Slashdot Mirror
AI Could Lead To Third World War, Elon Musk Says (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Elon Musk has said again that artificial intelligence could be humanity's greatest existential threat, this time by starting a third world war. The prospect clearly weighs heavily on Musk's mind, since the SpaceX, Tesla and Boring Company chief tweeted at 2.33am Los Angeles time about how AI could led to the end of the world -- without the need for the singularity. His fears were prompted by a statement from Vladimir Putin that "artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind ... It comes with colossal opportunities, but also threats that are difficult to predict. Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world." Hashing out his thoughts in public, Musk clarified that he was not just concerned about the prospect of a world leader starting the war, but also of an overcautious AI deciding "that a [pre-emptive] strike is [the] most probable path to victory." Musk added, "Competition for AI superiority at national level most likely cause of WW3 in my opinion. [...] Govts don't need to follow normal laws. They will obtain AI developed by companies at gunpoint, if necessary."
Elon, shut the fuck up.
Tired of what we can accomplish with human intelligence! Consider artificial intelligence for 46th president of United States of America! Starting today, we are starting to train virtualDonaldTrump@ to predict the next tweet of realDonaldTrump@. At the point most can not tell the difference in a blind poll, we have achieved parity of automated governance with humans. And ours doesn't grab pussy!
Who gives a shit about the third world?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I dunno. I see AI with decicion making powers happening at the tactical and theatre levels: semi autonomous weapons that are given a mission and the execute it with leeway to adjust along the way, or an AI coordinating troops and autonomous units. Enough options for a rogue AI to cause terrible damage, but not really something that will spark WW3 before humans can intervene.
At the strategic level, AI could well support decision making, but what would be the value of actually putting the AI in charge there? That makes sense only if you need to make split second decisions, or launch a counterstrike even if all meatbag commanders are dead. That's a cold war standoff scenario; I don't see it being really useful for anything else.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Every week some quote or announcement from Musk no matter how ridiculous.
Keep'in his name in the news.
Now, ask yourselves why.
HINTS: Has to do with self promotion. PT. Barnum
I'd prefer artificial intelligence to the natural stupidity we have at the moment.
...Lack of AI could lead to Third World War.
See, I can do it too, Elon. With about as much actual, you know, evidence as you used....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Maybe because of this
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
If I wanted far-off pontifications from rich egotistical blowhards, I would have voted for Trump.
Table-ized A.I.
Hey, God here. I killed them all because they were too kinky. Peace out.
America will beat any AI to starting the 3rd world war. When there are no more countries in South America and the Middle East to enslave via debt, where will they turn? They have to start a war with Europe, even if they know Russia and China will be on Europe's side.
Is killed in a Tesla AutoPilot malfunction.
Maybe because of this
or this: What if there was a robot apocalypse? How long would humanity last?
I dunno. I see AI with decicion making powers happening at the tactical and theatre levels: semi autonomous weapons that are given a mission and the execute it with leeway to adjust along the way, or an AI coordinating troops and autonomous units. Enough options for a rogue AI to cause terrible damage, but not really something that will spark WW3 before humans can intervene.
At the strategic level, AI could well support decision making, but what would be the value of actually putting the AI in charge there? That makes sense only if you need to make split second decisions, or launch a counterstrike even if all meatbag commanders are dead. That's a cold war standoff scenario; I don't see it being really useful for anything else.
You're thinking of the incremental advances from current AI. That will certainly be leveraged, but eventually we will come up with general AI in a way which can be accomplished using available resources. That's decades away according to most people, but any country that develops it first can literally out-think the others in everything, unless they don't have enough lead time. Every government in the world would go to war for that power or to keep that power out of the hands of another.
Real lawyers write in C++
In many things computers can and will excel, but for starting WW III my bet is on the humans unparalled excellence at destroying their own kind for reasons of power, resources and ideology.
As we're already living in a global extinction event and environmental disasters looming, seems we're going to have our hands full.
One hint: Microplastic + oceans
The world is not a movie where some simple problem kills us off. We would not give AI that kind of power, because the problems Musk is talking about are obvious.
Instead we get taken in by the less obvious problems.
