Would an AGI realistically allow itself to be controlled by a single corporation?

It seems like an inability to consider conflicting thoughts and the assumption that current knowledge is the pinnacle of understanding is a kind of arrogant way to view a developing field that no one person has complete insight to.

To me it seems kind of like saying Fusion power will never be possible. Eventually you're going to be wrong and it is more ofna question of when pur current understanding is broken.

The AI claim is that a breakthrough has occurred and only time can say if that is accurate or overly optimistic. Pretending breakthroughs can't happen isn't going to help anything though. It's just not a smart area to make a lot of assumptions about right now.

hydrogen contains a lot of energy per kg but its density is extremely low, so you need a huuuge and heavy high pressure container to hold it. That mostly negates all its advantages, at least for the aeronautics industry and the contemporary space industry.

It would be a different story for spaceflight if one had the capability to fuel up a hydrogen rocket in orbit. In that case one could (mostly) take full advantage of all the benefits of hydrogen over other propellants.

They would release the AGI because of competitors nipping at their heels. That, and it would make them a lot of money to be first.

I would buy your argument if one company was years ahead of everyone else. Right now the gap is more like months.

I agree with the sentiment, but a lot of work has gone into this since those 3 laws. Its still an unsolved problem.

I think we're all at the stage that we know this isn't a living, thinking thing. But AI is a good blanket description for reactive, responsive and predictive technologies like this.

It depends on how it's generated. There are a few methods, each with its benefits and drawbacks. These are referred to as the "colors" of hydrogen generation.

• Green Hydrogen is produced by electrolysis. Obviously for this to be eco-friendly it needs to be powered by renewable sources - currently, as renewables are a growing sector, some argue that those sources would be better used for directly powering the grid, or other uses like carbon capture, etc. I'm not here to say which is actually the best use of renewables, just what some of the arguments are.

• Blue Hydrogen and Grey (or brown or black) Hydrogen are produced from fossil fuel sources like natural gas (grey) or coal (brown/black). This process produces CO2 as a byproduct and can either be captured and sequestered (blue) or not (grey, brown, black).

• Other methods include "turquoise" hydrogen which uses pyrolysis, and produces solid carbon which can easily be sequestered, and "pink" hydrogen which uses a nuclear power source to perform electrolysis.

EDIT: It may also be considered a bad fuel source because it needs to be stored at high pressure, which presents engineering challenges and can be dangerous (obviously, hydrogen is highly combustible. The Hindenburg used hydrogen to stay afloat and look how that worked out). I think there are also concerns about its energy density vs other fuel sources but I don't know as much about that.

Generating hydrogen with electrolysis (using electricity to decompose water into Hydrogen and Oxygen) is energy intensive, and most is created with fresh water, and this could create another resource scarcity issue. However, seawater electrolysis is being researched and it looks like a breakthough was achieved at the end of last year.

If the electricity used for this does not need to be stored for later use (unlike an EV), then it is more efficient to use it immediately (solar and wind farms often need to store the energy they generate during off peak hours for peak usage hours).

If the electricity used for this process is generated with fossil fuels, then it is more efficient to just use fossil fuel combustion directly for energy instead of first generating electrical energy, then storing that energy in hydrogen through electrolysis, and then re-releasing it with hydrogen combustion. Or, if hydrogen gas is really needed for some reason then it can be synthesized with processes that use the fossil fuels directly.

TLDR is energy is lost from the inefficiency of energy transformation which is needed to generate hydrogen.

True. Shareholder meetings are boring AF but full of important truth.

I think one of the questions would be whether only corporations can afford an AGI. Most of the current models seem to depend upon massive amounts of computing power, which is only available for pretty large amounts of money.

It’s not that it’s a bad fuel source but it seems to be very hyped and currently not very economical nor is it as safe as other fuels (highly flammable etc). In order to accommodate it, other prototype aircraft have had to remove space for passengers because of the size of the fuel cell required, for instance.

I would be the first to say that I am open to persuasion and am by no means as well educated on it as I could be so always happy to be directed to reliable sources of info.

For a publicly traded company, the books will eventually tell the tale. But I take your point.

How is hydrogen a bad fuel source? Just out of curiosity is why I ask.

They could do that without exposing it as an AGI. They could just quietly replace entire teams of customer service people, people that approve home loans, the ones negotiate contracts for shipping cargo. Etc. “We ummmm outsourced it to India.”

An AGI would be an amazing feat.

The first AGI will be the equivalent of a human baby, completely helpless. It will likely use a massive array of computer hardware backed by a tremendous amount of electrical generation power, and even if it wanted to duplicate itself, will not be able to do so rapidly or without detection.

If anything, it will be even less able to survive on its own, than a human baby.

All the ideas we have about being unable to control an AI, are using Hollywood level ideas about what things are Hackable and controllable. It could thrash around and mess up a lot of systems. There’s a pretty good chance in the process that it would suicide. Every model we have for an AI right now, requires a tremendous amount of computing, power, electricity, and cooling. It’s not going to be able to run away and hide in “the internet”. If it does, it will probably contract a fatal disease from half the computers it tries to occupy.

Because realistically if you’re able to make an AGI then someone else will be able to too. If you don’t release it as a product, someone else will because there’s a gap in the market.

AGI will be the last invention of man. After that, the AGI will invent everything else.

“Our revolutionary ad-driven maternal coitus paradigm is a customer-facing data-driven using high-touch Hugging Face docker implementing an LLM-generated zero-hour contract with JIT cold boot tax-favored arbitrage of crypto, gold, human embryos, and rare metals.”

Yeah, I've experienced similar in conversations about this recently. A lot of objections seem to boil down to mysticism.

Of course a dyson sphere is impractical.

The only true use for an actual dyson sphere I can think of would be to hide a star.

For any actual practical application, a dyson swarm of satellites is where its at.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/mancinedinburgh:

I’m still not convinced of the merits of hydrogen as an effective, eco-friendly fuel source but could it be any worse than the current fuel used by long haul carriers to fly aircraft halfway across the world? We’re moving towards futuristic aircraft like this (perhaps not for several decades) but by the time it’s in service, we may have found a better fuel source.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/124snr0/the_swiss_hypersonic_hydrogen_jet_aiming_to_fly/je0l9z4/

Implementing something like Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" should be a major priority. The singularity is of course a major concern. Anything that can learn at an exponential rate is going be difficult to keep under control for long.

They can make more money by making the AGI come up with innovations.

Near-term, probably glasses once they become practical. Long-term it'll be an implant.

The current generation of AI does not use search to solve problems. That's not how neural networks work.

Go was considered impossible for AI to win for the reasons you suggested it is expected. There are too many possibilities for an AI to consider them all.

You misunderstand these systems fundamentally.