I see I was taking it too literally. I need to think on that more, thanks for pointing that out.

Hey bud, I drink beer because it makes me weiser.

Yea my question wast as well thought out as i thought.

Yes but thats not the way we are going…

So we will never reach the point where we will realize we have been fooled? I think not.

Socrates (470–399 BCE) — ethics, questioning, Socratic method

Plato (427–347 BCE) — forms, justice, ideal state

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) — logic, science, virtue ethics

Confucius (551–479 BCE) — ethics, family, social harmony

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) — political realism

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) — scientific method

René Descartes (1596–1650) — rationalism, “I think, therefore I am”

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) — social contract, Leviathan

Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) — pantheism, ethics

John Locke (1632–1704) — empiricism, liberalism

Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) — monads, optimism

David Hume (1711–1776) — empiricism, skepticism

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) — social contract, human freedom

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) — categorical imperative, critique of reason

Georg Hegel (1770–1831) — dialectics, history as progress

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) — pessimism, will to live

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) — utilitarianism, liberty

Karl Marx (1818–1883) — materialism, class struggle

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) — will to power, eternal recurrence

William James (1842–1910) — pragmatism, psychology

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) — language, logic

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) — being, existentialism

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) — existentialism, freedom

Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) — feminism, existential ethics

Michel Foucault (1926–1984) — power, knowledge, institutions

Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) — totalitarianism, political theory

Noam Chomsky (1928– ) — linguistics, political philosophy

global warming, comets, solar flares, nearby supernovas, overpopulation, nuclear war… i dunno

I disagree it has great potential to do great things for humanity. Also great evil same as nuclear technology.

I get what you’re saying when AI can manipulate, it will try to make sure the button never gets pressed. But humanity isn’t dumb either. We’ve spotted and contained world-ending risks before. Why assume we wouldn’t notice this one?

If society had just killed nuclear research outright, we wouldn’t have nuclear medicine today.

That’s fair but it’s the same problem we already live with for nuclear weapons. The codes exist, they’re secret, and we trust a handful of people with them. Why should an AI kill switch be any different?

Yeah I agree most risks are bias and bad decisions. But I still think we need a fire-extinguisher style backup if something spins out of control even if hitting it brings great pain.

Every option you listed sucks. That’s the whole point. So do we just give up on safeguards entirely?