Given that normal (one-pane) glas has a transmittance of about 90% that would mean there was basically no reflection or absorption left and nearly all light would have to pass undisturbed. Quite some claim which I cannot find justified by the paper where the closest thing to glass I can find is Silicion Nitride (which apparently starts with only 80% transmittance) and even for that they only show a 6% increase and only postulate that 10% (for silicon nitride) might be theoretically possible.
Obviously another case of journalists hyping science results (without even switching on their own brain).
Maybe before Musks thinks about how to get stuff to Mars he could solve the problem of better (especially with less energy use) getting stuff into space. At about $10000/kg for Earth orbit there will be no way a Mars station will be resupplied for long.
So we need a space elevator or some mag-lev "cannon" (preferably on the Moon to avoid the air friction) before we can go seriously out to explore space using humans. Rockets are like steam locomotives (actually they are worse) they carry all their propulsion needs with them in a quite inefficient way.
And maybe we (yes, we!) can cut back on uselessly exagerated, ridiculing strawmen to derise a non-agreed opinion. Just because other people's posts seem to be completely stupid doesn't mean they require hateful responses. One could just ignore them. I at least promise to do so. As a new year's eve resolution. Of next year.
Why did I post this? Because although I remember some news stories on women in tech (which I might have agreed with or not), I can't remember any story implying "everyone in your industry are chauvenists assholes and you owe us a place in your ranks". Let's stay at the facts.
- Allow older accounts who have good standing being able to post faster. The 4 minute time-out is archaic compared to reddit
Write comments thoughtful enough to take longer than 4 minutes to write. Like this;-)
TL;DR: We have enough "I wish I had mod points" and other one-liners. No need to add a mechanisms to get more of them even if you think you would never use it that way.
Of course, people use past information for predicting the future, how is that in any way remarkable, or a problem?
Uhm, because if the market really was evaluating the price of a commodity (including all the information about the future), then the history of the price only tells you about how humans previously evaluated that information. That is great if one wants to exploit human psychology (or nowadays machine psychology in terms of having better algorithms than the neighbouring bank). But then the AC's statement of the market price not expressing current value but including expected future speculation (at least that's how I interpret it) is true.
Obviously, if you trade ten times as fast, your market moves ten times as fast. But you claimed that the swings don't just get faster, they also get bigger in magnitude than they would for a slower moving market.
Yes, I claim it because during those few minutes, seconds, milliseconds of machine trading the only information which changes is the (recently) past price, thus there is no other influence on the set-point than what is itself based on that influence. In contrast in a theoretical very slow market (lets say 3 trade points a day) other - more real world (aka fundamental) - information has time to influence the set point before a trend can even be recognized and followed. So new news (the previously announced contract will be delayed, the government decided to spend more money due to the castastrophic economic predictions of yesterweek) or new insights (careful analysis of the announced contract shows low ROI in comparison to similar contracts, the economist making the predicitons have bad track record of correctness) can stop trends early. Obviously such additional information could also strenghten trends. But then the price would really be a "prediction" of future value (as far as that is possible) based on new information and not just - exaggerating - the extrapolation of the step function response of the market to the last information. Does not prevent bubbles as history teaches us (human psychology again). But those take years and not merrily hours, so the (financial) environment has time to adapt.
Unfortunately, "market" price does not mean what it sounds like (ie, the value of something _right now_); it includes future speculation.
Predictions about future returns are part of "the value of something right now", so your distinction makes no sense.
I think what would be better to say is that market price itself is used as information for future speculation.
In fact, the opposite is true mathematically: longer delays tend to produce bigger swings, for the simple reason that a system can go off the rails longer before the market corrects it.
It would be true for a "real" control system, i.e. a system which tries to control a variable to achieve/follow a setpoint. In such a system the shorter the delay the better the variable will follow the setpoint. Yet due to technical analysis (i.e. trying to predict the future price of a commodity from the "chart" of the price up to now) in financial trading the variable can influence the setpoint. In such a scenario a short delay can mean sharp, large swings. So instead of a depression of prices over months they will fall within an hour. Or rather would fall if there hadn't been circuit breakers installed on automated trades. So if automated HFT was so great, why does the NYSE limit it when it looks to start running amok?
But there's an even more basic error in your reasoning, namely the assumption that market swings are bad or that we should adopt policies to reduce them.
As the article you cite shows, the U.S. had as least the pretext trying to prevent an accident by an already de-orbiting satellite and the remains of the destruction de-orbited within a few months.
