asi: before 2100 | between 2100 and 3000 | never
civilization in 3000: mundane | utopia | suffering dystopia | doom
The question asks:
1) When will ASI be created?
2) What will be the state of human civilization in the year 3000?
combined, to express various conditional probabilities.
This question is not meant to resolve for centuries, and is not very precise, so I recommend treating this more like a Stonk-type question than an epistemic market. nonetheless, it might strike relevant and important conversations.
Some terms:
ASI: Artificial superintelligence. vastly outstrips human intelligence, in scale, depth, generality. outstrips collective human intelligence (corporations, nations).
Doom: every human consciousness / awareness ends, forever, with no reasonable hope of reversal.
Utopia: Vastly improved quality of life for all humans everywhere, larger civilization, eliminated unnecessary suffering, unnecessary evil, etc. and enables great freedom and all that. the good outcome, according to almost all humans.
Suffering Dystopia: Humans aren't extinct, but it's a really really bad experience for all involved. The average human experience is worse than that of the average slave in history.
Non-Utopia Technological:
Mundane: Anything that isn't Doom, Utopia, or Suffering Dystopia. You might keep your 9to5, or something completely different happens,
People are also trading
@Bayesian whether judged on:
1. Life expectancy and mortality
2. Disease pain and physical suffering
3. Peacefulness
4. Material Abundance and working hours
Our civilization is a utopia compared to, say, 1500s England. As best we can tell it is probably even a utopia with respect to total subjective well-being. I'm a huge critic of modern societies, but it would be better to be at the 20th percentile of material wellbeing today, than in the 99th percentile in most post-agricultural societies that have ever been.
Edit: It's worth expanding on the subjective well-being point. At least if we extrapolate from differences between existing societies today, e.g. between third-world and first-world societies, it seems likely that contemporary people in first-world societies are radically happier.
@TimothyScriven no, it is much better, not a utopia. as best as we can tell it is not a utopia with respect to total subjective well-being, which is what matters. I agree about material availability, which is why i was explaining that this question asks about subjective well-being. material well-being will more predictably go up; but will subjective well-being? will unnecessary suffering be eliminated? you'll agree it hasn't so far