Tell you what, why don't you ask inventors and companies that spend real R&D money what they think of your little theory?
They'll tell you what I just told you. If you won't listen to the inventors then that's like ignoring the farmers when they try to tell you what will happen to the harvest.
That's just willful ignorance... it is worthy of neither respect nor tolerance. Its just stupid.
I say this assuming that you won't listen to them... am I wrong?
Just because there are criminal elements in the patient system does not mean you should get rid of the patient system entirely.
That would be like saying that because some people defraud people out of down payments they put on houses that we should not buy homes anymore.
Just as we have an escrow system that protects home buyers and sellers the patient system probably needs some sort of infrastructure to stop fraudulent patient claims from interfering with people.
If the patient however is valid... that is someone actually did invent something, and patient it... then they're owed compensation for that. Pay the man.
No, the profit margin for innovating would be lower and the risks for innovating would increase... thus there would be less innovation.
if anything, the majority of effort would be put into protecting what IP could be kept secret.
Why are people so ignorant of the history on this? You do realize there was a time before patents, right? Do you know what innovation looked like at that time? Patients reward innovation. If you hate people that innovate, then by all means... cut off their livelihood. If you like innovation, don't take bread out of their children's mouths.
You forget that prior to patents that is precisely how companies operated.
Would they have to change the way they make products and release them? Obviously.
or did you not realize that was an unavoidable component of that point?
Take the push for cloud computing which is itself partially seen a solution to piracy. Consider that invalidating patents and piracy are similar qualities and the means by which you fight one works well against the other. In effect you might see many products never enter your hands behind various mechanisms that make it impossible to reverse engineer it.
Furthermore, for the sake of argument I grant you that they can't stop you from stealing their IP... they will invest less in developing new IP because the profit margin for doing so will be less.
That means less new stuff... and the rate of technological development will come to a near halt.
This is in large part why patents were invented in the first place. To incentivize innovation.
If you hate the modern world. If you hate innovation. If you hate technology... then undermine the patient.
If you like all the modern new shiny stuff... then don't mess with the patients.
Only really useful in our biosphere... not really useful on the moon or mars.
A practical machine should act as a seed we can fling into space, landing on a given world, building the industry we require for comfortable life possibly over decades, and then falling under our direct control when colonists/administrators take up residence.
The genetics point is valid within our biosphere... though was we can make with such technology is still pretty limited when compared to what we can make with more traditional engineering. And I say what we can make... not what nature has made or designed. Our own creations in this field are extremely rudimentary.
If you void patients then companies will stop sharing their innovations with people and instead rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual property.
You think progress is slow now? See what happens when companies actively hide how they do things rather then relying on patients to protect their IP.
I disagree. I'll take a corrupt politician any day over an incompetent one.
The corrupt politician at least knows what the right answer is and could very well control his corruption so that it does no serious harm. While an incompetent one can do the same or greater damage simply because they don't know what they're doing.
I grant that the relative evil of either is subjective. But in my personal opinion, incompetence is worse.
You say I use a lot of words but don't say anything with them yet ironically neither of you presented a counter argument or refuted my argument in my post.
The unfortunate fact here is that I did offer an argument and a basis for that argument and your comment to my argument contains no substance what so ever. You make an accusation and do not back it up.
Kindly back up your position immediately or I will be justified in assuming you have no basis for this claim and thus your accusation will be void by default.
Defend your position or it is forfeit. I repeat myself so you understand... the fact that you read my post and found no content suggests a fundamental lack of reading comprehension.
You need to be able to to do it on earth first... we can't do it on earth yet... or at least haven't put any effort into it.
We obviously could do it if we tried. But we haven't.
I suspect some of the reason might be political... fully automated factories scare people... especially people that work in factories and their political allies.
Consider further that a lot of nasty corruption is itself the result of incompetence because they think their actions are innocent or they don't hurt anyone.
You see this a lot of with the bribes they'll take to give one company or another an advantage.
From their perspective it doesn't matter so they might as well take the money.
What they don't understand is that it does matter because it distorts the market and changes business strategies to be less about providing goods and services and more about pleasing the right political powers. In societies where a lot of this goes on the quality of work goes down radically because the companies realize that its more important to keep the politicians happy then it is to do a good job.
The incompetent politicians don't understand this... yes, they're corrupt as well... but in my opinion most of the problems come from incompetence. Simply not understanding how everything fits together which allows them to rationalize corrupt behavior as benign when it really is quite destructive.
