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

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.