4 ms·

> * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. ...does not follow? "If an atom bomb is actually a bomb,

> * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. ...does not follow? "If an atom bomb is actually a bomb, then it's no worse a threat than any other existing bomb known to man."

Dalewyn 2y ago
An atomic bomb explodes. A bomb explodes. Both are very destructive. Is there a difference? I say no, and I say that as a Japanese-American who visited Hiroshima Peace Memorial numerous times and never felt anything particular from the exhibits. People die when they are killed. Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living beings.
- mlyle 2y ago
  > Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living beings. I think a dog and a dictator might both be able to have negative impacts, but treating them as equal just shows a desire to troll. A dog can only bite so many people.
- comp_throw7 2y ago
  > People die when they are killed. Yes, indeed, which is why we should avoid creating something that will kill everyone... ...so I guess I'm glad to hear there's no difference in the amount of damage that can be inflicted by a baby, and by Vladimir Putin, and superintelligent AI really can't be any worse than either.
- BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
  >”An atomic bomb explodes. A bomb explodes. Both are very destructive. Is there a difference? I say no” Atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are orders of magnitude more destructive and also produce fallout. How in the world can that difference be dismissed?
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    Not the original commenter, but one interpretation is that “dead is dead”. You can’t be “more killed”, so past a point, all dangerous things are equally dangerous.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      This. I don't see nuclear weapons as any worse than conventional weapons because ultimately people die. Is it comforting or otherwise somehow better for people to be killed by conventional weapons instead of nuclear weapons? I find such a proposition preposterous. All bombs are bad, whether they're conventional or nuclear is irrelevant. For that matter, all wars are bad and should be avoided unless no other options remain. Likewise, "AI" is just as much a threat as any other intelligent being or computer program depending on which line of thought you subscribe to. "AI" is not a "gravest of dangers".
      - BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
        >”I don't see nuclear weapons as any worse than conventional weapons because ultimately people die.” If you believe this, I am genuinely curious as to what you would consider the “gravest of dangers” to be.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        I think of threats that are unknown and/or can't be adequately defended against: * Asteroid impacts like Chicxulub. * The Sun eventually inflating into a red giant and eating Earth, though this assumes we're both still around and haven't become spaceborne en masse. * Pandemics such as The Black Death and, indeed, covid for a recent example. * Social, political, or commercial intrigue. * Cancer. "AI" is a known threat that can be adequately defended against, so I agree with the sentiment that it's stupid to call it a "gravest of dangers".
        johsunds 2y ago
        [dead]
- brandall10 2y ago
  There absolutely is a difference. Nuclear war is considered a likely extinction level event for humanity. A war between the US/NATO and the Soviet Union could take out major cities around the globe within hours, and the resultant nuclear winter would blanket much of the planet within a month making living above ground impossible. GP's comparison is apt here.
  - 9dev 2y ago
    Just a minor correction, even though I agree with your point: the Soviet Union is no longer a thing, despite Putins wishes to the contrary :)
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      Right, but its nukes are still around and pointed at NATO :).
- komali2 2y ago
  Can you explain, with your worldview, why the nature of geopolitics turned abruptly and completely upon the invention and proliferation of nuclear bombs? What was it about the nuclear bomb that caused it to be the defining structure of the cold war? Do you believe MAD can exist without nuclear bombs?
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >What was it about the nuclear bomb that caused it to be the defining structure of the cold war? The only difference is you can kill more humans for a given span of time. The end result is the same: Cities are leveled, people are killed. Is it more comforting to have been killed by a conventional bomb than a nuke? I certainly don't think so. So practically speaking, there is no difference. >Do you believe MAD can exist without nuclear bombs? Yes. I think you're all vastly underestimating just how much destructive power conventionals can deliver already. You will need more ordnance on standby, but you absolutely can suffer from MAD without nukes.
    - komali2 2y ago
      Do you believe any country has enough conventional ordinance to end human life on the entire planet? You must know more about this than me, I've never heard of something like this.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Any of the major military superpowers have more than enough conventional boomsticks to end all human life. It might take slightly longer than if nukes were used, but that's hardly comforting.
        comp_throw7 2y ago
        (For confused readers: no, they don't. Not even the nuclear stockpiles would be enough to cause human extinction, even if they were turned deliberately to that end.)
- vouwfietsman 2y ago
  I would say at the very least that the empire of Japan clearly evaluated them differently when it surrendered unconditionally directly after being attacked with this new technology. You are saying magnitudes don't influence the identity of something, this is obviously not true. I don't literally attract other objects, the Sun does. The difference is mostly magnitude of mass.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >I would say at the very least that the empire of Japan clearly evaluated them differently when it surrendered unconditionally directly after being attacked with this new technology. The atomic bombs certainly played a part in Japan surrendering, but it wasn't the only one. They were also facing a land invasion from the Soviets, had an utterly depleted military, waning support from the public, and a potentially devastating land invasion by the US on their doorstep. >You are saying magnitudes don't influence the identity of something, this is obviously not true. I am considering these things very dryly and very objectively. I am putting aside emotional pressures and processes and only considering the results which are ultimately all that matters. We already know how much damage an ill-willed intelligent being can achieve, we already know how much more efficient computers can make certain tasks. "AI" is not a "gravest of dangers", given that knowledge.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      > I am putting aside emotional pressures and processes and only considering the results which are ultimately all that matters. But what results are you really considering? The "dead is dead" approach makes everything equally meaningless, because in couple hundred million years the Sun will burn the Earth to cinders and everything here will be dead too. Or, some 100-120 years from now, everyone now alive will be dead, etc. Processes, and emotional pressures which steer those processes, matter too. In theory, machine guns could be used to kill everyone on the planet; in practice, it's economically and socially impossible - too much effort, too many people involved. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, can realistically achieve this outcome. Which is why nukes can be used to keep the world mostly at peace through MAD, while conventional weapons can not.