It really depends. In many areas you're quite right but in others the corruption is deep and institutional. Chicago ad New Orleans are examples of cities that really need to be utterly wiped politically and institutionally to have a chance at being clean.
Detroit is also quite bad I've heard.
But then many other areas are very clean... at the federal level you'll see much of the same... some people and organizations are corrupt and others are not.
Sure, anything breaks if you subvert it... a boat holds water out unless you put lots of holes in the bottom too...
doesn't mean the boat design was flawed prior to poking the holes.
As to management doing stupid things, I don't really see it as terribly likely since such a system wouldn't need to be heavily micromanaged. The AIs would take care of all the fiddly bits and the gross details would probably be something humans would if anything enjoy doing.
Its only bad if you want to live in rule of law or democracy.
If you believe your various political causes are more important then freedom or rule of law then by all means... put a gun to the heads of your neighbors and threaten to shoot them all if they disagree... You're in the right after all... You know best...... Right?
Allow me to repeat, indifferent to whether the federal regulation is bad for every single state, if it can be done at the state level then it is likely destructive to the independence of those states.
While you can overrule badly run states with federal policy, keep in mind that you're also overruling well run states with the same policy which has the effect of constraining them to whatever the federal government wants to do. Lets say for example a given state wants to do an even better job then the federal government plans on doing... well, your excessive control prevents that.
or lets say they want to do just as good a job but do it in a way that is slightly different or or unique or superior for their area... you've prevented that.
As such, while the regulation might help badly run states it harms states that are both neutral and superior.
It is not worth it. What you want to do instead is fix the broken states individually rather then impose some giant federal program on all of them.
Do you know why the government rarely does that? It takes more work... and they're lazy. I suspect you'd have no patience for it either which really just underscores why you shouldn't do it because if you don't have the patience to do it right then you have no business doing it at all.
As to what I might think about government regulation and its successes... Every government program that has ever existed has been a success... as described by the people that passed it.
The most fucked up joke of a program that wasted money and accomplished nothing was still cited as a success by the people that passed it.
That is politics. And if we start quoting programs back at each other that's all you're going to do... so why don't we just skip the mindless parroted talking points from that tape recorder between your ears masquerading as a brain... and just agree to disagree on that particular bit of drivel.
As to privatization being evil, I'd like to know where you'd draw the line and why... why not for example nationalize everything? Total state control of every enterprise and industry.
Would you support that? Just curious where you'd stop.
And if you wouldn't nationalize everything, what wouldn't you nationalize and why?
And please, keep in mind that I will be looking for the proverbial slippery slope in your definition. So please try to have a hard and clean separation between what is okay to nationalize and what is not. Otherwise, I'll start picking at it and either show that things you want nationalized don't fall under that definition or vice versa. So please, have a clean definition that doesn't allow for that.
As to the EPA being rogue, they've repeatedly acted without congressional approval and pushed the boundaries of their mandate. That much is recorded fact.
I will not say they're rogue... I will say they've exceeded their authority repeatedly.
As to the department of education not dictating things but only funneling money, that is a half truth. The department of education dictates policy in return for funds. That is, states comply with it not because they must but because they don't get federal grants if they don't.
And given that their citizens pay federal taxes to fund the Dept of Education that means that if the states do not comply money will leave their state and proportionately go to other states.
Thus most states comply with the rules even if they don't like them because of that money pressure.
If you forced the Dept of Edu to grant the funds indifferent to compliance or removed the ability of the dept of edu to disperse funds or refunded taxes taken from states that decided not to comply... that would change the situation.
However, under the current circumstances states are at a disadvantage if they refuse the programs and the money because they pay for them effectively whether they comply or not.
As to your various pathetic insults... you must know that
In regards to corruption, I didn't say it didn't exist. And I would agree in the Gibson case. That is clearly a break down in due process with the FBI.
However, if we're honest we'll see that sort of thing at every level of government.
Its the same thing at the federal level, they just have more power. That's the only difference.
And in large part your state government is passing laws about nothing because 1A they meet too often and 2B they have less power then they use to because the fed has taken most of it over time.
Education policy for example used to be exclusively a state issue. Now its increasingly a federal issue which means states have less and less control over their education policy.
never mind that many states have never really had a problem with education and did quite well without federal oversight.
True, some did... but imposing rules on all states often creates a one size fits all situation that tends to be a compromise between very different situations and therefore tends to suit no one properly.
