Remix.run Logo
echelon 2 hours ago

I think a fragile world hypothesis is more interesting and scary.

Instead of a superintelligence killing any emerging intelligence, superintelligence is so smart that it can perturb spacetime in ways that easily kill itself.

Kind of like the idea that LLMs will give anyone with a garage the ability to create killer viruses (wild claim), a superintelligence might trivially create black holes that engulf it. If the intelligence is distributed across many agents (or nations), someone will try something stupid that kills the entire population.

It'd be even scarier if they could accidentally collapse the supposed vacuum state. Universal annihilation at the speed of light just because you got too smart.

Fragile world / fragile universe meets "too smart for your own good".

andrewflnr an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Leaving aside the fact that there's no evidence superintelligence is even possible, no amount of intelligence alone will let you "trivially" create black holes. Creating black holes requires a ludicrous amount of energy. Planet-scale energy, maybe solar-scale energy. Energy is conserved. You can't just think really hard and have it. At minimum you have to already have the energy and materials to build a machine that will let you (mostly build another machine that lets you) harness that much energy.

It's at least not something you'll do by accident.

ButlerianJihad 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Origami Black Hole https://m.xkcd.com/3033/

"It Really Brings the Room Together" https://m.xkcd.com/1680/

M87 Size Comparison https://m.xkcd.com/2135/

Black Hole Moon https://what-if.xkcd.com/129/

echelon an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You don't know any of that.

We are primitive apes. We are all uniformly dumb.

andrewflnr an hour ago | parent [-]

It's inherent to the math that defines the entire concept of a black hole, or "spacetime" in general. So to the extent we can contemplate the question at all, we can be pretty confident that creating black holes is Very Hard.

There's a lot we don't know, but the fact that the universe is consistent means it has to be consistent with what we do know already. Don't be so openminded your brain falls out.

echelon an hour ago | parent [-]

> the fact that the universe is consistent

We don't know this either.

We are very limited in detection. Our energies are small.

How "standard" are standard candles and other references? Are the facts that stand as the basis for our theories even correct?

We are too primitive to be dealing in absolutes.

andrewflnr 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

> > the fact that the universe is consistent

> We don't know this either.

See this is what I'm talking about as far as being too open-minded. Consider what it would mean for the universe to be inconsistent, particularly in relation to the astronomical observations that are the basis of this conversation.

alansaber 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sounds logical to me. It's already remarkable that we haven't done this with fission weapons. It's not unreasonable to assume that within a century we'll have antimatter weapons. Destructive potential only goes up.

SoftTalker 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

We could not come close to destroying the world with fission weapons. We might make things very hard for humanity, but the world and life would continue, perhaps even benefit.

WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Every year the IQ needed to destroy the world drops by 1 point.