I can attest to two things -- the Interval is a great spot to grab a good drink (and the talks they put on are great, and attract a great crowd)... and I lost a ton of respect for the Long Now Foundation when they pivoted from the future of humanity to conspicuous consumption three feet above sea level.
A number of years back, the Long Now moved their offices to the current space at Fort Mason. Part of the reason they picked the spot was that the ground floor could be a small museum, showcasing the Long Now's work the public, including the many tourists passing by.
However, although many passed by, not many actually came in. After some years, they decided to give people another reason to come in, one that has worked for centuries: caffeine and alcohol. So, via their "brickstarter" campaign, [1] they raised money to redo the historic space. (FYI, I'm a donor.)
It worked out wonderfully. I was in there the other night and every chair was full. And not just of random drinkers, but many people clearly interested in what was going on. Around the orrery [2] was a group of people animatedly discussing its purpose. People were looking at the exhibits. In front of one of the patrons at the bar was a fat Roger Penrose book.
And I should add that this wasn't a "pivot". All of the Long Now's projects still go on as before. And having their own venue has allowed them to expand their lecture series from once a month to almost weekly.
I was skeptical when the idea initially came up, but as a donor, occasional volunteer, and long-time fan, I think it has worked out wonderfully. Their mission, after all, is to get people to think about he long term, and the first step of that is getting their attention. Thousands of people per year now visit that wouldn't have. To me that's a win.
The ideal spot for a bar is near people, regardless of whether that location will be underwater in a century. It would be a lot more expensive and irresponsible to move every one of the visitors than to move the bar uphill every decade or two.
They still might not be a real threat, though. Perhaps you and Abekkus would like to register a wager with the Long Now prediction registry and betting site? http://longbets.org/
Is an individual soldier not an autonomous weapon? Autonomy in war is an unchangeable given, not something to be (or that can be) overcome.
Talking about "autonomous weapons" as something to "overcome" seems like anti-AI fear-mongering. There doesn't seem to be any real basis for it other than assuming as a foregone conclusion that AI is necessarily prone to inhumane malice. I'm vastly more afraid of most humans having weapons than I am of AI having weapons.
I don't think it's as clean a division as you suggest.
Imagine somebody takes a drone platform with decent processing power, mounts a gun like that, and builds in basic target-seeking. Then they make 100 of those and turn them loose in a major metropolitan area. They'd fit neatly into a box truck and cost under $100k in parts.
It might not be as deadly as 100 people with guns, but logistically it's a hell of a lot easier and cheaper, and I'd expect it to have a higher terror value. Especially if you have them mostly land on rooftops and wait for a random period.
That's reasonably doable given current tech. And we expect a lot of progress in ML and robotics over the next decade. Imagine ones that listen for police radio frequency use and then very accurately target people in uniform, for example. Ones that can wait days or weeks outside charging. Ones that collaborate to map, track, and overcome threats.
Personally I'm not particularly worried about it. America already has a lot of weapons and explosives sloshing around; I expect we'll figure out how to deal with this too. But I do expect we'll have to deal with it. Too much of our existing defense is tuned for humans. E.g., fences and walls have been an important part of defense technology for at least 10,000 years.