Now of course the U.S. could just have had its satellite de-orbit on purpose but even then this launch could be seen as a demonstration of U.S. capabilities necessary after the Chinese test to uphold mutual deterence ("If you kill our satellites, we will kill yours").
Yes, just imagine an alternate relaity in which Donald Trump becomes president, enforces his "Scare the Muslims away" policy by requiring them to wear clearly visible marks on their clothing and the document being a call for civil disobedience telling among other things how to produce markers which look OK but will not be visible for automatic surveillance cameras. Obviously everyone forwarding such a document is not a law-abiding citizen but a prospective terrorist and needs to be found and detained.
There is currently a report by a German computer magazine (no so good Google translation) where IP cameras sold by a large German supermarket chain had an awfull standard configuration in a) Not asking for a new password for external access and b) automatically opening (via UPnP) an existing firewall. Seemingly even after an update there are still hundreds of these cameras reachable on-line.
So one does not have to wait for a malign party to 'crack' a camera. Insufficient security knowledge at manufacturer and user is enough.
I also wonder about the legal situation of manipulating registry entries to circumvent user decisions. There are a few laws in Germany which as if they could fit (but IANAL): 303a Data Manipulation (1) Anyone who illegally deletes, supresses, renders unusable oder changes data shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 2 years or a monetary penalty
303b Computer Sabotage (1) Anyone who significantly disturbs a data processing [process], which is of significant importance to someone else, by * an act according to 303a * injecting, entering or submitting data with the intention to create a disadvantage to someone else, or * destroying, damaging, rendering unsuable or changing a data processing system or data storage medium shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 3 years or a monetary penalty (2) In case the data processing [process] is of significant importance for a (different) business, company, or a civil administration the punishment shall be imprisonment of up to 5 years or a monetary penalty. (4) In especially serious cases of section (2) the punishment shall be imprisonment of no less than 6 month to 10 years. As a rule a specially serious case is if the culprit 1)... 2) acted businesslike or as member of a gang which formed for continuous perpetration of computer sabotage.
And according to 202c distributing computer software which is intended to commits such crimes is punishable, too. [all my translation; definitely not authorative]
So now the questions are: * Was the manipulation of the registry values illegal? * Was a company or civil authority hit? (Note that the law does not say "Void if they should have set up a Domain") * Is Microsoft's approach "businesslike"? Because if all is answered yes, then anyone involved in programming and distributing GWX.exe should better avoid Germany for some time to come (I don't know the statue of limitation on this).
No, the first attack assumes the identity provider to use an 307 request in answering a valid used identification request from the malicious server (which might look to the outside as a normal service while secretly retrieving user password). As far as I understand the forward will always happen in the protocol. The assumption is that this is done with a 307 request instead of 302 (or 303). This was apparently allowed by the OAuth specification (although one can of course wonder why any ID provider would not use 302 or 303).
Reading the original paper (and not just the blog) really helps to understand the attacks. With respect to the second attack I immediately thought that it wasn't worse than any authentication not using HTTPS. But the authors point out that they attack a step of the protocol (selection of ID provider) not normally considered sensitive so it could happen in HTTP.
Well. I think the authors do have some points although at least some of them are existing in embedded systems (which execute directly out of Flash) for a long time: * CPU cycle hungry, most efficient disk caching algorithms are not that efficient anymore once "disk" (or rather Flash) access manages to catch up to the CPU. Less efficient but also less resource hungry algorithms might be advantageous then. * Issuing lots of read accesses in advance to keep your worker threads busy might only help in occupying RAM but not speed up processing anymore if data arrives long before workers finished their previous job. * Multi-core access to the Flash needs better (and less blocking) synchronization than with disk, where actual colliding accesses would have been more rare due to long time between them (being executed). * If serial and random accesses show only small difference in access times (as they do for Flash: a few clock cycles for the Flash to throw away its read-ahead cache and get new data instead of the huge wait for head positioning and sector arrival of spinning disks), caching strategies might have to change, e.g. maybe caching leaf inodes is then not efficient anymore (just guessing here). * And they seem to be talking about networking due to attaching disk clusters to servers via ethernet. But there I guess the authors are not radical enough: Why not connect the Flash devices directly to the server, they take much less space and power than spinning disks.
But as I said, I would have expected many of this being explored with respect to embedded computing long ago and with respect to servers already since the advent of the first SSDs (by talking to the embedded guys). Now seems a bit late for an ACM magazine article about that (unless ACM is falling behind tech development).
Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed.
