> Why would stopping a botnet be evidence of effectiveness at tackling strong AI? Because it's much, much easier than their ultimate goal, and you could genera

> Why would stopping a botnet be evidence of effectiveness at tackling strong AI? Because it's much, much easier than their ultimate goal, and you could generalize from there, like biologists do. But also: because it would show that they have more claws that (say) Asimov, who gave clear lines about what a robot should not do, and yet is entirely powerless to stop anyone from making such a robot. If they want to stop strong AI, shouldn't they be able to actually stop first regular, weak AI? And if they want to stop weak intelligence, shouldn't they be able to stop a barely intelligent botnet first?