With the help of tens of thousands of Xiu Mayan warriors, it would take more than 170 years for the Spanish to establish full control of the Maya homelands, which extended from northern Yucatán to the central lowlands
That you got 22 upvotes for that is incredible sad.
So wiping out the Aztecs isn’t enough, you wanted the Spaniards to quickly establish full control over the Mayan homelands as well?
That seems to me like moving the goalposts, you no longer just want the scientists to wipe out the Roman Empire, you now also want them to “establish full control” over both the Romans’ former territory and the neighboring Persian empire?
That you got 22 upvotes for that is incredible sad.
Downvoted for the continuing rudeness, and the continuing whining about how people vote others.
Also downvoted for the aforementioned “moving the goalposts”.
So wiping out the Aztecs isn’t enough, you wanted the Spaniards to quickly establish full control over the Mayan homelands as well?
I never argued that a hundred people from today, given machine guns, would have no chance to wipe out the roman Senate and kill the the roman consul. Which doesn’t mean that an AI could do the same. But even if it was to wipe out Washington, that would not constitute world domination.
The Spaniards, with the the help of their Tlaxcallan allies, managed to kill the ruler and destabilize Aztec empire and their domination. Yet most of the Mesoamerican cultures were intact afterwards. It took over a hundred years to defeat those.
Anyway, that incident can’t be compared with the Roman empire and much less with the world of today.
That seems to me like moving the goalposts...
You seem to have no clue what my goal was in the first place. I tried to exemplify the difficulties of taking over the world by an example that bears some similarity to the idea that an AI might just take over the world. In reality it would be much more difficult for an AI to do the same due to its fragility and its technological and civilizatory dependencies.
Downvoted for the continuing rudeness, and the continuing whining about how people vote others.
I am not whining about voting behavior but that people who apparently try to be rational could be fooled that easily and act like a cult to protect their beliefs against the least amount of criticism.
Also downvoted for the aforementioned “moving the goalposts”.
You are wrong and any amount of downvoting won’t make you right.
You seem to have no clue what my goal was in the first place
The question was specific: “Could such a group easily wipe away the Roman empire when beamed back in time?”
Ofcourse you can define “wipe away” as by necessity something even more extreme than what the Goths or the Ottomans managed to do with the actual Roman Empires.
I am not whining about voting behavior
On this thread alone you’ve complained about the votes on three different comments, Yvain’s, asr’s, and gwern’s. Your actions as observed from outside are indistinguishable from those of someone who is whining about voting behaviour.
but that people who apparently try to be rational could be fooled that easily and act like a cult to protect their beliefs against the least amount of criticism.
You behaved much more aggressively and much more rudely at (even less) criticism towards this post of yours, than I’ve seen leveled against you.
I’m interested in protecting the standards of polite discourse that are part of LessWrong, which said standards of polite discourse you seem determined to destroy by continuous and gratituous insults. I haven’t even touched any of the actual content of your post, only commented on your rude responses to criticism of it.
I agree that it’s sad I got 22 upvotes; it was a cheap shot at an example I don’t think was really relevant. But here’s another cheap shot: if you learned a future history book would say “With the help of tens of trillions of nanobots, it would take more than 170 years for unfriendly superintelligences to eradicate the last pockets of human resistance beneath the crust of Ganymede”, would you follow that up with “See, I was right, it wasn’t such a big deal after all”?
I agree with all Aris Katsaris’ points as well, but, again, I don’t think this example is too relevant to AI. Although this whole concept of historical analogies for AI isn’t great, a slightly better example than “530 Spaniards vs. Mesoamerica”, might be “1 Spaniard infected with smallpox vs. Mesoamerica”. AIs don’t have to play fair.
...if you learned a future history book would say “With the help of tens of trillions of nanobots,
Full stop. If advanced nanotechnology comes first then my above post is rendered obsolete. I do completely agree that an AI in possession of advanced nanotech assemblers will be able to take over the world.
So, the AI, even if coming before advanced nanotechnology, would just need to invent some advanced nanotechnology and convince some people to manufacture them, is that right?
That wouldn’t work out well...
That you got 22 upvotes for that is incredible sad.
So wiping out the Aztecs isn’t enough, you wanted the Spaniards to quickly establish full control over the Mayan homelands as well?
That seems to me like moving the goalposts, you no longer just want the scientists to wipe out the Roman Empire, you now also want them to “establish full control” over both the Romans’ former territory and the neighboring Persian empire?
Downvoted for the continuing rudeness, and the continuing whining about how people vote others.
Also downvoted for the aforementioned “moving the goalposts”.
I never argued that a hundred people from today, given machine guns, would have no chance to wipe out the roman Senate and kill the the roman consul. Which doesn’t mean that an AI could do the same. But even if it was to wipe out Washington, that would not constitute world domination.
The Spaniards, with the the help of their Tlaxcallan allies, managed to kill the ruler and destabilize Aztec empire and their domination. Yet most of the Mesoamerican cultures were intact afterwards. It took over a hundred years to defeat those.
Anyway, that incident can’t be compared with the Roman empire and much less with the world of today.
You seem to have no clue what my goal was in the first place. I tried to exemplify the difficulties of taking over the world by an example that bears some similarity to the idea that an AI might just take over the world. In reality it would be much more difficult for an AI to do the same due to its fragility and its technological and civilizatory dependencies.
I am not whining about voting behavior but that people who apparently try to be rational could be fooled that easily and act like a cult to protect their beliefs against the least amount of criticism.
You are wrong and any amount of downvoting won’t make you right.
The question was specific: “Could such a group easily wipe away the Roman empire when beamed back in time?”
Ofcourse you can define “wipe away” as by necessity something even more extreme than what the Goths or the Ottomans managed to do with the actual Roman Empires.
On this thread alone you’ve complained about the votes on three different comments, Yvain’s, asr’s, and gwern’s. Your actions as observed from outside are indistinguishable from those of someone who is whining about voting behaviour.
You behaved much more aggressively and much more rudely at (even less) criticism towards this post of yours, than I’ve seen leveled against you.
I’m interested in protecting the standards of polite discourse that are part of LessWrong, which said standards of polite discourse you seem determined to destroy by continuous and gratituous insults. I haven’t even touched any of the actual content of your post, only commented on your rude responses to criticism of it.
I agree that it’s sad I got 22 upvotes; it was a cheap shot at an example I don’t think was really relevant. But here’s another cheap shot: if you learned a future history book would say “With the help of tens of trillions of nanobots, it would take more than 170 years for unfriendly superintelligences to eradicate the last pockets of human resistance beneath the crust of Ganymede”, would you follow that up with “See, I was right, it wasn’t such a big deal after all”?
I agree with all Aris Katsaris’ points as well, but, again, I don’t think this example is too relevant to AI. Although this whole concept of historical analogies for AI isn’t great, a slightly better example than “530 Spaniards vs. Mesoamerica”, might be “1 Spaniard infected with smallpox vs. Mesoamerica”. AIs don’t have to play fair.
Full stop. If advanced nanotechnology comes first then my above post is rendered obsolete. I do completely agree that an AI in possession of advanced nanotech assemblers will be able to take over the world.
So, the AI, even if coming before advanced nanotechnology, would just need to invent some advanced nanotechnology and convince some people to manufacture them, is that right?
I’m pretty sure UFAI isn’t even necessary for advanced nanotech to take over the world.