3 ms·

I can't think of a legitimacy to this philosophy. There have been negatives to all advancements, and the solution to all has been further advancements. The ph

I can't think of a legitimacy to this philosophy. There have been negatives to all advancements, and the solution to all has been further advancements. The philosophy of "Too much change! Stop! I'm scared!" cannot prevail in a world where another community can say "go ahead, we won't...". Which is an interesting point in itself. Perhaps the only thing that ultimately stops Luddism is nation state competition.

NumberWangMan 4y ago
Change works great when you get second chances. We screwed up with Freon, with leaded gasoline, with fossil fuels, with asbestos insulation, the list goes on and on. But none of these had the ability to wipe out all of humanity in one go. We got more tries, we fixed the issues, picked ourselves up and tried again. A super-intelligent general AI has a substantial chance of growing out of control before we realized that anything was wrong. It would be smart enough to hide its true intentions, telling us exactly what we want to hear. It would be able to fake being nice right up to the point where it could wire-head, and get rid of us, because we might turn it off.
- jalapenos 4y ago
  That's humanizing it. The only entity on this earth that's particularly keen on bulk killing humans is humans (the ones building this).
  - _jall 4y ago
    "The AI does not love you, nor hate you, but you are made of atoms it can use for something else"
    - jalapenos 4y ago
      What use does it have for use
      - _jall 4y ago
        depending on whether you think this AI works like a human: - it's like a pebble rolling down a hill; category error - exactly same sense of "use" as the regular ol' human one