Highest Rated Comments


Indigo_Sunset31 karma

i find that the answers are consistent with a generalized contempt for a highly technically aware group who understands the underlying principles and themes involved.

it's a bit like saying 'we know this car runs like shit, but we just need to change the headlamp fluid.'

Indigo_Sunset18 karma

When the difference between an ant and a human is superimposed, it's no wonder the human pays almost no mind to the destruction of the hill. Whether that human also uses a manifying glass in the sun remains to be seen for those fleeing.

The differences between us and a SI must be considered the same way, even if the chance may be small, given the potential consequence. We cannot in any way guarantee behaviour or controls on such a system, knowing what we've seen from experimental and adaptive systems.

Indigo_Sunset5 karma

I think you may be limiting the perspective to tightly as to why the hill could be tossed. A simple byproduct of a process can be just as deadly as any intended measure.

Perhaps it has an affinity for ants via an ethical means but perceives that there's enough ants that a 'few' don't matter here and there.

On removing hardware, distributed systems are ubiquitous. The probability of nullifying it's presence entirely would appear low. An intelligence greater than ours would also likely remove any ability to interact with its own code.

The benefits are fantastic, and so are the risks. I'm quite curious how it may turn out.

Indigo_Sunset3 karma

Reincarnation to a chicken.

Indigo_Sunset2 karma

despite the virtual depth of field, the physical depth is quite short. are there any concerns about long term use and eye strain or other issues?