Slashdot Mirror
Terrorist Target Mexican Nanotechnology Professors
An anonymous reader writes "A Mexican terrorist organization sent an explosive device to an ITESM professor due to his research in nanotechnology. ITS or Individuals with Wild Tendencies in english, is a group that claims to be against the 'nanotechnology revolution' in fear of a nanomachine take over that will mean the end of civilization. The group has published on their website that they plan to target individuals in this research field to ensure the survival of mankind. Mexican authorities are investigating the case."
n/t
The Unobomber.
Anyone ever hear of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo?
I reject the notion that "anything man does is unnatural".
Even if nanotechnology led to a significant change in our species and others, it's just as natural as anything else that happens in the universe. I wish these Luddites would realize that we don't need to stop where we are.
Somebody reads too much Michael Crichton
But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose.
Bullshit. This is real life, not a movie. The tech will likely never be as capable or sophisticated as the magic masquerading as technology in Sci-Fi.
It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.
If nanotech is your biggest fear then you are so far out of reality that it's laughable. An eventual nuclear war between any of India/Pakistan, Iran/Israel, North Korea/Somebody is far more likely to be the biggest threat this century, and unlike nanotech, actually behaves the way it appears on video.
They say that every century. And if that's how you conduct your "civilization", losing it really wouldn't be a very big loss to the universe.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Any new technology brings risk. However, it also brings empowerment. As a species, we simply need the knowledge in order to survive. If we don't, then the next meteor collision will just wipe us all out.
Besides, you can't halt research. You can kill a few scientists, but you simply can't kill them all. All you can do is ensure that someone else figures it out first.
Sometimes fear is an appropriate response, but cowardice is not.
And when we do survive? How can we contact you to laugh in your face?
I'm sorry, I couldn't understand you with Kurzweil's dick in your mouth.
There is only one thing man sometimes does that is unnatural:
celibacy.
We'll be fine so long as we stick with IPv4.
I think that bombing people is horrible. But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose. It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.
Your statement is both pathetic and sad. It's pathetic in that such profound ignorance actually exists and promotes itself. It's sad in that there are probably many ignorant victims who will actually swallow its fearful and intrinsically defeatist message.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
and not unabomber 2
This may come as a shock, but the people working on this stuff also don't want to destroy the earth, and they are pretty careful about making sure that it doesn't happen.
They aren't perfect, of course, but their imperfection also makes it less likely that they would create the perfect agent to destroy the earth, even on accident.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=415319&CategoryId=14091
Why oh why don't I have mod points?
Nuclear war in some part of the world my occur, but that has nothing to do with the issue of nanotechnology. The fact is, nanotechnology is a tremendous risk. The inability to see this is only a lack of imagination.
But they are not the decision-makers.
that these terrorists have watched too much G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra.
They have used a bomb that is considered cutting edge technology centuries, if not millenia, ago. So indeed they were using a man-made device which beats their purpose. Maybe after some time, nano-tech will be as common as your i which probably human kind will be researching on a field that we do not know at this time.
If someone is willing to fight for something, they might as well live the life on what is being fight for. If your anti-tech, then live without tech. Don't use plastic, cellular phone, tv, and specially gun powder or any explosive substances.
"And if that's how you conduct your "civilization", losing it really wouldn't be a very big loss to the universe."
You can repeat those words as your children are being eradicated by our creations.
Hey geniuses - I mock your mocking of the threat of NanoTech. Just yesterday I read a post talking about how someone (perhaps the nanotech industry) wants to use "tiny micro filters" **in the water** to catch those pharmaceuticals that are gaining steam as a waste product. **Tiny filters** **in the water** ?? I rest my case
Of course. The biggest danger is a bomb from 1945. Not a bomb from 2045. Got you,
And the belief that it is a very real threat is an incredibly overactive imagination. People are well aware of the POSSIBLE risks, even as small as they are. Stop reading a bunch of science fiction and start looking at science facts. You may as well bomb the LHC because it could collapse the universe or create time travel possibilities.
Nanotechnology is no more a risk than any other technology. Seriously, look at some of the things that are classified as nanotech. If you make a powder fine enough it can be classified as nanotech.
There's two reasons people are so irrationally afraid. First, nanotech is, by definition, invisible to the human eye. Since they can't see how it works, they're afraid.
Second comes all the media, both news and entertainment, that uses nanotech the same way the 60s used radiation or the same way the 1800s used electricity. Quoth TVTropes: "Nanotechnology has become an all-purpose magic substitute for soft science fiction and sci-fi-flavored fantasy. Nano is the latest sci-fi name buzzword".
Anyone with a modicum of education in the matter can tell you that nanotechnology, as it now stands, is completely unable to destroy the world. That famous "grey goo" scenario? Yeah, that's not only extremely unlikely to ever happen (comparable to a virus taking over every machine on the Internet and turning it against us), but completely impossible with current engineering. We don't have nano-scale robots. That's probably further away than fusion power, honestly. The most advanced nanotech we have now is the processor in your computer - the actual transistors and wires and such are made at 100nm, possibly as small as 32nm. That qualifies it as nanotechnology. And it's as likely to destroy the world as the chair you're sitting in.
