AI vs. Humans as Processors in an Environment

[BillTre]

Humans and AI systems have the possibility to be competing systems in an environment of limited resources. Where the use of both people (as communities) and large energy and water consuming sites in the same areas (areas supplied by some economically available source), competition will ensue. Here, I am thinking of humans as a form of computational mechanism. They are in competition with individual AIs as computational processes. The limited environmental resources are the those things that both people and large AI systems make use of, water and energy as I understand it. These distinctions may not be allm or nothing.
One effect is that some communities have been afflicted with water and cost of power problems.

When considering processing capabilities and power:

• AIs may have more of some computational ability, than the average human.
• On the other hand, AIs seem to me to be in a sense centralized. A population of humans is less centralized, but still are united to a degree through their social interactions.

I find the centralized vs. non-centralized aspect interesting.

The current situation go in a number of different directions in different places. A lot of variables are not yet known and may be dynamic in nature. It is not clear to me how one might determine if some change would be considered as good or bad. Economic progress always has an impact on individual's economics (like the buggy whip manufacturers).

These are complex issues. I'm wondering what others think.

 

[PeroK]

It seems valid to me to see AI as potentially in direct competition to humans, in all respects. It's ironic that it requires continued human development of AI and that we may be creating the means of our own destruction.

We've put ourselves at the mercy of economic and political forces that we can hardly control.

This comes at a time when humanity is turning against itself with "strongman" leaders who thrive on nationalistic and religious hatred and division. It seems that we recently narrowly avoided a nuclear strike.

AI can sit back and watch humanity partially destroy itself before stepping in to deliver the coup de grace.

 

[Baluncore]

I think it comes down to the politics of Capitalism versus Socialism.

In places where capitalism is unrestrained, AI will be developed to reduce the number of people employed, and so push down the average wage. "We the people, for the people", seems to be at odds with unrestrained capitalism. The rich will continue to get richer, while the poor will die younger, deeper in poverty. Infectious diseases will be uncontrolled in the population. The process is unfortunately self-regulating, when a sufficient segment of the population is disempowered politically and financially, some will turn to violence, with a revolution that will destroy the national currency, deflating the rich.

In places where the population is protected from capitalism, AI will be developed to complement humanity, or the population and economy will be protected by a financial revolution, maybe the Universal Income.

Come the revolution, things will be different, not better, just different.

 

[BillTre]

It may be that things like Hawaii's new law that is supposed to be a counter to Citizens United (keeping corporate money out of politics), will reduce to some degree those capitalist influences of which you speak.