Science Surviving Progress

[Ghostrider]

Why the big scare about nanotech? We already have far worse: we have germ warfare (which we've been using, albeit in a crude throw-carcass-over-the-wall-with-a-trebuchet way), and Mama Nattie (Mother Nature) can throw some really scary stuff around. Spanish Flu, anyone?

At least nanomachines can be built with failsafes in (like, I shine UV on you, you play dead, like dead for real). Try that with bacteria, after a couple million generations the young ones don't listen to you anymore.

 

[Jarvitä]

Why the big scare about nanotech? We already have far worse: we have germ warfare (which we've been using, albeit in a crude throw-carcass-over-the-wall-with-a-trebuchet way), and Mama Nattie (Mother Nature) can throw some really scary stuff around. Spanish Flu, anyone?

At least nanomachines can be built with failsafes in (like, I shine UV on you, you play dead, like dead for real). Try that with bacteria, after a couple million generations the young ones don't listen to you anymore.

The concern is that once technology is far along enough, cooking up nanomachines without those kind of failsafes will be as easy as mixing molotov cocktails is today, but more destructive than modern weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Ghostrider]

The concern is that once technology is far along enough, cooking up nanomachines without those kind of failsafes will be as easy as mixing molotov cocktails is today, but more destructive than modern weapons of mass destruction.

You can make chemical weapons in your home with readily available supplies, and you can cook up some nasty germ cultures with a little knowledge and other available stuff. All it takes is some grim determination and time to waste.

I mean, want to spell some major grade grief? Botox is your friend. It's a lethal neurotoxin. Haven't seen large-scale theft of botox supplies from clinics to perform acts of depopulation, and you can make it yourself without a massive clandestine lab.

Unlike the movies, real-life evildoers choose rather simple means.

 

[T.Neo]

it does a good enough job of explaining the problem.

Perhaps it does, but it's far too long for me to find time for me to read and is full of overly technical and specific language (the same goes for the article on "CEV").

Problem is, just because some people have a definition, doesn't mean everyone will agree on it. The worst problems in human history came when people thought they had a great idea or were doing a good job but they really weren't. Making a program 'friendly' may prevent it from causing harm from indifference, but that isn't the only problem.

and that's where either a friendly AGI or a matter OS comes in.

I don't necessarily agree, partly because the relevance of said terms is so narrow that their very validity is to be questioned.

The "AGI == slavery" cliche strikes me as far less likely than "advanced nanotech == extinction". Also, that's what the entire friendly AGI problem space is about.

Sentient artificial intelligence has always struck me as the cliche. Create an entity for a practical purpose, and it's a slave, whether the entity is engineered to be dedicated to its field of work or not.

The concern is that once technology is far along enough, cooking up nanomachines without those kind of failsafes will be as easy as mixing molotov cocktails is today, but more destructive than modern weapons of mass destruction.

It is perhaps important to consider that in a world where advanced technology is abundant, such attempts could be rendered less destructive by its presence.

 

[Jarvitä]

Perhaps it does, but it's far too long for me to find time for me to read and is full of overly technical and specific language (the same goes for the article on "CEV").

Why, then, do you continue to debate a subject you admit your ignorance about? AI (and, by extension, friendly AGI) is a complex field, and its perception suffers precisely from the kind of people who preach about it without being even remotely familiar with recent research.

 

[T.Neo]

AI (and, by extension, friendly AGI) is a complex field, and its perception suffers precisely from the kind of people who preach about it without being even remotely familiar with recent research.

I'm not preaching anything. I'm merely advocating that a specific set of assumptions and ideas may not be valid or relevent.

 

[Suzy]

... I hate living on a planet where environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power and eradicating competing apex predators (and in favour of spending untold resources on saving pathetic wastes of oxygen like the panda).

Seriously? I like big cats and wolves and so on, and the planet would be a lot poorer without them. They also are a necessary part of the ecology.

I have lost some enthusiasm for (manned) spaceflight in recent years (though not entirely), and realized it's partly out of disgust at opinions like that from "space cadets" who seem to regard Earth as a disposable planet.

 

[Ghostrider]

I have lost some enthusiasm for (manned) spaceflight in recent years (though not entirely), and realized it's partly out of disgust at opinions like that from "space cadets" who seem to regard Earth as a disposable planet.

Hey, Space Cadet here and I love Earth and Nature. To see us rocket jockeys as people who regard Earth as a disposable planet would be like seeing explorers and sightseers as people who see their home as disposable.

Yeah, there are some folks out of El Nuto among our hallowed ranks of catfeeted jetblowers, but they're a vocal minority we're trying to push out of the airlock.:lol:

 

[Jarvitä]

I have lost some enthusiasm for (manned) spaceflight in recent years (though not entirely), and realized it's partly out of disgust at opinions like that from "space cadets" who seem to regard Earth as a disposable planet.

I don't see it as disposable, I see it as suboptimal for human habitation. Granted, it isn't much of a concern now, but the radical environmentalists are obviously pushing for population control as opposed to optimising the Earth for people.

 

[Ghostrider]

I don't see it as disposable, I see it as suboptimal for human habitation.

Have you considered moving to a better neighbourhood?:lol:

 

[Jarvitä]

Have you considered moving to a better neighbourhood?:lol:

Have you considered the potential consequences of everyone outside a sigma or so of the top "neighbourhoods" picking up and moving? It's a very long-tail distribution.