3 ms·
I believe the argument is that while we can certainly do a great deal of damage to ourselves, an AI would be much more efficient about our eradication if it dec
by AdeptusAquinas 12y ago
I believe the argument is that while we can certainly do a great deal of damage to ourselves, an AI would be much more efficient about our eradication if it decided to remove us (and for some outlandish reason, somehow had access to the resources required to do so).
If a human or humans wiped out two thirds of humanity, it would probably be by accident or neglect, no deliberate and planned.
- TillE 12y agoThere are an incomprehensible number of huge obstacles between us and a future where a strong AI could decide to cause real damage, as opposed to the present where a handful of people could cause a devastating nuclear war. These are issues that AI researchers and philosophers and science fiction authors certainly should be thinking about. They are completely irrelevant to the general public.
- PeterisP 12y agoThe required resources to destroy humanity are rather small and obtainable for a sufficiently smart tiny box. For example, a sufficiently smart tiny box can figure out a DNA sequence for a horrible biological weapon. There are a number of commercial companies that do 'mail-order' synthesis of DNA, and with an amount of money that's easily obtainable by selling digital services (say, zero-day vulnerabilities can be easily sold anonymously) they can make and distribute it before anybody understands what it is. And that's just a single possible option - an AI smarter than me can figure out more and better options than I can. The only barrier to exterminating humans is (a) having sufficient intelligence and (b) having the interest to do it. Capability is not really an issue.