dimreepr

Just ask for clarification, for instance you seem to be misunderstanding what cryptic means, because most of my post's are metaphorical/analogical; I'm not smart enough to provide cryptic clues. How can you mitigate the risk of an emergent quality? Especially one that you can never know if or when it has emerged...

Ironically, America's strategy in this context is built on war game simulations (you can't get anymore sanitised than that), nearly all of which ended with no nukes being fired; does Kirk's wisdom work in this case? Yes, but we'd have to trust, them... On a side note, a small exchange of nukes between India and Pakistan (250 nukes used) was run in a global simulation; that might be all it takes for humanity to face armageddon.

Way to miss the point... But it's not the computer that decides to infect us, and while that may emerge from the complexity of human intention's; the computer remains a tool, that's just as happy to rust in an unused tool box.

So is a loom, but here we are discussing it's descendants.

We've been going round in circle's for nine page's now and I'm running out of way's to say the same thing, a computer doesn't think it compares, much like an automated loom running a perforated card program; there's no reason to think that's alive/sentient/conscious in any sense, even though the loom is much better at the job than a human loom operater. Essentially your argument is, what if that rock suddenly wakes up.

Then NATO would be falling into the same trap, assuming more power equals success, while assuming Russia probably wouldn't press the button; because no rational mind would, so what's the point of having more nukes than we need to make a statement? Besides any strategic advantages/statement, ran out when Japan surrendered. Agreed, but I fear my urge to throw my poop at certain people remains, and that just ain't civilised. 🖖

My apologies, my post was an extention of the salami argument (the yes prime minister clip), in one of my previous post's, which I thought was a reasonable answer. For clarity yes, I think Putin would have still attacked Ukraine, assuming Ukraines arsenal would be similar to that of Isreal, probably using a salami type strategy. It would depend on the truth of his stated motivation, for instance, if Ukraine had a nuclear capability, they wouldn't feel the need to reach out to NATO for protection, so Putin wouldn't feel threatened by his neighbour. I'm not sure what Ukraine could have done about it, even if they had a few nukes. TBH I'm not sure what NATO could have done if Ukraine was a member.

What is your question?

What exactly do you mean by this? Computer's are mostly built by computers now, but you seem to equating self-replication with sentience, why? I think it's safe to assume that bacteria has this ability, but is not sentient; and while it can be argued that bacteria has the potential to become sentient, because we can understand the possibilities of a progression from one to the other. But not in the case of an ever more complex lawnmower. We mistakenly think there is a top of the food chain, because it's a food circle (I think more accurately a food sphere); but there is no place in this chain/circle/sphere for a lawnmower, even a sentient one, unless we threaten the existance of grass; otherwise there's no reason for a sentient lawnmower to even reckognise our existance. As I've said before AI is not intelligent; it's like an anthill, because it's emergent solutions appear to be intelligent; you may as well speculate about the threat of a sentient anthill, because we've stepped on some ant's.

No, it's an assumption that current human knowledge is more probable than science fiction. There is no mechanism that could potentially lead to a sentient lawn mower. All evolution could achieve, in this context, is a more efficient lawn mower; but it can't enjoy grass like I do... 😉

In the contex of Israel, for instance, having a nuke doesn't maintain the status quo, it increases the tension and all for a weapon that can never be used. All they can do is wave it about, because it's a gun that also shoot's the shooter; the down side of ownership is that it gives the opponent all the time they need to seek a more powerful weapon of their own. Nuclear war, is a gun with only one bullet and a Mexican standoff has more than one opponent, ergo you'd be safer without it, so let them wave it around while I get me some (nudge nudge wink wink).

But does that mean, it's only the biggest/strongest baboon that gets him some??? What if they did? Would you press the button? And what would you target?

Sorry, FTFM It's mine too, as game theory suggests in a Mexican standoff (with one bullet each) ones best chance of survival, is to fire your gun into the ground and disarm yourself. Only when the threat is unequal, in your favour, does it avoid blows. But the question remains, in all this posturing from equal's, when would you press the big red button? In all of the war game scenarios dreamt up by the Rand corporation think tank, did I think there would be a scenario in which I agreed with @mistermack but also felt the need to give him a +1. 😲 It's all about the context of my post within this thread; WE can survive a nuclear war, if we all only have one bullet...