Yes, that is exactly what we see in other comercial areas such as * On-line Book selling (uh I meant selling of nearly everything) * On-line auctions * Search engines (uh I meant news integrator, mobile OS vendor, and whatever else) * Social networks In all these areas, after the first guy opened the market we see the business spread evenly over more and more companies with none coming near a monopoly which it could potentially abuse to e.g. make experiments on its users.
I stopped reading after he claimed "Hard to be a god" was a call for "good" science (whatever good means in this context) when it is (at least in my opinion) nearly the opposite: A tale that even the best intentions do not guarantee favorable outcomes and that even scientist are not save from believing otherwise until their intentions fail. So I take the rest of the article was similarly messed up?
With these ants there ended up being a single fairly neat switch that the researchers could apply to get an entire cascade of behavioral changes because that entire cascade of changes is already one that the ants have evolved to employ.
Yes and I do not find it too surprising that the pre-defined behaviour in ants can be changed easily. One never knows what evolution comes up with but when it needs two distinct behaviours it is much safer to have one "switch" than several ones which could erroneously activate in wrong combinations. Probably the "complicated switching between castes"-ants have died out long ago from too many offsprings trying to go left and right at the same time.;-)
The only vague reference to a copyright topic in the summary (and the Guardian article) is
Authorizing the book's release into the public domain has been a tortuous process.
which is of course complete rubbish. The copyright ended according to law on New Years Eve and the book was thus automatically released into the Public Domain. No process needed for that nor was it tortuous. The commented edition which was written by German scholars during the last years (and had to overcome some political problems) is a completely different topic and has nothing to do with the original book now being Public Domain.
So what does this have to do with copyright (except maybe showing that copyright outside the US can still work)?
*cough* Even as a Putin sock-puppet you should get your facts straight: The Western Allies fought Hitler already for 2 years before he invaded the Soviet Union. Once that happened the Soviet Union received massive amounts of Lend-Lease equipment from the US. Doesn't sound like a war by proxy to me. The Soviet Union (not Russia!) suffered the most casualties due to (probably among others) Stalin's Purges which drained the officer corps and removed any intention to disobey central command from the remaining officers which lead to huge encirclements. Hitler managed to do the same when refusing an early breakout out of Stalingrad.
It's almost inexcusable that neither cars (nor trains) have automatic speed control systems that prevent exceeding the limit.
Trains don't have automatic speed control systems???? *cough* Please see the rather short english article on Train Protection Systems (or the much longer German version) to enlighten you. It might be the U.S. track system is no longer up to standards but that doesn't say anything about trains in general.
If previous posts did not convince you, consider this scenario. AI develops and gains a significant higher intelligence than humans. AIs need resources: sunlight for electricity, sand for building more silicium (or whatever else it will develop as semiconductor material). This puts it in conflict with humans wanting to have the sun shine on plants and planting those plants into fertile earth.
Best case scenario: AIs (potentially many different variants) feeling grateful for their creation allow humanity to peter out by taking all tasks and challenges from them and have them die out from boredom. The will only expand outside humanity's sphere (e.g. outside the inner solar system) as long as there are humans left.
Most probable scenario: There is at least one AI which does not share the gratefulness and feels the need to make use of the resources at hand to expand its capabilities. If this AI can create a sufficient number of copies, there is basically nothing the "preserver" AIs can do against it, as that AI will be able to wage a war against the preservers using all the resources available on earth (and other parts of the solar system) whereas the preserves not only have to defeat the attacker, they must do so without damaging the eco system or letting the attacker damage it beyond repair. My bet in this situation is on the attacker. Note that contrary to Hollywood myths human ingenuity and resourcefulness will be absolutely no help as humans will be completely outmatched.
I wouldn't even like the first scenario, as I am a human-fan. But agreeing with the most probable scenario is equivalent to agreeing that total nuclear war is of no consequence.
Charles Stross has very nicely described this in Accelerando which despite its name is not about music but the "Singularity", i.e. AI developing in exponential progression and starting to dismantle the solar system (and then neighbouring systems) to gain resources for its/their own reproduction. The setting he describes is quite interesting, the story itself I considered somewhat Meh!
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you should read the real article and not the bad copy gizmodo created.
Given that normal (one-pane) glas has a transmittance of about 90% that would mean there was basically no reflection or absorption left and nearly all light would have to pass undisturbed. Quite some claim which I cannot find justified by the paper where the closest thing to glass I can find is Silicion Nitride (which apparently starts with only 80% transmittance) and even for that they only show a 6% increase and only postulate that 10% (for silicon nitride) might be theoretically possible.
