3 ms·

Asking if humanity can invent a machine to protect itself from the existential threats created by the other machines it has invented to me does not sound that i

Asking if humanity can invent a machine to protect itself from the existential threats created by the other machines it has invented to me does not sound that intelligent. This is always the pattern; the "greatest minds" invent a machine to kill, then another great technician invents a machine to kill that machine, and so on. Presuming that total security can be achieved mechanically, and in that pursuit bringing about only more insecurity. Humanity can barely manage the existential risks for which it is not responsible; entering into an AI arms race with itself seems completely unnecessary, but I'm certain it will happen for the reasons already mentioned.

digging 3y ago
> Asking if humanity can invent a machine to protect itself from the existential threats created by the other machines it has invented to me does not sound that intelligent. The alternative, not trying at all, sounds more intelligent to you? Or just easier? Many agree with you that defense is inherently harder than offense. It may even be effectively impossible to survive AGI, who knows? You don't, I can be pretty sure of that, because no human has ever publicly proven it one way or the other. The only wrong answer to this hard problem, though, is "give up and see what happens."
- bithive123 3y ago
  Rather than enquire into the nature of the problem, you've started with the conclusion that AGI is an existential threat, and that the only rational decisions is to figure out how to kill it. You also seem to equate intelligence with technical capability. I question all of that.
  - digging 3y ago
    > Rather than enquire into the nature of the problem, you've started with the conclusion that AGI is an existential threat, That is not correct. > and that the only rational decisions is to figure out how to kill it. That is also not correct and not something I claimed.
Vecr 3y ago
> Asking if humanity can invent a machine to protect itself from the existential threats created by the other machines it has invented to me does not sound that intelligent. > Humanity can barely manage the existential risks for which it is not responsible Just skip to carpet bombing datacenters then?

digging 3y ago

> Asking if humanity can invent a machine to protect itself from the existential threats created by the other machines it has invented to me does not sound that intelligent. The alternative, not trying at all, sounds more intelligent to you? Or just easier? Many agree with you that defense is inherently harder than offense. It may even be effectively impossible to survive AGI, who knows? You don't, I can be pretty sure of that, because no human has ever publicly proven it one way or the other. The only wrong answer to this hard problem, though, is "give up and see what happens."

bithive123 3y ago
Rather than enquire into the nature of the problem, you've started with the conclusion that AGI is an existential threat, and that the only rational decisions is to figure out how to kill it. You also seem to equate intelligence with technical capability. I question all of that.
- digging 3y ago
  > Rather than enquire into the nature of the problem, you've started with the conclusion that AGI is an existential threat, That is not correct. > and that the only rational decisions is to figure out how to kill it. That is also not correct and not something I claimed.

Vecr 3y ago

> Asking if humanity can invent a machine to protect itself from the existential threats created by the other machines it has invented to me does not sound that intelligent. > Humanity can barely manage the existential risks for which it is not responsible Just skip to carpet bombing datacenters then?