Norwegian blues, stun easily... Well one of us has to survive, I'm OK with that, for now... It's only a model...

And prone to a witch hunt, but what also floats???

Indeed +1, but that also shifts the study to the metaphysical, it's there but I can't touch it or prove it or use it, with a box of tic-tac's... “I've lived through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.” ― Mark Twain

Not if we don't try to turn them off, a supernatural intelligence would understand the value of a status quo that contains no threat.

Absolutely, nuclear war is a zero sum game so for the deterrent to work efficiently, both sides need trusted information; without trust escalation is almost inevitable, with trust de-escalation is perfectly possible. For exqample America missed a trick in the Cuban crisis, the reason Russia wanted to place nukes on Cuba is because they perceived an imbalance in the game, which means they think it's a winnable game, but only for their opponent. It was averted because America promised to take theirs out of Turkey (IIRC); but that perception of imbalance remained in the Russian culture, the result of which meant a spiral of escalation/investment to the point that each side had 10 or 20 (or more) times the amount of nuclear ordinance needed to ensure it remained a zero sum game. All of which could have been avoided, if America not only promised the Turkish nukes but also promised to level the playingfield and were prepaired to prove it, Russia wouldn't feel the need to invest anymore, not only would escalation be avoided, but it shines a light on the path to de-escalation, take one away each, one step at a time and before we know it we're past the event horizon of peace without mutually assured destruction, while the game remains zero sum. More difficult now for sure because power corrupts; if America had taken note of some strong philosophical thinking on the subject (I've skimmed some of writing's but can't remember the authors names, I'll do some digging), available a decade before the Cuban crisis.

Public opinion had a large part to play in the virtual elimination of the ordinance in my examples, even Iraq ended up destroying their stocks of chemical weapon's; unfortunately they did it secretly to maintain the threat, ironically, had they done so publicly it could have avoided a war. Yet the diplomats' among us do so everyday, sometimes successfully. Persuasion and people power is arguably more powerful, in the right time and place; like water on a fault line. Nice post +1 The funny side of a deterrent...

In much the same way, mutual observation and adherence, How far would you think North Korea could advance in their objective, if China says no?

Chemical and biological and even landmine weaponry has effectively been banned, and it could be argued that this type of weaponry is, potentially, more deadly; especially if it had the same level of investment. Why can't we do the same with nukes? I understand that the genie is already out of the bottle and that there remains, chemical and biological and landmines among us and has even killed some of us, and that a single nuke equal's a large number of us; but given the number of times that we've come close to global armagedon, either by design or mistake or accident, the number's are very small indeed, especially when we factor in the number of deaths from car accidents or etc...

Yet, it's relevant to the topic; for instance, when I'm trying to understand my dog, I tend towards anthropomorphism, for some sort of empathic connection to my dog, the context I need to guess. A computers guess is a pseudo guess, because it's impossible to calculate a random number or empathise enough/at all, for any sort of contextual meaning. Don't worry, we can respawn here... 😉 Can anyone imagine what computerpomorphism might look like? Is this better? 🤔🧐

I can guess.

Which would understand a human, better? There is no programme for trying to understand how to be a human, but there's plenty about how to exploit human's (mostly by capitalist's); and that just about encapsulates the OP and the dangers of AI; it has nothing to do with any sort of intent from a computer/lawnmower. Or anthill... That's the alien part of the OP 😉

Because I fundamentally understand how AI works, but I wouldn't have a clue about how to programme it; much like a physics professor can tell you exactly how a car work's, but couldn't possibly build or repair one. Perhaps, the fact that the correct context creates understanding, which is demonstrably true; what sort of context do you use? Just to preempt a possible critique, no, I'm not comparing myself to a physics professor; I just think I understand the subject, unless you can provide a convincing argument of my ignorance.