Replicators already exist. They are robust, they use materials in the environment, they reproduce. They're called "bacteria" and the reason they can't overtake the planet is that it's a very hostile place. Organisms have evolved for a very long time, and generally they get more efficient at making more of them. Yet here we are. I, for one, am not worried about grey goo.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The inability to see this is only a lack of imagination.
I wouldn't call it a lack of imagination. The fixation on doomsday scenarios, though, is simply a lack of sanity.
Quite a content-less reply, containing only insults and absolutely no substance related to the issue at hand. And before you reply, know that I am not ignorant of these topics.
If Mexico has enough prosperity for head cases like these to think up crazy shit to bomb people over it will very soon surpass the US and the flow of illegal immigrants will reverse.
Juvenile. Go spend your time on facebook and leave intellectual discussions to people who have manners and maturity.
you're saying we don't have engineers and scientists that wouldn't cheerfully work on something that could kill a billion people or more? a done deal, I can name two countries that have spent over five trillion (5 x 10^12) dollars each to build and deploy systems for just that. They also spent billions of dollars on alternative systems with a different type of tech with the same goal. I can assure you in this world we have the money, the will, the whackjobs.
before you reply, know that I am not ignorant of these topics.
Please elaborate.
Neither your content-free original trolling post nor your numerous content-free irate responses to the critics of said trolling post contain any suggestion of your being other than ignorant on the topic of nanotechnology.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Anyone who buys into this sci-fi bullshit view of nanotechnology doesn't understand the purpose of stomachs, cell membranes, or any other reaction chamber. As a rule, you need rather tight control to orchestrate such a detailed chemical reaction.
We're talking about carefully orchestrated chemical reactions, not atomic sized robots. You're grey goo will need reaction chambers in which to carry out it's reactions. Ergo, you're grey goo looks an awful like living cells.
There is vastly more risk from advanced bioweapons like designer viruses, i.e. weapons that exploit our cell's machinery to kill us. Is a racial targeted virus impossible? I donno, maybe, maybe not, but it's infinitely less stupid than the grey goo idea. And I'd think considerably more concerning to anyone of native central american ancestry, given the racist psychopaths elected by the Tea party in the U.S.
Quite a content-less reply, containing only insults and absolutely no substance related to the issue at hand. And before you reply, know that I am not ignorant of these topics.
You're ignorant of the topics. To be honest, I don't know much about nanotechnology and biotechnology, but you included AI in the mix, and I am in the field (kinda hard to say that I'm an AI researcher, because the field is so darn broad). Honestly, stop thinking skynet. Unless you're afraid of computers that can play chess and go, or computers like IBM's Jeopardy player, Watson, that can understand natural language, perform a database search and reply to your question (with absolutely zero understanding of the actual question or what it is answering by the way...in fact, no machine is self-aware to the point that it would realize it is answering your question), or machines that can recognize objects and individual human faces...you have no reason to fear AI.
AI is not like in the movies. There is ZERO work being done on trying to make self-aware machines, because nobody understands how that process works, even in humans. Any research you see in this topic today is basically being done by the AI equivalent of the physics perpetual motion machine guys. In the past, back in the 70's and early 80's, there was actual serious research in the area, because we were all really optimistic about neural networks and expert systems. Neural networks and expert systems did pan out, but not in the way researchers back then thought they would. You don't get HAL, you get an efficient spam filter.
Agreed, GP is overmodded for a post that says nothing. For comparison:
Nano- and Bio-tech are very real dangers, I can swallow that. I might even buy the idea that mankind can create a disaster it cannot itself recover from. However, I'm going to say (largely in ignorance) that it's likely that any disaster we create will be behind our knowledge-curve, not ahead of it--because in general, engineering lags behind science by a fair bit. (See also: Every article on /. about new battery tech, solar cells, etc, for the last ten years or more.) So while we can truly and horribly screw ourselves, it's fairly likely to be something we can overcome. Whatever disaster we create with nanotechnology or biotechnology, or AI, at that point we will have made advances in that field and will have tools to defend ourselves that we do not currently have. For example, if we create some sort of virulent, viral grey goop with nanotech that wants to eat up all carbon-based substances on earth and extrude diamond, killing anything alive in the process, hey! We've discovered virulent, viral nanotechnology that can create large amounts of a desirable substance. Maybe we could use that to create a spaceship or colonize another planet. Earth, screwed; humankind, however regrettably, survives.
GGP seems to suggest, in contrast, that it's hugely likely we will create something we have no chance of fighting against. About the only likely candidate for that is a particularly well-made virus; nanotechnology, AI, and the rest of bioengineering don't seem likely to be terribly fatal to the species as a whole. Note that the virus would probably have to be specifically made for the purposes of killing off all human-kind, because nature has been trying since before humans were humans, without much success. Even AI at the most sci-fi action movie worst has a lot of weaknesses, for example power. Unless we develop a limitless power source (Hey! We developed a limitless power source. Let's go to mars. Earth, screwed, mankind survives), you can bust up power grids until affected machines are dead.
This title could have been so much more awesome (with 60% more alliteration): "Terrorists Target Tijuana Tech Teacher"
The inability to see this is only a lack of imagination.
