Re: Humor: helping Eliezer to fulfill his full potential

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 01:58:10 MST

Spike Jones wrote:
> Brian Atkins wrote:
> > Mainly just in case Eugene or den Otter show up? :-) Don't get me started
> > on our bunker and small arsenal of weapons...
> Do allow me to make one semi-serious point among the mirth
> and jocularity. Whenever the nanotech enthusiasts speak publicly,
> they point out the dangers of the technology, and spend some time
> describing possible safety measures, such as Ralph's broadcast
> architecture. Every time I hear Drexler or Merkle speak, they
> mention safeguards.

I am no hacking expert but it looks to me like there are some pretty
large holes in what I've heard of the broadcast architecture. Not to
mention that it tends to more centralized control of technological
resources than I would like. Developing safeguards is certainly
important but I wouldn't slow up building the fundamental tech too much
to design the end and be-all of safeguards. "Reasonable" is the

> What is Singularity Institute's counterpart to that? Are yall thinking
> safety? Is there some kind of technology which would allow yall
> to hit the off switch if something goes awry? You know Im a big
> fan of the HWoMBeP and all of yall, but if yall are rushing headlong
> into unknown and dangerous technology without appropriate safety
> measures (if such a term even applies) then I understand some of
> the criticism yall are getting. spike

There is no way to be really safe around SI that I know of. What would
you do? Only start up the SI in space with plenty of weaponry to knock
it out if it gets worrisome? Seems to me there was some sci-fi along
those lines a while back. It didn't work out so well.

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT