Oh come on. A snot green nose rag. You can almost taste it, can't you?

If text can make you gag with revulsion, it is, by definition, good communication.

Generally, if you are smart enough to fashion this without being caught, you are too smart to do something like that.

Plus, you got a cool and potentially lucrative hobby, designing exterminator machines. Why bother with children at that point?

There are much, much better targets to be had.

Your point on the dwindling barrier to implementation stands.

"Most people don't want to murder innocents" isn't reassuring. It only takes one lunatic. And there's a lot of lunatics out there.

Then the proper solution is to create fewer lunatics: provide better mental health support, good social safety nets, and a more egalitarian society.

Well yes, but that's a utopian idea that can never be fully realised. You can't fix them all. There'll always be some number of crazy, broken, malevolent psychos out there. If you don't think this is true then you need to meet more people.

We need to minimise the damage they can cause, and that means preventing them from using slaughterbots.

> Why bother with children at that point?

the premise is that the person doing it is very mentally ill. the question, "why would they do that when they could do something else that makes more sense?", doesn't make a lot of sense itself under the premise.

If a person is very ill mentally then there are already many ways to kill people in numbers, some of which ways are much more accessible than slaughterbots.

It's the barrier to implementation that I find concerning and the lack of defensive innovation just as much of a concern.

Are you capable of being manipulated through text? How about an AI trained to generate text that will extract exactly the desired response from you? An advertiser's wet dream.

That’s thinking too small. Most people are nudged or coerced into taking action or supporting an action by the people who surround them. Their friends. Their coworkers. Their community. Like why people were on facebook 20 years ago, or forwarding chain emails, for instance.

Unleashing an army of AI bots to infiltrate an online community and shift its discourse can be done at scale. While at the same time those humans who resist can be endlessly distracted by either arguing with bots or their own friends who have been affected by bots.

All that is possible to do with CURRENT TECHNOLOGY.

>A lot of the reason that time seems to pass more quickly as we age is that we have fewer and fewer novel experiences

Experiential reference grows, reducing what "a long time" really means. At ten years old, a year is one tenth your life experience. At fifty years old, it is one fiftieth. Pretty simple.

Agreement on the novel experiences. They do seem to reset the clock.

Pretty simple, but that would mean that an experienced minute would go 50 times as fast, and that is not the case.

Also (as I tried to get at in a sibling comment), I don't see how this would work internally. Why would time perception be relative to all experience? What is the use of that, and how would it be accomplished? Why don't we have this with other sensory input, such as vision or hearing?

The instructions say to ignore intent. We are left with definitions, then.

We do not define park boundaries, so each scenario must indicate those boundaries.

We do not define vehicle, so all objects are vehicles, including this soupy bag of proteins you pilot around.

The Game.

I'm out.

Working here. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080827 Firefox/2.0.0.16

ah. try ff2 maybe? Other possibility is that what ever issue you were having has been fixed in the last five days.

Absolutely brilliant idea!