7 ms·

I think a compelling argument is the variance in intelligence among humans themselves. A cabal of AIs 2x as intelligent as your average "genius" could be quite

I think a compelling argument is the variance in intelligence among humans themselves. A cabal of AIs 2x as intelligent as your average "genius" could be quite formidable were they to decide to act against the favor of humankind.

epx 10y ago
Yes, but it is noteworthy that most geniuses are shortsighted in other respects. They probably would not survive in prehistory.
- wand3r 10y ago
  Obviously some did.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    At least long enough to reproduce.
- pacaro 10y ago
  It's not clear to me how true this is. There are definitely individuals that exhibit savant skills in one area and mediocre to poor skills in other areas. But there are also true polymaths who can turn their hands to just about anything, I suspect that those people would do well on aggregate in any period of human history
- obstinate 10y ago
  Depends on the style of genius. Napoleon, Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great . . . they seem to have done pretty well for themselves.
Retra 10y ago
But anyone half that smart would know not to give an unproven system absolute, unchecked control over their critical infrastructure, which would basically be a requirement to causing problems humans can't easily overcome.
- manicdee 10y ago
  The Machines will come to control our infrastructure through a series of small decisions that seemed like a good idea at the time. Computer control of farming decisions such as watering and fertilising. Link that in with insolation and wind prediction to minimise waste or maximise productivity. This happens in the cloud thanks to insolation prediction being tied into wide-area networks of solar farms. More such networks evolve independently, then one day some bright spark realises that prediction and control in domain X can be combined with control and prediction in domain Y to produce greater efficiencies. Linking reproductive health and food production to maximise water savings, for example. Next thing you know the computers decide that human population is best maintained in the order of hundreds of millions rather than billions. And then we find out that Terminator was actually propaganda from the human rebels who didn't like the computers telling them not to breed, and the nuclear war was Skynet protecting its desired humans from the rebels, not protecting itself.
  - nradov 10y ago
    The limiting factor in farm productivity is not decision making by human farmers. Anyone who has been farming for years already makes pretty close to optimal decisions based on the available data about crop prices, weather, soil status, labor rates, etc. The ones who make bad decisions end up bankrupt, and leave farming or work as hired farmhands. And there are so few decision-making farmers left anyway that automating the decision making part of their jobs won't achieve any meaningful cost savings.
    - kpil 10y ago
      Maybe Amazon will own 90% of the farms because the have the cheapest robots and best algorithms and statistics.
      - nradov 10y ago
        John Deere and their competitors are far, far ahead of Amazon.com in farm automation. There's a huge difference between warehouse picking robots and farm equipment. Being cheaper doesn't matter, it's ROI that counts.
adamlett 10y ago
Yes, this is why the nerds rule over the jocks in high school. Oh, wait…
- Qwertious 10y ago
  That's different, because there are specific rules against arms races in schools, that people typically adhere to. If there was a battle scheduled in advance, I'd bet on the nerds. But what's more, if they both have guns then everything's about even. Strength doesn't really help if you've been shot, and most high-schoolers don't have much experience shooting guns.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    >most high-schoolers don't have much experience shooting guns Actually a lot do but probably not so much in the places that readers/commenters here live.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  They don't win in high school. But later in life, jocks find themselves employed by nerds.

epx 10y ago

Yes, but it is noteworthy that most geniuses are shortsighted in other respects. They probably would not survive in prehistory.

wand3r 10y ago
Obviously some did.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  At least long enough to reproduce.
pacaro 10y ago
It's not clear to me how true this is. There are definitely individuals that exhibit savant skills in one area and mediocre to poor skills in other areas. But there are also true polymaths who can turn their hands to just about anything, I suspect that those people would do well on aggregate in any period of human history
obstinate 10y ago
Depends on the style of genius. Napoleon, Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great . . . they seem to have done pretty well for themselves.

Retra 10y ago

But anyone half that smart would know not to give an unproven system absolute, unchecked control over their critical infrastructure, which would basically be a requirement to causing problems humans can't easily overcome.

manicdee 10y ago
The Machines will come to control our infrastructure through a series of small decisions that seemed like a good idea at the time. Computer control of farming decisions such as watering and fertilising. Link that in with insolation and wind prediction to minimise waste or maximise productivity. This happens in the cloud thanks to insolation prediction being tied into wide-area networks of solar farms. More such networks evolve independently, then one day some bright spark realises that prediction and control in domain X can be combined with control and prediction in domain Y to produce greater efficiencies. Linking reproductive health and food production to maximise water savings, for example. Next thing you know the computers decide that human population is best maintained in the order of hundreds of millions rather than billions. And then we find out that Terminator was actually propaganda from the human rebels who didn't like the computers telling them not to breed, and the nuclear war was Skynet protecting its desired humans from the rebels, not protecting itself.
- nradov 10y ago
  The limiting factor in farm productivity is not decision making by human farmers. Anyone who has been farming for years already makes pretty close to optimal decisions based on the available data about crop prices, weather, soil status, labor rates, etc. The ones who make bad decisions end up bankrupt, and leave farming or work as hired farmhands. And there are so few decision-making farmers left anyway that automating the decision making part of their jobs won't achieve any meaningful cost savings.
  - kpil 10y ago
    Maybe Amazon will own 90% of the farms because the have the cheapest robots and best algorithms and statistics.
    - nradov 10y ago
      John Deere and their competitors are far, far ahead of Amazon.com in farm automation. There's a huge difference between warehouse picking robots and farm equipment. Being cheaper doesn't matter, it's ROI that counts.

adamlett 10y ago

Yes, this is why the nerds rule over the jocks in high school. Oh, wait…

Qwertious 10y ago
That's different, because there are specific rules against arms races in schools, that people typically adhere to. If there was a battle scheduled in advance, I'd bet on the nerds. But what's more, if they both have guns then everything's about even. Strength doesn't really help if you've been shot, and most high-schoolers don't have much experience shooting guns.
- ghaff 10y ago
  >most high-schoolers don't have much experience shooting guns Actually a lot do but probably not so much in the places that readers/commenters here live.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
They don't win in high school. But later in life, jocks find themselves employed by nerds.