4 ms·
Like it will never be weaponized? If not by the US, by nobody else on earth?
by nazka 3y ago
Like it will never be weaponized? If not by the US, by nobody else on earth?
- ChuckMcM 3y agoIf it is sentient, I think weaponizing it would require convincing it that being a weapon was in its interest. I struggle to find a way to reason to that position without using emotional content and I presume a sentient AGI will not have emotion.
- nazka 3y agoPersonally I don’t think AGI is possible. I was thinking more of a model that will be able to do 100 times what you can do now. Like able to answer questions like: what is the most efficient way to attack this front considering this map and this data dump of weapons stats and patrol present, etc… But even if it was sentient convincing it then shouldn’t be hard. Even the most brilliant people can be fooled and convinced of absurd things. Even when they think that their work can threaten the human race but will still continue and push for it.
- golergka 3y agoDeveloping more advanced weapons have, in general, caused less violent wars. The main consequence of nuclear weapons was the lack of all-out hot conflict between world's two superpowers. If you want things to be lit and humanity to live safer lives, you should pray for development of better, deadlier weapons. I understand why most people don't understand this. But I just hope that an average HN reader has a better grasp on game theory.
- nazka 3y agoGame theory but where the wooden pawn now starts to be a little more than a wooden pawn and in fact a little more than a classic AI. It’s not the same rules as any classic literature in Game Theory. I do agree with the weapon up until the atomic bomb. Game Theory, stats, probability, and psychology also tells us that sooner or later you maybe have a big enough weapon and someone may press the button.