7 ms·
Pardon me but ... I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs"... One of the main reason is that to achieve a nuclear explosion you need to ha
by victork2 14y ago
Pardon me but ... I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs"... One of the main reason is that to achieve a nuclear explosion you need to have a critical mass and the it's hard to conceal for a lot of reasons (radiation etc...).
What's the difference with a car that could have a bomb in its trunk? Or a bag? A lot of scientists have wondered about these ethical questions but I believe that the benefits of high performance IA outweights the downsides of its research.
BUT I definitively agree with that:
"Americans should grow up and abandon their juvenile-minded treatment of weapons, high technology, and the value of “non-American human life” (which, sadly, to many of them is synonymous with “lowlife”). This is the hardest part of my proposal."
*edit: And what about an android to dismantle the atomic bomb instead of humans ? Sounds good to me!
- unimpressive 14y agoMaybe I'm just naive but it seems to me like in a world where the power of the atom bomb can fit in a briefcase, theres no need for androids to get bombs within striking range of their intended targets.
- ars 14y agoThat world already exists. The hard part is getting the isotopes necessary, but there are elements that will do the job. See my post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4067089 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4067089 For a terrorist getting the elements would be hard, but a government would have no trouble, and given the long half life it's a pretty safe bet to assume this bomb actually exists somewhere.
- unimpressive 14y ago>That world already exists. Which was my point. Worrying about hypothetical android bomb carriers is silly when we live in a world where you can pack an atomic bomb in the space of a travelers briefcase. That allows for enough mundane methods of delivery to make suicide androids unnecessary. And as pointed out elsewhere, you don't have to have sentient AI to create something sophisticated enough to deliver a bomb. EDIT: Struck the word "almost" from it's place next to silly in the above sentences.
- Estragon 14y ago> I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs" Yes, I am much more concerned about the scope for ubiquitous surveillance and systematic domination that even fairly modest gains in AI will allow. Something along the lines of the Emergency society in A Deepness in the Sky.
- repsilat 14y agoThis is too much. About a week ago I finished reading A Deepness in the Sky, and a couple of days after that I started reading Charles Stross' Accelerando. In that one I ran across this passage: > "Cats," says Pamela. "He was hoping to trade their uploads to the Pentagon > as a new smart bomb guidance system in lieu of income tax payments. Something > about remapping enemy targets to look like mice or birds or something before > before feeding it to their sensorium. The old kitten and laser pointer trick." > > Manfred stares at her, hard. "That's not very nice. Uploaded cats are a > *bad* idea." Those are some lovely coincidences.
- psykotic 14y agoIt's been forever since I read the book, but wasn't the whole point of the Emergency culture they didn't use AI and relied entirely on hyper-focused humans with enslavement implants?
- lordlicorice 14y agoThen again, maybe AI-based surveillance could eliminate crime without embarrassment from other people violating your privacy.
- baddox 14y ago> What's the difference with a car that could have a bomb in its trunk? Or a bag? Or, for that matter, a personal firearm?
- dlitz 14y agoOr an internet?