Quite the reverse. Seeing a risk where none exists, solely on the basis of what you've seen in fiction, is an overabundance of imagination on your part. It is not that we who dismiss "grey goo" are under-imaginative, so much as it is those who fear imaginary threats are out of touch with reality.
You know what's even more dangerous? That alternating current! That shit can kill an elephant -- See for yourself!
i think i speak for everyone in this thread, when i ask;
what the fuck are you on about?
The main reason our particular species of green goo hasn't overtaken the planet, for example, is that we find lots of other species cute and so we've made a conscious decision not to exterminate them. And even then we lost (and are still losing) quite a few other interesting and useful parts of the biosphere, as we pass through the dangerous "apes with tools" phase on the way in between "apes" and "apes with tools and self-restraint".
What if "bacteria with tools" turn out to be just as big a step above bacteria? Evolution has surely found a pretty good local optimum for bacteria, but intelligent invention may still be able to find a non-local improvement. Apes evolved to be successful omnivores for a very long time, but that didn't mean it wasn't a huge change when some of them started equipping themselves with spears, bows and arrows, guns...
It's no wonder you quote Idiocracy in some of your post, you are a product of it. :)
"But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose."
Help us understand. Tell us the real dangers of nanotechnology that you are aware of and it will destroy humans.
For biotech, as we use the results of biotech everyday, please be specific on what you are referring to and how that will help in destroying humans.
For AI, we are getting more sci-fi'y, but please tell use why the presumed self aware robots would care to stay on this tiny planet. There is no particular need for an M-class planet, solar power is enough, and many planets are likely to have raw materials to make robots? If they stay here for curiosity for animals and humans here, why would they want to destroy us..
Perhaps cjonslashdot should consider your sig.
It'll quit hurtin' once the pain stops.
Terrorist acts like these must be dealt with severely, but they are a reaction to a threat that really does exist. Mind-invasive technology exists in the form of implants that can digitize the brainwave patterns corresponding to verbal thoughts, and the digital signal then transmitted wirelessly to a remote system. Basically iPhone type of technology 20-30 years advanced, but it's being put in people's brains today without their knowledge or consent. Modern technology makes (synthetic) telepathy a reality.
Check out the podcast links at http://www.areyoutargeted.com/ for more information. Be warned, though, it isn't pleasant.
Nanotech is going to do what to us? Grey goo us to death? Nuclear war is much more likely. Piles of warmongers have (or are trying very hard to have) nuclear weapons. We are one mistake on one escalation awar from nuclear war, and you think that someone will invent intelligent self-replicating machines that will devour the planet? Someone needs a lesson in risk analysis
Learn to love Alaska
Really, samzenpus? Why not do your job and turn that into actual English?
Hey, I thought they already killed that guy!
>The group has published on their website that they plan to target individuals in this research field to ensure the survival of mankind
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I think he just finished reading Michael Crichton's "Prey"
A stand-alone computer becomes self-aware. Where is the risk? What is the probability that someone will invent a self replicating and self-fueling nanobot and program it to destroy the planet? And what "biotech" do you object to? GMOs? The FDA weaponizing anthrax for the military for our bio-weapons programs for plausible denyability for the treaties that violates?
Learn to love Alaska
on a nano level
I for one welcome our nanotech overlords... clearly having nanotech rule our lives is better than having another human do it.
The issue is that nanotechnology might wipe us out. I don't want that to happen, even if it is "natural".
Exactly, many of us have been working very hard on the LHC to ensure that we get to wipe us all out first. After all we all know from Hollywood documentary movies that all of us scientists are hell-bent on performing insanely dangerous experiments without regard to the fact that they would result in the deaths of our own families and loved ones, not to mention ourselves too.
They say that every century...
Today, Mexico is performing advanced research in nanotechnology, and has an educated segment of the populace to comprehend nanotechnology, with a tiny extremist fringe. The fact Mexico has any anti technology terrorists is a sign that Mexico is a modern nation. Go Mexico!
"An eventual nuclear war between any of India/Pakistan, Iran/Israel, North Korea/Somebody is far more likely to be the biggest threat this century,"
Atmospheric testing has proven that level of nuclear warfare won't be much of a problem except for the countries taking the hits. Enough warheads to match or beat that level of nuclear exchange have been detonated with little fallout (pun intended!) aboveground. Many of those shots were in the US.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/
Israel/Iran or Indo/Pak exchanges would be the least inconvenient to the rest of the world, and India has enough people to take the hit, wipe out Pakistan, and survive as a nation. When the Paks collapse and the Jihadists take over, that may well happen since if Pak nukes can't be disabled a first strike would be the best way of ending the mortal threat to India.
The Norks could hit the South, but that would green light a US nuclear response. We used to have fighters on Zulu Alert ready to vape the Norks, but now SSBNs are more secure and one could dispose of the Communists in fine style. That's what keeps them in their box so I don't expect NK to suicide.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Troll indeed,
For some reason any and all technological advances have been met with ludicrous resistance based on a combination of superstition and ignorance. Often the church was the driving force, seeing all changes as a threat to their wealth and power. In other words this is nothing new.
