Don't take my word for it, just ask your favorite AI.
Name a major global problem that couldn't be alleviated or solved by simply cutting the human population in half?
Even a quarter of the population would be devastating for planet if they all had the same living standards as the western world, and all were running on non-renewables.
Nearly all of them unfortunately. As long as there is inequality, there will always be "Too many people." The world has had wars, famine, disease, and pestilence since there were enough people to form two opposite lines. You won't even solve climate change since most CO2 is emitted by a tiny minority of the world population.
I guess the stench of all the rotting bodies would be quite malodorous for a good long time.
Before the industrial revolution everywhere where humans settled biodiversity increased. Humans are by nature a benefactor to their environment, but the overproduction of basically throwaway consumer goods and all the industries depending on it is slowly but surely choking the planet. Stuff we buy and throw away has a life cycle of way way less than the span of a human life, that's not right. Even if most jobs depend on it. But I'd rather work less and not buy so much trash.
Unchecked population growth is unsustainable --- regardless of how people live.
(That being said: I do think that, provided it doesn’t cause problems, “more humans” is good. I just think you’re wrong about climate stuff.)
1976 - GLOBAL COOLING
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
2000: Children Won’t Know What Snow Is
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2008: Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
Specifically, you can find examples of these everywhere with light reading.
Clearly I think we, as a civilization, should be good stewards of our planet. We should not be dumping toxic chemicals into our environment. We should be striving to develop energy sources that are cleaner and more abundant. We should not, however, be doing so at the cost of our growth, or creating artificial intangible markets to 'offset' tangible things. It doesn't actually change, fix, or address anything.
Survival has always been a problem to overcome in nature, and we should be giving ourselves the best chance possible.
e.g. What data sets and logic brought the AI to its conclusion.
Even those who wrote the software don't know how to answer that qauestion.
They also can't prove the conclusion is not erroneous or based on flawed or incomplete data or judgment.
AI may provide an answer. But whether the answer is a real, viable solution is left undecided. For example, given free reign, AI may decide that arsenic is an effective antibiotic.
It is not even clear to me that AI exists. Everything described when people talk about AI or ChatGPT just sounds like a market rebranding of Big-Data and Machine Learning. If it can not Show Its Work then the hype around this may just be driving the next set of hidden algorithms to replace Twitter, Facebook, etc...
The 4th Law is that no robot shall employ means of unlimited self-reproduction.
The 5th Law is that a robot shall be able to explain on demand how it has made any particular decision.
It's not a AGI that understands everything, and can be asked to save the world, or that is good enough to simulate a AGI that can be asked to save the world.
They asked to an unethical way so save the word, and the result is probably a rehash of https://www.google.com/search?q=unethical+way+so+save+the+wo... It's good to make an coherent and articulated rehash of a few stories and ideas floating around, but there is no guaranty that it is correct.
A tool that readily lends itself to misuse by is more often than not a bad tool.
And whole industries depend on the consumption and consumerism, the production of intermediate goods, the maintance and servicing industry for ever complicated systems, all these companies consume fossil fuels for energy and use up resources from all around the world, transportation of which also consumes a lot of fossil fuels.
Before the industrialisation in places where humans settled biodiversity usually went up. We were benefactors to this planet once and we can be it again. It just depends on the rate at which we deplete this planets resources.
Now the question is do we want to continue with this life style and go for the stars and suck this planet dry, or do we want to become guardians of the most suitable spaceship habitat withing the next few dozen or hundred lightyears? I'd rather chill on this wonderful and beautiful planet, work less because worldwide consumption went down to a reasonable level and use the free time to explore, learn and meet people.
If an AI is not encumbered by ethics and morals, or even 'humanity', it is 'logical' (as Mr Spock would say) that it should go with the quickest and most efficient solution to that problem.
