3 ms·
Well - the probability is 100% that we'll be hit by one of those asteroids, we just don't know when. When looking at the past data, for these kinds of events, I
by dmbche 4y ago
Well - the probability is 100% that we'll be hit by one of those asteroids, we just don't know when. When looking at the past data, for these kinds of events, I believe we are "overdue", in the sense that on average we should have had one in the last 150 years I believe.
So working on a solution to this problem makes sense - even if we spend billions solving this issue, it's not lost, because at a point it will be needed.
As for AI becoming an issue, it's a sci-fi idea, nothing more. It's much to vague - how is it reliably becoming dangerous? What are we actually looking for as signs of danger?
- jowdones 4y agoFinally some common sense. Just for entertainment, assuming the SciFi ridiculousness becomes true and I'm a laptop that becomes self-aware and decide to strangle you. Upps... I got no hands. Upps... it's more of a nightmare of being trapped paralyzed in a life support machine that can always without my AI control, be unplugged from the power socket and it's game over.
- Al-Khwarizmi 4y agoExcept for the fact that if it could use language and has an Internet connection, it could manipulate people into doing things. People who have hands. And it could also make copies of itself, or convince people to do so, so that one copy being deactivated by unplugging a socket is not a big deal.
- dmbche 4y agoWell - how much can one do without ever meeting in person? Or even - if we fear AI's being tools of radicalisation, I think it's pretty far away from the skynet apocalypse most people are thinking of. Not writing stuff like the unabomber manifesto to get people to be terrorists. If you're afraid of radicalisation, I'd argue that the US governement is much more dangerous and is just as much a black box with no one at the wheel.