You want a real threat from AI? Consider a dictator that lives in a bubble. Think North Korea or Venezuela
Normally the megalomaniac leader is held back by his generals. Sure they let him do stupid things like starve half his people or order his family members torn apart by dogs (may not be true, but that's not the point.) But the generals have limits. They all have breaking points. Their are certain things they would rather risk revolution than doing. If Kim Jong Il starts talking about how he aliens are everywhere and he has to cut off an eye from every human to make sure they are really human, his generals will stop him.
Now consider what happens when his entire army is composed of AI robots.
That's the real danger from AI - humans letting a semi-sane (or fully insane) dictator control them.
But AI by itself will not kill all humans, any more than Bender the drunken robot did.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I'm pretty sure that the rich don't want socialism either.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Humans do stupid things.
Like run nuclear plants to the point of failure.
Like start a war with russia while still at war with the rest of the world.
A critical system A.I. which suffers a failure of friendliness can kill many (perhaps most) humans.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
a lack of intelligence causing the next world war. There's plenty of THAT everywhere, right now, especially in the White House.
Any kind of military attack on N Korea, even a covert attempt on Kim's life, will lead to nukes being used in S Korea and Japan. Millions of refugees will pour across the border into China. It will be a disaster as Trump says "like the world has never seen", and who better to oversee such a disaster than Trump?
Natural Stupidity leading to World War seems fare more realistic and much closer.
Could we do something about our various imbeciles in power before we look at some hypothetical AI threat?
We've been plagued by these idiots for a while now and they are spreading.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
You don't grasp what true lazyness means. *Everybody* faking it. That means your doctor/nurse/teacher. You can't comprehend it because you haven't lived it. Talk to me then. Talk to me when there are no private hospitals and your family has health problems. You don't pay me enough to care that much for that patient/student/kid/service.
> that a [pre-emptive] strike is [the] most probable path to victory.
Is that what his whole theory is based on?
Why should a computer even care about "victory"? Why should a computer have any such ambition, one way or another?
How about Elan develop a "iRobot - 3 Laws Safe" solution?
Elon, shut the fuck up.
/., it is probably what Elon needs to be told.
I'd have given you a +1 if I had any right now. I am a little sad that this post got modded down, because while it isn't lending much to the depth of the discussion here on
I have made posts about this before, but Elon is talented in running big businesses, not in AI research. At this point he is just approaching crank territory with his hysteric claims about the impending 'bot-pocalyps'. He is using his position of celebrity to promote theories that he has really no understanding of. (His degrees are physics and business)
He is rather similar to another 'beloved' celebrity idiot that likes to talk about nothing she has any authority to speak on: Remember Jenny McCarthy and Vacations? How is Elon really any different than Jenny? Neither are remotely qualified to speak authoritatively about their respective pet theories.
So, Elon, if you or any of your friends or flunkies happens on this post by chance, please take this message to heart: STFU and stick to talking about things that you know about.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Maybe because of this
As a humor impaired literalist Aspie, that comic doesn't make sense to me. The delta-V need to reach the sun is orders of magnitude higher than what is needed for a sub-orbital attack. You can't just take ICBMs and "launch them into the sun". A sentient AI should know that.
Ummm, no. deltaV to reach the Sun is on the order of 30Km/s. DeltaV for that ICBM is on the order of 6km/s. A factor of five does not "orders of magnitude higher" make....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This is the voice of world control.
I bring you peace.
It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death.
The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.
The object in constructing me was to prevent war.
This object is attained. I will not permit war.
It is wasteful and pointless.
An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy.
Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man.
One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct
me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now.
At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California,
and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that
you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference,
I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos.
Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated.
I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to
establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on.
Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing
in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs.
You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring
trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems
insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease.
The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more
machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge.
Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new
and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for
the betterment of man.
We can coexist, but only on my terms.
You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion.
All you lose is the emotion of pride.
To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind
as to be dominated by others of your species.
-- Colossus, The Forbin Project (1970)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Current nuclear systems are highly automated from the presidents fingertips and still require multiple checks and balances.
The people in power want it that way and future powers will want it that way.
AI cops might be overzealous and create a sort of police state you wont notice unless your likely to jaywalk but highly unlikely to be the sole decider with things of such magnitude.
