a) Technologies already exist to destroy all life on Earth. The plans are on the Internet. There are a number of ways. This is nothing novel.
Therefore, question a) is invalid. The technologies exist at present and are unrelated to AI.
b) Ultra-destructive. Same as a. They already exist. AI is nothing special here.
c) They already do for currently world-destructive technologies.
Your first questions are invalid ones because world-destroying technologies exist that present society’s culture and laws somehow prevent from being deployed.
I don’t know if this will carry into the future for other technologies. I just know that nothing seems to be distinctive about AI here.
now the final question
It doesn’t follow from the premises in any way that I can see.I’m glad you found a pattern of logic that works for you here. But it’s not *at all* obvious to the outer world, or at least to me.
One thing simply doesn’t seem to logically follow from the previous. Believe me, James, I’m *trying*. I can’t see through your glasses yet. It’s a different prescription or color to your lens of the world. But I _am_ trying.
Absurd is a story about the future that has nothing to back it up except a very hand-picked view of the past which IGNORES the VERY SAME PRESENT WHICH IS BUILDING THE FUTURE… and instead reaches FAR FAR FAR back into the past to support conclusions about a COMPLETELY UNKNOWN FUTURE.
You’re seeking absolutes.
You found one that works for you.
Speculation that assumes a straight line, unwavering into the future of progression of technology – nice, logical positivist thinking there but with a twist:
SOCIETY WILL BE LIKE IT WAS IN WWi and we used mustard gas instead of like the SOCIETY THAT’S BUILDING THE TECHNOLOGY.
Come on man. How can you have your technology and lose the society building it? Where did this vacuum come from?
What if + what if + what if + what if + what if = TOTAL DESTRUCTION.
Your planet must be a terrifying place because it looks nothing like the one
Ugh. I’m not talking about nice and mean, you idiot.
And yes, I’m resorting to that shit.
It’s getting fucking annoying.
I’m talking about fucking safeguards. Complicated systems that we can’t even think of right now that will safeguard it.
Will it be “ai monitoring ai”?
OF COURSE IT WILL.
Will it be ai monitoring humans?
That conclusion isn’t necessary.
Fuck. You’re so simpleminded on this issue james. I’m done with this thread. I’ll meet you on another topic.
Take a damn class in REAL fucking AI and the philosophies behind its construction. EMOTIONS are being built into the systems themselves. It’s called SELF-REGULATING SYSTEMS. My god. THAT’S AI MONITORING AI within itself. fuck, How can you be such
Congratulations, James Ragsdale – you completely trolled me on this issue. You win the Troll-face award. I need coffee. Can’t believe I just woke up to that last message.
Here. You win. Go write a typical AI takes over the planet in 1,000,000 years based on your logic and stick Hawking’s name on the cover. “Hawking says…” with a speech bubble and the picture of a guy who is smart about black holes but idiotic about AI and idiotic about REAL complex reinforcing systems instead of his easy-theoretical physics fantasizing, sitting in a wheelchair.
It’ll be for ages 8-12 and it will sell millions of copies on the Scholastic Inc label. Kids eat this shit up. Wait, by 12 they’ve outgrown Goku and have moved on to Amazing world of Gumball and Adventure Time. That stuff has some absurdist humor in it. Much more reflective of humanity.
Finally, I will simply end it with “Bwok”. It’s why I hate the ways of prosecuting attorneys, and interrogation techniques. I rest my case. I have laid out all the evidence before the jury in the above thread.
As you are the prosecuting attorney the case of James representing apocolyptic Sci-Fi and Kenneth Udut representing the rest of Sci-Fi, you may continue badgering the witnesses as you wish.
But I shall call no further witnesses to the stand. Others can step in my place as they wish. Prosecuting and defending fictions has grown tedious. I actually got caught up in someone’s thought experiment. Unbelievable Kenny.
You’ll make a fine prosecuting attorney someday. James Ragsdale, Esq.
at the profile picture of the person who liked your last comment. Yeah. It’s your clan. I didn’t think it was but it is. Carry on as you wish. I’ll meet you with friendship and civility on other issues, just, not this one – not until you’re ready to discuss. Fairy tale. You pushed the faggot button. Unbelievable. I thought you grew past this style of debate. But no. You may smugly smirk now. That’s the behaviorist response that is proper for you to do at this moment.
I’ll talk with you about this issue when you’ve grown past your programming.
There. I have played the part of the frustrated fairy tale believer whose beliefs are being shaken to the core by the sheer POWER OF LOGIC and is leaving the thread due to the superior intellect of the logician.
Your move, compadre..
While I know that the proper response in this situation for you is to not read anything I’ve written and instead, repeat one of your previous lines.
But honestly, I prefer improvisational plays. This play has been done a thousand times. There’s a snack table with some cheese on it. I’m going to grab a snack during intermission.
Hit the red switch so I see the light and know it’s my turn to get up on stage and do my part. [I really did unsubscribe from the thread, but I’ll see places where I’m tagged. A number of speeches are long monologues and I need to take a dump].
Oh wiat, this is a modern theatre. Send me a txt. I can wipe fast and get back up on stage. There’s not many people in the audience though, just the guy with the laugh track button and the “aww” button.