Resolves NO if humanity is still around in 2100. If we are not still around, then the resolution is up to whatever intelligent non-human beings, if any, exist in our wake. Hopefully, they will resolve it correctly based on whether or not it was nanotechnology that did us in.
Related questions
Very confused that this is so much lower than the AI risk markets. I'm pretty sure that if AI does kill everyone, it will be using nanotechnology. Really seems like the easiest/least messy way to do it? Like, if we're worried about a paperclip maximizer or whatever, it seems like the likely outcome of that is "AI uses nanotechnology swarms to turn humans into paperclips." I feel like if this site has AI x-risk at 40% by 2100, it should also have this at 30% or more.
Granted, I think both markets should be around 10-15%...maybe the AI doomers just haven't found this one yet?
@evergreenemily Why invent new tech to kill humans? The research is already 99% done with bio-warfare isn't it?
@parhizj A: I assume that if an AI malevolent and powerful enough to commit omnicide against humans exists, then basic nanotechnology either already exists or could be invented very quickly.
B: Bio-warfare is imperfect and messy, and would likely take a long time to kill everyone.
C: Using nanotech could help the AI keep its plans concealed, so it doesn't get switched off by whoever's watching it. Nanotech plus remote activation would allow the AI to simultaneously incapacitate/kill a bunch of important people (e.g. military, politicians, AI researchers) all at once, or even everyone (or nearly everyone) all at once.
maybe the AI doomers just haven't found this one yet
I think this is probably the explanation.
@evergreenemily I see about the secretive part, but I'm not sure about the messy or imperfect part, as I think people are thinking historically about the human development and deployment of (singular) biological agents; I speculate with the data and capabilities available to such an AI it will be much more complete and effective (a wealth of genomic data on viruses, bacteria, fungi, and humans, and the ability to develop in parallel a matrix of pathogens to get total coverage), where as developing nano-tech to do so is too speculative at this point for me from an engineering perspective, but I'm no expert on either.
Edit: put another way:
Bio-warfare: a dungeon full of ancient weapons.
Nano-tech: Phasers set to kill.
I think raiding the dungeon and using everything there would be easier than getting hold of Phasers.