If specific states have a problem those specific states need to correct it. Don't drag every state into a giant federal clusterfuck simply because some states are run by halfwits.
1. As to circular logic, this guy clearly is crazy. There was no rational reason for him to go on that killing spree. It didn't serve his long term self interests. Furthermore, we can be sure he wasn't so stupid as to not be able to know that. Therefore, if he is both in error and not stupid... we must conclude insane. Added to this, we can of course cite his ranty youtube posts that were so deranged it caused his parents to call the police and report him as a threat to public safety. So this circular logic stuff is in this case erroneous since there were multiple data points that lead to the same conclusion and the reasoning is not circular.
2. As to the spot light on peaceful crazy people... yes but how many of them are sleeping on park benches, breaking into cars to steel change... etc?
See... I actually live in a city where I deal with crazy people on a regular basis. I live about a mile from a VA hospital and the streets are sadly full of poor deranged veterans that panhandle, break into cars, go through everyone's garbage, and generally walk around as a enormous cry for help.
I personally lack the resources to help these people. And we've seen that the VA is manefestly incompetent to deal with the long term care of these people.
I'm telling you... you have two choices.
1. You either get these people help in the only way its going to happen.
2. You accept that society is going to be filled with a lot of loose mental cases that are going to be disruptive at every level of society that permits them.
So yes... if you're very rich and live in a gated community then you don't have to deal with this issue. But if you're just a normal person and especially one that lives in a major city... then this has become a normal part of life. Just tripping over crazy people passed out on the street.
These are not economic casualities. These are not people that simply can't get a job and therefore have to beg for money. These people are literally mentally damaged. Every single one of them.
Almost without exception, every single homeless person you've ever seen is a direct consequence of the misguided notion you're expressing right now.
No, I am not blaming you for their mental impairment. That's typically no one's fault. However, it is the responsibility of that notion that these people are wandering the streets rather then in safe places where they are taken care of and can find real peace.
Forget the "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" situation where doctors and nurses abuse patients for their sadistic or amoral ends. That is not what I'm advocating here and we can avoid that situation rather easily. What I am suggesting is that these people be given a safe, warm, comfortable place to live... where they cared for, and allowed to arrive at whatever level of personal enrichment is possible for them.
Rather then rummaging through garbage for cans, I would have them playing checkers or something in an institution... or basket weaving... or water colors... or something distracting and harmless. I'm talking about putting them some place where if they hurt themselves its treated right away. Where families can visit... and where the rest of society isn't disrupted by overtly irrational behavior on a daily basis.
You're of course referring to some sort of run away AI that becomes a threat to humanity or something.
Easily avoided through compartmentalized specialized AIs that deal with specific tasks.
For example... lets say you have a mining AI... this AI is in command of mining robots. Those robots under a worst case could be used to mine "people" or destroy things we care about or need to live. That's bad... but what if we only give that AI control over mining robots and do not give it command over the machines that make mining robots or the machines that fuel mining robots. Then any insurrection will last only so long as it takes for the mining robots to run out of power or wear down due to lack of maintenance and supplies.
You do the same thing with every other system. The AI that runs the factory that makes the mining robots is in charge of just that. Not the robots once built, not the power system that keeps it powered, etc.
By segementing the AIs even under some very unlikely situation where the machine becomes self aware or just as bad simply goes haywire and does stupid things... the damage is limited because it has limited responsibilities and resources. If it goes rogue we can cut it off from those resources and wait for it to die.
What we need AIs for in a situation like this would be busy work and details. Gross decision making would remain human. We could specify specifically what we want built, dug, and where everything was placed... the AIs would then act as on site facilitators of that command.
The possibility of irrecoverable error or some insanely unlikely AI becoming aware and also hostile is mitigated through this compartmentalization.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell you what, why don't you ask inventors and companies that spend real R&D money what they think of your little theory?
They'll tell you what I just told you. If you won't listen to the inventors then that's like ignoring the farmers when they try to tell you what will happen to the harvest.
That's just willful ignorance... it is worthy of neither respect nor tolerance. Its just stupid.
I say this assuming that you won't listen to them... am I wrong?
As to patent trolls, those people are fraudsters.
Just because there are criminal elements in the patient system does not mean you should get rid of the patient system entirely.
That would be like saying that because some people defraud people out of down payments they put on houses that we should not buy homes anymore.
