I Have No Original Ideas
Nothing I’ve ever said is remotely unique. My entire Cause, my entire reason for being around discerning and moving towards a Worthy Successor (and the expansion of Potentia), my entire…
The 5 Stages of Grief Model isn’t perfect – but it also seems to overlap well with the experiences of grieving people. The psychological model itself needn’t be perfect – the core point of this article stands:
Responding to uncomfortable truths with anything other than Acceptance robs us of the ability to think critically and act decisively, which are our only chances to create a better future.
The opportunities are great for accepting and acting on crucial trends and uncomfortable realities:
The costs are high for not accepting crucial trends and uncomfortable realities:
Leaders in China, Japan, Facebook, and Kodak didn’t have the option to freeze time and deny reality.
Yet when it comes to AGI and posthuman intelligence, we try to pretend that freezing time is possible.
Much of the current AGI discourse – even among people who identify as transhumans – is anchored in naive attempts to hide from [Denial] or rail against [Anger] impending trends around AI and the future of the human condition.
This manifests in dangerously childish head-in-the-sand perspectives on viable or realistic human futures, including the following:
This is, unfortunately, pure grade-A cope.
This leads the discourse to continuously land on the silly notion of the Eternal Hominid Kingdom – a series of far futures that imagine humans (as they are now), living on Mars / the moon – living in a world where disease, food, and education are solved for everyone.
This might be an interesting vision for the next very short handful of years – but it isn’t realistic and sets us up for disaster and danger in the years of change that face us.
Uncomfortable as it is, we must Accept* the following:
1 – Posthuman Intelligence is Inevitable – soon-ish, we will build and/or become said intelligence. Reasons:
2 – Posthuman Intelligence is Likely to End Humanity – even if it is we who evolve or merge with said intelligence. Reasons:
It’s relatively easy to determine where someone sits on the “Stages of Posthuman Grief” model:

Reading my “2 Things We Must Accept” section – where do you think you sit on the Stages of Posthuman Grief?
Do you write it all off flippantly as sci-fi (Denial)?
Are you upset that I’m pointing these trends out, and has that discomfort led you to interpret malice and evil as my motive (Anger)?
I’m not saying Acceptance is easy.
I have mourned. As I mention in my longer essay on inevitable posthumanism:

Source: You Don’t Want What You Think You Want – Emerj.com
But accept we must.
Maybe we can push these radical changes (like the augmentation of human minds and the arrival of AGI) to future generations, when our generation is long gone. But I suspect that only relatively minor slowdowns are possible, and that for the most part we must work hard to form an embankment against the oncoming river of the future. We can influence its path, but we can’t very much stop its flow – or how gravity affects water.
We cannot prevent the future outright with a head-in-the-sand strategy.
Kodak and 15th-century China already tried that strategy, remember?
Without Acceptance, we cannot think critically or act decisively, which are the only things that give us a fighting chance for a better future. The eternal hominid future is cope and nothing more.
From a governance perspective, we are left with The Two Questions:
I’m not smart enough to answer these questions myself (no one person is) – but I feel confident that:
But I’m willing to wiggle on any of our particular ideas as trends play out, and as I understand new things. This is what Acceptance demands.
…
NOTE: You don’t need to accept anything you don’t want to. And I don’t pretend to see the future. I think we’re all morons and neurons. I’m here to merely explain my reasoning (with references and links to my own writing, and that of other thinkers whom I respect. Zuckerberg’s idea of a mobile-first social media might have been wrong – and my notions of AGI risk and posthumanism may also be wrong. I think the trends make a strong case, but you can decide for yourself.
If you disagree with my reasoning – convince yourself that you’re not in Denial (“Daniel’s ideas are never gunna happen”), or Anger (“Daniel is a terrible person because by laying out these trends it means he wants the end of humanity!”). Instead, dive into the specifics of my reasoning (linked under “2 Things We Must Accept”) and let me know where my errors lie. My ideas have changed over time, and I suspect I may have something to learn from you as well. Find me on Twitter and ping me.
Nothing I’ve ever said is remotely unique. My entire Cause, my entire reason for being around discerning and moving towards a Worthy Successor (and the expansion of Potentia), my entire…
This is the first episode in our new Early Experience of AGI series – where we explore the subtle signs of AGI’s rise long before its dominance is declared. This…
This is an interview with Joshua Clymer, a technical AI safety researcher at Redwood Research. Before that, he researched AI threat models and developed evaluations for self-improvement capabilities at METR….
Any honest AGI thinkers are frank about the fact that we can’t possibly predict all of the actions or ideas from a posthuman intelligence vastly beyond ourselves. While it seems…
The present AGI alignment dialogue rests on a handful of shaky premises: Premises 1-2 assume that all is not in flux already. Premises 3-5 assume a completely anthropocentric worldview, where…
At some point, AGI or non-biological intelligence will accomplish most of what there is to be done in the universe, and humanity won’t be contributing meaningfully to anything (discovery of…