Both your points are fair. However, my argument is specifically saying that the ASI would minimize any long-term risks, and find as much information as possible. Unless it calculates with 100% certainty that scan-and-kill is more efficient, then it is unlikely to do anything irreversible. And on the Malcolm point, it was simply a joke to lighten the debate.
Hey Michael, thanks for responding. I am planning on writing and posting a parallel article without the math in it, completely self-written. I'll edit my post and add a link to it when it's written. To address your first argument, though, I did address that(and hope the AI's rewrite kept it in). I explained how it's more about future information generated by human minds and their patterns, and based on the common scientific theory that we are inherently chaotic due to quantum interactions, it is nearly impossible to simulate our brains. The no-cloning theorem says you can't fully copy a quantum state into a new system. Even if they were able to perfectly simulate our minds and world, the energy required is dictated by Landauer's principle, which makes the energy cost enormous. It is more efficient to simply monitor an existing planet than replace it. That said, I agree with your second argument: that keeping us around isn't the same thing as keeping us free and indefinitely alive. It is a big concern that it would just take over and then put us in a kind of cage. But to give a little hope, should my argument be true, any time is an advantage because, like Dr Ian Malcolm said, "Life always finds a way" (Jurassic Park for those who don't get the reference)
Both your points are fair. However, my argument is specifically saying that the ASI would minimize any long-term risks, and find as much information as possible. Unless it calculates with 100% certainty that scan-and-kill is more efficient, then it is unlikely to do anything irreversible. And on the Malcolm point, it was simply a joke to lighten the debate.
Hey Michael, thanks for responding. I am planning on writing and posting a parallel article without the math in it, completely self-written. I'll edit my post and add a link to it when it's written. To address your first argument, though, I did address that(and hope the AI's rewrite kept it in). I explained how it's more about future information generated by human minds and their patterns, and based on the common scientific theory that we are inherently chaotic due to quantum interactions, it is nearly impossible to simulate our brains. The no-cloning theorem says you can't fully copy a quantum state into a new system. Even if they were able to perfectly simulate our minds and world, the energy required is dictated by Landauer's principle, which makes the energy cost enormous. It is more efficient to simply monitor an existing planet than replace it. That said, I agree with your second argument: that keeping us around isn't the same thing as keeping us free and indefinitely alive. It is a big concern that it would just take over and then put us in a kind of cage. But to give a little hope, should my argument be true, any time is an advantage because, like Dr Ian Malcolm said, "Life always finds a way" (Jurassic Park for those who don't get the reference)