From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 18:02:04 MDT
Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> The question put forth by this thread is a realistic one in my opinion,
> and if a US city disappears under a Jihaddi nuke cloud, there will
> have to be an answer. Handing out band-aids to the survivors is not
> going to cut it.
Really? There "has to" be an answer? I don't see why there "has to" be
an answer any more than there "has to" be a way of preventing it from
happening in the first place. Certainly, if you are the one who believes
there "has to" be an answer, it's your job to show this is the case,
preferably by offering an actual answer.
Imagine this: Manhattan disappears underneath a nuke cloud and there is
absolutely nothing we can do about it, except wait for the next city to
vanish.
And it does. And there's still nothing we can do.
Lights going out, one by one.
That's the assumption you start from, and try to show otherwise.
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:12 MST