3 ms·

OK, perhaps we should go back to your first statement: > If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. Comb

OK, perhaps we should go back to your first statement: > If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. Combined with: > I am putting aside emotional pressures and processes and only considering the results which are ultimately all that matters. Imagine a super-intelligent being that can invent a biological agent that is incurable to current science, spreads rapidly through aerosols, and causes 100% guaranteed death if not cured. That superintelligence can furthermore list a recipe of this biological agent using household items that may be available to anyone who has contact with it, allowing an untrained individual to create the agent after receiving instructions from the super intelligent being. This being you would classify as "no worse a threat" than any living being known to man? Is that "putting aside emotional pressures and considering the results"? Or are you saying that an intelligence, no matter how advanced, can never do the above? A hypothetical magnitude difference of intelligence obviously poses a threat to us, what other explanation is there for the mass extinction of most animals after the Anthropocene started.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>This being you would classify as "no worse a threat" than any living being known to man? Is that "putting aside emotional pressures and considering the results"? I mean, any man sufficiently ill-willed can certainly do all that today. I am unbothered, to say the least; I have better things to do with my limited time. >what other explanation is there for the mass extinction of most animals after the Anthropocene started. You're wildly overestimating the effect humanity has on the ecosystem, many species also went extinct before we showed up. The species we see today are merely a very small handful of all the species that ever graced this planet.
- comp_throw7 2y ago
  > I mean, any man sufficiently ill-willed can certainly do all that today. I am unbothered, to say the least; I have better things to do with my limited time. Uh, no? In fact humans do not currently have a way of causing human extinction (nukes wouldn't do it with current stockpiles). That would require scientific advancements which we have yet to make, and most possible routes seem pretty non-trivial... except, unfortunately, AI.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>This being you would classify as "no worse a threat" than any living being known to man? Is that "putting aside emotional pressures and considering the results"? I mean, any man sufficiently ill-willed can certainly do all that today. I am unbothered, to say the least; I have better things to do with my limited time. >what other explanation is there for the mass extinction of most animals after the Anthropocene started. You're wildly overestimating the effect humanity has on the ecosystem, many species also went extinct before we showed up. The species we see today are merely a very small handful of all the species that ever graced this planet.

comp_throw7 2y ago
> I mean, any man sufficiently ill-willed can certainly do all that today. I am unbothered, to say the least; I have better things to do with my limited time. Uh, no? In fact humans do not currently have a way of causing human extinction (nukes wouldn't do it with current stockpiles). That would require scientific advancements which we have yet to make, and most possible routes seem pretty non-trivial... except, unfortunately, AI.