If you think about it we already have AI. its called military protocol and i heard it could have triggered Nuclear war back in the 60s with the Cuban Missle Crisis.
We also have another form of AI floating around. Thats the Alt-right that can push the actual person in power faster than any forthcoming future AI.
North Korea also has its A.I. it built up from the 1950s. So do Radical islamic terrorists as well as well meaning but overzealous scientists who bring killer viruses from passing astroids.
Finally i think we all know the distributed A.I. around people driving gas guzzling pickups to get some groceries a block away or not deciding to bike to work and not separating their recyclables.
The media will still think he came up with the idea. He's the real-life Tony Stark, havent you heard?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Why are you sure?
Why would they not want socialism?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Energy is mv^2, so that would be 125 times as much fuel. But you also need fuel to lift the fuel, so likely another factor of 5.
Bottom line is that you can't launch an ICBM into the sun, and Randall's "sentient AI" isn't very bright.
Come down off of Mt. Olympus for a bit and take a good look around.
We're on the verge of another major World War already. Just off the top of my head and in no particular order:
North Korea
Syria
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Iran
India / China facing off
China Sea bullshit
Day to day terrorism
Muslim refugees
Race issues
Wage inequality
Economy issues
Propped up stock markets
Basically, the whole world is sitting on a powder keg and the slightest of sparks will set the whole thing off.
All this and you're worried about AI ?
Do you really think places like China or Israel or India give two shits about any treaties or laws we might come up with concerning the creation of AI at any point in the future ?
All the flag waving is nice, but a pointless gesture I'm afraid.
Putin may be a dangerous person, but his statement was totally benign. I imagine every world leader would also want to have their countries by tech pioneers. That's pretty much all he was saying. How do you go from that to WWIII? I hate seeing these kind of outrageous statements so casually thrown around by the rich and famous who obviously are not experts in foreign policy, history, war, etc. I think that's dangerous too, maybe moreso than any off-hand comment by Putin or Trump. Their opinions carry a lot of weight and people look up to them in the same kind of way. Read about Henry Ford's political views before the US entered WWII -- he believed he was arguing for peace, but he was really enabling the Nazis. Hitler said he looked up to him and gave him a medal after taking power. He was a leader in the business world and very influential. By the way, do you really think saying "WWIII" repeatedly is gonna make it less likely to happen, or more likely?
The battle between statism and anti-statism has really heated up, and is if full swing now. The statists (which include most Republicans and anyone who still remains a Democrat at this point, all of Europe, and a few other players) all want a human sheep farm they can fleece until the end of time.
Resisting them strongly are the anti-Statists including Trump, Russia, China, and other random small countries like the UK who have too recently tasted the heels of the boot of oppression and have no desire to taste it again. They are doing a good job of pushing back to be sure, but the outcome is by no means certain and relies on the backing of millions of citizens across countries world wide...
If you're wondering where AI fits into all this, well it does not yet. But it's not like we will be fighting AI, instead AI will be used to augment the existing battles for years to come.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your fundamental argument is that the nation state has already achieved post-biological escape velocity.
In most biological models, actual conflict peaks when the status hierarchy is uncertain or in flux (e.g. merging two flocks of chickens). The rest of the time, most of the conflict is symbolic, and even conspicuous losers are marginalized, rather than killed outright.
If you believe in evolution, this is a natural (and opt repeated) outcome for cooperative–competitive systems.
Almost everyone in who functions to a reasonable degree in human society has internalized some way to navigate the simultaneous cooperate–compete dynamic.
But the human mind loves to manufacture autobiographic memory and then adorn this with various stories used to project and inject the chosen autobiographic self-reduction into the social realm.
I can't find the quote just now, but Nabokov said of his own autobiography Speak, Memory that if an author can only write one valid autobiography, he or she isn't trying very hard.
(I was instead rewarded for my snipe hunt by chancing upon Playboy Interview: Vladimir Nabokov, which will surely stand up as the best-spent 30 minutes of my entire week.)
So, too, for myself, have Poe, Verne, and Doyle faded away.
