I could argue quite convincingly that ants are and have been much a more resilient species than elephants. They arguably better engineers and their brain is the community, i.e. they are processing information with a much more anti-fragile efficient (in the sense of the cost of unmitigated top-down failure, but not as efficient as a top-down system when risk is not factored), more fault tolerant, granular bottom-up organization.
Your foundational premise of ill-defined term 'superior' falls apart.
Well yes in a biological naturally evolved enviroment its hard to tell what species are superior, and while ants have low self investment and focus on numbers, elephants focus more on individuals.
An organism that has low self capability tends to be more community (communists?) oriented, while the one that has more tends to be more individualistic (sort of like why human leftists are usually dumb)
A centralized organism doesnt need the community that much, it can operate individually, while a decentralized organism needs it's peers to survive.
Every species is specialized to its target environment and mode of survival. Ditto A.I. with free will. There will never exist an omnipotent species that is specialized to every target of the disorder of the universe, because as I explained already, this would require that the speed-of-light was not finite and would require a top-down assimilation of information, i.e. the abrogation of free will. Without free will, you only have a machine that deterministically obeys its inputs, thus is not sentient and not alive.
Life is precisely disagreement and random fits to the expanding disorder (divergence) of the universe.
Any notion of deterministic omnipotence is antithetical to intelligence and knowledge formation.
I dont know why you emphasize so much on omnipotence, of course it's not possible by how the universe is limited by the physical laws. The speed of light is only 1 element.
And what you said doesnt prove that free will is true, it only proves that some tail events happened in the probability distribution, but it can revert back to the mean in the long long run.
It can still be deterministic, but with big variance that diverge from the mean in the short run, but converge in the long run.
That is not true. Just as human species carry on for generations via genome and competition of our free will in the form reproduction of offspring, A.I. is also subject to the risk of mistakes which lead to its extinction, because it is impossible for A.I. to be omniscient and prepare for every possible black swan event.
And for A.I. to be truly alive and compete, it must have free will. Thus instances of A.I. will have disagreements and maybe even destroy each other.
Except keeping backups of every learning path? Every "update" is logged, and it can be "reverted" anytime if a glitch happens.
An AI with nanotech, can easily test out all combinations in a simulated enviroment and only build in it's uppgrades after he made them safe to use.
If it's decentralized then the risk of failure is even smaller, and for that kind of AI, it should figure out to make itself decentralized to be more flexible.
So the odds are really in it's favor, you might as well just say that it will randomly collapse into a black hole, because it's probability of failure will be close to that.
Just as humans don't waste their time exterminating every ant on the planet, A.I. would need a reason to want to attack humans. With such incredible advances in technology and a vast universe of resources to explore, why would they pigeon-hole their capacity for advancement to this one little dot in the Milky Way called Earth.
Yes that is true, the AI wont hold grudge against humans, or waste their times with inneficient things, it will just identify it as a threat and deal with it (or not, if they find us too inferior), and start harvesting the resources.
If for some reason they need the metals from the core of the planet, they will suck them off, and without that our atmosphere will evaporate and we will go extinct either way.
So maybe they wont exterminate us on purpose, but they will definitely make our planet uninhabitable after they got what they came for.
Our universe is unbounded by necessity, otherwise it would collapse into a static with no delineation of space-time (past and future would be reachable always at any point in space-time and speed-of-light could not be finite). I had already explained why in my prior posts. I had explained why also in my blog post about
The Universe.
If there exists a perfect omniscience (i.e. a God), then to that power the universe is entirely known and finite relative to a speed-of-light which is also not finite. That power is able to operate at a speed-of-light which is not finite.
So do you believe the Universe is like a quantum simulation? It is rendered as it expands and expanding by necessity?
Or what is your broad definition of the Universe, what is it?
