2 ms·

> Language, writing, books, school, science and computers never raised anybody's IQ. Whether IQ took us to the moon is still a topic of debate, as is whether I

> Language, writing, books, school, science and computers never raised anybody's IQ. Whether IQ took us to the moon is still a topic of debate, as is whether IQ is equal to or only part of intelligence. But it's clear that language, books, school, science and computers absolutely did take us to the moon. Clearly all of these things improved our intellectual effectiveness, and that's what matters, regardless of whether it fits into your personal definition of "intelligence". > Who would let superintelligence have a wallet and budget? Or would we just sit and have it steal money? Cryptocurrency makes this trivial. All computer systems likely also have vulnerabilities, including financial systems. An AI can probe these systems around the clock, or can subtly introduce vulnerabilities into our vulnerable software supply chains. These are only two among many options that are entirely within the realm of plausibility. > And why would it be any more effective, and any less visible or trackable and able to be shut down than a rich person using his money? An AI wouldn't necessarily have a physical location that can be tracked as easily as humans. Where is the AI jail? Honestly, it's like you're not even trying to consider how vulnerable we might be to manipulation by a non-human intelligence. All of our protections are fairly effective against human actors. Some of them might provide partial protection from non-human actors, but you should doubt your confidence that they would be effective against such threats.

danaris 4y ago
> Cryptocurrency makes this trivial. All computer systems likely also have vulnerabilities, including financial systems. An AI can probe these systems around the clock, or can subtly introduce vulnerabilities into our vulnerable software supply chains. These are only two among many options that are entirely within the realm of plausibility. And there it is: the assumption that AGI will, necessarily, be capable of hacking effectively any computer system, no matter how well-secured. This belongs in Hollywood, not on HN.
- naasking 4y ago
  > And there it is: the assumption that AGI will, necessarily, be capable of hacking effectively any computer system, no matter how well-secured. Where did I say they are capable of hacking any computer system no matter how well secured? I said that software vulnerabilities exist, that software supply chains are known to be vulnerable, that even financial institutions are vulnerable. These are all documented facts. An AI doesn't have to successfully hack any computer system, it only needs to successfully hack one financial computer system to create an account that can send and receive money. Given it can plausibly attempt to do so consistently around the clock via numerous means (like vulnerable software supply chains or other exploits), the chances of it doing so successfully against any of the tens of thousands of banking systems around the world over a timespan of years seems plausibly certain. And that's only for the things it needs that require some kind of official financial account, it can do plenty with cryptocurrency alone. Boy do you skeptics love your strawman arguments.

danaris 4y ago

> Cryptocurrency makes this trivial. All computer systems likely also have vulnerabilities, including financial systems. An AI can probe these systems around the clock, or can subtly introduce vulnerabilities into our vulnerable software supply chains. These are only two among many options that are entirely within the realm of plausibility. And there it is: the assumption that AGI will, necessarily, be capable of hacking effectively any computer system, no matter how well-secured. This belongs in Hollywood, not on HN.

naasking 4y ago
> And there it is: the assumption that AGI will, necessarily, be capable of hacking effectively any computer system, no matter how well-secured. Where did I say they are capable of hacking any computer system no matter how well secured? I said that software vulnerabilities exist, that software supply chains are known to be vulnerable, that even financial institutions are vulnerable. These are all documented facts. An AI doesn't have to successfully hack any computer system, it only needs to successfully hack one financial computer system to create an account that can send and receive money. Given it can plausibly attempt to do so consistently around the clock via numerous means (like vulnerable software supply chains or other exploits), the chances of it doing so successfully against any of the tens of thousands of banking systems around the world over a timespan of years seems plausibly certain. And that's only for the things it needs that require some kind of official financial account, it can do plenty with cryptocurrency alone. Boy do you skeptics love your strawman arguments.