This again confirms his theory though. Destabilizing a stable ecosystem leads to spurs of evolution and new species. During the hardest times on Earth, biggest leaps of development happened. Death of dinosaurs led to mammals taking over.
How many mamals died? How long it took for mammals to take over?
I guess the real question is, can we adapt fast enough? I dare to say that yes, humanity will adapt to the new changes. But, how many humans will die during the adaptation process?
Í think this is a very valid point. It is fair to say that the greeks and romans knew they were the most advanced civilzation ever. they also knew their way of life was going to be preserved for ever. It didn't happen then, it wont happen now. The very nature of progres is like that. the cycle goes something like this:
Timeline
initial "technology" 0
New "technology 1" appears
Humans gradually switch to the new "technology 1"
after switch is complete old "technology 0" is obsolete
new "technology 2" appears
humans gradually switch to new "technology 2"
After switch is complete, "technology 1" is obsolete
...
this cycle repeats for as long as there is innovation. Here is the problem, the higher the technology N is, the harder it is to recover past technologies. This probably applies for ideas, language, and technology. As much as we like to think our civilization ha entered the age where we will survive any major changes, we wont survive the one that made the romans dissappear in the first place, social evolution/natural selection. We are doomed to evolve into a different civilization, thus our civilization as we know it will dissapear. We dont need meteors, global warming, or nuclear holocaust to end our civilization, our civilization will keep mutating( social mutation) until is virtually unrecognizable from today's
The only thing surprising is that so many Americans are still looking up with worshipful puppy eyes -- at the leaders who pretend to protect them while stealing their wealth, liberty, and lives
see, this is where your wrong. Most americans have not lost wealth, the loss of liberty is not obvious, and the lost of lives are not american. The regime in power wont use any of these powers unless there is a threat. What real threat does the "bush" regime faces?
none
they have efectivly silenced most dangerous oposition in the United States, and they know that if they use their powers too often, all its going to happen is creating new enemies. They want power, but they also want stability. The only way they get stability is if the economy is good and the citizens are relatively happy.
while it's true that there is a segment of the population that knows of the potential for abuse and openly speak against it, its not a real threat for the regime. We herre writing angrily about the government are too confortable in our jobs to do anything real about it. Even if we wanted to do something about it, because they have had monitoring systems in place for so long, they probably will know exactly how to take you down.
To those not in the know, it doesnt matter who wins the next elections, they are still in power.
Very good, the govt. was toppled and a new one put in
they have toppled the brick and mortar government. But have they toppled the will of the people? Granted that we like to see the government as big brother watching over us, but the real power lies on the people. Even when we have control over offices and police powers , the poeple cannot be as easily placated just by throwing some bombs at them, every death of a person, terrorist or not, create many more terrorists, depending on how many good friends and family that person had. Nah, I dont think we had gain real control, the only people you can control are the ones that let themselves be controled.
Trough my whole life my weight has fluctuated between 230-300 pounds. At 230 I'm in excellent shape (I'm 6'3")and 300 I'm very fat. During my "healthy cycles" I feel really productive and generally can do much better in all aspects of my life including school. Tests are much easier speaking in public is easier, and my time studying seems much more efficient. When I'm fat ( like right now) everything is much harder. I lack the confidence to speak in public places or make presentations, I get distracted much more when I study and my social life is in shambles.
I realize that my weight is not the only factor that affects my productivity or mental acuity, but is one of them. When I'm in weight my mind just seems much more clear and I can acomplish much more without getting as tired. In my case at least being fat makes me dumber and less efficient, so my goals are endangered when I'm fat.
What if you had human powered computers? or harness, using computer as a medium, human intelligence? we have been doing this for years , This research just wants to make a reproducible sistem out of it.
software that would let the government monitor negative opinions of the United States or its leaders in newspapers and other publications overseas.
It is quite easy for them to detect explosion or terrorist attacks. They already have the capacity to detect relativly major events. What this new software detects is the SENTIMENT of the people. Think of it a a "love for the US meter". Certain areas of the world could harbor more hateful feelings towards the US than others. By coming up with some sort of "how much they hate us" algorithm they can focus intelligence gathering in those areas since they are more likely to harbor terrorists.
I think this is an excellent idea as long as it is implemented right. They can even expand the algorithm to detect sentiments over personal e-mails abroad and have a good profile of posible terrorists. As a matter of fact the idea is so good, that we should implement it in the US. We should have an algorithm that detects the american sentiments about the US government itself. If there are possible terrorist amongst us we better find them.
