3 ms·
Hard agree. The only counter to an enemy AI swarm or a runaway AI swarm is another AI swarm. Sure, we'll probably fuck it up, but at least there's a chance for
by lowbloodsugar 4y ago
Hard agree. The only counter to an enemy AI swarm or a runaway AI swarm is another AI swarm. Sure, we'll probably fuck it up, but at least there's a chance for us.
The alternative is simply accept Chinese rule.
That's it. Those are our choices. And for the pacifists, China is still going to develop their own AI swarm, and they could lose control of it, so dying is still on the cards with the second one, too.
I love people here focusing on the "end game". Yes, this is the horror: the rational choice is to develop the technology that will likely kill us all. They argue "The end-game is so bad that we must lose the mid-game", as if that will stop other nations from developing the end-game technology!
Really, anybody who isn't already a monk who lives entirely off the land through their own labor, doesn't got to make any moral argument, or argument about "well, Chinese rule wouldn't be so bad - we're just fighting for culture". Give up your culture, then we'll talk.
Everyone who believes there are other choices are simply living in their "just world" fantasy.
- tsimionescu 4y agoThis same logic could be used to justify any atrocity. What exactly makes you so sure China is developing such dangerous technology? And even if they are, why isn't it a better idea to negotiate an international ban on this type of research instead of driving full force into it? Creating ever more powerful weapons is a fool's game, and every knowing participant is a human monster.
- lowbloodsugar 4y agoMy premise assumes that at least one adversary will develop these weapons whether we do or not. Your premise assumes that everyone would agree not to do it, and also keep that agreement. This is basic game theory. Your position is indefensible. It's not about monsters, or morals. It's just math.