inkblotuniverse

The terminator won't, it's fictional. If AI killed everyone, it probably wouldn't happen like a hollywood movie. Climate change is subject to way more unhinged hysteria, as well! Won't doom the species, though.

If I read a lot of fantasy books as a kid, then start writing my own fantasy book, should I have to pay royalties to the authors of the books I read?

Aeroplanes were science fiction, and widely called such, until they flew.

So do humans, and yet they can be quite troublesome.

Historically, people from different regions would be able to read each other's writing (send letters to each other) even if their spoken dialects/languages were mutually incomprehensible. You get this in European history, too, just not to the same degree.

It's the competence I'm afraid of! If they did it competently, they would make sure they had absolute surveillance of every american's internet history.

Yes, you want the government parenting your (and others) kids.

Why would the government do that, though?

Yes, the war on drugs has been really successful. I certainly want governments doing more of that!

[Muffled screaming]

They're looking to catch up! They don't want to remain poor, after all.

Evil is the wrong term. It's not that an AI will 'turn evil' - it's that we don't know how to make a 'good/friendly' AI, by which I mean an AI that inherently values humans and the things humans value, and any optimising agent that isn't 'friendly' in this sense has an incentive to use our atoms to fulfill whatever it does care about.

This won't be a perfect analogy, because humans have empathy (even towards ants) because we're mammals etc., but how many anthills have humans gassed because the ants were an annoyance?

Now imagine if ants could build nukes- or humans!

You think consent is important. (This isn't even a umiversal position among humans). Why do you expect an AI to value consent? Do you think praying mantises value consent?

Check out based.cooking - just recipes, no fluff.

Part of why those smart people don't rule the world is because high IQ (in humans!) correlates with social problems and mental illness. The assumption is that this is limitation of human brains and that an AI would be less trade-off-y, and you could get one with Aaronson's understanding of quantum computers and the charisma of the greatest politician in recorded history. And when such a nascent AI needs stuff done in the real world, I imagine it could get in on the 'scamming the elderly' game (very lucrative, I hear!) and then pay some humans to do what it wants.

Why would an AI enslave humans? It'll just kill them and build something more useful to it.

I'd say it is- I can read and delete the whole thing in 5 minutes if I need to replace it with something more complicated. Usually, though, YAGNI

90 percent of apps are slow and unreponsive, and harming people by being so: but software developers aren't directly harmed by the effects of their actions, so the situation continues.

There are 1000x gains on the table! Almost all software is so far from pareto-optimal it's comical! It isn't a tradeoff between readability and efficiency, most software is unreadable and inefficient!

When every function in your program is virtual, fixing bottlenecks won't give you a significant speedup. You don't need to optimize programs to make them 1000x faster, we just need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

I dislike government intervention, and so disavow my following statement. In the course of fining hidden externalized costs like those of dumping chemical waste into rivers, governments might fine software developers when they dump informational waste on to customers' machines. In this hypothetical, they deserve it. Anyone who ships an electron app goes to the gulag.

I dislike government intervention, and so disavow my following statement. In the course of fining hidden externalized costs like those of dumping chemical waste into rivers, governments might fine software developers when they dump informational waste on to customers' machines, and if it does, they'll deserve it. Anyone who ships an electron app goes to the gulag.

The government cynically deciding whether or not to feed people doens't seem exclusively or specially capitalist.

Every man needs a semi-autonomous bullet proof drone.

On the upside, I like having access to a forum that excludes everybody too stupid to run an email server.

The wholw point of turing machines is that they can emulate any computable system. You could have your a turing machine simulate every atom inside a human, and then you trivially have a turing machine that shows intelligence equivalent to a human.

We built airplanes before really understanding biological flight (especially e.g. bees).

Yes, that's the good future, except the overwhelming majority of people are virtual (keeping meat alive is expensive!)

I do both.

That seems pretty bad, yeah. I care about humanity. I care about myself! You're welcome to sterilize yourself, but i don't think I'll follow.

The scenario you describe doesn't involve pain, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. An empty, dead universe seems worse to me than one teeming with thought.

Good, too many people are using Linux.