Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


Never mind, I see your point, although I still disagree with your conclusion on the grounds of narrative plausibility and good writing.

Here's another, roughly isomorphic statement:

What is Gravity besides some form of superintelligence, or at least the remnants of superintelligence? The strongest evidence is that engineers and even physicists don't really have to understand how gravity actually works in order to use it. There is information entering the system from somewhere, and it's enough information to accurately detect when an object is unsupported or structurally unstable. And the chaotic side-effects tend to be improbably harmful. It's like an almost-Friendly, or perhaps a broken previously-Friendly, AI. Possibly the result of some ancient Singularity that is no longer explicitly remembered.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

I find it rather irritating when someone does this every time I use the words "soul" or "God" in a rhetorical context.

I believe in neither, but both words have their uses.

Actually, I think the issue is a misunderstanding of what apostasy is in the first place.

Science most definitely does not mean: "Let's try something random today and see what happens".

That does seem to be how mathematics works, though.

It is a hypothetical situation of unreasonably high security that tries to probe for an upper bound on the level of containment required to secure an AI.

If an isolated AI can easily escape in any circumstance, it really doesn't make sense to train gatekeepers.

Replace "tangentially" with "about as much as basically any other thing".

Actually, it is; while the post is clogged with outdated ideas and plays fast and loose with the meaning of existence, I wouldn't want to see a slew of actually sound arguments about basic set theory clogging up Discussion, either.

Load More