kerningije

Look up civil forfeiture.

You: > [...] USSR used a system called dead hand [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand to detect a nuclear attack and to retaliate. [...] USSR required a nuclear retaliatory system that could prevent hasty decisions. Hence Dead Hand system.

Wikipedia article you linked: "Dead Hand [...] is a Cold War–era automatic or semi-automatic nuclear weapons control system [...] that was constructed by the Soviet Union. The system remains in use in the post-Soviet Russian Federation. An example of fail-deadly and mutual assured destruction deterrence, it can initiate the launch of the Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) by sending a pre-entered highest-authority order from the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Strategic Missile Force Management to command posts and individual silos if a nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity, and pressure sensors even with the commanding elements fully destroyed."

I have no idea how you got from "automated nuclear weapons launch system" to "prevents hasty decisions". Seems like the opposite to me: an incredibly irresponsible system that has more of a chance of responding to a false positive than, demonstrably, human operators.

No dollar was ever spent by the US government outside of the US if not in self interest. Failing to see these cuts as sabotaging US interests is very, very naïve.

The whole point of civilization is wealth inequality

I'm just gonna quote myself again

> Planetary biospheres show general intelligence, not individual chunks of head meat.

>> I have come to realize that we barely understand complexity.

> Mimicking 4 billion years of evolution shouldn't take that long

Thanks for illustrating my point.

I don't think you understand the content you linked. An automatic retaliation systems is not there to "prevent hasty decisions". It is there to make automatic hasty decisions based on input from sensors.

Yes! Thank you!

I have read Wiener and Ashby to reach this conclusion. I've used this argument before. A piece of software capable of creating any possible software would be infinitely complex. Also the reason I don't buy the "20 w general intelligence exists". The wattage for generally intelligent humans would be the entire energy input to the biosphere up to the evolution of humans.

Planetary biospheres show general intelligence, not individual chunks of head meat.

People said we have outsmarted downturns just before every major downturn in the past century and a half.

Boom and bust is how complex systems develop. The biosphere down to that slime mold mapping out food sources. It's always a pulse.

Oh it makes for a bumpy ride for the monkeys? Yeah. It does. Will the monkey outsmart the physics of complexity? Unlikely.

I have come to realize that we barely understand complexity. I've read a lot on information theory, thermodynamics, many takes on entropy. Not to mention all literature on software development, because a lot of this field is managing complexity.

We severely underestimate how complex natural systems are. Autonomous agents seem like something we should be able to build. The idea is as old as digital computers. Turing famously wrote about that.

But an autonomous complex system is complex to an astronomical degree. Self driving vehicles, let alone autonomous androids, are several orders of magnitude more complex that we can even model.