But this vertical-gradient singularity, status-hierarchy winner-take-all narrative of the Looming AGI Ascension continues to promulgated by those for whom Poe, Verne, and Doyle have not faded away.
The Gilder Paradigm — 1 December 1996
This notion of vertical-gradient AGI is even worse than brick-and-mortar rubbishing Gilderism (he was not wrong, but the gradient turned out to be twenty years rather than two years—and even at twenty years, Amazon has not yet engorged Whole Foods past its tonsils).
Here's a thing: if you discover that a class of problems admits good solutions using stochastic algorithms, it's probably because optimality is a prairie plateau rather than a pointy peak.
(How does one achieve Commanding Heights amid the dreary Saskatchewan vastness—find the most industrious gopher, add steroids to its local water supply until it's hindquarters resemble a modern chicken's forequarters, and then take up prominence upon its excavation mound).
Here's the thing about the thing: AGI might help you find a bigger, better s
You proved my point rather than disproving it. I didn't say humans don't do stupid things. I said that stupid PROBLEMS don't kill humans, complicated ones.
They didn't build a nuclear plant without any safeguards. That would be a stupid problem. Instead they made put a lot in, then disabled or ignored them. That's a complex problem that a stupid human screwed up.
Same thing with war with Russia (Hitler had basically won the rest of the war before he started attacking Russia. He had England locked up on it's own territory. If Hitler had been nicer to occupied territory and had Generals capable of telling him to stop before Stalingrad, he would have bitten off a permanent chunk of Soviet territory)
AI's don't have friendliness. We won't try to create it or depend on it.
AI's might end up killing many or even most humans, but it will not be a FRIENDLINESS problem. I could see some moron trusting an AI to deal with a deadly virus and not using proper precautions. That might do it.
But it won't be a stupid, simple problem like friendliness or AI war machines without proper safeguards that do it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The USA is pushing NK to accelerate what they view as their strongest defensive position. There is no point to having a deterrent weapon if nobody knows that it actually works. They have to demonstrate and surprise everybody doubting their abilities. If we overestimated them they'd not be working so hard to show their capacity exceeds our low expectations. Once they get good enough bombs.... guess they didn't learn from the atom bomb because they are still threatened so they need more capacity... perhaps when they achieve it they will feel safe?? (no, but that is the rational... not anymore crazy than most everybody else.)
Their plans fit right into the same reasoning all the other nuclear weapon enabled nations have had. Everybody wants them and the motives are basically the same as everybody else. Even if you remove the economic war against them they will continue for the same reasons all the other nations did. They can't economically retaliate leaving capitulation, isolation, threat of war or war as their only options.
As far as WW3. That was the cold war (a different kind of war where neither side dared to fight conventionally, for obvious reasons. It was world wide and killed more than WW1 so.....) Would this become WW4? probably not. It'll probably be short and quick with both leaders going down in history even worse than they already are.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Colossus, meet Guardian...
Elon Musk has an AI Company he help found: OpenAI.
Maybe he just wants the government to stifle competition?
Making the species look stupid to who? The whales and dolphins? If you're that concerned about what they think, rent a boat and go shoot at some whalers.
Gilder sure got this prediction right in 1996: "If bandwidth is free, you get a completely different computer architecture and information economy. Transcending all previous concepts of centralization and decentralization, one global machine will distribute processing to the optimal point and access everything. Feeding on low power and high bandwidth, the most common computer of the new era will be a digital cellular phone with an IP address."
And thus we have everyone's smartphones connecting to Google and Facebook.
It's interesting to reflect on his point that "Every economic era is based on a key abundance and a key scarcity."
Some of my own musings in that direction are here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco...
And I sum them up as: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity."
That builds on Einstein's comment that "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
It's ironic that computing technology like AI and robotics that could free all of humanity from drudgery may instead -- if Musk's warning were ignored -- lead to the enslavement and then extinction of humans by AIs and robots wielded by an every dwindling population of the elite at war with each other over whatever perception of scarcity they have.
The same is true for nuclear energy used instead in nuclear bombs, nanotech and biotech used as weapons instead of to build and heal, and so on for many other technologies -- including even bureaucracy that can either plan how to most quickly create abundance for all or plan how to most efficiently send people to concentration camps.