Just as we have an escrow system that protects home buyers and sellers the patient system probably needs some sort of infrastructure to stop fraudulent patient claims from interfering with people.
If the patient however is valid... that is someone actually did invent something, and patient it... then they're owed compensation for that. Pay the man.
No, the profit margin for innovating would be lower and the risks for innovating would increase... thus there would be less innovation.
if anything, the majority of effort would be put into protecting what IP could be kept secret.
Why are people so ignorant of the history on this? You do realize there was a time before patents, right? Do you know what innovation looked like at that time? Patients reward innovation. If you hate people that innovate, then by all means... cut off their livelihood. If you like innovation, don't take bread out of their children's mouths.
They make laws... They belong to something called the "legislative" branch, you ignorant boob.
You lack imagination and a grasp of history.
You forget that prior to patents that is precisely how companies operated.
Would they have to change the way they make products and release them? Obviously.
or did you not realize that was an unavoidable component of that point?
Take the push for cloud computing which is itself partially seen a solution to piracy. Consider that invalidating patents and piracy are similar qualities and the means by which you fight one works well against the other. In effect you might see many products never enter your hands behind various mechanisms that make it impossible to reverse engineer it.
Furthermore, for the sake of argument I grant you that they can't stop you from stealing their IP... they will invest less in developing new IP because the profit margin for doing so will be less.
That means less new stuff... and the rate of technological development will come to a near halt.
This is in large part why patents were invented in the first place. To incentivize innovation.
If you hate the modern world. If you hate innovation. If you hate technology... then undermine the patient.
If you like all the modern new shiny stuff... then don't mess with the patients.
No... the von neumann machine isn't dangerous or problematic... the problem was with some sort of badly programmed AI that governs the machine.
I showed how the system could be programmed such that the risks were manageable even under a worst case scenario.
I therefore solved the cited problem.
Give me a cookie right fucking now or I'll cut you.
The politicos want his head on a pike... God help help him because I don't see anyone of consequence standing up for the man.
Only really useful in our biosphere... not really useful on the moon or mars.
A practical machine should act as a seed we can fling into space, landing on a given world, building the industry we require for comfortable life possibly over decades, and then falling under our direct control when colonists/administrators take up residence.
The genetics point is valid within our biosphere... though was we can make with such technology is still pretty limited when compared to what we can make with more traditional engineering. And I say what we can make... not what nature has made or designed. Our own creations in this field are extremely rudimentary.
If you void patients then companies will stop sharing their innovations with people and instead rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual property.
You think progress is slow now? See what happens when companies actively hide how they do things rather then relying on patients to protect their IP.
I disagree. I'll take a corrupt politician any day over an incompetent one.
The corrupt politician at least knows what the right answer is and could very well control his corruption so that it does no serious harm. While an incompetent one can do the same or greater damage simply because they don't know what they're doing.
I grant that the relative evil of either is subjective. But in my personal opinion, incompetence is worse.
You say I use a lot of words but don't say anything with them yet ironically neither of you presented a counter argument or refuted my argument in my post.
The unfortunate fact here is that I did offer an argument and a basis for that argument and your comment to my argument contains no substance what so ever. You make an accusation and do not back it up.
Kindly back up your position immediately or I will be justified in assuming you have no basis for this claim and thus your accusation will be void by default.
Defend your position or it is forfeit. I repeat myself so you understand... the fact that you read my post and found no content suggests a fundamental lack of reading comprehension.
you're right... I didn't poof read a post on the internet... forgive me...
You need to be able to to do it on earth first... we can't do it on earth yet... or at least haven't put any effort into it.
We obviously could do it if we tried. But we haven't.
I suspect some of the reason might be political... fully automated factories scare people... especially people that work in factories and their political allies.
Some of them do... a lot of them don't.
Consider further that a lot of nasty corruption is itself the result of incompetence because they think their actions are innocent or they don't hurt anyone.
You see this a lot of with the bribes they'll take to give one company or another an advantage.
From their perspective it doesn't matter so they might as well take the money.
What they don't understand is that it does matter because it distorts the market and changes business strategies to be less about providing goods and services and more about pleasing the right political powers. In societies where a lot of this goes on the quality of work goes down radically because the companies realize that its more important to keep the politicians happy then it is to do a good job.
The incompetent politicians don't understand this... yes, they're corrupt as well... but in my opinion most of the problems come from incompetence. Simply not understanding how everything fits together which allows them to rationalize corrupt behavior as benign when it really is quite destructive.
