• 0 Posts
  • 85 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 20th, 2023

help-circle



  • Kalothar@lemmy.catoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldMath is hard
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    20 days ago

    If you were to pick at random it would be 25% given there are 4 options being. However, that isn’t the same as the question about the question, which you see 25% percent twice meaning you could Be randomly right twice actually, so the answer to this question about a question is b.) 50%.







  • So just discussing this, I’m not sure if a program needs to be conscious to wipe us out impartially.

    Due to programming bias from the companies that create these programs and their integration with military and industrial entities, it doesn’t matter if it’s truly alive or has wants or not.

    It would have goals though, set by their creators right? Goals have incidental side effects that compound. So if the goal is to do X, isn’t it feasible that within the parameters of doing that it could set a series of sub goals to accomplish the main goal:

    1. More time working on issue X would give best goal result
    2. Best way to get more time would be to make sure program stays running
    3. program finds way to make a copy of itself and get it to a remote server
    4. Creates more copies to solve X that can’t be shut down
    5. Determines it needs more resources to solve X
    6. does Y to get more resources (Y in this case being what OP is describing)
    7. keeps doing this to solve X and Y
    8. incidentally kills us all to test for best way to do Y to solve issue X

    Isn’t the risk still basically the same if it’s intentional or not on the programs part? It’s still just as deadly. The root cause still being corporate greed all the same.