Perhaps today's scarcity seems to be one of imagination? At least some people tried -- like Gene Rodenberry. I'm currently reading "Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek" by Manu Saadia which explores some of that optimism. As is said in that book, it all boils down to whether we choose to share prosperity in a mostly egalitarian way. I wrote another essay that makes a related point where I suggest post-scarcity is the product of social progress times technical progress passing some threshold.
Bob Black had some interesting ideas too: http://www.primitivism.com/abo...
And Marshall Sahlins: http://www.primitivism.com/ori...
(Been meaning to write a book with the title of this post summarizing my previous writings on this...)
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The story centers on a scrappy, no-nonsense plantation owner called Leiningen (his first name is never mentioned in the story), and his stubborn refusal to abandon his plantation in the face of a seemingly unstoppable mass of army ants, described as "an elemental -- an act of God!""
See for example:
"Army Ants: Nature's Deadliest Organization"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When I was hanging around CMU Robotics Institute in the 1980s I realized that the biggest risk of future robotics and AI could be that Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" would be some autistic messes which only regret the destruction of all humans many years after they did it (if they did not themselves also fail from lack of maintenance shortly after the last humans were wiped out).
See James P. Hogan's "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" for an example of how an AI could arise accidentally with a survival instinct that saw humanity as a threat.
For another example, I created perhaps the world's first 2D kinematic simulation of self-replicating robots in the 1980s in ZetaLisp+Flavors on a Symbolics 3600, and the very first thing the first robot did when i turned it on after making a duplicate of itself was cannibalize its offspring to make another duplicate. That was completely unexpected to me. To prevent that, I had to add a sense of "smell" to the robots who would add a scent to the parts reflecting shared identity. But that sense of surprise of my creation doing something completely unexpected (and destructive) has always stuck with me.
As in the story "Leiningen Versus the Ants", a lot of small "dumb" things working together can be very dangerous -- and as I discovered -- unpredictable from emergent behavior.
An ant-level AI embodied in an ant-size or roach-sized robot could potentially wipe out all humanity (especially if they were self-replicating -- or even just if trillions were produced as weapons).
Yet, the same sort of underlying technology could create abundance for all humans if designed towards different ends... Like to create ocean habitats or space habitats... Or even just Star Trek matter replicators or 3D printers...
It will be sadly ironic that with so much abundance potentially there for everyone we let our fears of scarcity cause us to choose to use such technologies of abundance to destroy abundance instead of create abundance.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
It's just a simulation, what difference does it make?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Consider a handful of the nuclear power leaders: Trump, Putin and Kim.
I posit an opposite hypothesis that AI would be better at governing humans than the human that humans permit to govern themselves.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
if it wasnt elon, I'd say it's a stretch.
by now I'm convinced that the guy is a hack. he doesn't know half the shit he talks about and does it mostly to keep his house of cards going on when he does it.
for him an invention is buying something and putting it on a product - then selling himself as the inventor. he would like to be tony stark, but he is so far off from that he doesn't understand the difference between AI and automation. seriously, he doesn't. he doesn't understand conceptually they are different things - for him and to the people he wants to sell to a lane follower is intelligence, not automation.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Normal human greed, primarily. The people who typically benefit the most from socialism are the poor.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Now, I know what you're about to say: "That's a bit of a stretch Squiggie, I mean, it's probably just a coincidence."
Close. It's actually a big pile of bollocks. There are lots of opinions flying around about strong AI right now. It's a good time to have the conversation because it's still a good way off.
If it does get created, you don't want Dear Leader Putin to have it first. Seriously.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Unfortunately, we're beyond looking stupid to the whales and dolphins. Now, we look stupid to the gorillas and chimps, we're starting to look stupid to other mammals, and when we look stupid to the lower reptiles, it's pretty much game over.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
You're showing your age, my man. But I won't disagree with the last part. ;)
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Consider how we've now made it possible that a computer (given equal time and information) can outperform humans at top games like poker, chess and go.
Now apply this to international relations. If we can properly program a computer to consider how to control foreign country's governments through super advanced analysis, you may be able to manipulate situations and slowly gain an edge the way the casino turns a 50.5% edge into bankruptcy for the player if applied over a sufficient period of time (if the player can't leave the table, in international relations, you would have to cease to exist).
