4 ms·

I think the issue here is that you rapidly get into some sort of absurd state in which you have no idea what to optimize for, or even if you do, you end up "evo

I think the issue here is that you rapidly get into some sort of absurd state in which you have no idea what to optimize for, or even if you do, you end up "evolving" another species entirely. Imagine that we could do all of that on Earth. Imagine an individual that has no need for natural light, no need to green space. Go further - perhaps they don't need to socialize, they don't need a diet any more varied than a few pills, they don't need entertainment of any kind. Combine those mental changes with physical ones (for example, who needs limbs that can support weight if you're in zero-g). You easily get to the state in which what you're making is no longer a human being but some sort of 'creation'. It's possible in the sense of "this is not against the laws of physics", it's just hard to really fathom what it means, it becomes a Theseus' ship of "is that thing really still human", I think.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> You easily get to the state in which what you're making is no longer a human being but some sort of 'creation'. So what? They're still our progeny. Natural evolution will change us just as it always has even if we do nothing. That some future descendant of a human is classed as a different species entirely is inevitable. All the engineering does is accelerate and direct the process.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  It also sterilizes the process. Diversity and complexity and mess are not only beautiful, but robust. Artificial evolution would reduce us to mere mechanisms.
  - natch 7y ago
    Artificial evolution, whatever that is, can still have randomness. Tom Ray’s program Tierra is a simple and real example. There is no rule saying randomness cannot be introduced. And it can be situated in chaotic environments that further vary what happens.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Right, as I said, there's nothing theoretically stopping this. I just don't think that creating versions of humans that don't share any of the desires of humans is particularly interesting. You might consider that the other approach would be to have a general AI that runs in software. In some sense they are two paths towards the same goal.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

> You easily get to the state in which what you're making is no longer a human being but some sort of 'creation'. So what? They're still our progeny. Natural evolution will change us just as it always has even if we do nothing. That some future descendant of a human is classed as a different species entirely is inevitable. All the engineering does is accelerate and direct the process.

_bxg1 7y ago
It also sterilizes the process. Diversity and complexity and mess are not only beautiful, but robust. Artificial evolution would reduce us to mere mechanisms.
- natch 7y ago
  Artificial evolution, whatever that is, can still have randomness. Tom Ray’s program Tierra is a simple and real example. There is no rule saying randomness cannot be introduced. And it can be situated in chaotic environments that further vary what happens.
esotericn 7y ago
Right, as I said, there's nothing theoretically stopping this. I just don't think that creating versions of humans that don't share any of the desires of humans is particularly interesting. You might consider that the other approach would be to have a general AI that runs in software. In some sense they are two paths towards the same goal.