5 ms·
Yes.
by maximilianburke 1y ago
Yes.
- ekjhgkejhgk 1y agoWell, a lot of us have a curious mind. Like, fission is a property of this universe. Gradient descent is a property of this universe. All you're saying is you'd rather not know about it. I'm happy that nuclear weapons and AI have been invented, and I'm excited about the future.
- drdeca 1y agoOk, but regardless of your feelings about AI, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t wish that nuclear weapons had never been invented. (Well, maybe it ended the combat between the US and Japan faster…, and maybe prevented the Cold War from becoming a hot war, but still, is that really worth the constant looming threat of nuclear Armageddon?)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- wartywhoa23 1y agoIf only having a curious mind would imply having a far-sighted and responsible one.
- ekjhgkejhgk 1y agoIt normally does. That's why I can consider that nuclear weapons might have better uses in the future, presently unknown to us, and you can't.
- sensanaty 1y agoNuclear weapons could have a better use in the future? Pray tell, what exactly have you envisioned here?
- ekjhgkejhgk 1y agoMy point is that you don't know what the future holds, but it's better to know more than less. My point is valid even if I can't provide examples. However, if you ask me to, I can imagine using those weapons against meteors headeds for Earth, or possibly aliens. We don't know. Phew, I never thought that "it's better to know more than less" would be controversial on HN.
- Supermancho 1y agoLack of imagination often results in preconceived answers, to open ended questions.
- thoroughburro 1y agoThe curious child takes apart an animal and learns surgery. The animal, however, is nonetheless killed.
- maximilianburke 1y agoI have a curious mind too but I don't go cutting up neighbourhood cats to see what they look like on the inside.
- ekjhgkejhgk 1y agoWell, you can learn what a cat looks like on the inside from a book. But someone did have to go around cutting up neighborhood cats, you're just benefiting from them. Which is the _whole reason_ why I maintain my position that inventing AI and nuclear weapons is a net positive for mankind.
- steve_adams_86 1y agoIf you're curious about that, are you curious about hypotheses like the Great Filter (Fermi paradox), and are you concerned that certain technologies could actually function as the filter? I mean, what if the nuclear bomb actually did burn up the atmosphere? What if AI does turn into a runaway entity that eventually functions to serve its own purposes and comes to see humans the same way we see ants: as a sort of indifferent presence that's in the way of its goals?
- wartywhoa23 1y agoThere is a sort of people who read 1984 and blame the protagonist for being an idiot who called the fire upon himself, or still don't get what's wrong with ice9 and people behind it when turning the last page of Cat's Craddle. And a sort of people who sympathize Winston and blame Felix Hoenikker, but still fail to see any parallels between "fiction" and life.
- ekjhgkejhgk 1y agoI don't know for certain if, when you say "a sort of people", you're referring to me, but... The sort of people you're describing sound like fascists, which is the opposite of me.
- wartywhoa23 1y agoWe're on the same side then, even if our opinions on the subject differ. Please take no offence.
- ekjhgkejhgk 1y agoI mean sure. I'm not saying "lets be wreckless". I'm saying "lets understand everything about everything, more rather than less".
- steve_adams_86 1y agoI suppose I'd rather see us understand nuclear weapons without vaporizing civilians and causing an arms race. I'm not claiming to have a solution to preventing the arms race aspect of technology, but all the same: I'd rather these weapons weren't built.