Genady

More people => more ideas, more solutions, more diversity, more expertise, more knowledge, more chances, more creativity.

Perhaps they mean this: They mentioned these:

Let's make the question straight. I guess, you don't worry about the 'intelligent' aspect, but about the outcome. In this case, the question is: "Is there a potential that regardless of all mitigation to ensure a good program and very close and control management of the use. That the program could re-write its original program?" It can be prevented.

My point is that it is not a question of a wrong program but of a wrong use of it.

I'm not a lawyer, how would I know? What do you think? I only had an experience with a patent lawyer and with a divorce lawyer. They were reasonable. The OP didn't mention anything like that. I answered with what I wish would happen, not what would make me happy ever after. Otherwise, I'm quite happy as I am. So, I guess, the wish would be, don't break it.

It's a tool and it is up to people what to do with it. This tool can make bad things easier, faster, cheaper to do. Imagine scientific journal boards flooded with plagiarized and fake but well composed manuscripts. SFn flooded with fake science news, machine generated comments, political propaganda etc. Google search returning false results from non-existing sources... These are just a few innocent examples.

My 5 cents based on experience in underwater photography. We used to put a couple of silica gel packets in the housing to prevent fogging during the dive. After each use, we microwaved them for about 15 seconds and stored in the housing to be used next time. They were successfully reused this way many times.

Very well, it clarifies your response. To clarify the last, I hope, misunderstanding I want to point out that my word "we" referred to "us" in your "let's". IOW, it was a rhetorical "we" rather than some non-existent collective humanity that could be encompassed by the theoretical "we".

I didn't ask, what you can do. I've asked, For the reference, here is where you said it:

I thought that's what the OP meant when he said,

In the light / darkness of the above, what did you mean when you said, "Let's try both and see which works better?" How can we try anything at all?

Breaking news: Trump indicted in Stormy Daniels hush-money case (msn.com)

It appears that your suggestion is to look for a needle in a haystack without knowing anything about the needle or the haystack.

This would be good to achieve regardless of it resulting or not in reducing population and regardless of such reduction solving or not any of the problems such as "using up the resources and killing every other species ... heat[ing] up the atmosphere and threaten[ing] nuclear holocaust." But, to achieve the above, it is not clear, "[g]iven the present state of politics, economics, religiosity and environmental conditions - who [bearing in mind there is no unanimous "we", only individuals and organizations] should be doing what, how where and with what resources", and if we have time to do it and to see the results.

Unlike reducing population, reducing craziness consists of a set of separate goals, which perhaps will require different answers. Answers pertaining to this thread's topic are known. Reducing population, as you know, will not necessarily solve this problem, and is not easier than other answers. It will not necessarily solve other components of the craziness either.

Then the answer is reduction of the craziness.

I still don't understand what your suggestion is. To look for infra-red sources in the Kuiper Belt?

What for? Why to reduce population at all?

OK, I'll bite. Wish 1: somebody solves the quantum gravity conundrum.

Yes, this is just conjecture. OTOH, the quote above is just words. Instead, those who claim they believe that 90% of UFO's are alien just need to replace my prior of 1% with their prior of 90% and calculate again: P(A/E) = P(E/A)*P(A)/P(E) = 0.5*0.9/0.9 = 0.5 The result is that their prior of 90%, after getting a report of a new siting which then gets explained naturally, should reasonably go down to 50%.

Just for fun, I've decided to run a little exercise in Bayesian inference. Let's say I am open-minded and believe that there is 1% chance of a UFO siting to be alien related. This is my "prior", P(A). Let's say about 90% of all UFO sitings have natural explanations. This is P(E). Let's say that even an alien related siting has 50% chance to be explained naturally. This is P(E/A). Now somebody reports a new siting, and somebody else points out a natural explanation to it. My new, updated believe in a chance of a UFO siting to be alien related is, P(A/E) = P(E/A)*P(A)/P(E) = 0.5*0.01/0.9 = 0.0056 So, I'm still open-minded but my confidence in alien related UFOs went down from 1% to 0.56%.

No, it does not.

I use it to benefit the animal shelter.

"Quantum theory is based on what is known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle" like Euclidean geometry is based on Pythagorean theorem.

In this article in NYT, In a Parallel Universe, Another You - The New York Times (nytimes.com), Michio Kaku said, If so, and the world is quantum mechanical, the uncertainty principle explains not only "lasers, transistors, internet and computers", but everything in the world.