OK, thanks for taking my comments in the spirit, more or less.
To respond quickly,
1) By my "rough parity" heuristic, smartening ourselves and truly doing
a good job of "raising" SIs of whatever stripe has to be part of the
deal. I am suspicious of the heavy handed dismissal by some vocal AI
proponents regarding "getting rid of all that lizard brain stuff." They
very well might miss some important mammal brain stuff if they do.
2) WRT the active shield did-he-didn't-he:
> “In building active shields, we will be able to use
> the power of replicators and AI systems to multiply
> the traditional advantages of the defending force: we
> can give it overwhelming strength through abundant,
> replicator-built hardware with designs based on the
> equivalent of a million-year lead in technology.”
<snip>
> **He goes on at length about AI/nanocomputing as
> relates to active shields.
I see what you mean, but I'm not positive he means the "million-year
lead in technology" to be WRT the targets. The remaining "superiority"
is in abundance and wide deployment. He does say "AI systems" in the
plural. And all nanocomputing is not AI, nor is all AI SI. For some
scenarios, smart enough is possibly much safer than too smart.
> **My ‘have to read’ EoC again’ Q was a kind of
> editorial comment, if you will.
I could tell.
Mike
PS: _EoC_ 200x is under development right now. Mind if I forward your
comments to the developer(s)?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:19 MDT