity is, forward, and back. Difficult for the finite mind to wrap itself around that, but that's the challenge. Go.

Go.

So actually on points 1 and 2 as you present them above, we are not so far apart.

Though you are a conditioned theist, whereas I am more of a pragmatist.

The conditioned theist does not, or cannot fully shake off the instilled notion of a magic man that demands devotion and ritual, whereas I see such behaviour as a naive but analogical hypothesis that originated and spread throughout the Middle East and beyond.

In my mind there isn't a magic mangod that demands devotion and ritual, but rather an inherent evolutionary principle that takes a universe from A to Z. It is omnipotent as such and might be said to demand devotion to the necessity of material progression in order to ensure Z to A, the moment of resurrection if you like.

Satan is simply an anti-mangod tale, that analogizes what we perceive to be negative events, but this is just a consequence of the intellectual minds ability to differentiate between positive progress and negative effects...And so the naivety of early thinking man, inevitably came up with the idea of Superman and his arch enemy.

So my initial question in this thread, wasn't to contest the ability of planetary resources to sustain 8 billion plus humans and their evolutionary demands, but rather to question whether the GOD principle actually requires 8 billion in order to ensure whatsoever it is we are expected to achieve...And by that I do not mean the thoughtful expectation of a sentient GOD, but rather the inevitability instilled within a progressive universe and the role we currently play, especially in the development of future technological progress. So, perhaps we will move on from this solar system and colonise the greater universe, or perhaps we will have created a more robust successor to take on this task...Who knows?

Nonetheless I'm guessing that if we do move on, it's unlikely that the journey will be undertaken by more than a very limited number of specialists.

Whatever happens between now and billions of years in the future, I further postulate that there isn't a sentient GOD that actually cares or even possesses the ability to care about the fate of humanity.

You really cant imagine that given all the things people trust govt to do. Also there is no limit to human stupidity. Those two combined make it almost a sure bet AI will be put in control of nukes.

Sure got that correct Sado. Thanks!

As well as corporations --aka money/financial-- rules humanity, not intellectual considerations of longer term survival.

Gov. rides on the tail of money dragon being whipped around. See Bucky Fullers book Gr.u.n.ch of the Giants

Faux seems to be in denial of humans ability for stupidity and that, there are many signs that humanity is destroying the ecological environment that sustains them.

I think Faux is stuck in some religious non-sense that humans are so special to his alledged God concept, that, humanity can reproduce without limit and God intends them to mass-reproduce and spread through out Universe because they are so special.

Humans are unique in their abillity to access meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego. Humans make errors and humanity is currently making errors ins how it is treating their ecological environment.

Humanity needs to get smart or perish here on Earth sooner, rather than later.

"I cant really imagine any great catastrophe happening unless someone becomes stupid enough to give AI control over nukes."

You really cant imagine that given all the things people trust govt to do. Also there is no limit to human stupidity. Those two combined make it almost a sure bet AI will be put in control of nukes.

Pretty much the plot of WarGames, an oldie but a goodie.

Sarge, just so were clear about the vid with Google ex CEO future views.

Humanity has had a view or many catastrophic occurrences, that, was horrific for various reasons --war{ several }, flu { 1918 }-- yet humanity has survived them. So later in vid the Ex Google CEO makes that clear. So his point being that, I believe, is that yes may more likely to have one these biologic or chemical or even nuclear horrors for some part of humanity, yet not all of humanity.

in my mind, what is differrent, is 2-fold:

1} hydrogen nuclear weapons ergo larger scale ionizing radiation in concert with nuclear plant power sources release of such,

2} erratic climate change, that, increases chances of the #1 above occurring, along with erratic climate change destruction of ecological systems, and that do sustain humans on Earth. Isnt there some old saying that its all connected?

What percentage of oceans eco-system can be lost without causing end ecological sustain-ability of humanity of any size?

There is lots of methane in bottom of the oceans underground.

AI..' Yes, there are massive amounts of methane trapped underground beneath the ocean floor

, stored in sediments and as ice-like methane hydrates, with much of it generated from decomposing organic matter or deep geological processes. This underground methane can escape through seafloor features called seeps (cold seeps, hydrothermal vents), forming underwater "pipelines" or bubbles that sustain unique ecosystems, though scientists are still studying how much reaches the atmosphere '..

And if that stuff was released into atmosphere, what is risk of explosive storms that set fire to Boreal forests in northern hemi-spheres, releasing more gases, not to mention how the perma-frost is melting and also release more methane and so on and so on around the planet. With such scenarios being possible, to think that cattle ranching --even for a few random humans-- will be feasible in Siberia and other places not currently to human agriculture........? ? ?

