4 ms·

> Space migration: an obscenely expensive way to sideline earth's environmental problems Or maybe some see space as the final frontier and want humanity to exp

> Space migration: an obscenely expensive way to sideline earth's environmental problems Or maybe some see space as the final frontier and want humanity to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before. Or, as Elon Musk has said many times, an insurance policy against extinction from any number of unavoidable causes such as disease or a meteor strike. > Increased Intelligence: Not that helpful in an era when humans are going to have to re-articulate their raison d'etre in the face of superhuman machine intelligence. Why are you against increased intelligence? Humanity saw increased intelligence throughout the 20th century due to things like getting proper nutrition during childhood. Superhuman artificial general intelligence isn't the only outcome, nor do I think it is the most probable. We're more likely to become one with the machine using AI to augment our own intelligence, much like we do today with computing devices. > Life Extension: One of the key features of being human is being mortal. It's not just an inconvenience to be done away with. First of all, life extension != eternal life. Even immortality != eternal life. Nothing lasts forever and on a long enough timeline, you will die and have to make peace with that. You don't have to be afraid of the afterlife to want to live longer. Perhaps you just want to visit another planet or see more than .0000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe. Second and most importantly, we've already been through this. The 20th century added ~30 years to human lifespan. That represented a whopping 61% increase! It's not unreasonable to see these gains continue or even increase with accelerating technology. Arbitrarily mandating that people die at a certain age because of one's personal belief on the meaning of life is savage and barbaric. Third, you may want to see what humanity evolves into. I'll leave this quote from Battlestar Galactica: “I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to—I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more.

xherberta 10y ago
Thanks, I do appreciate the quote, and the clarification on LE. Why are you against increased intelligence? I'm not against increased intelligence per se, but I think it's a wrongheaded goal for the times. We don't seem to know how best to use the considerable native and machine-aided intelligence we already possess. I'm not convinced it's translating into better quality of life for all or most. In many domains, solutions are going to be non-technical. I think a better goal is to prepare against the case in which AI will go on to surpass us once it has achieved our level of (technical) intelligence. (You and I may differ in our assessment of the likelihood.) In this event, we won't be able to recover the advantage. I think we'll have to argue the case for our value in other terms, such as that we are able to have subjective experiences and relationships, we can emapthize, and can be amazing as poets, philosophers, lovers, and philanthropists. Maybe it's time to pay more attention to the domains in which we excel at being human. If AI learns from the de facto "human value system" that it sees in evidence among us, how do we expect to be treated if we become subordinates? Living by a better value system strikes me as a more important perogative than boosting intelligence, which I view as a commodity market in which we've enjoyed a monopoly. Competition is on the way, and I'm not sure intelligence will seem as profitable as it used to. We need to differentiate and find our human niche.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

xherberta 10y ago

Thanks, I do appreciate the quote, and the clarification on LE. Why are you against increased intelligence? I'm not against increased intelligence per se, but I think it's a wrongheaded goal for the times. We don't seem to know how best to use the considerable native and machine-aided intelligence we already possess. I'm not convinced it's translating into better quality of life for all or most. In many domains, solutions are going to be non-technical. I think a better goal is to prepare against the case in which AI will go on to surpass us once it has achieved our level of (technical) intelligence. (You and I may differ in our assessment of the likelihood.) In this event, we won't be able to recover the advantage. I think we'll have to argue the case for our value in other terms, such as that we are able to have subjective experiences and relationships, we can emapthize, and can be amazing as poets, philosophers, lovers, and philanthropists. Maybe it's time to pay more attention to the domains in which we excel at being human. If AI learns from the de facto "human value system" that it sees in evidence among us, how do we expect to be treated if we become subordinates? Living by a better value system strikes me as a more important perogative than boosting intelligence, which I view as a commodity market in which we've enjoyed a monopoly. Competition is on the way, and I'm not sure intelligence will seem as profitable as it used to. We need to differentiate and find our human niche.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]