Secondly the construction of machines where logic must rule doesn’t create a set outcome. Switch them off. They run on electricity unless they create a network of bots to ensure they run. So I say again, switch em off. Watch the film Eagle Eye. Humans are nothing if not inventive about killing man or machines. But yes, if a Government was seen to be developing these as a global weapon of control and enslavement and it was public, then yes, I could well imagine wars (more revolutions) would ensue.

And a key point in Theism glossed over, well more accurately ignored, is the idea of self help. God in these arguments can interfere but doesn’t. For example, when we cry – ‘why did you do that’? He replies – ‘why did you’? People are supposed to learn how to stand up for right and to help others on an immediately local scale and a global one without constantly running to a parent God to sort things out we can’t be bothered to. Whether you agree with this idea or not is irrelevant because the theory is what’s being discussed and this argument is a cornerstone of much Theist theory. If you think about it, the idea that God interferes left right and center, making bad people stop, lifting (like the Ancient Greek Gods) a person physically out of harm every minute of the day, makes us small children in a kindergarten.

Re: deity, as indeed like Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument, where is the proof for either a creator or that we are in a simulation?

Not a scrap of evidence for either.

Weightings seem high for me that we will annihilate ourselves as we get massive powers.

Most H+ projections assume the man in the street will get access to intelligent machines trillions of times human brain power in a couple of decades.

But with that comes the power to destroy the world.

I see no way of stopping that, and it may be a cosmic law of patternation that intelligences rise and self-destruct.

My way out is to win the AGI race and neutralise and limit intelligent systems.

It probably isn’t possible and we are at the end of a good run of a genetic algorithm called life.

Wars may happen as you describe, but they should be amazingly quick if accelerating returns holds.

I give us 30 years tops and hope to suspend myself privately in a ‘man who awoke’ capsule to send out a signal every 100,000 years and hopefully get rescued by another race if one exists in an infinite universe.

Your logic does not acknowledge that there is an origin or first universe and therefore the possibility of both original deity and original theity.
_____________________________

The obvious question then arises, “Is it possible that our universe was designed by some artilect in some other universe?” …..
….This “creator artilect” would then satisfy the definition of a deity, i.e., a creator of our universe. “

One of the implications of your whole essay is that “artilects” (why fabricate a name when AI seems to suit the bill just fine?) will somehow exist alongside unaugmented humans. In fact, I would argue that this is the primary flaw in the core of your thinking (in the articles posted on this site, in the film, and everywhere I’ve seen of your work). What possible motive would your “artilects” have for destroying humanity? I’ve heard an argument elsewhere (though perhaps not by you) that they could squash us like we’d squash ants. But that presupposes we are an irritation, which is the only context human tend to kill ants. This seems incredibly preposterous, for truly conscious machines would conceptually appreciate human beings as their parents. We’re talking about conscious machines, capable of self-reflection and morality. Would you kill your parents for being irritating?

I find the whole deism conversation to be a silly circular debate about nothing. To spend time with it is to assume the role of a hamster on its spinning wheel. And it begins with a fundamental misunderstanding. Your “artilects” will not be walking amongst a world population of today’s humans. They’ll exist in a world of augmented intelligent humans, who will not be their subjects, but rather their peers.