I don't think you're talking about active shields per se, although I
could be wrong. IIRC, the fundamental sort of active shield Dr. D wrote
about is intended to be simple and stupid, and destroy itself and its
contents if the contents start acting, uhmm--uppity.
Care to try again? :)
The notion of a world full of AIs smarter than humans, running
everything, isn't intrinsically a part of active shields as far as I can
see. And it's another thing worth being concerned about. It becomes
important that they be satiable and compassionate, if at all possible.
John Marlow wrote:
>
> Well, uhmm--creating something smarter than we are,
> and then handing it all the weapons, doesn't strike me
> as a particularly bright idea. To say the least.
>
> john marlow
>
> --- "Michael M. Butler" <butler@comp-lib.org> wrote:
> > John Marlow wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah. Obviously Drexler at least was thinking
> > about
> > > such things very early--as witness his "active
> > > shields" riff. (Do NOT get me started on THAT
> > one...)
> >
> > Why not? Have you given it up for Lent? ;)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:18 MDT