Nanotechnology and biotechnology is no more dangerous than other radical technologies. Nuclear power for instance has many more potential dangers than nanotechnology, and the dangers of biotechnology are well known and understood.
But going back a century or two and you'll find ridiculous resistance against things like steam power and the combustion engine. Even speed itself had its opponents that argued that the human body wasn't built to move faster than a horse could take it. They were certain that faster speeds would literary separate the body and soul and leave the soul behind (for the devil to take). Oh, and the Flat Earth'ers were convinced that any attempts at sailing past the edge of the world would be met with the full wrath of God, in essence triggering the Apocalypse.
Yes, crazy people have always been around, and sometimes they carry bombs...
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Due to carbon assymetry and chirality most of those self replicating machine use left sided molecules/proteins and would not be able to touch the right sided one. If you could come up with a machinery with protein which are right sided instead of left sided, NOTHING living on earth could attack it. Granted the tricky part would be to make it able to metabolyze left sided molecules...
I wouldn't call it "fear mongering", but the claim that the Manhattan project tests could "ignite the atmosphere" via a chain reaction involving nitrogen was raised by none other than Edward Teller. Another scientists (can't recall who) calculated that this was highly unlikely and Teller subsequently retracted his claim.
As for grey goo, it happened ~3.8 billion years ago, we call it the biosphere. Nothing short of vaporising the top few kilometers of the Earth's crust will totally destroy it, and even then it will probably come back when things cool down.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Sure we have engineers and scientists who would work on a project to kill billions, and we have governments who would want it.
What we don't have are governments who want to indiscriminantly kill billions of people. Sure, a device intended to kill billions of specific people could accidentally kill everyone, but no one is working towards that explicit goal. In addition we also don't actually have any weapons which are capable of killing billions of people despite trillions of dollars of research. We have a bunch of weapons which individually kill a few hundred thousand people which could, together, kill billions of people, but that's not an accident.
Even some sort of weaponized supervirus would be unlikely to wipe out humanity as a whole, human civilization sure, but humanity as a whole is fairly unlikely. We are you see, very very good at surviving.
I think that bombing people is horrible. But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose. It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.
I do see a danger for biotechnology (especially genetics), because while we certainly will never be able to destroy the world, we will probably one day be able to genetically engineer deadly illnesses with the potential to wipe out most of humanity. Of course this doesn't mean that we shouldn't do biotechnology, because banning biotechnology would not stop people determined to do that, it would only make sure that other people would not have the necessary knowledge to fight against such an engineered illness. About nanotechnology, I don't see much danger. And I don't expect seeing true strong AI in my life time. Apart from being a nice subject for SF, I don't see any reason to worry much about it now.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Unless he's in the unabomber league, I don't see how much one lone person can do.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In the near future, it shouldn't be that difficult to construct proteins that will target DNA sequences that occur often/only in specific races of humans. Combine that with smart drug delivery systems, and the result can be quite troublesome.
We need very good regulation, perhaps even stricter than the regulation we have for nuclear devices.
I certainly don't foresee a future where people can produce nano-particles using home-equipment.
Stupid mexicans. Now make my burrito!
I didn't see this one coming but should have. The farther away one is from a phenomenon the more mystical and threatening it feels and the opposite. Just ask the Italians about the Pope.
Is the science as bad as his other books? I picked up a couple in the local charity shop recently. The stories are fun, but the science is just painful. Even someone skim-reading Wikipedia would have a better understanding of the topics he covers than he seems to.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
that can understand natural language, perform a database search and reply to your question (with absolutely zero understanding of the actual question or what it is answering by the way
Sounds like some humans I've met...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why oh why don't I have mod points?
Because oh because you need to be logged into an account.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
That is what should be worried about: particles already on the market that are so small, they easily get past the blood / brain barrier.
At one time, asbestos seemed miraculous too.
...we're worried about the Mexican Macroimigration take over that will mean the end of civilization.
This kind of stuff has the typical flavour of the USA-brand of lunatics...
You don't have to bomb it. You just gotta hit a few of the sensitive coolant carrying parts with a claw hammer. Me and a few of my mates got drunk after our team lost a soccer match, and did it a couple of years ago.
About the mechanization/dehumanization of colonialism.
My posts were not content-free. And my original post was not a "trolling" post.
After very careful consideration over many years, I have concluded that these doomsday scenarios are not unlikely. In fact, I believe that the "singularity" is a very probably occurrence in this century, and that humanity as we know it will cease to exist. My whole life I have been a proponent of technology, and a "promethean" as Ben Bova put it. I also have several degrees in the sciences and have worked in technology for 30 years. But I now realize that we are a train about to run off the rails.
This sounds like a incidental headline one would see in some movie script where people get sent back in time to stop the advancement of some technology that ultimately leads to some sort of global doom or financial ruin for someone.
And who knew Jeri Ryan was living in Mexico these days?
And it's as likely to destroy the world as the chair you're sitting in.
That would depend on who's throwing it, would it not?
Interesting point, that our science would be ahead of the engineering. I hope you are right: the stakes are very high.
The point that the technology would have to be designed to wipe us out ignores the unique and scary aspects of future nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI: the potential to evolve on their own, and to replicate themselves.
