Don’t forget the fear-aspect, too. Sure, Superman may have just saved your baby, but he’s also capable of leveling your city. The fact that such a demi-god actually plays by our measly rules is praiseworthy. Iredeemable does a pretty good job of showing just how terrible a world run by the world’s most powerful (and recently flipped his shit) superhero could be.
That’s a little off topic, but I hope it shows that there are likely other aspects at play beyond the Halo Effect—but they would have been orthogonal to Eliezer’s point.
Evidently the friendly super-hero problem has been solved.
Now if only we could make him quit being such a pansy, get a better haircut and learn how to wear underwear properly.
Once that is handled he can leverage his super speed and respectable albeit non-genius level of intelligence to develop an FAI. Then his work is done and he just wins.
Batman? How? Because he might provoke others into becoming a super-villain?
He and the company he controls have already created technologies that constitute an existential threat without even trying and he has even come close to joining terrorist organisations that actively destroy civilisations. The guy has real power. He belongs in the same category as the other heroes that could destroy humanity if they felt like it.
He and the company he controls have already created technologies that constitute an existential threat without even trying
Such as? (I already know about the other part of the statement; I’m just not familiar with what technologies the company has developed that would fall into that category.)
On the other hand, Batman being Batman, if he wanted to destroy the world, he probably could find a way to do it.
Even just that (more or less magical) surveillance system that he made. With that, and some mundane application of his stealth technology and skills getting launch codes and deploying nuclear arsenals would be a piece of cake. Nevermind deploying things like his microwave rays. I’m not sure if his company (while he wasn’t in charge) made nuclear weapons themselves too. It seems like something they’d have done.
Is that the sort of thing that the government lets private corporations do?
No, private corporations are strictly limited to creating remote control rocket propelled tanks, microwave beam superweapons and a near perfect big brother privacy invasion system.
For good reason, traditionally and almost exclusively the management of nuclear warheads lies with the government (the U.S. government frequently contracts out nuclear related work and research labs are privately operated, however the military is the sole manager of completed weapons).
Don’t forget the fear-aspect, too. Sure, Superman may have just saved your baby, but he’s also capable of leveling your city. The fact that such a demi-god actually plays by our measly rules is praiseworthy. Iredeemable does a pretty good job of showing just how terrible a world run by the world’s most powerful (and recently flipped his shit) superhero could be.
That’s a little off topic, but I hope it shows that there are likely other aspects at play beyond the Halo Effect—but they would have been orthogonal to Eliezer’s point.
Evidently the friendly super-hero problem has been solved.
Now if only we could make him quit being such a pansy, get a better haircut and learn how to wear underwear properly.
Once that is handled he can leverage his super speed and respectable albeit non-genius level of intelligence to develop an FAI. Then his work is done and he just wins.
Obligatory SMBC.
Exactly what I had in mind while writing the second half. The first half prompted another SMBC.
Fictional evidence aside, either a super-hero or a super-villain would clearly present an existential risk.
Depends how super. Superman, several of the X-men or Dr. Manhattan? Yes. Spider-man, Wolverine, or Cyclops? No.
There seem right. And, counter-intuitively, I’d say “Batman: yes”.
Batman? How? Because he might provoke others into becoming a super-villain?
He and the company he controls have already created technologies that constitute an existential threat without even trying and he has even come close to joining terrorist organisations that actively destroy civilisations. The guy has real power. He belongs in the same category as the other heroes that could destroy humanity if they felt like it.
Such as? (I already know about the other part of the statement; I’m just not familiar with what technologies the company has developed that would fall into that category.)
On the other hand, Batman being Batman, if he wanted to destroy the world, he probably could find a way to do it.
Batman being batman he already has. ;)
Even just that (more or less magical) surveillance system that he made. With that, and some mundane application of his stealth technology and skills getting launch codes and deploying nuclear arsenals would be a piece of cake. Nevermind deploying things like his microwave rays. I’m not sure if his company (while he wasn’t in charge) made nuclear weapons themselves too. It seems like something they’d have done.
Is that the sort of thing that the government lets private corporations do? I don’t think they would be allowed to do that in the real world.
No, private corporations are strictly limited to creating remote control rocket propelled tanks, microwave beam superweapons and a near perfect big brother privacy invasion system.
Well to be fair, we’ve already got a private company designing microwave beam weapons for the military, and plenty of other military technology besides, but nuclear weapons are kept under tighter reign.
According to one of the first sources that came up on a google search