You know what? they should go all out. Once the ever incresing computer power reaches a sweet spot, they should start monitoring all the comunication ways. Since they have an algorithm that detects "sentiment" we can profile the groups of people discontent with this country, after all they could eventually become terrorists.
This is almost a dream come true, once they realize that the written word is just as dangerous to the US as a bomb, the government should start defending itself from the attacks. Anything goes as long as we are safe
God bless the USA!
Maybe a bit alarmist, but you know what, is a logical path.
what I have always wondered is how about the long term financial stability of the corporations. It is quite obvious that new emission laws and a mandatory reduction in fossil fuel usage will be expensive in the short term. But haven't they done studies of the consequences of global warming to their companies? If global warming is a reality is quite possible that the consequences of it are catastrophic. I would think that drastic climate change will cause a breakdown of the economic structures we now enjoy. Some corporations might be able to adjust but not all of them will. Those corporations that can't adapt will suffer tremendous loses and maybe even bankrupcy.
Assuming this as true, I can think of few likely explanations for the current corporate attitude:
They haven't considered the long term consequences of global warming
They think they can adapt or profit from global warming
They trust their research as good one and think Global warming is a farce
Honestly I have a hard time believing that the last 100 years of human development have had no consequences on the climate. when I see this http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/ida_asp_02. gif Picture, and then think that only 100 or so years ago most of that map was almost completly black. Although this is picture have very little to do with climate change(on the surface at least), it clearly shows that we can have a huge impact on earth. Weather is too late or not, we are about to find out.
Yeah, and we'll all be scooting around in flying cars too, right?
Not unless we have a much better energy source or an almost sci-fi leap in gravity manipulation or similar technology. Nevertheless, robots can perform larger loops of repetitive tasks and with greater accuracy everyday. As computing power keeps getting cheaper and better it reaches a point which is cheaper to have a robot laboring 24/7 than an army of cheaply paid humans. That point is different for every industry so it wont happen overnight, but it is happening. As it happens China loses their greates strenght, huge armies of cheap laborers.
Maybe they realize that the advancements in computing power will eventually erase their edge.. man power. Robots will do the work the chinese people do now for very little money.
This google boys are quite bright. I'm glad that they, just like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, realize the dire economic situation for the US for the not too distant future. See, wealth is a result of growth and not necesarily profits, when a company grows their shareholeders make money. It reallly dont matter what is your product as long as there is a demand for your product. Google's product just like B&M foundation is charity. Soon it is going to be in very very high demand.
Who is going to pay for this charity? Investors of course, the very rich knows that without a strong middle class their fortunes will be greatly diminished, so they are starting to invest in the middleclass, so they can rip more benefit in the future. In a very crazy and unexpected way, the capitalist have realize that they need a socialist safety net, and while they are at it, they will make loads of money from it. Google is taking a safer approach than Bill Gates but they are both applying the same concept. After all all the buildings and intellectual property will belong to Google.
Quite a nice experiment.
PS. I'm glad that the real government is starting to directly help its people, even if they do it for their own profit
What does the division of one by zero have to do with evolution or science? I may not be able to convince you that 2+2=4, but I'm going to raise hell if my kids don't learn it in school.
I'm getting in deeper than my current knowledge allows me, but I will try anyways. The same art that you used to get to the conclusion that 2+2=4, does not have an answer for 1/0. What that means is that it is a flawed system. It cannot be fully understood, yet. I could make the argument that even when you have a lot of science, all that science is based on a unproven system(math). As accurate as the model is is not a proven model yet.
My proposition is this, schools should have different curriculum, for different students. Those student that do not wish to learn evolution then they can elect out of science and math and take divinity clases instead. Don't teach them the "lies of science, teach them their religion. If science is the path to success, in 30 to 40 years the only thing we will have to worry about is paying wellfare to the adults that didnt learn math or science at school. If we do this religion is likely to be naturally selected out of the schools.
Why? Science can't be proven, by definition. Religion doesn't have any supporting evidence, by definition.
