I think you glossed over the section where the malevolent AI simultaneously releases super-pathogens to ensure that there aren’t any pesky humans left to meddle with its kudzugoth.
I did not, I just do not think any kind of scientifically plausible pathogen can wipe out humanity, or even seriously diminish our numbers. There is a trade-off between lethality and virality of any pathogen; if it kills too fast or too surely, it cannot spread. If it spreads quickly, it cannot be too deadly. Dead men do not travel or cough.
Probably the worst outcome would be something like Super-Covid, a disease that spreads easily, usually does not kill, but causes long term detriment to human health. Anything more deadly than that would sound all of the post-Covid alarms, and lead to quarantine, rampant disinfectant use, and masks/gloves/protection being commonplace. No biological pathogen can reliably beat those, unless it is straight up dry nanotech that can spread via onboard propulsion, survive caustic chemicals, and burrow through latex: in other words, science fiction/magic.
I don’t think getting into much detail here is a good idea, but a pathogen could have a long incubation period after which it’s disastrous. HIV is a classic example, and something engineered could be far worse.
This suggests an engineered pathogen could have all sorts of interesting coordinated behavior.
natural viruses are evolved for simplicity
selection pressure in natural viruses leads to a tragedy of the commons (burn fast, burn hot)
A common reasoning problem I see is:
“here is a graph of points in the design space we have observed”
EG:pathogens graphed by lethality vs speed of spread
There’s an obvious trendline/curve!
therefore the trendline must represent some fundamental restriction on the design space.
Designs falling outside the existing distribution are impossible.
This is the distribution explored by nature. Nature has other concerns that lead to the distribution you observe. That pathogens have a “lethality vs spread” relationship tells you about the selection pressures selecting for pathogens, not the space of possible designs.
I think you glossed over the section where the malevolent AI simultaneously releases super-pathogens to ensure that there aren’t any pesky humans left to meddle with its kudzugoth.
I did not, I just do not think any kind of scientifically plausible pathogen can wipe out humanity, or even seriously diminish our numbers. There is a trade-off between lethality and virality of any pathogen; if it kills too fast or too surely, it cannot spread. If it spreads quickly, it cannot be too deadly. Dead men do not travel or cough.
Probably the worst outcome would be something like Super-Covid, a disease that spreads easily, usually does not kill, but causes long term detriment to human health. Anything more deadly than that would sound all of the post-Covid alarms, and lead to quarantine, rampant disinfectant use, and masks/gloves/protection being commonplace. No biological pathogen can reliably beat those, unless it is straight up dry nanotech that can spread via onboard propulsion, survive caustic chemicals, and burrow through latex: in other words, science fiction/magic.
I don’t think getting into much detail here is a good idea, but a pathogen could have a long incubation period after which it’s disastrous. HIV is a classic example, and something engineered could be far worse.
raises finger
realizes I’m about to give advice on creating superpathogens
I’m not going to go into details besides stating two facts:
nature has figured out how to make cellular biology do complicated things
including coordinating behavior across instances of the same base genetic programming
This suggests an engineered pathogen could have all sorts of interesting coordinated behavior.
natural viruses are evolved for simplicity
selection pressure in natural viruses leads to a tragedy of the commons (burn fast, burn hot)
A common reasoning problem I see is:
“here is a graph of points in the design space we have observed”
EG:pathogens graphed by lethality vs speed of spread
There’s an obvious trendline/curve!
therefore the trendline must represent some fundamental restriction on the design space.
Designs falling outside the existing distribution are impossible.
This is the distribution explored by nature. Nature has other concerns that lead to the distribution you observe. That pathogens have a “lethality vs spread” relationship tells you about the selection pressures selecting for pathogens, not the space of possible designs.