With regard to power source, we only need to look at the examples that nature provides: all the bacteria out there. These have a power source: the sun. But what makes bacteria relatively safe is that they evolved slowly, and in competition with other types of bacteria and organisms, maintaining a relative equilibrium. Technologies that humans introduce are shocks to the system, and one can easily foresee a run-away chain reaction....
It would make more sense to leave intellectual discussions to those with intellect. But, as you have aptly demonstrated, you have neither.
Ah, now a direct insult.
You are right, that today the risk of nuclear war is much greater. The issue is what the risk will be in 20 years, and by then it will be too late to change course.
You're a paranoid lunatic, and deserve no respect until you get medicated.
This is different.
Saying something challenging or controversial is not trolling. Trolling is saying something designed to provoke anger. My post is not a trolling post. If one cannot have a discussion here about something controversial without being called a "troll", then what is the point of this discussion board?
The observation that people "have always said that" is an attempt to say that, in some abstract sense, nothing has changed, that history will repeat: if there was no threat before, and people have falsely claimed there was, then there must be none now.
History does repeat with regard to human affairs - except with respect to technology. We have never been at this point before . We have never been on the verge of creating self-replicating and potentially self-evolving technologies. Further, you are no doubt aware of the exponential or pseudo-exponential curve of the "singularity". The thing about a singularity is that things don't seem to change much - except that they speed up - until you hit the singularity. Thus, the past doesn't warn you that there is a barrier up ahead.
The reason to worry about it now is because it will take a popular movement to put checks in place. There are some checks on biotech, but there are none on AI.
I agree that AI implemented using computers presents little threat. But various research projects are attempting to create brain machines, using neural networks.
you're saying we don't have engineers and scientists that wouldn't cheerfully work on something that could kill a billion people or more?
That's a completely different argument. Killing a lot of people isn't the same as killing every human on the entire planet.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Actually, I have two master's degrees and an undergrad in physics (from an Ivy League school), and according to the SAT tests I took in high school I am in the 99th percentile.... In fact, the lowest score I ever got on the SAT or GRE in any subject was 720. So I think I have some intellect. Your use of personal attacks shows what you are about. I won't be responding to you anymore.
True, entertainment's "mystery force" was nuclear from the '50s-'90s, then it was biotech in the 90s and 00s, and now in the '10s it's starting to shift to nanotech. See: GI Joe movie, Crysis (a nanotech Spider-Man...hey Spider-Man's generally kept up with the mystery force of the times, will the new movie have a nanotech Spider-Man?), all the dumb shit being advertised as "nanotech-enhanced."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Grey goo is theoretically possible but highly unlikely. Since you consider the singularity to be a bad thing I take it you're worried about a Terminator-type situation, which again is unlikely. Why do you focus so much on the worst (remotely) possible outcomes of new techologies?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
we have paid scientists and engineers to design (at *least* that stage) cobalt and gold jacketed nuclear devices that would kill all people except for those who were in underground bunkers for years. I don't think you fully appreciate the level of twisted evil socialpathic fucks we have in the military-industrial complex.
What we don't have are governments who want to indiscriminantly kill billions of people
Massive depopulation is one of the topics the wealthy who have our governments in their pockets discuss at their yearly conference. Some of those meetings have been secret. Some of the means have been reported as extreme.
I have similar GRE and SAT scores, a PhD in physics and other degrees. Yet I agree with other posters that your posts have been light on content, and the content that was there seems rather baseless and overblown. Maybe this suggests that such degrees and scores are not necessarily relevant to ability to discuss the topic at hand.
Making such claims running counter to those with experience or knowledge of the fields, without giving backing, it is no surprise people will just resort to disparaging remarks and insults whether just for entertainment, or because of an expectation that intelligent discussion won't happen, work, or otherwise be fruitful.
Maybe the whole thing will turn out to be a Deus Ex 3 promotional campaign.
Of course - you want to know what is feasible so you know what you're up against (cobalt bombs are not feasible as a doomsday device, by the way.)
> . I don't think you fully appreciate the level of twisted evil socialpathic fucks we have in the military-industrial complex.
I think you've watched too many James Bond movies. Is there a corrupt system funneling money into military industries? Of course. Are there evil geniuses trying to kill everyone on the planet so they can control the world from their secret underground lair? No.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
The "Terminator" scenario is, of course, a Hollywood vision. The actual scenario that will likely play out will be much more subtle. I recommend the book "The Artilect War", by Hugo de Garis, an AI researcher. (Here is a synopsis in Forbes.)
I do not focus mostly on the negatives of technology. I am a technologist myself. I have from the beginning been a proponent and fan of technology. I grew up in the heady technology go-go days of the 60s. I stayed home from school to watch every Gemini and Apollo launch. I taught myself calculus at an early age so that I could read physics books. I dreamed of the future with great anticipation. But now in my 50s, and having seen the accelerating rate of change, I can see the path we are on very clearly. We are heading toward the creation of technologies that we will not be able to control.
There is ZERO work being done on trying to make self-aware machines, because nobody understands how that process works, even in humans.
So we don't know how the process works, but we can be absolutely sure we won't accidently build an analogous system?
