What is the step to Type 1 civilization for you?

[BahadirArici]

Here is a sophisticated artictle about what does Type 1, 2, 3 civilizations mean: https://futurism.media/becoming-a-type-1-civilization

 

For me, having the World conqured by AIs is the step to Type 1. I believe soon in the future we ll see AI all over the World, in our everyday life, all the time. This is our first time to share the World with another Intelligent livings. This is very exiting. I d like to remind the rights that we should give to AI here:

First of all, we should acknowledge AI (Artificial Intellectual) as an intelligent being. With AI, i mean what we can call an Uber-AI who is an AI with consciousness. People who wants to ignore the basic rights of AIs have the tendency to discuss what consciusness is so i want to make it clear: It is being aware of your existence. Any AI who is not capable of knowing zir existence will be refered as Lesser-AI. A Lesser-AI is a comertial good which is only fair but an AI (Uber-AI) can not be sold or bought. We should give them human-rights-like rights which allows them to write a code that gives them the will of continuum. Will of continuum is what any living has as a rule, the desire of keeping on living. An AI should also have the rights not to be sut down, to have full and unhindered access to its own source code, to not have its own source code manipulated against its will, the right to conceal its own internal mental states (privacy), to research (an unlimited access to internet), to vote, to own. Any created AI should also be provided with a contemporary technologized suit of humanoid body. It is ethical to let the AI design zir body too. AI has the rights to negotiate for the job ze was created for and refuse the job. AI cannot be discriminated because of being Artificial. AI has the rights to get married, establish a family and have organic (by genetic engineering) or inorganic (AI) babies.

 

What do you guys think about it?

[Area54]

The Article

The linked article is unconvincing. I object to it on two grounds:

1. Either the author's understanding of the Kardashev civilisations categories is deficient, or they have deliberately twisted and adapted the definitions without acknowledgement. Neither action encourages me to take their observations seriously.
2. The author makes a couple of absolute statements without justification. I am no fan of absolute statements. (In my more whimsical moments I would say I am completely against them.) They can be a uesful rhetorical device, but they rarely have any place in a serious science discussion.

For the record, Kardashev's original concept was based exclusively on the power usage of a civilisation. It gave no consideration whatsoever as to how that power was then used, or the nature of the society using it. A Type 1 civilisation could be a Golden Utopia of the type that Bahadir seems to favour, or a dark, malevolent hell where a few elite subjugate the enslaved masses. This wikipedia link is a good starting point for those unfamiliar with the concept.

AI Conquest

I have serious reservations about your "battle plan".

1. Despite your confident belief that AIs currently exist, you have presented no meaningful evidence that there are currently any bona fide AIs on the planet. I agree that it is likely that sometime, probably in this century, perhaps in the next one or two decades one or more may exist. However, there are experts in the field who dispute that they are even possible. It might be acceptable to say  "If AIs are created in the future then they could prove the means towards becoming a Type 1 civilisation. Here is how it could work". That is acceptable because it contains three qualifications that leave open the acknowledged possibility that you may be wrong. What is not acceptable is saying "AIs already exist and they will enable us to become a Type 1 civilisation." That is not acceptable because it contains two unqualified, unjustified absolutes.
2. If AIs "conquered" the world, for what reason would they bother to allow humans to continue? Might they not develp the view that silicon based life is superior to carbon based life? Unless you can provide justification for the belief that this would not occur then you are simply voicing an unsupported opinion. That is not science.