By a scientist definition science has tons of suporting evidence yet, can't be proven. What does this really mean to the person not educated in science. They would need blind faith to believe in in the "well supported" theories of science. But what he holds as truth is the creation of the world by a god. Have you ever talked to a christian? they see god proven everywhere and working everywhere, just as you see the laws of physics everywhere. If you want him to stop believing that, prove it to him in a convincing matter, until then he has a right to educate his children in whatever he deems the right path to happiness. Who knows, at this point there is a chance that his beliefs are true( unlikely).
While you have many rights, depriving a child, even yours, of an education is not one of them.
Define education.
Education to me is inductrination in a certain subject. In order to reach any complex conclusion a human has to admit many elements as facts even when they have never seen the proof for it. They need faith. what difference does it makes to have faith in god or faith in science? The laws of motion describe quite accuretly how an apple falls, but why? If you say science has the explanation then you either prove it to me or I have to believe it by faith. Regardless, that knowledge might not be my way to pursuit happiness. In fact the uncertainty that science brings might be a way of mnissery to many people. The same can be said for religion.
You aren't forced to send your child to a school, you are forced to make sure they get an education. Not the same thing. If you can't manage to create a home school environment for them then you are left with pawning them off on what's left over - public school.
Home schooling and Private schooling exist for this very reason.
If the enviroment do not permit you to send your children to private or home shooling then the only option is to fall back into public schools. Like any american he has the right to the pursuit of liberty and the freedom to believe in whatever he deems his pursuit of happiness. For some people the pursuit for happiness is religion, and completely unproven theories(to their minds) stand on the way to that pursuit. The same argument that applies to keeping god out of school, applies to science that is not necesarrily proven. When a religious parent is convinced that 1/0 is possible, then science can be mandatory. The same applies for religion. How to agree on this issue is an entirely different matter.
You seem to be confusing Fact and Truth. To intertwine Science with Truth would be a huge mistake. Leave the pursuit of Truth for philosophy and religion.
I think we are on the same page on this issue, thats why I used apostrophes on the word truth. The truth could be much deeper than science facts, as science itself is just the human interpretation of the universe, just like religion.
I think we have to ask, is science and religion mutually exclusive? Some religions can't exist in the same world as science, and those are the ones putting up the fight. They are losing ground, only the staunchest religions wont admit that a 7000 year world is just extremely unlikely, to put it lightly. Most religions have evolved (pun)to look at God more as an observer, that watches over us but that have to follow the rules given by science as the mechanism for his power. Whats ironic is that natural selection is at work in the religious planes too.
Science is a threat to faith. God and religion are, imo, the product of the human fear to the unknown. We place god and religion in issues that we can't explain. Pain, disease, death and were we come from, were all the realm of god until science came along. The more we know of the world the more we can explain accuratly how it works. Everytime a discovery is made, God is displaced from his question answering place and accurate knowledge takes his place. That knowledge may or may not be something that we like, for example, descending from primates instead of being made by a God.
Like it or not science is a threat to religion, even though is much closer to the "truth" than god or religion. Not everyone is comfortable knowing how and why something happened. Some people are more comfortable with "the will of god" than with reason. I think that's why is so important that accurate science is taught to children, technological stagnation awaits any civilization that has answered all the questions with God.
I've always wish a place like this existed near my town in Puerto Rico, but even when I lived in the US places like internet cafe's will go under in no time. I think that a place that holds frequent tournaments with decent prices it should do well. Another thing is that the place shouldnt be designed as a big room full of PC's. The place should have other areas where people can socialize and drink while watching games or tournaments on big screen TV's.
I've always wondered about this. Why third parties spend so much money trying to elect a president when they know is impossible under the cisrcumstances. Why they instead of concentrating on electing a president, they should concentrate all their money and propaganda in gaining a couple of seats in the house or senate. It should be much easier to convince a district to vote for you than to convince a whole country. At least then they will have some power and some police power over congress.
I'm a little hesitant to reply to tyour pos as I'm very scared for my future y posting in slashdot, but I'll do it anyways.
Terrorism. What you think of as the battle for freedom will be interpreted by mainstream america as terrosism. If you go up in arms against the goverment , then you will give the goverment the power needed to use Military force against its citizens. See I served in the army for 8 years, and I can tell you this. Soldiers are not stupid drones, but if ordderd to fight armed american terrorist, dont mattre the cause they will fight and win. As soon as you take up firearms and violence, you will loose. This is the imformation age my friend, the true soldiers are here, in slashdot, in the internet generation. Imformation must be our weapon. the same weapon the government is potentially using against its people. If we choose to fight an information war then we not only have american "freedom fighters" we will have the help of millions opf people around the world that seeing their futures theathened by US policy will join the "fight". Hacking, information release and propaganda are the real tools to fight.