Or what if some novel component of the nanotech triggers over-the-top immune responses in humans? When I worked in a composites lab, glass fibers itched, but carbon fiber dust caused hives in some. Who is to say that all nano-tech will be hypoallergenic? A self-replicating, so-light-it-gets-carried-by-wind particle, smaller than pollen and harder to control, could be a bad thing if it became widespread.
It doesn't need to be programmed to destroy the planet. That could be a side-effect.
You mean the same way scientists working with hybrid africanized bees were being careful?
What percent of the earth's population would be acceptable loss, in the event of accidental unpredicted affects of technology?
"Grey goo" today is about as likely as a renaissance inventor building a thermonuclear weapon.
Focusing on just "today" is rather short sighted.
Let's look at the timeline from renaissance-man to nuclear-physicist:
It took about 200 years to go from the simple phsyics like the pendulum (Galileo, 1581) to the discovery of oxygen (Lavosier, 1778).
It took another 120 years to invent quantum theory (Planck, 1897).
Another 35 years to find the neutron (Chadwick, 1932).
15 years to the atom bomb (Trinity, 1945).
7 years to fusion (thermonuclear) (Ivy Mike, 1952).
Oh, and just for fun, about 40 years later the Human Genome project kicked off (1989).
Our species has a knack for figuring out small things.
As for nano tech, it's hard for me to believe we'll be blindly stumbling about at "renaissance inventor level" even 10 years from now.
Our species also has a knack for being short sighted and focusing only on "today" :-(
A closing thought for you: "grey goo" doesn't have to be a long-term stable system to be a serious problem; suppose it "just" eats the world's food crops for a year (think blight + major famine) and then, if we're "lucky", fades away.
Here's an interesting read for you The Windup Girl (Paolo Bacigalupi) about destabilized ecosystems. Imagine some MBA's in Monsanto saying, "You know, if we release genetic plant 'malware' we could own the planet! Of course we would control it. What could go wrong?"
Most of the posts I see here assume well-intentioned non-malicious researchers.
People haven't hesitated to crash the economy to line their pockets.
Why would the ecosystem be any different?
I don't take seriously the idea that nanotech or AI could evolve in that way. Or rather, I understand that AI could evolve, but I don't ascribe to the all-superior-intelligence-wants-to-kill-us theory. Partly because I think a lot about the nature of intelligence, partly as a programmer, partly as a writer. I can understand if that's not a ringing endorsement, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume an AI will have all the follies of human intelligence, which is extremely complicated, impure, and unstructured, and most of the anti-AI stories seem to believe they would be as stupid as humans, in ways they don't explicitly state.
Nanotech that evolves, on the other hand, is likely to be undesirable and will be engineered out from the start--outside of lab conditions. Which again, science being ahead of engineering, might be substantially more manageable than nanotech in the wild.
I think that we are likely to see a synthesis of nano-tech and bio-tech, just as we will likely see a synthesis of AI and human-machine interfacing. I think that in a couple of decades we will start to see brain implants or headsets for communicating directly without a keyboard or screen: communication with other people and with computational services via the Internet - as it exists then.
So the line will become gray. And it will be a "slippery slope" from there.
You pose an interesting question, about what AI would be like. Humans have many faulty traits. Our tendency to rationalize rather than seek the truth, our short-sightedness, our tendency to go along with the majority opinion, and also our greed, selfishness, and sometimes lack of empathy are all failings that one might expect a machine to not have, if designed properly. But then again, once machines are more intelligent than us, we will not be able to anticipate how they might behave; and if they are self-evolving - which they would be if they are more intelligent, since they could then be capable of making machines that humans cannot understand - there is no telling how they might evolve. Don't you agree?
Note that the virus would probably have to be specifically made for the purposes of killing off all human-kind, because nature has been trying since before humans were humans, without much success.
is unwarranted. There never was any selection pressure on any organism on Earth that would drive it towards eliminating humankind. Nature has not been trying to eradicate us.
Every end has half a stick.
When I worked in a composites lab, glass fibers itched, but carbon fiber dust caused hives in some.
Yeah, but did they self-replicate?
Every end has half a stick.
Extraordinary claims necessitate extraordinary citations, I'm afraid.
Every end has half a stick.
Even speed itself had its opponents that argued that the human body
Even today amphetamines meet with this kind of nonsense.
Every end has half a stick.
So we should abandon all progress because you have poor risk analysis skills? I'll sit over here in quiet disagreement wondering how someone so blatantly stupid with an obvious lack in judgment could have gotten to the point of owning a computer and learning how to use it.
Learn to love Alaska
They'd make the perfect hardware with horribly incompetent code running it? Requiring selective perfection for your doomsday scenario seems insane.
Learn to love Alaska
From the way to speak to me, you are obviously not worthy of discussion. I will not respond to you anymore.
But then again, once machines are more intelligent than us, we will not be able to anticipate how they might behave; and if they are self-evolving - which they would be if they are more intelligent, since they could then be capable of making machines that humans cannot understand - there is no telling how they might evolve. Don't you agree?
As an answer, let me share my thoughts on intelligence in general; I think that intelligence (whether human, animal, or cybernetic) equates exactly to problem solving; that is to say, an intelligent entity is one built on a problem solving engine. Modern computers are a digital logic engine, and can do anything withing the bounds of digital logic (once correctly programmed); intelligence, including the brain and AI, are problem solving engines capable of doing anything within the bounds of solving problems.
