
Home-made bombs are being sent to physicists in Mexico - acangiano
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110822/full/476373a.html
======
mvzink
For this audience, this might get more clicks if the title mentioned CS,
nanotechnology, AI, etc. not physicists. And besides that, the title is
incorrect: the only bomb mentioned in the article was sent to the author's
brother; the author is a physicist, while his brother is a computer scientist
and roboticist.

~~~
acangiano
Unfortunately, it's too late for me to change the title.

~~~
rhizome
If only there was a way to know that it was the brother before you posted.

~~~
acangiano
You may notice that the title is copied verbatim from the subtitle. I
submitted before I reached the end of the article. I already expressed regret
for not being able to change the title. There is no reason to be sarcastic
about it. Your comment is arguably no better for this community, than my
rushed title submission.

~~~
rhizome
What are you talking about? You posted without a minimum of effort, not even
finishing the story first. That's plenty of reason to be sarcastic!

------
iradik
The article mentioned the group praises Ted Kaczynski, so most likely good to
read this essay if you want to see their POV.

Industrial Society and Its Future (1995) by Theodore Kaczynski

<http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/ethics/Unabomber.pdf>

~~~
alnayyir
I think ted was likely a great deal smarter than the people we're dealing with
now.

~~~
itswindy
Maybe, but life is cheaper in Mexico and the police have bigger fish to fry,
making the bombers more dangerous and less likely to got caught.

~~~
Vivtek
Life is _cheaper_ in Mexico? I know you didn't intend the way that came out,
but life is life. It's no cheaper in Mexico than it is among the meth rednecks
across the street from me, believe me.

~~~
armandososa
I think he was referring to _cost of life_

~~~
itswindy
_I think he was referring to cost of life_

Actually to the fact that it's a mess of a country, at least right now. people
being killed left and right, and is almost a failed state. Not that Mexican
parents weep less for their kids or anything like that.

------
dhughes
The FBI should put a message on the Web saying they know where these
terrorists are and they've already sent nanobot assassins to infect them.

~~~
iradik
I think this case is out of their jurisdiction.

~~~
5hoom
Nothing is outside the jurisdiction of nanobot assassins, duh.

------
andrewcooke
for other spanish speakers, this group is called Individualidades Tendiendo a
lo Salvaje and a google search gives plenty of hits for more info
[http://www.google.cl/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&...](http://www.google.cl/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Individualidades+Tendiendo+a+lo+Salvaje)

(they don't seem to have a site; the statement is repeated on various
anarchist blogs, but from dates and credits one of these may be the original
<http://liberaciontotal.lahaine.org/?p=1622>
[http://culmine.noblogs.org/post/2011/04/27/paquete-
explosivo...](http://culmine.noblogs.org/post/2011/04/27/paquete-explosivo-al-
encargado-de-la-division-de-ingenieria-en-nanotecnologia-universidad-
politecnica-del-valle-de-mexico/))

------
VMG
TFA: _In statements posted on the Internet, the ITS expresses particular
hostility towards nano­technology and computer scientists. It claims that
nanotechnology will lead to the downfall of mankind, and predicts that the
world will become dominated by self-aware artificial-intelligence technology._

The spooky thing is that this may not be as crazy as it sounds.

~~~
Vivtek
...

That's absurd, I'm sorry. Of course the world will become dominated by self-
aware technology; it already is, after all. (Well - from our point of view,
anyway. From the bacterial point of view it's pretty much bacteria all the way
down.)

But to imagine that that self-aware technology will be anything but symbiotic
with us is truly crazy. And certainly not something that bombs could fix
anyway.