But I think it is still too early to start a full blown information war with the government. The time is for getting the word out, starting mailing lists with propaganda. We all can do this we all have many many people in our contatc lists, we all can sit down and email 100 people with a short, to the point and sincere statemnent, that will just bring them to their attention the this type of news an its possible conseqences. Do not make it seem like spam and do it only to friends and ask them to do the same. I think thats a start for all you that are reading this. YOU can do something to avoid the fall of america.
So the first thing you would do when creating a new conciousness is a way to kill it? Not a great way to start. Upon his birth , the greatest intelligence ever would percieve us as a threat. I think the issue is much more complicated than that and it shouldnt be resolved in such a violent way, because if we fail, if the big red button fails, we have just declared war on it, and we will loose that war. The issue is quite philosophical, and we better be right about how to handle it, no, not handle it, how to establish a relationship with it, or else thats it for us.
Slashdot Mirror
How many mamals died? How long it took for mammals to take over? I guess the real question is, can we adapt fast enough? I dare to say that yes, humanity will adapt to the new changes. But, how many humans will die during the adaptation process?
Í think this is a very valid point. It is fair to say that the greeks and romans knew they were the most advanced civilzation ever. they also knew their way of life was going to be preserved for ever. It didn't happen then, it wont happen now. The very nature of progres is like that. the cycle goes something like this:
Timelinethis cycle repeats for as long as there is innovation. Here is the problem, the higher the technology N is, the harder it is to recover past technologies. This probably applies for ideas, language, and technology. As much as we like to think our civilization ha entered the age where we will survive any major changes, we wont survive the one that made the romans dissappear in the first place, social evolution/natural selection. We are doomed to evolve into a different civilization, thus our civilization as we know it will dissapear. We dont need meteors, global warming, or nuclear holocaust to end our civilization, our civilization will keep mutating( social mutation) until is virtually unrecognizable from today's
errr, we vote with our dollars everyday.
see, this is where your wrong. Most americans have not lost wealth, the loss of liberty is not obvious, and the lost of lives are not american. The regime in power wont use any of these powers unless there is a threat. What real threat does the "bush" regime faces?
none
they have efectivly silenced most dangerous oposition in the United States, and they know that if they use their powers too often, all its going to happen is creating new enemies. They want power, but they also want stability. The only way they get stability is if the economy is good and the citizens are relatively happy.
while it's true that there is a segment of the population that knows of the potential for abuse and openly speak against it, its not a real threat for the regime. We herre writing angrily about the government are too confortable in our jobs to do anything real about it. Even if we wanted to do something about it, because they have had monitoring systems in place for so long, they probably will know exactly how to take you down.
To those not in the know, it doesnt matter who wins the next elections, they are still in power.
Trough my whole life my weight has fluctuated between 230-300 pounds. At 230 I'm in excellent shape (I'm 6'3")and 300 I'm very fat. During my "healthy cycles" I feel really productive and generally can do much better in all aspects of my life including school. Tests are much easier speaking in public is easier, and my time studying seems much more efficient. When I'm fat ( like right now) everything is much harder. I lack the confidence to speak in public places or make presentations, I get distracted much more when I study and my social life is in shambles.
I realize that my weight is not the only factor that affects my productivity or mental acuity, but is one of them. When I'm in weight my mind just seems much more clear and I can acomplish much more without getting as tired. In my case at least being fat makes me dumber and less efficient, so my goals are endangered when I'm fat.
What if you had human powered computers? or harness, using computer as a medium, human intelligence? we have been doing this for years , This research just wants to make a reproducible sistem out of it.
FTFA
It is quite easy for them to detect explosion or terrorist attacks. They already have the capacity to detect relativly major events. What this new software detects is the SENTIMENT of the people. Think of it a a "love for the US meter". Certain areas of the world could harbor more hateful feelings towards the US than others. By coming up with some sort of "how much they hate us" algorithm they can focus intelligence gathering in those areas since they are more likely to harbor terrorists.
I think this is an excellent idea as long as it is implemented right. They can even expand the algorithm to detect sentiments over personal e-mails abroad and have a good profile of posible terrorists. As a matter of fact the idea is so good, that we should implement it in the US. We should have an algorithm that detects the american sentiments about the US government itself. If there are possible terrorist amongst us we better find them.
