>He is completely skipping the most important part. The superintelligence has to have some reason to be in conflict with us. Human beings don't go out of their

>He is completely skipping the most important part. The superintelligence has to have some reason to be in conflict with us. Human beings don't go out of their way to hunt down and eliminate ants. They don't find out what ants eat and sieze control of it to manipulate them. There is no reason to think that a superintelligent machine would be likely to present terrible interference to us proposed. That depends on whether eliminating us is simple, like stepping on an ant-hill you didn't realize was there, or complicated, like going to war. I don't buy the argument that for an AI to eliminate us would be relatively simple, that it would be as subjectively simple as we adults find reading and writing, while still involving cognitive effort. That would still require deliberate effort. The trouble is whether the AI wants, for instance, our electricity infrastructure, and doesn't care about the riots and social breakdown caused when we humans can't get electricity for our own needs anymore. It didn't go into conflict with us. It just killed a lot of people (for instance, everyone on life-support in a hospital reliant on the electrical grid) without noticing or caring. Likewise, maybe it decides that rising sea-levels and accelerating global warming are good for its own interests somehow. That stuff will kill us, but it doesn't require a complicated strategy, it just requires setting lots of things on fire. Any moron can do that, but most human morons don't want to. I certainly agree that a "hostile" AI which perceives itself as requiring complicated, deliberate effort to kill all humans will probably not kill all humans. It'll find some lazier, simpler way to get what it wants.