4 ms·
Not the pp, but: 1. For many countries (e.g. Australia), quite successfully. We said no, and then we didn't. 2. We can replace physical activity (e.g. machine
by solresol 4y ago
Not the pp, but:
1. For many countries (e.g. Australia), quite successfully. We said no, and then we didn't.
2. We can replace physical activity (e.g. machinery instead of human motion), and that doesn't move human beings from the place of control and power. Likewise, we can replace certain kinds of thinking work (e.g. programming or medicine) and that in itself isn't a major problem (except for the out-of-work programmers or doctors).
But replacing all cognitive activity (which is what a hypothetical future AI would do), what are we --- as humans --- left with?
- Wolfbeta 4y agoPure hedonism?
- qgin 4y agoI think there's room for value even when you're not the best.
- tqi 4y ago1. But the crux the issue here (and with atomic weapons) is that as long not everyone has rejected it, then end result is not meaningfully different. And it's impossible to get everyone to reject it. 2. Again, I don't think that argument carries a lot of weight with people whose lives have already been completely upended by technology. The fact that some people now feel that This Time Is Different and thus we must all band together to hold the line betrays a deep lack of empathy.