It really depends. In many areas you're quite right but in others the corruption is deep and institutional. Chicago ad New Orleans are examples of cities that really need to be utterly wiped politically and institutionally to have a chance at being clean.
Detroit is also quite bad I've heard.
But then many other areas are very clean... at the federal level you'll see much of the same... some people and organizations are corrupt and others are not.
Sure, anything breaks if you subvert it... a boat holds water out unless you put lots of holes in the bottom too...
doesn't mean the boat design was flawed prior to poking the holes.
As to management doing stupid things, I don't really see it as terribly likely since such a system wouldn't need to be heavily micromanaged. The AIs would take care of all the fiddly bits and the gross details would probably be something humans would if anything enjoy doing.
Its only bad if you want to live in rule of law or democracy.
If you believe your various political causes are more important then freedom or rule of law then by all means... put a gun to the heads of your neighbors and threaten to shoot them all if they disagree... You're in the right after all... You know best... ... Right?
As to not assuming, you weren't paying attention.
Allow me to repeat, indifferent to whether the federal regulation is bad for every single state, if it can be done at the state level then it is likely destructive to the independence of those states.
While you can overrule badly run states with federal policy, keep in mind that you're also overruling well run states with the same policy which has the effect of constraining them to whatever the federal government wants to do. Lets say for example a given state wants to do an even better job then the federal government plans on doing... well, your excessive control prevents that.
or lets say they want to do just as good a job but do it in a way that is slightly different or or unique or superior for their area... you've prevented that.
As such, while the regulation might help badly run states it harms states that are both neutral and superior.
It is not worth it. What you want to do instead is fix the broken states individually rather then impose some giant federal program on all of them.
Do you know why the government rarely does that? It takes more work... and they're lazy. I suspect you'd have no patience for it either which really just underscores why you shouldn't do it because if you don't have the patience to do it right then you have no business doing it at all.
As to what I might think about government regulation and its successes... Every government program that has ever existed has been a success... as described by the people that passed it.
The most fucked up joke of a program that wasted money and accomplished nothing was still cited as a success by the people that passed it.
That is politics. And if we start quoting programs back at each other that's all you're going to do... so why don't we just skip the mindless parroted talking points from that tape recorder between your ears masquerading as a brain... and just agree to disagree on that particular bit of drivel.
As to privatization being evil, I'd like to know where you'd draw the line and why... why not for example nationalize everything? Total state control of every enterprise and industry.
Would you support that? Just curious where you'd stop.
And if you wouldn't nationalize everything, what wouldn't you nationalize and why?
And please, keep in mind that I will be looking for the proverbial slippery slope in your definition. So please try to have a hard and clean separation between what is okay to nationalize and what is not. Otherwise, I'll start picking at it and either show that things you want nationalized don't fall under that definition or vice versa. So please, have a clean definition that doesn't allow for that.
As to the EPA being rogue, they've repeatedly acted without congressional approval and pushed the boundaries of their mandate. That much is recorded fact.
I will not say they're rogue... I will say they've exceeded their authority repeatedly.
As to the department of education not dictating things but only funneling money, that is a half truth. The department of education dictates policy in return for funds. That is, states comply with it not because they must but because they don't get federal grants if they don't.
And given that their citizens pay federal taxes to fund the Dept of Education that means that if the states do not comply money will leave their state and proportionately go to other states.
Thus most states comply with the rules even if they don't like them because of that money pressure.
If you forced the Dept of Edu to grant the funds indifferent to compliance or removed the ability of the dept of edu to disperse funds or refunded taxes taken from states that decided not to comply... that would change the situation.
However, under the current circumstances states are at a disadvantage if they refuse the programs and the money because they pay for them effectively whether they comply or not.
As to your various pathetic insults... you must know that
Actually no. The EPA has repeatedly acted and regulated various things without congressional approval for it.
I really have no patience for a moronic political "ya huh, nu uh" debate on the internet right now. We'll just agree to disagree and move on.
True, but consider if you will the mongol empire same thing... decentralized...
Point is that centralization is not scalable... if you want to have a big country you need to decentralize or collapse.
One of the two.
In regards to corruption, I didn't say it didn't exist. And I would agree in the Gibson case. That is clearly a break down in due process with the FBI.
However, if we're honest we'll see that sort of thing at every level of government.
Its the same thing at the federal level, they just have more power. That's the only difference.