You know what? they should go all out. Once the ever incresing computer power reaches a sweet spot, they should start monitoring all the comunication ways. Since they have an algorithm that detects "sentiment" we can profile the groups of people discontent with this country, after all they could eventually become terrorists.
This is almost a dream come true, once they realize that the written word is just as dangerous to the US as a bomb, the government should start defending itself from the attacks. Anything goes as long as we are safe
God bless the USA!
Maybe a bit alarmist, but you know what, is a logical path.
what I have always wondered is how about the long term financial stability of the corporations. It is quite obvious that new emission laws and a mandatory reduction in fossil fuel usage will be expensive in the short term. But haven't they done studies of the consequences of global warming to their companies? If global warming is a reality is quite possible that the consequences of it are catastrophic. I would think that drastic climate change will cause a breakdown of the economic structures we now enjoy. Some corporations might be able to adjust but not all of them will. Those corporations that can't adapt will suffer tremendous loses and maybe even bankrupcy.
Assuming this as true, I can think of few likely explanations for the current corporate attitude:
Honestly I have a hard time believing that the last 100 years of human development have had no consequences on the climate. when I see this http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/ida_asp_02. gif Picture, and then think that only 100 or so years ago most of that map was almost completly black. Although this is picture have very little to do with climate change(on the surface at least), it clearly shows that we can have a huge impact on earth. Weather is too late or not, we are about to find out.
Not unless we have a much better energy source or an almost sci-fi leap in gravity manipulation or similar technology. Nevertheless, robots can perform larger loops of repetitive tasks and with greater accuracy everyday. As computing power keeps getting cheaper and better it reaches a point which is cheaper to have a robot laboring 24/7 than an army of cheaply paid humans. That point is different for every industry so it wont happen overnight, but it is happening. As it happens China loses their greates strenght, huge armies of cheap laborers.
And what if what you want to download is restricted?
Maybe they realize that the advancements in computing power will eventually erase their edge.. man power. Robots will do the work the chinese people do now for very little money.
This google boys are quite bright. I'm glad that they, just like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, realize the dire economic situation for the US for the not too distant future. See, wealth is a result of growth and not necesarily profits, when a company grows their shareholeders make money. It reallly dont matter what is your product as long as there is a demand for your product. Google's product just like B&M foundation is charity. Soon it is going to be in very very high demand.
Who is going to pay for this charity? Investors of course, the very rich knows that without a strong middle class their fortunes will be greatly diminished, so they are starting to invest in the middleclass, so they can rip more benefit in the future. In a very crazy and unexpected way, the capitalist have realize that they need a socialist safety net, and while they are at it, they will make loads of money from it. Google is taking a safer approach than Bill Gates but they are both applying the same concept. After all all the buildings and intellectual property will belong to Google.
Quite a nice experiment.PS. I'm glad that the real government is starting to directly help its people, even if they do it for their own profit
What does the division of one by zero have to do with evolution or science? I may not be able to convince you that 2+2=4, but I'm going to raise hell if my kids don't learn it in school.
I'm getting in deeper than my current knowledge allows me, but I will try anyways. The same art that you used to get to the conclusion that 2+2=4, does not have an answer for 1/0. What that means is that it is a flawed system. It cannot be fully understood, yet. I could make the argument that even when you have a lot of science, all that science is based on a unproven system(math). As accurate as the model is is not a proven model yet.
My proposition is this, schools should have different curriculum, for different students. Those student that do not wish to learn evolution then they can elect out of science and math and take divinity clases instead. Don't teach them the "lies of science, teach them their religion. If science is the path to success, in 30 to 40 years the only thing we will have to worry about is paying wellfare to the adults that didnt learn math or science at school. If we do this religion is likely to be naturally selected out of the schools.
By a scientist definition science has tons of suporting evidence yet, can't be proven. What does this really mean to the person not educated in science. They would need blind faith to believe in in the "well supported" theories of science. But what he holds as truth is the creation of the world by a god. Have you ever talked to a christian? they see god proven everywhere and working everywhere, just as you see the laws of physics everywhere. If you want him to stop believing that, prove it to him in a convincing matter, until then he has a right to educate his children in whatever he deems the right path to happiness. Who knows, at this point there is a chance that his beliefs are true( unlikely).
