dimreepr

There's a reason Jesus said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God", it's only a dilemma for the proud; it's akin to declaring, "I'm a self made millionaire", in that it's total bollox. When have you known me to do that?

But the level of complexity is order's of magnitude greater than that of a machine. You're essentially chasing a ghost because a) currently computers aren't sentient and there is no known way to change that. b) there is no known way to determine if they do. ATM this speculation is fantasy, and while that may change in the future; it's no different than speculating about FLT, physics says no.

Yes, but the parameters remain the same.

Yet it has been done, as per my examples in the OP, so it is possible with the right conditions; we can but hope that the emergence of China as the other superpower, will provide them. 🤞🙏 Then I'm with Yossarian, when he said IIRC "me, happy happy... dead: you, worry worry worry... dead".

I think it's a reasonable analog, an emergent quality is born of complexity, but with the right model we can be reasonably accurate with our prediction of tomorrow's weather; IOW when we start a program, even a complicated one, provided we've got the syntax right, we can predict it won't be sentient tomorrow. Before you go thinking that that "plays right into my wheelhouse", if we extend the analogy, we can be reasonably accurate when we say that next year's weather will be roughly the same and so on (and let's not go down the climate change complication, it has no place in this thread). Your uncertainty argument, that future events are eternally possible, doesn't hold true until/unless you find a new variable (previously unseen) into the equation that changes our current understanding.

One can feel safe in many way's, but it usually involves some sort of stick/weapon.

Indeed, virtual emergence has not emerged... 🧐 Our best guess is like a weather forecast, we can predict tomorrow's weather with a great deal of accuracy because we have a model based on yesterday; next year is a mistery, because the model isn't real...

History would suggest organic evolution, how could we emulate that process, mechanically?

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.