Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dalledoeswalle t1_iqvqjzt wrote

We have like 100,000 years of human history to draw from. Why do we think that general AI and all the other singularity topics are going to improve life for all humans on this planet? It’s also really odd to say life is better than it was in 2012. That largely depends on where you live. Half the world is starving. It’s way more likely all of these new technologies will be used like all the past new technologies to reinforce the power structures that exist and to further control the masses at the bottom.

−5

Clean_Livlng t1_iqw9ofp wrote

>It’s also really odd to say life is better than it was in 2012. That largely depends on where you live. Half the world is starving.

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty#historical-poverty-around-the-world

Thing were a lot worse in the past, it's a common misconception that things haven't got better. There's still a lot of work to be done in terms of ending poverty around the world, but people who aren't me have made massive improvements since 2012. I've just helping a little with protein folding research through folding@home for over a decade. I hope it's helped, but I don't know how much my small contribution has. Better than mining bitcoin anyway.

14

[deleted] t1_iqvzglp wrote

[deleted]

9

dalledoeswalle t1_iqwl09o wrote

Malaysia just had chicken export bans because they can’t keep enough protein in the country with exports. Yemen, Lebanon, Afghanistan just to name 3 countries outside of most of Africa that have widespread food insecurity. Much of rural china deals with food insecurity. You’re absolutely right it might be more than half of the global population.

−1

ISnortBees t1_iqxpb04 wrote

Maybe not starving (which literally means dying because of lack of food), but suffering from some form of malnutrition. Protein malnutrition is important, as a lot of cereal crops cannot provide a person with a complete amino acid profile and micronutrients if relied on to the extent they are in poorer countries.

1

dalledoeswalle t1_iqxppkr wrote

So you’re saying that widespread hunger is acceptable, but if it were famine and starvation then you’d be worried?

1

ISnortBees t1_iqxrqg7 wrote

I’m just saying half the world is still not starving. It’s not even half the world not meeting their needed caloric intakes. Advances in fertilizer, pesticide and GMO technology have actually made a difference. There’s still problems that need fixing but your initial comment is inaccurate

4

dalledoeswalle t1_iqxspg3 wrote

Ok. I’m glad someone is here to tell those poor Chinese farmers that good news, they aren’t starving!

0

ISnortBees t1_iqxt5em wrote

One problem is worse than the other. If you still have a bad problem but get rid of a worse one, then your situation has improved. If you’re going to be condescending, you should at least be smarter than a child first

2

Key_Abbreviations658 t1_iqz063y wrote

Obviously nothing has gotten better because there was problem than and now there is still problem /s

1

visarga t1_iqxstx5 wrote

Just remember how you use your phone and explain that to a person from 200 years ago, I bet they'll think you are already deep into the singularity by their standards.

Having food, water, toilet, electricity and internet is nothing to brag about, even the poorest of us should have them. But just a couple of centuries ago these things would have been off the scale.

If you look back over decades or a couple of centuries life has been getting steadily better. It wasn't fake progress, but we're busier than ever.

Many people think after the singularity we'll have nothing to do anymore. On the contrary, I think we'll have more than before. We'll still compete and we'll often be unhappy like before.

Who said the purpose of AI should be to improve our lives? The purpose of life is to expand and exist despite the challenges it meets. That means competition and exploration, not peace and detachment. We didn't come out on top of nature by being nice, we exploited every advantage and knowledge along the way.

5

Competitive-Finding7 t1_iqvyw3c wrote

Why the downvotes, this is spot on.

−4

Clean_Livlng t1_iqwanjt wrote

Because things have gotten a lot better than in 2012 in terms of world poverty.

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty#historical-poverty-around-the-world

So, as we've done in the past, it's likely these new technologies will be used to benefit a lot of people. Especially if money can be made from charging people for access to new technology.

e.g. We can buy hand sanitizer, cellphones, internet access, computers, rocket packs, 3D printers etc.

Do you still think it's spot on? New technologies don't instantly benefit everyone in the world, but over decades they do.

10

SteppenAxolotl t1_iqytf77 wrote

>e.g. We can buy hand sanitizer, cellphones, internet access, computers, rocket packs, 3D printers etc.

That largely depends on who you are and where you live.

Just add 0.01$ to 1$, 1.90$ or the 2.00$ cutoff and you're no longer in extreme poverty, but you're still grindingly poor. You can buy a cell phone for $4, but you're still grindingly poor. How much does the quality of your life change if you go from 2.00$/day to 3.00$/day. Those are certainly changes, are they meaningful changes given you're looking at a timespan covering most of a working life time. Is a cell phone and some hand sanitizer sufficient if you're born in extreme poverty and you die in regular poverty.

1

Clean_Livlng t1_iqzdnmy wrote

>How much does the quality of your life change if you go from 2.00$/day to 3.00$/day.

A lot. If you're in a place where you're earning $2 a day and surviving on it, going to $3 is a massive improvement. You might even be able to put on weight instead of gradually losing it.

An extra $1 can be life itself. But you'd still be poor.

Yes, improvements in technology won't reach every single person on Earth and thee will still be those in poverty. But we're talking about things gettign statistically better. There are fewer of those people suffering now than there were, due to us making it better.

​

"things have gotten a lot better than in 2012 in terms of world poverty."

This is true, right? of course it is. Just because things aren't perfect right now, doesn't mean we're not heading in the right direction. It doesn't mean we can't celebrate our progress.

There is also a lot left to do, because people do still live in poverty and things gettign better overall doesn't help them if they're still in poverty.

We have evidence of us improving lives through technology, and the proportion of those whoa re in poverty decreasing over time. Based on this, I think it's reasonable to think that further improving our technology and creating more abundance through it will allow us to bring more people out of poverty.

My point is that there are fewer people in poverty now than in 2012, and that they were incorrect in saying that half the world is starving. Half used to be starving, but we've made significant improvements since then.

3