Depends on how super you are thinking. Smarter than the smartest human? Sure. Smart enough to invent sci-fi technologies instantly? No. That is what most people think when you say ASI and it is not going to be that fast.

It sounds very specialized and advanced.

>How hard would it realistically be to either bribe or get someone in place to upload an update.

For a big tech company? Really fucking hard. Look at how many Apple devices there are in the world and collectively how much financial and personal information they protect. Now tell me, how many times has there been a breach at Apple?

Governments have even shown that they CAN'T get into Apple devices, they had to take Apple to court to try to unlock a proven terrorist's phone. The only argument you are making is to not use cheap knockoff robots. It is actually really straightforward to make a secure consumer product, if you put the time and money into it. Companies have done it, and continue to do it. It is why you aren't constantly losing all the money to hackers just because you use online banking or having your network hacked all the time because you use an off-the-shelf router.

Hacking a centralized system is very different from simultaneously hacking a robot in a million different homes. You have to know that.

Humor me and point me out a major widespread hack on a popular consumer device that happened in the last couple years.

That was like 10 years ago.

You probably have dozens of internet-connected devices in your house. How many times have you been hacked?

Do you think people aren't worried about cybersecurity?

> Runaway self-improvement?

It doesn't do that at all.

>Strategies to acquire and deploy chemical weapons?
>
>how to make several types of bombs

That is all readily available on the regular internet, without AI.

>as it can code, probably can be used to ask for implementations of malware

No, it's really not that good. It can only make little snippets of code and they are often wrong or poorly optimized. It's very cool, but anyone with an undergrad degree in CS can do better than ChatGPT. It is not going to make malware any more approachable than it was before.

Exxon Mobile Science Fair sounds like something from Idiocracy.

Tapas Teatro

Just like lots of people are working on AI.

>There are so many teams working with so many technologies it would be impossible to say with certainty when the next breakthrough will happen.

I don't see how that is different from any time in the last 100 years though. Nobody predicted the lightbulb before it happened. Or the telephone. Or, like, anything big that was invented. It only seems different because you are living now and you weren't living then.

>Even experts can't predict what will be seen in many fields 6 months from now

Example of this? I'm pretty sure the folks at OpenAI know what is coming in 6 months.

You might as well say all of human history is somewhere on the "continuum" of the singularity. But you shouldn't say that, because it is equally vacuous of a statement as saying that we are in the singularity right now.

The council president makes more. But regular council members all make the same, $75k.

You know the average Baltimore city police officer makes substantially more than a councilperson.

You think $75k is the best they could do? After all the connections they make from being a councilperson?

But that is not how quantum distributions work. They are much more complex than just mean and deviation. There is a reason we can’t solve the schroedinger equation even for two particles. Shit gets complicated real fast.

There is no such thing as an entangle macro state, so everything you have written here is based on an incorrect assumption. Nobody actually thinks the cat is dead and alive, it is reduction ad absurdism to illustrate the limitations of schroedingers equation. Read a book on quantum mechanics.

If you could answer that question you would win a Nobel prize.

Edit: sorry, I think I was attributing more to your question than you intended. The direct answer to how a particle “knows” it is observed is that it interacts with another particle. So observation is another way of saying that you are putting up guard rails on the system so it is forced into a smaller number of states. Whether that is a wave function collapse or whatever, it still makes it easier to compute.

No, it’s not only true if the wave function collapses. If you believe in an interpretation where the wave function doesn’t collapse, then the observation still puts constraints on the possible states that a particle/system can be in and it is still easier to simulate.

Cool so you have no point then. Thanks for contributing.

Which interpretation of the measurement problem allows for quantum mechanics to be easily simulated? Whether you believe the wave function is real or not doesn’t change the math that governs quantum states.

Yes, some evidence against simulation.