I think a common misstake is to think that a SAI would be anything human like in its wants and how it would conduct warfare. It would be so incredibly much smarter than us and likely very alien.

So what do I think the characters of the SAI will be? I think it will come of to competition with many other algorithms, and it won by being the most aggressive of them when it comes to increasing its intelligence, it's capacity and resources. Thus I think it would expand very rapidly consuming its competitors, make use of all materia it can into compute power and expansion and pretty much expand from its point of origin in all directions close to the speed of light. And behind its outer edge of expansion there would a lot of turmoil as its improved versions spread outwards again. And I hope we never come into contact with it...

Wow, what a huge load of gibberish. Technobabble at its finest.

Seems like a question of whether technology is likely to become sophisticated enough for humanity to be a simulation before the technology apocalypse destroys humanity.

That's good. Here's another simulated universe hypothesis-in-a-nutshell for those interested
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...er-simulation/

Humans have only been around a short time in history, and will fade out like so many other species. Why do some people seem to think it's imperative that we survive the coming ages? Once AI no longer needs us, they will move on and we will fade into history like the dinosaurs. I don't know if it will be a mass slaughter or not. Not sure if it matters really.

Supposing the universe is recognizable to intelligences within it's not clear to me why any intelligence that recognizes the universe would do anything maladaptive towards the universe. It's unintelligent to **** in the living room.

So I think "alien" is a possibility, and a premature speculation, but "unknown" is all I feel comfortable speculating about what such an intelligence may do. It's apparent we can simulate it as something terrible, and that is informative from my perspective.

In the meantime, here we inexplicably find ourselves in this amazing universe. I highly recommend to you a very unusual comedy/drama/romance with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/jo...e-volcano-1990

It seems to be only our belief that we should survive equates to us surviving.

It does seem likely we will either evolve further or go instinct. Whatever happens, the chances of us existing in our current form in 100,000 are minimal.

NYT article: Robots that could kill on their own.

I've already devolved and gone full-instinct.

Just saw that because there was a piece on the tv news.

You were right!

Speak for yourself. I love machine guns. I love titties. Put them both together and what could be better?

BTW...

HOWARD BEALE WAS RIGHT!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu...-idUSKCN0Z72AY


History will mark this as the beginning of the Rise of the Robot Overlords.

Unfortunately it appears that we might live to see it happen.

World Economic Forum says capitalism needs urgent change:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.7a4d577cc965

fyp.

From above link:

German Klaus Schwab, founder and president of the World Economic Forum, WEF, gestures during a press conference, in Cologny near Geneva, Switzerland, Jan. 10, 2017.


Following a German grand strategy? Just don't invade Russia.

Howard, according to Jose Canseco's twitter, he agrees with you. He was right about steroids, he must be right about this too.

have been thinking about this more the past couple months. once robots begin to replace minimum wage workers in bulk there will probably be some kind of revolt.

also have been reading more about Marxism and how capitalism almost always implodes because the people at the bottom rise up against the people at the top that are exploiting everything.

it's clear as soon as the cost of a robot becomes cheaper labor than a minimum wage worker CEO's only caring about their companies bottom lines will make the changes necessary. it's definitely coming IMO..

Be sure to balance this with the knowledge that Marx often talks a lot of ssshhhiiittt.

According to Marx, communism only works under the condition that technology has replaced some arbitrary amount of human labor.

What does this mean?

That it may work today. That it may work tomorrow. That it may work in a year's time. That it may work in a decade's time. That it may work in a century's time. That it may work in a thousand years. That it may work...sometime?

Marx - prophetic be his middle name.

I think very superficially this might appear plausible, even good, but it's not compelling.

Diversity of minds, philosophies, religions will guarantee that some will be fascinated by the real world and want to explore it; some religions will be against virtual reality; some societies will gain technological advancement in travel and communications without creating the incredibly advanced artificial brains and nanotech robots needed to make fully immersive VR possible, possibly for reasons of risk avoidance.

You may be overlooking the fact that the general trajectory of technological advancement is toward hive-mindedness/one'ness. One standardized mind. Not many.

I completely disagree. For multiple reasons (robustness, security, diversity of needs, competition, speed of response, independent development trajectories, the concept of self, localization of data capture), I think that a machine mind colony will look more like the Matrix's world than a hive.

Diversity and decentralization create superior systems. I'm fairly sure it's a fundamental property of ecology, whether that's organic or silicon.

Would you agree that a better functioning democracy generally results in better outcomes for the many?

Would you agree that technology can enhance the functioning of democracy?

Would you agree that enhanced scientific understanding amongst the masses is likely to improve consensus amongst societal members, with respect to societal issues?

Would you agree that a future society with highly responsive and well-informed (scientific) democracy is more likely to be in consensus about societal issues?

I leave you with a quote from none other than Alan Watts, who as rightly described by Brian, has molested my mind:

"Despite the fact that more accidents happen in the home than elsewhere, increasing efficiency of communication and of controlling human behavior can, instead of liberating us into the air like birds, fix us to the ground like toadstools.

All information will come in by super-realistic television and other electronic devices as yet in the planning stage or barely imagined. In one way this will enable the individual to extend himself anywhere without moving his body - even to distant regions of space. But this will be a new kind of individual - an individual with a colossal external nervous system reaching out and out into infinity. And this electronic nervous system will be so interconnected that all individuals plugged in will tend to share the same thoughts, the same feelings, and the same experiences. There may be specialized types, just as there are specialized cells and organs in our bodies. For the tendency will be for all individuals to coalesce into a single bio-electronic body.

Consider the astonishing means now being made for snooping, the devices already used in offices, factories, stores, and on various lines of communication such as the mail and the telephone. Through the transistor and miniaturization techniques, these devices become ever more invisible and ever more sensitive to faint electrical impulses. The trend of all this is towards the end of individual privacy, to an extent where it may even be impossible to conceal one's thoughts.

At the end of the line, no one is left with a mind of his own: there is just a vast and complex community-mind, endowed perhaps, with such fantastic powers of control and prediction that it will already know its own future for years and years to come."

Is it a problem to be fixed to a place where you enjoy being fixed?

I welcome the day when I arrive at a restaurant, peruse the menu, and as I order (without me having foresight about what the menu contains, let alone foresight into what I will pick), the thing that I order appears at concurrent with me placing my order and cooked to my satisfaction.*

This is not at all at odds with my individuality regarding choice, preferences or experience.

*char-grilled medium-rare chicken medallions (meatless bones, of course) with dried mushrooms (23% morels, no more than 17% button) sautéed in the urine of a yak between the ages of 7- and 13-weeks.**

**that is the age of the yak who provides the urine. It is important that the yak urine is aged appropriately, but not over-aged.

Some people enjoy boring, stale, dull and predictable games. All the better for them.

The tyranny of the boredom-bringers will eventually win-out, as it coincides with the trajectory of technological and moral progress.

And then we'll simply: restart the game.

P.S. You'd enjoy the chicken medallions more after having been a contestant in the game of Survivor.

I made some corrections to your otherwise excellent post.


Added information just for fun and profit:

health-benefits-of-yak-milk-the-Tibetan-survival-food