Also: what kind of lame anti-technology terrorist group posts its statements
on the Internet?

~~~
feral
>But to imagine that that self-aware technology will be anything but symbiotic
with us is truly crazy.

Have you any argument to back up such a strong position?

>Of course the world will become dominated by self-aware technology; it
already is, after all.

I'm not aware of any technological artifact that meets a reasonable definition
of 'self-aware' - could you provide an example?

Why is it 'truly crazy' to imagine self aware technology could pose a threat
to us? I don't think we've built any self-aware technology, and I suspect that
if such technology is possible, its still a way off in the future. But if we
did, I think we'd have to be extremely careful with it, and be very cautious
of unintended consequences.

Its not unusual for people to consider the potential of such technology to be
a threat. A commonly cited essay is Bill Joys wired article:
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html>

In the other direction, if you look at these guys, who are extremely
optimistic about AI, they say one of their main research areas is on ensuring
any such AI would be 'friendly': <http://singinst.org/research/researchareas>

I disagree with this 'ITS's assessment of the risks, as described in the
Nature article. I completely disagree with their methods, obviously.

But I think that if self-aware technology was on the horizon, concerns about
it potentially being a threat would be legitimate.

Asserting that it couldn't possibly be anything but symbiotic, without
offering any evidence or argument to back that position up, is also crazy.

~~~
Vivtek
_could you provide an example?_

You're it. Assuming a definition of technology broad enough to include you
being a survival mechanism for bacteria.

If you want my argument, the tl;dr I just wrote for the deleted post here is
going to have to suffice. I haven't read Joy's article yet, although I've
heard of it - thanks for linking it.

I guess the short answer to why I think it's going to be symbiotic is that
it's going to be either symbiotic or not a competitor. I guess a better
characterization of my belief is that I just don't buy AI being our future
competitors either way. But I don't intend to lose any sleep over it, because
I have enough short-term worries that I really don't care much. So AI could
supplant me - fine! Then I wouldn't have to worry about college tuition for my
kids. Sometimes leading a post-holocaust scratch-farming existence sounds
relaxing.

(Nota bene: I grew up on a farm, so no, I don't actually think scratch farming
would be low-stress; this was hyperbole just for humorous effect. Trust me;
technology is our friend and I don't want to go backwards. Ever.)

~~~
calibraxis
Even if we consider me a "technological artifact" for the purposes of
discussion, it's clear that we pose enormous threats to not just other
species, but ourselves as well. Obvious examples in the mainstream are global
climate change and nuclear weapons. You can even find well-known physicists
mentioning Venus as a conceivable future of the Earth, due to runaway
greenhouse effects.

Not too far from nanotech "grey goo" nightmares.

(I don't think that technology is inherently bad, but it's being developed by
incredibly destructive social arrangements.)

~~~
Vivtek
Bah. If the system is that unstable, then maybe we're going to destroy
ourselves - but it's just as likely we'll be able to save ourselves when
something entirely else would have killed us anyway. There's no reason to
think technology per se, or any particular branch of it, should be avoided
because it's _the one_.

Look, I'll be the first to agree that technology is dangerous and human beings
are pretty stupid and shortsighted when using it (and when not using it, and
before breakfast, and all other times), but I just have nothing but contempt
for people who think the answer is to dissuade other people from being smarter
than they are, by means violent or not.

If you (and by this I mean the generic you) think technology is dangerous, or
some specific technology is dangerous, then by all means investigate how it is
dangerous, how that danger can be avoided, and before all else _become a
better person_ and demonstrate by your life that a race to destruction is not
where humanity should be. I know that's all kumbayah and people probably won't
even understand what I mean, but seriously, the answer is just to become a
better humanity. The answer is _always_ to become a better humanity. I
personally think we're doing OK on that, current news notwithstanding (because
the current news is always alarming, but the trends are towards a more human
humanity).

Well. This isn't an argument, just a viewpoint. I got work to do and probably
shouldn't be engaging in philosophy.

Oh, except one more point: global warming is going to be expensive, but it's
not going to kill us. It's not the first time Earth has run a fever, and we're
not Venus yet. Even in the (I believe) colossally unlikely event that we crash
our technological civilization or even drive ourselves and a bunch of other
things to extinction, the planet's going to be just fine, and life will go on.

------
tripzilch
What a bunch of dicks.

