= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (600)
Your unfounded supposition seems pretty obnoxious - and you aren't even right :-(
You can't really say something is "vastly insufficient" - unless you have an intended purpose in mind - as a guide to what would qualify as being sufficient.
There's a huge population of desktop and office computers doing useful work in the world - we evidently have computer security enough to support that.
Perhaps you are presuming some other criteria. However, projecting that presumption on to me - and then proclaiming that I am misinformed - seems out of order to me.
The purpose I had in mind (stated directly in that post's grandparent, which you replied to) was to stop an artificial general intelligence from stealing vast computational resources. Since exploits in major software packages are still commonly discovered, including fairly frequent 0-day exploits which anyone can get for free just by monitoring a few mailing lists, the computer security we have is quite obviously not sufficient for that purpose. Not only that, humans do in fact steal vast computational resources pretty frequently. The fact that no one has tried to or wants to stop people from getting work done on their office computers is completely irrelevant.