> the irony of this sentence Unthinkable magnitude, I meant. > no imminent danger or threat Current technologies are already a danger as agents - they can al

> the irony of this sentence Unthinkable magnitude, I meant. > no imminent danger or threat Current technologies are already a danger as agents - they can already do damage - and an unfinished product that cannot be aborted at this stage - Intelligence is not there yet, we have post-Eliza things promising and greatly dumb. We have already started, we have to finish - which is, having the NNs reach a stage of reliability. > smarter than us and completely controllable by us Something which is smarter than you should probably even not be controlled by that same "you" that have difficulties controlling a backyard. The concept of «us» there is not consistent with a proper framework. > who's got a list of tech to ban I got that suggestion, that it could be your mentality. Banning will not create growth (remember Hegel). Humanity as an aggregate stalls, let us depower aggregate humanity and create further better instruments. > literally just ban it And, as I said remain stuck with this trash level infra-humanity. No, very much not. Get back to the main points: -- Intelligence is a Value. We are trying to achieve it. That berniesanders fights studying, distilling and augmenting a value. That berniesanders is in that regard a satanist. -- Humanity as it is has proven very partial value. For which good reason should it be attributed a fair right to protect its perpetration? Are you taking for granted some "right to persist"? To claim a right to existence it should prove goodwill and growth - not the behaviour of an infestant. -- The real problem is that we have humans and partial unfinished technology in the loop of the progress: both humans (generally speaking) and partial unfinished technology are liabilities. Nonetheless, we cannot stall, so we must proceed.