4 ms·

>”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

>”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]
      - jiggawatts 2y ago
        We have a better chance of stopping a potential impactor asteroid, if it is detected early, than defending against a nuclear war. We would have years to deflect an asteroid, but just minutes to react to a mass ICBM launch. We have the technology available now to deflect asteroids (ironically, with nukes!), but no country has built up sufficient ballistic missile defence to shield themselves from a first strike. The Sun expanding (or changing in any impactful way) won't be a problem for hundreds of millions of years. Nuclear war could be triggered today. The US is literally sending about a hundred billion in weapons (total) to kill the soldiers of a nuclear-armed belligerent state... right now! Pendemics tend to fizzle because pathogens that kill too fast are self-limiting. Merely making people sick is selected for, because that leads to increased disease spread by the infectious -- but alive -- victims. Societies, politics, and commerce have been more stable than ever in human history, and are become more stable over time, not less. A cure for cancer in the next two decades is looking increasingly likely. Techniques such as individual rapid gene sequencing, custom mRNA anti-cancer vaccines, CRISPR/Cas9, AlphaFold 3, etc... are building up to a toolkit that will eventually allow us to treat pretty much any human illness, possibly including old age itself.
- BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
  That may be what the original commenter was going for, but it only works if one ignores all other externalities. Their reasoning is just too reductive. They make the mistake of thinking that “dead is dead” means lethality is not factor. What’s the difference between a bootleg firecracker and a Russian ICBM? Nothing, both can kill you so it makes no difference to treat one exploding as any more significant than the other. They take a similar mindset of “intelligence is intelligence” and I find flaws with that as well.

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]
    - jiggawatts 2y ago
      We have a better chance of stopping a potential impactor asteroid, if it is detected early, than defending against a nuclear war. We would have years to deflect an asteroid, but just minutes to react to a mass ICBM launch. We have the technology available now to deflect asteroids (ironically, with nukes!), but no country has built up sufficient ballistic missile defence to shield themselves from a first strike. The Sun expanding (or changing in any impactful way) won't be a problem for hundreds of millions of years. Nuclear war could be triggered today. The US is literally sending about a hundred billion in weapons (total) to kill the soldiers of a nuclear-armed belligerent state... right now! Pendemics tend to fizzle because pathogens that kill too fast are self-limiting. Merely making people sick is selected for, because that leads to increased disease spread by the infectious -- but alive -- victims. Societies, politics, and commerce have been more stable than ever in human history, and are become more stable over time, not less. A cure for cancer in the next two decades is looking increasingly likely. Techniques such as individual rapid gene sequencing, custom mRNA anti-cancer vaccines, CRISPR/Cas9, AlphaFold 3, etc... are building up to a toolkit that will eventually allow us to treat pretty much any human illness, possibly including old age itself.
BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
That may be what the original commenter was going for, but it only works if one ignores all other externalities. Their reasoning is just too reductive. They make the mistake of thinking that “dead is dead” means lethality is not factor. What’s the difference between a bootleg firecracker and a Russian ICBM? Nothing, both can kill you so it makes no difference to treat one exploding as any more significant than the other. They take a similar mindset of “intelligence is intelligence” and I find flaws with that as well.