And in large part your state government is passing laws about nothing because 1A they meet too often and 2B they have less power then they use to because the fed has taken most of it over time.
Education policy for example used to be exclusively a state issue. Now its increasingly a federal issue which means states have less and less control over their education policy.
never mind that many states have never really had a problem with education and did quite well without federal oversight.
True, some did... but imposing rules on all states often creates a one size fits all situation that tends to be a compromise between very different situations and therefore tends to suit no one properly.
If specific states have a problem those specific states need to correct it. Don't drag every state into a giant federal clusterfuck simply because some states are run by halfwits.
There's nothing really unique about that. That has been the natural state of human politics for tens of thousands of years.
You only get peace when there is something that stops the war... such as a large dominant power or the physical impossibility of conflict.
Without that, humans war with each other. Always have.
1. As to circular logic, this guy clearly is crazy. There was no rational reason for him to go on that killing spree. It didn't serve his long term self interests. Furthermore, we can be sure he wasn't so stupid as to not be able to know that. Therefore, if he is both in error and not stupid... we must conclude insane. Added to this, we can of course cite his ranty youtube posts that were so deranged it caused his parents to call the police and report him as a threat to public safety. So this circular logic stuff is in this case erroneous since there were multiple data points that lead to the same conclusion and the reasoning is not circular.
2. As to the spot light on peaceful crazy people... yes but how many of them are sleeping on park benches, breaking into cars to steel change... etc?
See... I actually live in a city where I deal with crazy people on a regular basis. I live about a mile from a VA hospital and the streets are sadly full of poor deranged veterans that panhandle, break into cars, go through everyone's garbage, and generally walk around as a enormous cry for help.
I personally lack the resources to help these people. And we've seen that the VA is manefestly incompetent to deal with the long term care of these people.
I'm telling you... you have two choices.
1. You either get these people help in the only way its going to happen.
2. You accept that society is going to be filled with a lot of loose mental cases that are going to be disruptive at every level of society that permits them.
So yes... if you're very rich and live in a gated community then you don't have to deal with this issue. But if you're just a normal person and especially one that lives in a major city... then this has become a normal part of life. Just tripping over crazy people passed out on the street.
These are not economic casualities. These are not people that simply can't get a job and therefore have to beg for money. These people are literally mentally damaged. Every single one of them.
Almost without exception, every single homeless person you've ever seen is a direct consequence of the misguided notion you're expressing right now.
No, I am not blaming you for their mental impairment. That's typically no one's fault. However, it is the responsibility of that notion that these people are wandering the streets rather then in safe places where they are taken care of and can find real peace.
Forget the "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" situation where doctors and nurses abuse patients for their sadistic or amoral ends. That is not what I'm advocating here and we can avoid that situation rather easily. What I am suggesting is that these people be given a safe, warm, comfortable place to live... where they cared for, and allowed to arrive at whatever level of personal enrichment is possible for them.
Rather then rummaging through garbage for cans, I would have them playing checkers or something in an institution... or basket weaving... or water colors... or something distracting and harmless. I'm talking about putting them some place where if they hurt themselves its treated right away. Where families can visit... and where the rest of society isn't disrupted by overtly irrational behavior on a daily basis.
You're of course referring to some sort of run away AI that becomes a threat to humanity or something.
Easily avoided through compartmentalized specialized AIs that deal with specific tasks.
For example... lets say you have a mining AI... this AI is in command of mining robots. Those robots under a worst case could be used to mine "people" or destroy things we care about or need to live. That's bad... but what if we only give that AI control over mining robots and do not give it command over the machines that make mining robots or the machines that fuel mining robots. Then any insurrection will last only so long as it takes for the mining robots to run out of power or wear down due to lack of maintenance and supplies.
You do the same thing with every other system. The AI that runs the factory that makes the mining robots is in charge of just that. Not the robots once built, not the power system that keeps it powered, etc.
By segementing the AIs even under some very unlikely situation where the machine becomes self aware or just as bad simply goes haywire and does stupid things... the damage is limited because it has limited responsibilities and resources. If it goes rogue we can cut it off from those resources and wait for it to die.
What we need AIs for in a situation like this would be busy work and details. Gross decision making would remain human. We could specify specifically what we want built, dug, and where everything was placed... the AIs would then act as on site facilitators of that command.
The possibility of irrecoverable error or some insanely unlikely AI becoming aware and also hostile is mitigated through this compartmentalization.