Define education.
Education to me is inductrination in a certain subject. In order to reach any complex conclusion a human has to admit many elements as facts even when they have never seen the proof for it. They need faith. what difference does it makes to have faith in god or faith in science? The laws of motion describe quite accuretly how an apple falls, but why? If you say science has the explanation then you either prove it to me or I have to believe it by faith. Regardless, that knowledge might not be my way to pursuit happiness. In fact the uncertainty that science brings might be a way of mnissery to many people. The same can be said for religion.
That is a very anti-evolution statement, between science and religion, the one that can adapt should win.
I think we are on the same page on this issue, thats why I used apostrophes on the word truth. The truth could be much deeper than science facts, as science itself is just the human interpretation of the universe, just like religion.
I think we have to ask, is science and religion mutually exclusive? Some religions can't exist in the same world as science, and those are the ones putting up the fight. They are losing ground, only the staunchest religions wont admit that a 7000 year world is just extremely unlikely, to put it lightly. Most religions have evolved (pun)to look at God more as an observer, that watches over us but that have to follow the rules given by science as the mechanism for his power. Whats ironic is that natural selection is at work in the religious planes too.
Science is a threat to faith. God and religion are, imo, the product of the human fear to the unknown. We place god and religion in issues that we can't explain. Pain, disease, death and were we come from, were all the realm of god until science came along. The more we know of the world the more we can explain accuratly how it works. Everytime a discovery is made, God is displaced from his question answering place and accurate knowledge takes his place. That knowledge may or may not be something that we like, for example, descending from primates instead of being made by a God.
Like it or not science is a threat to religion, even though is much closer to the "truth" than god or religion. Not everyone is comfortable knowing how and why something happened. Some people are more comfortable with "the will of god" than with reason. I think that's why is so important that accurate science is taught to children, technological stagnation awaits any civilization that has answered all the questions with God.
I've always wish a place like this existed near my town in Puerto Rico, but even when I lived in the US places like internet cafe's will go under in no time. I think that a place that holds frequent tournaments with decent prices it should do well. Another thing is that the place shouldnt be designed as a big room full of PC's. The place should have other areas where people can socialize and drink while watching games or tournaments on big screen TV's.
I've always wondered about this. Why third parties spend so much money trying to elect a president when they know is impossible under the cisrcumstances. Why they instead of concentrating on electing a president, they should concentrate all their money and propaganda in gaining a couple of seats in the house or senate. It should be much easier to convince a district to vote for you than to convince a whole country. At least then they will have some power and some police power over congress.
I'm a little hesitant to reply to tyour pos as I'm very scared for my future y posting in slashdot, but I'll do it anyways. Terrorism. What you think of as the battle for freedom will be interpreted by mainstream america as terrosism. If you go up in arms against the goverment , then you will give the goverment the power needed to use Military force against its citizens. See I served in the army for 8 years, and I can tell you this. Soldiers are not stupid drones, but if ordderd to fight armed american terrorist, dont mattre the cause they will fight and win. As soon as you take up firearms and violence, you will loose. This is the imformation age my friend, the true soldiers are here, in slashdot, in the internet generation. Imformation must be our weapon. the same weapon the government is potentially using against its people. If we choose to fight an information war then we not only have american "freedom fighters" we will have the help of millions opf people around the world that seeing their futures theathened by US policy will join the "fight". Hacking, information release and propaganda are the real tools to fight. But I think it is still too early to start a full blown information war with the government. The time is for getting the word out, starting mailing lists with propaganda. We all can do this we all have many many people in our contatc lists, we all can sit down and email 100 people with a short, to the point and sincere statemnent, that will just bring them to their attention the this type of news an its possible conseqences. Do not make it seem like spam and do it only to friends and ask them to do the same. I think thats a start for all you that are reading this. YOU can do something to avoid the fall of america.
perhaps, but I don't think HAL liked that very much
Whats the use of being smart if you have a computer that would think for you?
So the first thing you would do when creating a new conciousness is a way to kill it? Not a great way to start. Upon his birth , the greatest intelligence ever would percieve us as a threat. I think the issue is much more complicated than that and it shouldnt be resolved in such a violent way, because if we fail, if the big red button fails, we have just declared war on it, and we will loose that war. The issue is quite philosophical, and we better be right about how to handle it, no, not handle it, how to establish a relationship with it, or else thats it for us.