5 ms·

We don't go around spending all our resources trying to solve diseases for ants...

• BudaDude 4y ago
  This argument isn't really valid because: 1) Ants did not give birth to our species. 2) We do try to solve diseases for other animals. If we could communicate with insects the way we do with other species, there would be an effort to help them. The biggest barrier is language, something that will not be the case with AGI.
  • notpachet 4y ago
    Humans communicating with animals (in cases where that's possible) is only interesting or worthwhile because of how similar our brains are to theirs. We don't spend a lot of effort trying to communicate with more primitive animals. I'm not sure why an AGI would necessarily regard us more like chimpanzees than lungfish. If we could talk to a lungfish... what would it say? Is its perception of the world even sophisticated enough for it to matter? And to be clear, I'm actually not an AI catastrophist. I just don't think any sufficiently advanced AI is going to be very motivated to help us with our puny problems. I think it's more likely they'll just fuck off somewhere far away where we can't bother them.
• falcor84 4y ago
  Maybe not ants, but we absolutely do spend a lot of research effort to solve diseases for other species, for example Tasmanian Devils - https://www.menzies.utas.edu.au/news-and-events/media-releases/2017/immunotherapy-trial-cures-tasmanian-devils-of-dftd https://www.menzies.utas.edu.au/news-and-events/media-releas...