AI..' Yes, vast amounts of methane are trapped in and under Northern Hemisphere permafrost, stored as frozen organic matter and methane clathrates, which can be released as the ground thaws due to global warming, significantly impacting climate by releasing potent greenhouse gases. This methane comes from microbes decomposing organic material and geological sources, migrating through cracks and faults as permafrost warms '..

Do you think that in a billion years after the apocalypse, sentient dextrous intelligent birds would make a better job of things.

Do you think that in a billion years after the apocalypse, sentient dextrous intelligent birds would make a better job of things.

Depends on how we define ' better '. In no way do I think Avian Dinos could have the potential to as much damage to ecological environment humans have done, and humans potential to do in future short term future

cant wait

By your definition of "conditioned theist," no, that is not descriptive of me, at all. I am not a typical Catholic or Protestant, as both embrace the idea of original sin, which I believe is an absolute lie as it denies the atonement of Christ as effective to derrail that idea. Why else the atonement but to leave us responsible only for our own sins and not those of parents of any generation, including Adam & Eve. I accept God and Christ as perfect, physical, immoral beings, not merely as spirits. Mortal flesh is corrupt, but not immortal. I do not accept that the priesthood endured as a spiritual power beyond the first century C.E., but had to be restored to Earth due to the great apostasy that began in the generation of Christ. it did not endure from Peter, and I do not accept the he personifies "the rock" ofd the church. Read correctly, that discussion in Matthew 16, beginning with verse 15 when Jesus asked his apostles, "Whom say ye that I sm?" Peter replies, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." [v 16]. Jesus tells Peter flesh and blood did not reveal that knowledge to Peter, but the Father. Jesus acknowledges peter's name, but when read in Greek, his following is not that Peter is the rock, but revelation from God, and it is that upon which the church is built. Most of Christianity doesn't get it. The problem with the apostasy is that revelation stopped.

Well, if that wasn't a sermon from a conditioned theist, then what would be Faux?

Catholicism and Protestantism are just latter day club ideologies, generationally transferred, largely through the formative conditioning of 0 - 8 year olds. Hence the saying, teach your kids nonsense and they will grow up believing in nonsense.

You don't need to wear a specific club badge, to display all the characteristics of a conditioned theist.

So why did we evolve to be like that?

And why wouldn't a different species have evolved similarly?

Perhaps we were designed in the image of a clever stupid humanesque nutjob.

Perhaps we were designed in the image of a clever stupid humanesque nutjob.

That may very well be possible Sarge. We may be the result of some extra-terrestrials that were doing some experiments by nut-jobs, and our human RNA-DNA was intentionally or not, out into the greater Universe.

Who knows what goes on out there, over however many years of Universe's existence. The james webb telescope is finding galaxies, that should not exist in the early Universe, yet that is what the data is showing.

AI..' These findings, from programs like JADES, show galaxies forming faster and bigger than expected, with some acting as "sparkling islands" clearing cosmic fog, while others may host massive black holes, all reshaping ideas about early cosmic evolution '..

Basically these new much older galaxies being found by James Webb questions humans whole standard model understanding of evolution of Universe.

Here is utube of Galaxy existence only 210 million years after the alledged Big WOW! { what ever that actuall was }.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKE6ITlHDOI&t=123s

If I were Catholic or Protertant Christian, I might agree that would have been a "conditioned theist" sermon, through I disagree that they are any more conditioned than you are. That applicative description is an agnostic view, at best, and I keep that in mind. Any criticism you have of true Christianity is a jaded dismissal. So be it if that is your schtick.

Well, we are all conditioned Faux. You and I both.

And true we may share a lot of comparative data.

I am only guessing that formatively our programming was not so comparable though...Just a hunch.

And like I said, a club badge is not a necessary requirement of a sermonizer.

New much older galaxies is something of a contradiction.

Though we can only draw conclusions from the Earth's perspective.

So perhaps another civilisation within a "new older galaxy" has their super duper telescope up and running...Spots the Milky way and concludes a new older galaxy that should not exist.

So perhaps another civilisation within a "new older galaxy" has their super duper telescope up and running...Spots the Milky way and concludes a new older galaxy that should not exist.

I dunno that your presented scenario is valid. I would need some cosmologist/physcisists interpretation of you presented scenario to see if it of a valid feasabilty.

Appears to be good common sense approach, however, how logical and how much critical thinking is being used there, I cannot say, without more info of how cosmologist/physicist would view the feasibility of the scenario. Thanks for those thoughts Sarge.

Something to reasearch when I get time.

Yes, I just think it slightly arrogant to assume that human cosmological observations and assumptions are the only ones...Especially when it is widely assumed that life must exist elsewhere in the universe.