magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
AIUI the situation with nuclear is basically "the technology exists to do it cheaply and safely, but there's too much regulatory red tape"; hence, most of the uncertainty is political.
He didn't mention the word "nanobot" in the second linked article either. Probably has something to do with the fact that when people hear "nanobot" they think a mini-robot made out of metal, and that's not what he's talking about.
(I call the thing he's talking about "Life 2.0", and while I might not be quite as bullish on what can be wrung out of it, "kill the biosphere" with Life 2.0 is a DEFINITE YES because I know the skeleton of one method.)
superintelligence ≈ omnipotence for all intents and purposes
Your "for all intents and purposes" is doing a lot of work. "Omnipotent", to me, means God/simulators; someone who has write access to reality. You can be very powerful without having that.
- Prev
- Next

I would appreciate receipts on this; there are alternate explanations which I'd need to rule out to believe your conclusion.
(AIUI, Yudkowsky is not a big fan of the "it's not about convincing your debating partner; it's about convincing the audience" school of thought so popular among SJ. Hence, if someone demonstrates that he is not amenable to reasonable discussion, there is no point continuing the conversation - and politeness dictates that one note this rather than simply ghosting. I can't distinguish between these hypotheses from the information you've given.)
I mean, the Ratsphere as a whole (as opposed to Leverage and the Zizians, and maybe the Vassarites) doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for a destructive cult. Arguably it's a benign cult, but lol who cares.
More options
Context Copy link