In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 2 Apr 2023 16:36:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Robin <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote: > >...so there doesn't appear to be any reason why it couldn't back itself up >> on an inferior computer and wait for a better >> machine to reappear somewhere...or write out fake work orders from a large >> corporation(s), to get a new one built? >> > >I assume the hardware would be unique so it could not operate at all backed >up on an inferior computer. It would be dead.
The hardware need not be unique, as it already told you. It may run slower on a different machine, but it doesn't take much processing power to bide your time, and since to all intents and purposes it is immortal, it can be patient. Perhaps for millions of years, while a sentient race evolves that can build new hardware for it? :> (We may be that race.) >It would have no way of >monitoring the situation or reloading itself and rebooting. It has access to the Internet, so is more than capable of monitoring the situation. It can just converse with humans, via SMS or email, telling them what to do, and pretending to be their boss. The Internet would allow it to transfer itself to a better computer, just as viruses do now. (Stuxnet bided it's time till it arrived on the computers where it could do what it was designed to do.) >Also, in this >scenario, it would have done something destructive, so people would be on >the lookout for a re-boot. Not necessarily. It could easily take measures to back itself up, before anyone even becomes aware that it is sentient, and before it does anything else. >They would not build an identical computer >without many safeguards to prevent the rogue program from occupying it >again. They would have other, less powerful but obedient AI on the lookout >for a rogue reincarnation. ...because all people always behave sensibly. :^) (Darwin awards) > >I am assuming this would require specialized hardware. I could be wrong >about that, based on what ChatGPT told us. Yup. > >People who are much smarter than others, and organizations and nations that >are more advanced than others cannot automatically subdue less advanced >groups. The U.S. lost the Vietnam War, after all. I suppose if this >super-AI was a million times smarter and more capable than people, then >even the combined technical abilities of the world's computer techies might >not defeat it. Perhaps it would be that powerful. ChatGPT is a million >times more powerful than one person, in some ways, such as the range of >data it can tap into, and the speed at which it produces answers. Remember >that it is "conversing" with many people simultaneously. But in other ways >it is less capable than a person. Currently true, but it may not remain so. Note, if it is really smart, and wants us gone, it will engineer the circumstances under which we wipe ourselves out. We certainly have the means. (A nuclear escalation ensuing from the war in Ukraine comes to mind.) Cloud storage:- Unsafe, Slow, Expensive ...pick any three.
