What sources would you even be looking for? I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not like I'm arguing a scientific theory which can be backed by data and experimentation. I can only provide you reasoning for why I believe what I believe.
Firstly, I'd propose that all technological advances are a product of time and intelligence, and that given unlimited time and intelligence, the discovery and application of new technologies is fundamentally only limited by resources and physics.
There are many technologies which might plausibly exist, but which we have not yet discovered because we only have so much intelligence and have only had so much time.
With more intelligence we should assume the discovery of new technologies will be much quicker – perhaps exponential if we consider the rate of current technology discovery and exponential progression of AI.
There are lots of technologies we have today which would seem like magic to people in the past. Future technologies likely exist which would make us feel this way were they available today.
While it's hard to predict specifically which technologies could exist soon in a world with ASI, if we assume it's within the bounds of available resources and physics, we should assume it's at least plausible.
Examples:
- Mind control – with enough knowledge about how the brain works you can likely devise sensory or electro-magnetic input that would manipulate the functioning of brain to either strongly influence or effectively dictate it's output.
- Mind simulation - again, with enough knowledge of the brain, you could take a snapshot of someones mind with an advanced electro-magnetic device and simulate it to torture them in parallel to reveal any secret, or just because you feel like doing it.
- Advantage torture – with enough knowledge of human biology death becomes optional in the future. New methods of torture which would have previously have killed the victim are now plausible. States like North-Korea can now force humans to work for hundreds of years in incomprehensible agony for opposing the state.
- Advanced biological weapons – with enough knowledge of virology sophisticated tailor-made viruses replace nerve agents as Russia's weapon of choice for killing those accused of treason. These viruses remain dormant in the host for months infecting them and people genetically similar to them (parents, children, grandchildren). After months, the virus rapidly kills its hosts in horrific ways.
I could go on, you just need to use your imagination. I'm not arguing any of the above are likely to be discovered, just that it would be very naive to think AI will stop at a cure for cancer. If it gives us cure for cancer, it will give us lots of things we might wish it didn't.
You are supposing it's possible to know that much about some things that maybe are not knowledgeable to us, even with these tools. Life is extremely complex, more than it's typically assumed by engineering-minded people. Let's be humble here and acknowledge it.
Why couldn't it be unknowable? I am not saying that it is, but it could be. The human brain has its limits and things could me too complex for us to understand enough to be able to modify them at will. We could understand a lot, but not enough to manipulate it with certainty. Biology is not physics.
Why not? Human mind has its limits. The complexity of physics is orders of magnitude smaller than biology, let alone any kind of social science. Physics is the exception, not the rule. The rest of sciences are way more messy.
Almost anything outside physics is not predictable. Anything that involves human behavior is totally not understood, especially if it involves a bunch of humans (economy, sociology...). You could describe it, sure, but that is not the same as understating and modifying at will.
I would acknowledge that. I don't think these things are remotely possible any time soon with current rates of progress.
However, I think people tend to fail to acknowledge the product of exponential trends, so the question in my mind is more whether or not you believe AI will unlock an exponential increase in the rate of progress and understanding. Extremely complex is still finite complexity at the end of the day.
Maybe AI won't significantly increase the rate of progress across all scientific fields. I am fairly confident it will significantly increase the rate of progress over at least some though, and it seems likely to me that biological progresses will be much easier for us to model and predict with AI. I'm much less sure about progress in domains like physics and robotics.
On the slightly optimistic side, much more intelligence will be spent in countering these criminal uses than in enabling them. For each of the terrible inventions you mentioned, there are other inventions to counter them.
I'm confused. Your comment says you built your own agent, but the first line of your website says Clawsify will "Deploy OpenClaw inside your infrastructure".
Ugh, I've had this happen over and over. I can't trust my laptop to actually shut down. I have to wait to see the light stay off for a couple seconds before I put it in my bag.
Both agencies used pencils, but they were problematic because the graphite could break off / float around / cause shorts.
The space pen was developed by Fisher independently of NASA. NASA bought 400 of them for $2.39 each. The Roscosmos later bought 100 for the same price.
What would be the incentive for someone to do this for real?
We all have access to SOTA LLMs. If I want a "clean room" implementation of some OSS library, and I can choose between paying a third party to run a script to have AI rebuild the whole library for me and just asking Claude to generate the bits of the library I need, why would I choose to pay?
I think this argument applies to most straightforward "AI generated product" business ideas. Any dev can access a SOTA coding model for $20p/m. The value-add isn't "we used AI to do the thing fast", it's the wrapping around it.
Maybe in this case the "wrapping" is that some other company is taking on the legal risk?
> statistically women all try to get into a relationship with the same 1% of men - who sleep around and cause toxicity all around. The remaining 99% become bitter and consequently... Are even less attractive to women.
As a regular 30s dude, definitely not 1% by any measure, app dating had its rough spots but generally was a good time, I experienced no bitterness.
Instead I met a bunch of interesting people and found my partner. We now own a house and are talking about kids.
The real toxicity here is the idea that women at large are somehow responsible for anyone's lack of dating success.
For anyone reading this who might be dating and feel disheartened- the hard truth is that you have two options: you can either blame the group of people you're trying to attract for having faulty preferences, or you can reflect and work on yourself and your approach. Only one of these has any chance of helping you.
One thing I do agree with you on: bitterness is extremely unattractive.
For context, I don’t want this to sound bitter. The first time I was single as an adult was from 1996-2002 and dating apps weren’t a thing. The second time I was single was from 2006-2011 and I wasn’t really trying to date and spent most of the time getting my head back in the game and just hanging out with female friends until I started dating my now wife who I met at work. Even she had to make the first move.
That being said as five foot four guy, the chance of me having any success on a dating app at the time from everything I know would have been basically 0 no matter what. “Working on myself” would have done no good. I was objectively in great shape as a part time fitness instructor and I just run my first (and last) two half marathons before I met my wife.
Some guys just haven’t won the genetic lottery to succeed on dating apps. Again I’m not bitter as one of the relatively few straight male fitness instructors, it wasn’t hard to date during my first stint of singleness
FWIW, one of my (male) friends is about 5'2" and met his wife on OKCupid. She's about 4'10".
Dating is kinda like founding a startup or getting a job, in that you have to kiss a lot of frogs, but you only need to succeed once. The point's to eliminate all the unsuitable prospects in the pool and find the one that is a match for you.
> Dating is kinda like founding a startup or getting a job, in that you have to kiss a lot of frogs, but you only need to succeed once. The point's to eliminate all the unsuitable prospects in the pool and find the one that is a match for you.
That's true, but dating apps are still a pretty toxic technology. It's got kind of a McNamara fallacy baked into it, they encourage users to setup filters on easy-to-quantity aspects (height, age) in a fairly thoughtless way, and entourage superficial, consumeristic evaluations. Most people would probably benefit from IRL interactions, which present a more holistic picture.
> If other industries worked like this, you could sue an architect who discovered a flaw in a skyscraper
To match this metaphor to TFA, the architect has to break in to someone else's apartment to prove there's a flaw. IANAL but I'm not positive that "I'm an architect and I noticed a crack in my apartment, so I immediately broke in to the apartments of three neighbours to see if they also had cracks" would be much of a defence against a trespass/B&E charge.
I have that in my system prompt for chatgpt and it almost never makes a difference. I can count on one hand the number of times its asked in the past year. Unless you count the engagement hacking questions at the end of a response
reply