Obviously another case of journalists hyping science results (without even switching on their own brain).
Maybe before Musks thinks about how to get stuff to Mars he could solve the problem of better (especially with less energy use) getting stuff into space. At about $10000/kg for Earth orbit there will be no way a Mars station will be resupplied for long.
So we need a space elevator or some mag-lev "cannon" (preferably on the Moon to avoid the air friction) before we can go seriously out to explore space using humans. Rockets are like steam locomotives (actually they are worse) they carry all their propulsion needs with them in a quite inefficient way.
And maybe we (yes, we!) can cut back on uselessly exagerated, ridiculing strawmen to derise a non-agreed opinion. Just because other people's posts seem to be completely stupid doesn't mean they require hateful responses. One could just ignore them.
I at least promise to do so. As a new year's eve resolution. Of next year.
Why did I post this? Because although I remember some news stories on women in tech (which I might have agreed with or not), I can't remember any story implying "everyone in your industry are chauvenists assholes and you owe us a place in your ranks". Let's stay at the facts.
- Allow older accounts who have good standing being able to post faster. The 4 minute time-out is archaic compared to reddit
Write comments thoughtful enough to take longer than 4 minutes to write. Like this ;-)
TL;DR: We have enough "I wish I had mod points" and other one-liners. No need to add a mechanisms to get more of them even if you think you would never use it that way.
Of course, people use past information for predicting the future, how is that in any way remarkable, or a problem?
Uhm, because if the market really was evaluating the price of a commodity (including all the information about the future), then the history of the price only tells you about how humans previously evaluated that information. That is great if one wants to exploit human psychology (or nowadays machine psychology in terms of having better algorithms than the neighbouring bank). But then the AC's statement of the market price not expressing current value but including expected future speculation (at least that's how I interpret it) is true.
Obviously, if you trade ten times as fast, your market moves ten times as fast. But you claimed that the swings don't just get faster, they also get bigger in magnitude than they would for a slower moving market.
Yes, I claim it because during those few minutes, seconds, milliseconds of machine trading the only information which changes is the (recently) past price, thus there is no other influence on the set-point than what is itself based on that influence.
In contrast in a theoretical very slow market (lets say 3 trade points a day) other - more real world (aka fundamental) - information has time to influence the set point before a trend can even be recognized and followed. So new news (the previously announced contract will be delayed, the government decided to spend more money due to the castastrophic economic predictions of yesterweek) or new insights (careful analysis of the announced contract shows low ROI in comparison to similar contracts, the economist making the predicitons have bad track record of correctness) can stop trends early.
Obviously such additional information could also strenghten trends. But then the price would really be a "prediction" of future value (as far as that is possible) based on new information and not just - exaggerating - the extrapolation of the step function response of the market to the last information. Does not prevent bubbles as history teaches us (human psychology again). But those take years and not merrily hours, so the (financial) environment has time to adapt.
Predictions about future returns are part of "the value of something right now", so your distinction makes no sense.
I think what would be better to say is that market price itself is used as information for future speculation.
In fact, the opposite is true mathematically: longer delays tend to produce bigger swings, for the simple reason that a system can go off the rails longer before the market corrects it.
It would be true for a "real" control system, i.e. a system which tries to control a variable to achieve/follow a setpoint. In such a system the shorter the delay the better the variable will follow the setpoint. Yet due to technical analysis (i.e. trying to predict the future price of a commodity from the "chart" of the price up to now) in financial trading the variable can influence the setpoint. In such a scenario a short delay can mean sharp, large swings. So instead of a depression of prices over months they will fall within an hour. Or rather would fall if there hadn't been circuit breakers installed on automated trades. So if automated HFT was so great, why does the NYSE limit it when it looks to start running amok?
But there's an even more basic error in your reasoning, namely the assumption that market swings are bad or that we should adopt policies to reduce them.
As the article you cite shows, the U.S. had as least the pretext trying to prevent an accident by an already de-orbiting satellite and the remains of the destruction de-orbited within a few months.
Now of course the U.S. could just have had its satellite de-orbit on purpose but even then this launch could be seen as a demonstration of U.S. capabilities necessary after the Chinese test to uphold mutual deterence ("If you kill our satellites, we will kill yours").
Uhm, it is a 'democracy' where eligibility is limited by a religious council, ultimate power is held by a not-popular-elected (not even indirectly) individual with potentially dictatorial authority, suspicion of massive voting fraud exists, where independent polling organisations are closed down to hide this, and where the press is severely limited ("one of the world’s most repressive in 2014" ; Last but 7 in 2015).
