Results for “Nick Bostrom”

Right now, biological evolution is not the main engine of change in the human condition. Instead, social and technological development, which occur on shorter timescales, are the predominant change-makers. In particular, it seems that we are gaining capabilities to directly modify human nature—through genetic selection, gene therapy, cognitive enhancement drugs, life extension treatments.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

At some point, if this kind of technological progress continues, it would seem that our descendants will become entirely digital: uploads or artificial intellects implemented on computers. At that point, it is possible that evolutionary selection will again become an important driver of change—but not necessarily of change for the better.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

Super intelligence would be the last invention biological man would ever need to make, since, by definition, it would be much better at inventing than we are. All sorts of theoretically possible technologies could be developed quickly by super intelligence — advanced molecular manufacturing, medical nanotechnology, human enhancement technologies, uploading, weapons of all kinds.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

In my view, all the big existential risks are anthropogenic, arising out of human activity. More specifically, the biggest existential risks in this century arise out of anticipated future technological advances. Humanity has survived all kinds of natural hazards over a period of over one hundred thousand years; it seems unlikely, then, that any natural hazard would do us in within the next hundred.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

Intelligence is a big deal. Humanity owes its dominant position on Earth not to any special strength of our muscles, nor any unusual sharpness of our teeth, but to the unique ingenuity of our brains. It is our brains that are responsible for the complex social organization and the accumulation of technical, economic, and scientific advances that, for better and worse, underpin modern civilization.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

As you think this through, a lot of structure dissolves. And then the question becomes: what remains once all of that is gone? You could still choose to do these activities, of course, but there would no longer be any point—no instrumental need. You would only do them simply because you wanted to…

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

If our future is to count as a utopia, we cannot allow a massive oppressed class of hyper-sentient, uncomfortable digital beings. We want it to be good for all kinds of minds.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

Many of these, I think, would have moral status, meaning it would matter how they are treated for their own sake—not just because an owner might be upset if you destroyed a data center, but because they would be moral patients in the same sense that humans, pigs, dogs, or other sentient creatures are.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

With superintelligence, that whole panoply of physically possible technologies could be realized in short order, since the inventing would happen on compressed timescales. We could experience a telescoping of the future—where developments that once seemed millennia away arrive soon after the transition to the era of machine intelligence.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

Arguably, though, it could be more comparable to the rise of Homo sapiens itself, or even to the origin of life on Earth.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

It's the ultimate invention—the last one we'll ever need to make—because once we have AI that is generally intelligent and then superintelligent, it will do the inventing far better than we can. In that sense, it's a handing over of the baton.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

There is a big black box of as-yet unimagined risk. Most of what now seem like the biggest risks to society were unknown one hundred years ago.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

At some point, if this kind of technological progress continues, it would seem that our descendants will become entirely digital: uploads or artificial intellects implemented on computers.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

Among future technologies that may pose significant existential risks I would rank machine super intelligence at or near the top.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

Right now, biological evolution is not the main engine of change in the human condition. Instead, social and technological development, which occur on shorter timescales, are the predominant change-makers.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

In my view, all the big existential risks are anthropogenic, arising out of human activity. More specifically, the biggest existential risks in this century arise out of anticipated future technological advances.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

If our future is to count as a utopia, we cannot allow a massive oppressed class of hyper-sentient, uncomfortable digital beings. We want it to be good for all kinds of minds.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

Arguably, it could be more comparable to the rise of Homo sapiens itself, or even to the origin of life on Earth.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford

It's the ultimate invention—the last one we'll ever need to make—because once we have AI that is generally intelligent and then superintelligent, it will do the inventing far better than we can. In that sense, it's a handing over of the baton.

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford