I'm saying that with some costly adaptions that don't involve AI it's likely manageable for some time. Not that it will remain manageable forever if we do nothi

I'm saying that with some costly adaptions that don't involve AI it's likely manageable for some time. Not that it will remain manageable forever if we do nothing. > You're looking at where the ball is and not where it's going. No, I am looking at where the ball is going to be soon, not where it's going to be a year or two if we do nothing. Short-term, impact-limiting will do the job. Longer term we have to rethink some infrastructure, may need international treaties and perhaps a partial end of the internet (e.g. stop routing traffic from countries that don't participate in the treaties). > Cloning itself to every machine/data center/desktop/iPhone, etc. That's lead-up to a paperclipper scenario and not what happened. If we stand still and let it happen in the future, then having deployed more compute hardware to run defensive AIs that the malicious AI could take over would still end up having made things worse. We seem to agree on this point. What I'm saying is look at the conclusion, reject that path. Figure out something else. There isn't even proof that defensive AI would work. It might just be the world's biggest, fully-automated phishing channel. So why would anyone be adamant that deploying more AI is the only possible solution. If it were a movie plot I'd suspect the AI already controlling whoever is suggesting that.