inkblotuniverse

The terminator won't, it's fictional. If AI killed everyone, it probably wouldn't happen like a hollywood movie. Climate change is subject to way more unhinged hysteria, as well! Won't doom the species, though.

If I read a lot of fantasy books as a kid, then start writing my own fantasy book, should I have to pay royalties to the authors of the books I read?

Aeroplanes were science fiction, and widely called such, until they flew.

So do humans, and yet they can be quite troublesome.

Historically, people from different regions would be able to read each other's writing (send letters to each other) even if their spoken dialects/languages were mutually incomprehensible. You get this in European history, too, just not to the same degree.

It's the competence I'm afraid of! If they did it competently, they would make sure they had absolute surveillance of every american's internet history.

Yes, you want the government parenting your (and others) kids.

Why would the government do that, though?

Yes, the war on drugs has been really successful. I certainly want governments doing more of that!

[Muffled screaming]

They're looking to catch up! They don't want to remain poor, after all.

Evil is the wrong term. It's not that an AI will 'turn evil' - it's that we don't know how to make a 'good/friendly' AI, by which I mean an AI that inherently values humans and the things humans value, and any optimising agent that isn't 'friendly' in this sense has an incentive to use our atoms to fulfill whatever it does care about.

This won't be a perfect analogy, because humans have empathy (even towards ants) because we're mammals etc., but how many anthills have humans gassed because the ants were an annoyance?

Now imagine if ants could build nukes- or humans!

You think consent is important. (This isn't even a umiversal position among humans). Why do you expect an AI to value consent? Do you think praying mantises value consent?

Check out based.cooking - just recipes, no fluff.

Part of why those smart people don't rule the world is because high IQ (in humans!) correlates with social problems and mental illness. The assumption is that this is limitation of human brains and that an AI would be less trade-off-y, and you could get one with Aaronson's understanding of quantum computers and the charisma of the greatest politician in recorded history. And when such a nascent AI needs stuff done in the real world, I imagine it could get in on the 'scamming the elderly' game (very lucrative, I hear!) and then pay some humans to do what it wants.