Dalewyn 2y ago

An atomic bomb explodes. A bomb explodes. Both are very destructive. Is there a difference? I say no, and I say that as a Japanese-American who visited Hiroshima Peace Memorial numerous times and never felt anything particular from the exhibits. People die when they are killed. Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living beings.

mlyle 2y ago
> Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living beings. I think a dog and a dictator might both be able to have negative impacts, but treating them as equal just shows a desire to troll. A dog can only bite so many people.
comp_throw7 2y ago
> People die when they are killed. Yes, indeed, which is why we should avoid creating something that will kill everyone... ...so I guess I'm glad to hear there's no difference in the amount of damage that can be inflicted by a baby, and by Vladimir Putin, and superintelligent AI really can't be any worse than either.
BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
>”An atomic bomb explodes. A bomb explodes. Both are very destructive. Is there a difference? I say no” Atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are orders of magnitude more destructive and also produce fallout. How in the world can that difference be dismissed?
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  Not the original commenter, but one interpretation is that “dead is dead”. You can’t be “more killed”, so past a point, all dangerous things are equally dangerous.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    This. I don't see nuclear weapons as any worse than conventional weapons because ultimately people die. Is it comforting or otherwise somehow better for people to be killed by conventional weapons instead of nuclear weapons? I find such a proposition preposterous. All bombs are bad, whether they're conventional or nuclear is irrelevant. For that matter, all wars are bad and should be avoided unless no other options remain. Likewise, "AI" is just as much a threat as any other intelligent being or computer program depending on which line of thought you subscribe to. "AI" is not a "gravest of dangers".
    - BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
      >”I don't see nuclear weapons as any worse than conventional weapons because ultimately people die.” If you believe this, I am genuinely curious as to what you would consider the “gravest of dangers” to be.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        I think of threats that are unknown and/or can't be adequately defended against: * Asteroid impacts like Chicxulub. * The Sun eventually inflating into a red giant and eating Earth, though this assumes we're both still around and haven't become spaceborne en masse. * Pandemics such as The Black Death and, indeed, covid for a recent example. * Social, political, or commercial intrigue. * Cancer. "AI" is a known threat that can be adequately defended against, so I agree with the sentiment that it's stupid to call it a "gravest of dangers".
        johsunds 2y ago
        [dead]
brandall10 2y ago
There absolutely is a difference. Nuclear war is considered a likely extinction level event for humanity. A war between the US/NATO and the Soviet Union could take out major cities around the globe within hours, and the resultant nuclear winter would blanket much of the planet within a month making living above ground impossible. GP's comparison is apt here.
- 9dev 2y ago
  Just a minor correction, even though I agree with your point: the Soviet Union is no longer a thing, despite Putins wishes to the contrary :)
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Right, but its nukes are still around and pointed at NATO :).
komali2 2y ago
Can you explain, with your worldview, why the nature of geopolitics turned abruptly and completely upon the invention and proliferation of nuclear bombs? What was it about the nuclear bomb that caused it to be the defining structure of the cold war? Do you believe MAD can exist without nuclear bombs?
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >What was it about the nuclear bomb that caused it to be the defining structure of the cold war? The only difference is you can kill more humans for a given span of time. The end result is the same: Cities are leveled, people are killed. Is it more comforting to have been killed by a conventional bomb than a nuke? I certainly don't think so. So practically speaking, there is no difference. >Do you believe MAD can exist without nuclear bombs? Yes. I think you're all vastly underestimating just how much destructive power conventionals can deliver already. You will need more ordnance on standby, but you absolutely can suffer from MAD without nukes.
  - komali2 2y ago
    Do you believe any country has enough conventional ordinance to end human life on the entire planet? You must know more about this than me, I've never heard of something like this.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Any of the major military superpowers have more than enough conventional boomsticks to end all human life. It might take slightly longer than if nukes were used, but that's hardly comforting.
      - comp_throw7 2y ago
        (For confused readers: no, they don't. Not even the nuclear stockpiles would be enough to cause human extinction, even if they were turned deliberately to that end.)
vouwfietsman 2y ago
I would say at the very least that the empire of Japan clearly evaluated them differently when it surrendered unconditionally directly after being attacked with this new technology. You are saying magnitudes don't influence the identity of something, this is obviously not true. I don't literally attract other objects, the Sun does. The difference is mostly magnitude of mass.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >I would say at the very least that the empire of Japan clearly evaluated them differently when it surrendered unconditionally directly after being attacked with this new technology. The atomic bombs certainly played a part in Japan surrendering, but it wasn't the only one. They were also facing a land invasion from the Soviets, had an utterly depleted military, waning support from the public, and a potentially devastating land invasion by the US on their doorstep. >You are saying magnitudes don't influence the identity of something, this is obviously not true. I am considering these things very dryly and very objectively. I am putting aside emotional pressures and processes and only considering the results which are ultimately all that matters. We already know how much damage an ill-willed intelligent being can achieve, we already know how much more efficient computers can make certain tasks. "AI" is not a "gravest of dangers", given that knowledge.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > I am putting aside emotional pressures and processes and only considering the results which are ultimately all that matters. But what results are you really considering? The "dead is dead" approach makes everything equally meaningless, because in couple hundred million years the Sun will burn the Earth to cinders and everything here will be dead too. Or, some 100-120 years from now, everyone now alive will be dead, etc. Processes, and emotional pressures which steer those processes, matter too. In theory, machine guns could be used to kill everyone on the planet; in practice, it's economically and socially impossible - too much effort, too many people involved. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, can realistically achieve this outcome. Which is why nukes can be used to keep the world mostly at peace through MAD, while conventional weapons can not.