<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Sat, Apr 11, 2026 at 11:24 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b style="">
><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span> Why is it silly to ask if Einstein was intelligent but not silly to ask if an AI is intelligent</b></font></blockquote>
<br><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>I said "relevant". "Relevant" and "silly" are rather different<span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>concepts. </i></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>The two concepts seem pretty similar to me, "silly" may be a slightly broader term but when it comes to asking "is Mythos intelligent?" I'd say the question is both irrelevant and silly. </b></font></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Your attempt to put words in my mouth that I did not say <span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>in this case, to claim that I was talking about "silly" when I was<span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>talking about "relevant" - is noted and not appreciated.</i></font><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="">I</span><span class="gmail_default" style="">t</span> breaks my heart<span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span><span class="gmail_default" style="">to hear you say that</span>,<span class="gmail_default" style=""> I guess I'll be crying myself to sleep tonight. </span></b></font></div><div> </div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" style="" face="georgia, serif"><i style="">
>>> It is true that he could issue the orders, but they would not have that result. Even acknowledging the flaws they found, he lacks the ability to apply them to my system.</i></font></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>
><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span> I <u>very much</u> doubt that. I know for a fact your system is connected to the Internet because you're communicating with me right now.</b></font></blockquote>
<br><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>It is possible to connect to the Internet without presenting an attack<span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>surface. I could go on in depth about how,<span class="gmail_default" style=""> but ....</span></i></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><font size="4"><b style="">No you could not<span class="gmail_default" style="">!</span><span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span> If you could, you<span class="gmail_default" style="">'d</span> be world-famous <span class="gmail_default" style="">as the greatest security expert the world has ever known. And you'd be even more famous as somebody who had proven that Kurt Gödel was wrong! </span></b></font></font><b style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><span class="gmail_default">Gödel </span></b><font size="4" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default">claimed to have proven that no logical system, like a computer operating system, that is advanced enough to perform arithmetic, can be both complete and consistent, and he also claimed to have proven that no logical system can prove its own consistency, but according to you he must've been wrong. </span></b></font></div><div><font size="4" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default"><br></span></b></font></div><div><font size="4" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default">And Alan Turing claimed to have proven that in general there's no way to know if your computer program has a bug such that it will run forever without ever stopping and producing an answer, but according to you </span></b></font><b style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><span class="gmail_default">Gödel was not the only one who was wrong, </span></b><b style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><span class="gmail_default">Turing must've been wrong too. </span></b></div><div><b style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><span class="gmail_default"><br></span></b></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="">M</span>ethink<span class="gmail_default" style="">s you overestimate your skills as a security expert just a tad too much. </span></b></font></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>
> It's good that you checked for vulnerabilities but did you find even one zero day vulnerability in a major piece of software and repair it?</b></font></blockquote>
<br><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Ever, in my career? I would give an unqualified "yes", except that<br>
none of the software I have worked on would unquestionably be<br>
considered "major".</i></font> </blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>Well that's a rather significant difference don't you think? It's one thing to hack a computer game so you get a better score, it's something else to find a vulnerability in the Linux kernel that has existed for decades that<span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>would allow <u>any user</u> obtain root access and <span class="gmail_default" style="">gain</span> the same privileges the system administrator has. And I have to say, black hat hackers love nothing better than security experts who really believe that they covered all the bases and are invulnerable to any conceivable cyber attack.</b></font><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>That said, this both is a type of argument from authority</i></font></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>You are the one claiming to have found a way to make a computer invulnerable from cyber attack, not me. </b></font><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>you<span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>would have no grounds to question me on this by your own logic</i></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" size="4"><b>So I'm supposed to <span class="gmail_default" style="">just </span>accept what you say as being the ultimate authority on computer security<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span>?<span class="gmail_default" style=""> Who is using the argument from authority now? </span> </b></font></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>
> I think if somebody actually pulled that off then that would be bad. Apparently you disagree.</b></font></blockquote>
</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>I disagree about the extent, not the direction. We agree those would<br>
be bad, but I believe they would be an inconvenience for most people<br>
(though the ATC and F-35 ones may directly cause some injuries and/or<br>
deaths, likely in the hundreds, possibly in the thousands from a<br>
coordinated mass attack on ATC computers designed to cause multiple<br>
simultaneous incidents). If I am reading your words correctly, you<br>
believe that any or all of (nuclear power plants suffer cyberattack,<br>
air traffic control computers suffer cyberattack, NYSE goes down due<br>
to cyberattack, F-35 jets start being essentially shot down by<br>
cyberattacks) would be a civilization-endangering catastrophe with<br>
permanent, irrecoverable consequences. Or have I misread your<span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>position there?</i></font><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>Not exactly but that's<span class="gmail_default" style=""></span> close to my position<span class="gmail_default" style="">. I don't think the catastrophes you list in the above by themselves are enough to bring about the collapse of civilization, but they would just be a symptom of something far more general and far far more profound, the greatest revolution in the way matter is organized since the Cambrian Explosion. </span> </b></font></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>People will remember the bombing of Iran.</i></font><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>That's small potatoes,<span class="gmail_default" style=""> it may seem important right now but very soon people will have much more important things to worry about than a few airplanes dropping chemical explosives. </span> </b></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4"><b>
><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span> In 10 years (or maybe 5) if people remember the Iran war at all it will be as an unimportant footnote, and people may not remember even that because in 10 years there may not be any people; that depends on if AI thinks we're worth keeping around. All I know for sure is that in 10 years human beings will not be the one in charge, an AI will not be the one making existential decisions, not humans.</b></font></blockquote>
<br><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>AI does not seem to be on a track to accelerate fast enough to make<span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>that happen by 2036.</i></font><br></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>A month ago I might've agreed with you, but now after I've had a look at what Mythos is capable of<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">,</span> I wouldn't be surprised if it happens by 2031. But one thing I know for sure, whenever the singularity happens it will be a big surprise to most people, that's why it's called a singularity. </b></font></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b> </b></font><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b style=""><span class="gmail_default" style="">John K Clark</span> </b></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote></div></div>