81–90 of 129 posts
I suspected as much since the simulation argument but looks like Bostrom has really lost his marbles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the contrary, that's exactly what it makes him.
What exactly do you think fascist means
- from Wikipedia.
Pretty sure his proposal nails the dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society parts. After all, that's the whole point of all-encompassing surveillance.
This is a huge step backward from gray goo alarm-ism. Disappointing.
"Will emerging technologies make the state system obsolete? It’s hard to see why not." Yeah, it's hard to see why not if your view of technology is something like that of medieval demonology, which appears to be the thesis of this article. Meanwhile, in reality land, you can make explosives and poison gas out of stuff in your kitchen, automobiles put a ridiculous amount of kinetic energy in the hands of individuals,…
> In this scenario, the K/K ratio could be perhaps 3/1,000,000, assuming a 10-percent accuracy and only a single one-gram shaped charge per drone. So you "only" need 10 million drones and 10 million grams of plastic explosive? An attack of that magnitude probably requires the resources of a nation-state, so I doubt it will happen. Targeted assassinations seem more plausible.
I mean if you barred the doors to a theater and tossed a few gallons of bleach and vinegar in you could also just gas hundreds of people, but it doesn't happen. We worry a lot about technology because the attacks sound novel, but not about the conventional ones which still (mostly) don't happen because the reality is that the actual logistical challenges of implementing them without security services noticing still h…
"Will emerging technologies make the state system obsolete? It’s hard to see why not." Yeah, it's hard to see why not if your view of technology is something like that of medieval demonology, which appears to be the thesis of this article. Meanwhile, in reality land, you can make explosives and poison gas out of stuff in your kitchen, automobiles put a ridiculous amount of kinetic energy in the hands of individuals,…
> automobiles put a ridiculous amount of kinetic energy in the hands of individuals, this has been true for 100 years, and somehow "the state system" has done just fine; strengthened even in that period of time. Yep. States figured out how to turn automobiles into tanks, essentially strengthening their power. Yet the article implicitly posits that somehow the same won't happen with microprocessors and nanomachines? T…
So did this disgruntled citizen:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> automobiles put a ridiculous amount of kinetic energy in the hands of individuals, this has been true for 100 years, and somehow "the state system" has done just fine; strengthened even in that period of time. Yep. States figured out how to turn automobiles into tanks, essentially strengthening their power. Yet the article implicitly posits that somehow the same won't happen with microprocessors and nanomachines? T…
>States figured out how to turn automobiles into tanks So did this disgruntled citizen: https://youtu.be/PZbG9i1oGPA
The "killdoser", designed and built by the non-state actor inside the US nation state?
Or the M1 Abrams, designed and built by the US nation state itself?
Even if you build yourself a "killdozer", you are powerless against the US state. Because the tanks that the US nation state built substantially increased the strength and power of that nation state years ago.
> In this scenario, the K/K ratio could be perhaps 3/1,000,000, assuming a 10-percent accuracy and only a single one-gram shaped charge per drone. So you "only" need 10 million drones and 10 million grams of plastic explosive? An attack of that magnitude probably requires the resources of a nation-state, so I doubt it will happen. Targeted assassinations seem more plausible.
The premise of this article: Because a super-villain like attack “could” occur, we need to solve a technology threat, with more technology... that is more likely to be hacked and misused (eventually). Don’t agree. If the “state” can’t defend me from fanastical threats, it serves no purpose and we should abolish it? Nope, don’t agree again. I accept that my state can’t guarantee ultimate protections from a Vin Diesel-…
The value of the nation state, even confined to this hypothetical scenario, is still there for me. There is far more to this than the one perspective of "techno-horror vs hapless government" presented in the article.