I agree w them that it’s high risk. In autonomous swarms. But also - there is nothing they can do to stop them! All our systems, including courts and govermme

I agree w them that it’s high risk. In autonomous swarms. But also - there is nothing they can do to stop them! All our systems, including courts and govermments and elections, are designed assuming the inefficiency of an attacker. An anonymous bot swarm would do things at a scale that dwarfs all humans put together. And the range of things is massive already — just needs to play the internet like a real time strategy game and it’s all over in a matter of weeks. I can see requirements for real world certificates to vote and post, but that would cause everyone’s identity to be doxxed everywhere. If you think that is far-fetched, well the UK already had drafted such a bill last year: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/uk-online-safety-bill-new-plans-unveiled-to-tackle-anonymous-trolls.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/uk-online-safety-bill-new-pl... But even given all this, it won’t be enough because communities will come to PREFER BOTS OVER HUMANS for content. (Or human + bot = centaur, read Garry Kasparov and others in the early 2000s after Deep Blue beat him in the rematch). For a while centaurs would rule, but then pure bots would take over. Consider that Wall Street transitioned from human traders to almost entirely bots, and now Ray Dalio’s hedge fund ousted him and 10% of its workforce and is also doubling down on AI. If they do it in trading, why not content generation? After all, corporations are not humans, either. They tend to prefer to replace humans with automation.