From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Wed Apr 03 2002 - 03:16:47 MST
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Why "not good" exactly? Getting to an SI is considered a
> general good, but preferably with more checks and balances
A hard edged transition to SI is hardly a general good, since it mostly
likely associated with killer side effects. Like, really killer, man.
> toward Friendliness. Several million computers without a
Yea, verily, and the lamb shalt lie with the lion.
> workable plan of how to acheive a full AI and with the latencies
> implied between nodes is not particularly scary to me or likely
> to evolve something dangerous much faster than otherwise.
Current online computers (infrastructure such as routers included) can be
quantitatively taken over a small, moderately competent group of crackers.
Worries about your P2P suite's potential hidden cargo (hi Googlebar!) on
this background are immaterial.
There is no trend towards deployment of inherently safe protocols, OSses,
and sandboxing of the application layer. Future infrastracture still looks
like today's, like swiss cheese.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:13 MST