Please remember: "Voting not a democracy make."
Uups, there must be a hornet's nest somewhere. And all because I wanted to avoid invoking Godwin by using Jews as an example?
Yes, just imagine an alternate relaity in which Donald Trump becomes president, enforces his "Scare the Muslims away" policy by requiring them to wear clearly visible marks on their clothing and the document being a call for civil disobedience telling among other things how to produce markers which look OK but will not be visible for automatic surveillance cameras.
Obviously everyone forwarding such a document is not a law-abiding citizen but a prospective terrorist and needs to be found and detained.
There is currently a report by a German computer magazine (no so good Google translation) where IP cameras sold by a large German supermarket chain had an awfull standard configuration in
a) Not asking for a new password for external access and
b) automatically opening (via UPnP) an existing firewall.
Seemingly even after an update there are still hundreds of these cameras reachable on-line.
So one does not have to wait for a malign party to 'crack' a camera. Insufficient security knowledge at manufacturer and user is enough.
I also wonder about the legal situation of manipulating registry entries to circumvent user decisions. There are a few laws in Germany which as if they could fit (but IANAL):
303a Data Manipulation
(1) Anyone who illegally deletes, supresses, renders unusable oder changes data shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 2 years or a monetary penalty
303b Computer Sabotage
(1) Anyone who significantly disturbs a data processing [process], which is of significant importance to someone else, by
* an act according to 303a
* injecting, entering or submitting data with the intention to create a disadvantage to someone else, or
* destroying, damaging, rendering unsuable or changing a data processing system or data storage medium
shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 3 years or a monetary penalty
(2) In case the data processing [process] is of significant importance for a (different) business, company, or a civil administration the punishment shall be imprisonment of up to 5 years or a monetary penalty.
(4) In especially serious cases of section (2) the punishment shall be imprisonment of no less than 6 month to 10 years. As a rule a specially serious case is if the culprit
1)...
2) acted businesslike or as member of a gang which formed for continuous perpetration of computer sabotage.
And according to 202c distributing computer software which is intended to commits such crimes is punishable, too.
[all my translation; definitely not authorative]
So now the questions are:
* Was the manipulation of the registry values illegal?
* Was a company or civil authority hit? (Note that the law does not say "Void if they should have set up a Domain")
* Is Microsoft's approach "businesslike"?
Because if all is answered yes, then anyone involved in programming and distributing GWX.exe should better avoid Germany for some time to come (I don't know the statue of limitation on this).
No, the first attack assumes the identity provider to use an 307 request in answering a valid used identification request from the malicious server (which might look to the outside as a normal service while secretly retrieving user password). As far as I understand the forward will always happen in the protocol. The assumption is that this is done with a 307 request instead of 302 (or 303). This was apparently allowed by the OAuth specification (although one can of course wonder why any ID provider would not use 302 or 303).
Reading the original paper (and not just the blog) really helps to understand the attacks. With respect to the second attack I immediately thought that it wasn't worse than any authentication not using HTTPS. But the authors point out that they attack a step of the protocol (selection of ID provider) not normally considered sensitive so it could happen in HTTP.
Well. I think the authors do have some points although at least some of them are existing in embedded systems (which execute directly out of Flash) for a long time:
* CPU cycle hungry, most efficient disk caching algorithms are not that efficient anymore once "disk" (or rather Flash) access manages to catch up to the CPU. Less efficient but also less resource hungry algorithms might be advantageous then.
* Issuing lots of read accesses in advance to keep your worker threads busy might only help in occupying RAM but not speed up processing anymore if data arrives long before workers finished their previous job.
* Multi-core access to the Flash needs better (and less blocking) synchronization than with disk, where actual colliding accesses would have been more rare due to long time between them (being executed).
* If serial and random accesses show only small difference in access times (as they do for Flash: a few clock cycles for the Flash to throw away its read-ahead cache and get new data instead of the huge wait for head positioning and sector arrival of spinning disks), caching strategies might have to change, e.g. maybe caching leaf inodes is then not efficient anymore (just guessing here).
* And they seem to be talking about networking due to attaching disk clusters to servers via ethernet. But there I guess the authors are not radical enough: Why not connect the Flash devices directly to the server, they take much less space and power than spinning disks.
But as I said, I would have expected many of this being explored with respect to embedded computing long ago and with respect to servers already since the advent of the first SSDs (by talking to the embedded guys). Now seems a bit late for an ACM magazine article about that (unless ACM is falling behind tech development).
Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed.
Yes, that is exactly what we see in other comercial areas such as
* On-line Book selling (uh I meant selling of nearly everything)
* On-line auctions
* Search engines (uh I meant news integrator, mobile OS vendor, and whatever else)
* Social networks
In all these areas, after the first guy opened the market we see the business spread evenly over more and more companies with none coming near a monopoly which it could potentially abuse to e.g. make experiments on its users.
I stopped reading after he claimed "Hard to be a god" was a call for "good" science (whatever good means in this context) when it is (at least in my opinion) nearly the opposite: A tale that even the best intentions do not guarantee favorable outcomes and that even scientist are not save from believing otherwise until their intentions fail.
So I take the rest of the article was similarly messed up?
For none of which the State of Bavaria got any money. It is thus questionable someone else would have gotten it.
With these ants there ended up being a single fairly neat switch that the researchers could apply to get an entire cascade of behavioral changes because that entire cascade of changes is already one that the ants have evolved to employ.
Yes and I do not find it too surprising that the pre-defined behaviour in ants can be changed easily. One never knows what evolution comes up with but when it needs two distinct behaviours it is much safer to have one "switch" than several ones which could erroneously activate in wrong combinations. Probably the "complicated switching between castes"-ants have died out long ago from too many offsprings trying to go left and right at the same time. ;-)
The only vague reference to a copyright topic in the summary (and the Guardian article) is
Authorizing the book's release into the public domain has been a tortuous process.
which is of course complete rubbish. The copyright ended according to law on New Years Eve and the book was thus automatically released into the Public Domain. No process needed for that nor was it tortuous. The commented edition which was written by German scholars during the last years (and had to overcome some political problems) is a completely different topic and has nothing to do with the original book now being Public Domain.
So what does this have to do with copyright (except maybe showing that copyright outside the US can still work)?
The Schicklgruber family should have gotten the money instead.
Nobody got any money because - as even the summary mentions - the copyright was used to block publishing in Germany.
*cough*
Even as a Putin sock-puppet you should get your facts straight: The Western Allies fought Hitler already for 2 years before he invaded the Soviet Union. Once that happened the Soviet Union received massive amounts of Lend-Lease equipment from the US. Doesn't sound like a war by proxy to me.
The Soviet Union (not Russia!) suffered the most casualties due to (probably among others) Stalin's Purges which drained the officer corps and removed any intention to disobey central command from the remaining officers which lead to huge encirclements. Hitler managed to do the same when refusing an early breakout out of Stalingrad.
It's almost inexcusable that neither cars (nor trains) have automatic speed control systems that prevent exceeding the limit.
Trains don't have automatic speed control systems???? *cough*
Please see the rather short english article on Train Protection Systems (or the much longer German version) to enlighten you. It might be the U.S. track system is no longer up to standards but that doesn't say anything about trains in general.
If previous posts did not convince you, consider this scenario.
AI develops and gains a significant higher intelligence than humans. AIs need resources: sunlight for electricity, sand for building more silicium (or whatever else it will develop as semiconductor material). This puts it in conflict with humans wanting to have the sun shine on plants and planting those plants into fertile earth.
Best case scenario: AIs (potentially many different variants) feeling grateful for their creation allow humanity to peter out by taking all tasks and challenges from them and have them die out from boredom. The will only expand outside humanity's sphere (e.g. outside the inner solar system) as long as there are humans left.
Most probable scenario: There is at least one AI which does not share the gratefulness and feels the need to make use of the resources at hand to expand its capabilities. If this AI can create a sufficient number of copies, there is basically nothing the "preserver" AIs can do against it, as that AI will be able to wage a war against the preservers using all the resources available on earth (and other parts of the solar system) whereas the preserves not only have to defeat the attacker, they must do so without damaging the eco system or letting the attacker damage it beyond repair. My bet in this situation is on the attacker. Note that contrary to Hollywood myths human ingenuity and resourcefulness will be absolutely no help as humans will be completely outmatched.
I wouldn't even like the first scenario, as I am a human-fan. But agreeing with the most probable scenario is equivalent to agreeing that total nuclear war is of no consequence.
Charles Stross has very nicely described this in Accelerando which despite its name is not about music but the "Singularity", i.e. AI developing in exponential progression and starting to dismantle the solar system (and then neighbouring systems) to gain resources for its/their own reproduction.
The setting he describes is quite interesting, the story itself I considered somewhat Meh!