Will_Newsome comments on What is bunk? - Less Wrong

20 [deleted] 08 May 2010 06:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (101)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 08 May 2010 09:34:49PM 15 points [-]

My social intuitions tell me it is generally a bad idea to say words like 'kill' (as opposed to, say, 'overwrite', 'fatally reorganize', or 'dismantle for spare part(icle)s') in describing scenarios like that, as they resemble some people's misguided intuitions about anthropomorphic skynet dystopias. On Less Wrong it matters less, but if one was trying to convince an e.g. non-singularitarian transhumanist that singularitarian ideas were important, then subtle language cues like that could have big effects on your apparent theoretical leaning and the outcome of the conversation. (This is more of a general heuristic than a critique of your comment, Roko.)

Comment author: steven0461 09 May 2010 03:03:20AM 1 point [-]

Good point, but one of the possibilities is the UFAI takes long enough to become completely secure in its power that it actually does try to eliminate people as a threat or a slowing factor. Since in this scenario, unlike in the "take apart for raw materials" scenario, people dying is the UFAI's intended outcome and not just a side effect, "kill" seems an accurate word.

Comment deleted 09 May 2010 01:50:17PM [-]
Comment author: Alicorn 10 May 2010 06:17:31AM 7 points [-]

I like to use the word "eat"; it's short, evocative, and basically accurate. We are edible.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 10 May 2010 06:25:57AM *  5 points [-]

I want a uFAI lolcat that says "I can has ur constituent atomz?" and maybe a "nom nom nom" next to an Earth-sized paper clip.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 08 May 2010 11:23:32PM 0 points [-]

I'd never thought about that, but it sounds very likely, and deserves to be pointed out in more than just this comment.