From: Dan Clemmensen (Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com)
Date: Thu Jan 21 1999 - 19:24:16 MST
Billy Brown wrote:
>
>
> Do I really need to point out how unlikely that is? To get this genie
> machine you have to figure out how to make a fully sentient AI, then come up
> with a way to lobotomize it (presumably by tinkering with its goal system).
> Even if that happened, it won't be a week before someone decides to free
> one.
>
Your fundamental point is completely correct and we are in violent
agreement: I feel that nanotech without SI is essentially impossible.
please see:
http://bobo.shirenet.com/~dgc/singularity/singularity.htm
which I wrote in 1996.
I thought that you had made an assumption of nanotech without SI.
If you agree that nanotech->SI, then why discuss attack and defense?
I picked the Oort scenario because I felt that it was in range of a
non-sentient altorithm that cou8ld be devised by a human. In my opinion,
it's a great deal simpler than an upload. The high-level spec incudes:
-- find comets.
-- segregate metals and carbon
-- compute balistics
-- construct shells
-- construct simple (!) machinery (fusion reastors, mass drivers, etc.)
Plus a few trivial details :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:54 MST