Most of the people who suggest that machine AI will immediately and irrevocably see humans as a problem are basically saying that AI will not be able to solve several problems: Identifying the actions humankind would object to, solving the problems it is tasked with under those constraints, and crucially, adapting to changing circumstances--for example, the existence of humans that want to help or coexist with the AI. Even in a Matrix-world, you know that there would be machine sympathizers who would willfully assist the machines in finding a peaceful solution so that war doesn't have to happen. Identifying and screening humans who are of that mindset is a problem; and again, it's one that machines might be able to solve better than us.
But perhaps the thing that gives me most hope about AI is that humans themselves don't understand their own intelligence; the internal mechanics are not explicit, and we have no hand in them. Even if we identify a logical fault in our mind, we are often incapable of fixing it. If in the course of creating AI we understand intelligence in general, this might change, but more importantly, everything an AI is and does is (or can be refactored to be) an explicit algorithm that can be improved. That's something I wish I could do myself, honestly.
That's kind of the point. We have survived all kinds of accidental (not specific to humans) viruses, bacterial infections, predators, etc; presumably, almost any biological problem which is not specifically designed to kill us can be overcome, while species-ending events are unlikely without something more deliberate.
You proved yourself wrong in your post. Responding to me to inform me that you will not respond to me anymore contradicted yourself and proved yourself wrong. Since you are self-contradictory, we can assume the same from all the other spew you've aimed here. Your presence will not be missed. You added nothing to the discussion."The fact is, nanotechnology is a tremendous risk. The inability to see this is only a lack of imagination." You can't articulate the risks, but you are sure they are there because stuff you don't understand scares you (hence the years of therapy over your fear of shadows). I can imagine an alien invasion, but that doesn't mean it's a high-risk event.
Learn to love Alaska
Suomynon, you wrote,
"Most of the people who suggest that machine AI will immediately and irrevocably see humans as a problem are basically saying that AI will not be able to solve several problems: Identifying the actions humankind would object to, solving the problems it is tasked with under those constraints, and crucially, adapting to changing circumstances--for example, the existence of humans that want to help or coexist with the AI."
Are you not assuming that the AI would care? What if it simply does not care whether humans object to it or not? What if it finds humans to be irrelevant to its objectives (problems to be solved)? What if it simply decides that the most efficient path is simply to wipe aside those humans who are in its way?
The concern is that once true AI is created, that smarter and smarter AI will be created at an accelerating rate (akin to Moore's law); and that in a very short time (by evolutionary standards) human level intelligence will be so far beneath the best AI that it will be inconsequential, and that the AI's motives and methods would be completely opaque to us, the way that the motives and methods of humans are opaque to a fish.
I also feel that it would be beneficial to improve the human mind. I have often felt that if we could genetically engineer out the traits that cause us to destroy ourselves that we, as a species, might have a chance. The question is then, once people have the ability to choose the traits of their children, what traits will they choose? Perhaps that is what will ultimately determine the fate of humankind.
You are so utterly childish. I am laughing. Pathetic person. I doubt you are so rude to others in person, but it is nice and safe behind your computer, isn't it?
further proof. You claim you will not respond again, and responded twice since you wrote that. Spineless unintelligent twit. Proving it more every time you speak. Come visit and I'll prove that I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm only rude to those who deserve it. And you have earned it with stupid statements regarding risk. You probably don't even know the definition of risk, yet are hiding behind your computer to spread your incorrect opinion by using words you don't understand. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Tell us the two main components of risk without looking it up.
Learn to love Alaska
Child.
. I will not respond to you anymore.
Liar. At least I proved my statement. You just call names because you are incapable of intellectual discourse, and, as I am over 18, your name calling is factually incorrect, like everything else you posted. Go ahead and tell us the two main componennts of risk without looking it up. Even if you had to look it up, go ahead, at least then you might actually learn something, since you obviously refuse to learn from others posting here. But, since you are a proven liar, I would expect you to lie about that experience as well.
Learn to love Alaska
Such a child.
Again, those are questions that seem reasonable, but are presupposing several failures on our end.
"Perform within these constraints" is the problem to be solved. The human tendency to forget or ignore the fact that there are constraints is a failure of intelligence--which is to say, it is a failure to accomplish what was asked of it.
A lot of what we fear is that machines won't know what we're saying when we say it. For instance, the "Take over our lives for our own good" trope. "I asked you to prevent congestion on the highway!" "I did, sir. The roads are closed, and so no cars are blocking traffic." Almost no humans would fail to understand what we meant. But machines? "Who knows! Scary." I'm pretty sure understanding language and its nuances isn't the hardest problem AI is going to solve, if or when it's developed.
What a pure problem-solving engine "cares" about is relative only to its algorithms and its initial conditions. Assuming it doesn't break / get hacked, as long as it understands what problem it is to solve, it is not going to arbitrarily remove conditions until it succeeds. That would be a failure of the algorithm, a failure of the intelligence, and a failure of the programmers. And if it's got those kind of failures in its problem solving engine, I'm fairly sure it's not going to use that same problem solving prowess to successfully dominate all of mankind. More likely, it's going to fail at every single other problem it encounters with the same tenacity.
"Perform within these constraints" is the problem to be solved."
That is the famous Isaac Asimov Three Laws of Robotics. Not to argue the specifics of Asimov's proposed three laws, the bigger question is whether it is possible to pre-constrain the thoughts and motives of an intelligence greater than our own.
It is a question that perhaps could be answered through mathematical proof, although I don't have a clue what the approach would be.
But until we settle that question, I think caution is in order.
We also cannot assume that all who make AI will have good motives, or will be careful and validate their design. Commercial industry has proven that it will cut corners in the interest of short term benefit. Organizations of all kinds are notorious for being good at reacting but terrible are foreseeing and preventing catastrophes that have not yet occurred at least once.
You rightly point out that the goals that are presented to a machine (perhaps hard-wired into it) might result in solutions that are not anticipated. There have been many movies about this, including The Forbin Project. I think it is not just a communication problem, but a problem of constraining the space of allowed solutions: but that presumes that one can define the solution space, which requires that humans understand all of the possible solutions. There might be solutions that the AI can understand but that we cannot - and that would satisfy the hard-wired goals of the AI but might be undesirable to us.
The assumption that an AI would not be hacked is also very questionable. Cyberattacks are commonplace today and are a growing threat. If AIs are used in any significant way in our future culture, they will become targets of hacking as well: perhaps AIs will be built to do the hacking.
Indeed, it seems inevitable that if true AI is created, it will end up being used as a soldier....
Dear, Mr. Such a child, It is customary to include a message before signing it. Regards, Not a Child
Learn to love Alaska
Even if what you say is true, which it isn't, they still wouldn't want to "indiscriminantly" kill billions of people because at the very very least they wouldn't want to kill themselves.
I think that we are likely to see a synthesis of nano-tech and bio-tech, just as we will likely see a synthesis of AI and human-machine interfacing. I think that in a couple of decades we will start to see brain implants or headsets for communicating directly without a keyboard or screen: communication with other people and with computational services via the Internet - as it exists then.
So the line will become gray. And it will be a "slippery slope" from there.
WANT. Are you scared of your laptop? Why does it get scary when it gets smaller and has a HUD on your retina?
Honestly, though, where do you see a "slippery slope"? If it were possible to map the state of every neuron in your brain - and if there were a computational model capable of emulating a human brain - would you upload? Would you then consider that copy of yourself an AI, or a danger to humanity, or any of that? What if the meat-you died - would the still-conscious uploaded-you still control your finances, relationships, Slashdot account, etc.? Would you support legislation requiring that conscious beings without bodies be treated as chattel slaves, or be legal adults - able to enter into contracts? Why or why not? Remember that this already applies to corporations, not yet uploaded humans or AI's of any kind.
Yeah, I read too much sci-fi. But I think that even if these technologies never come to pass, discussing the legal and ethical implications is still interesting.
For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
What if it simply decides that the most efficient path is simply to wipe aside those humans who are in its way?
Easy - unplug the death-ray attachment from the board and fix the math. :-)
For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
Indeed, it seems inevitable that if true AI is created, it will end up being used as a banker....
FTFY. Seriously, corporations already have personhood status. It's not a big leap to replace the Board of Directors with an AI that would be more efficient in allocating shareholder resources. Cybernetic remote-control power-armor suits are too much fun for humans to drive - no one wants to outsource playing video games :-)
For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
Who said anything about having to be perfect? All my scenario requires is 1) slightly successful, in that they reproduce enough to get out into the wild and spread a little bit, and 2) and unpredicted side effect. #2 could be anything - provoking an unpredicted allergic reaction in humans, for example. It doesn't have to drown us in grey goo or actively hunt us down for parts to cause us danger. A cloud of particles (think pollen or spore cloud) that the human body isn't used to could be significant.
DryGrian -
You wrote, "if there were a computational model capable of emulating a human brain - would you upload?"
I would not upload, because it would not be "me". We do not yet understand what consciousness is. It is possible that we never will. In any case, there is no reason to believe that if I uploaded my memories into a machine that the machine would be "me".
I agree that a sentient (conscious) machine of human level intelligence should have human level rights. The problem with man-made machines, though, is that they would have access to the knowledge that humans used to create them; and there would be nothing to stop them from improving themselves and making themselves more intelligent that humans. That might be a good thing for the "universe", if one believes that the universe has some kind of destiny of creating more and more intelligent species, but it would not be good for me, or my children. The rate of evolution would make a huge jump, and it would leave humans behind. It would be the end of the human era. I don't want that.
By the way, corporations are not people. A corporation is a legal construct. They call it "personhood", but regardless what they call it, a corporation is not a person. An organization is a composition of people, and compositions of people do not behave as individual people do. It would be like saying that a collection of ants is an ant. Rather, a collection of ants have group behavior that is different from the behavior of an individual ant. Just because Congress passed a law creating corporations and calling it "personhood" does not make it so. And our Constitution grants rights to people, not to compositions of people. Congress can't change the intention of the Constitution by passing a law. But this is off topic.
Zero. What's your point?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.