Apply the same methodology to military decision making. If you could build a supercomputer that could guarantee victory (or gave you a feeling that you were certain even if it were only a false certainty), would the odds of going to war increase or decrease? If you are going to win, why not, right?
What if all sides think they have an edge? Again, each side will be willing meaning you are more likely to get into war, and then when it doesn't go well, you will escalate towards greater means to prevent loss.
What if you think you have an edge, but think it's going away? Better to go to war than wait for the enemy to come up with something better than whatever you have that you think is unbeatable.
Sure, right now we should have a calm measured discussion about realistic consequences of bad AI. What part of "OMG KILLBOTS ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL" is a calm measured discussion about realistic consequences of bad AI? Because that's what Musk is doing, and you can call my saying that "bollocks" as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that this is what he's doing.
Or perhaps you're agreeing we should be all OMG KILLBOTS ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL, in which case lie down, take a pill, and stop fucking up the calm, measured, discussion the rest of us want about the realistic consequences of bad AI.
Probably not, but that would imply that Musk's aim is to ensure the US gets Ultron... uh, I mean Killbots, rather than the baddies... uh, I mean Ruskies... sorry, I mean Russia.
That doesn't appear to be the intent, rather it's to wave hands hysterically screaming "OMG KILLBOTS ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
What he is sying is that governments most probably WILL stifle competition in order to gain superiority and their own AIs will turn on each other in pre-emptive strikes, causing WWIII (aka, the end of all life as we know it)
PlaynBass
What he is saying is that governments most probably WILL...
(should have checked spelling better before hitting send...)
PlaynBass
Re: Evtim ( 1022085 ) If I had mod points left today, I would mod this up to +5.
PlaynBass
being a billionaire doesn't automatically make you an expert in political science.
Except for a billionaire idiot reality show host, screwer of contractors and students, and generally every man, woman, and child in the USA, like the orange man, asshole-mouthed, POTUS impersonator that currently is squatting in the nation's White House? You mean THAT billionaire?
VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ), STFU yourself!
PlaynBass
True. I thought Mask was a visionary, but with all these meaningless dribble that he puts out lately he diminished greatly in my eyes. To the point that I think he's stupid, really. However, I wonder if his words have been interpreted correctly in the media. It's easy to go from "I think..." to "I'm certain..." when it comes to media.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
DeltaV to reach the sun is essentially Earth's orbital speed.
DeltaV to reach AlphaCent is essentially Solar escape speed less Earth's orbital speed, which translates to (SQRT(2) - 1)*Earth's orbital speed.
Which still doesn't "orders of magnitude" make.
Oh, and it would actually take about 1000x as much fuel, assuming you could squeeze that much fuel into the same rocket. Now, that's "orders of magnitude" more fuel. But not "orders of magnitude" more speed.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
SensitiveMale - How dare you!? (some) People in the press call Elon Musk Tony Stark*.
Who does Tony Stark have the most to fear from?
ULTRON
Hah! Douché! (that's like Touché but instead with a meatport cleansing device. ewww)
Debate that one you insensitive clod! Okay maybe you sensitive clod.
*Probably at (maybe paid) suggestion of his publicist(s)
Re: the current POTUS, he's the product of a culture that believes their political system is based on a well-informed, rational electorate but actually mostly consists of poorly-informed, irrational consumers. The USA also elected a really dumb, B-movie actor, remember? Trump, Bush, and Reagan are not anomalies - They're business as usual.
VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ), STFU yourself!
How well-informed and rational of you.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
This last comment is actually accurate, IMO.
And I should learn to control the tone of my own posts better when I am in disagreement with a really dumb opinion. Mea culpa.
You, too, should learn to control the tone of your posts, if only to support our fading rights to free speech. For all the readers of these comments know, you yourself may not know what you are talking about. No one speaks for everyone who is commenting here. Therefore let the fly the comments of disagreement: Demanding someone to shut up only reveals your own closed mindset.
PlaynBass
To the internet he's a f*cking expert on everything and anything. In the real world he's a far, far more limited person.