yeah man, someone needs to turn on the server, install shit and get the agent go. agents don't take action without a lot of people wanting them to take action, so this is all bullshit.

if the same people can't prevent the agents from doing crazy shit then they should go to tail. guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

▲

pixl97 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>someone needs to turn on the server, install shit and get the agent go.

So a small shell script ran by another agent is what you're saying.

You are not capable of handling the future we're already living in, human agency is no longer alone.

I mean, we're already seeing persistent machine agency

>guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Well, people kill people.

And autonomous robots with guns kill people.

Hell, someone probably has an autonomous gun at this point that kills people.

Wake up: You now live in the science fiction movie that all the science fiction movies of the past warned you about. You've just become numb to it.

▲

tauroid 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

So far someone still has to pay for it. Currently, most of those know that they're doing so. I wonder how long until AWS discovers a microcosm of AIs that have managed to hide themselves in the walls of its infrastructure.

True physical independence is obviously far further out.

	▲	pixl97 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, I hold the same opinion. Kind of like when compute was expensive in the 80s and early 90s, you weren't going to let something eat half your compute without noticing it. But I don't see this being a barrier that lasts. With compute getting faster and more of it, along with algorithmic efficiency increases at some point we'll end up with a world that looks like ours now with CPU compute. There's plenty around to buy, borrow, and steal.