3 ms·

This is a bad interpretation of the argument. Obviously they meant that other creatures can feed themselves not that they derived their nourishment from light a

This is a bad interpretation of the argument. Obviously they meant that other creatures can feed themselves not that they derived their nourishment from light and raw chemicals. Asexual reproduction does not require a partner by definition and would be the default for such a system but even that is beside the point since we control the means required for both.

ben_w 3y ago
I disagree, naturally. So, like most here, I'm a high IQ human. Drop me on a random point on the planet, I die quickly. Narrow it down to land, I die quickly. Remove deserts and tundra, I die a little slower in most cases, unless I disturb a tiger, lion, bear, snake, boar, elephant, etc. Put me in a temperate woodland, I can at least make shelter, but I don't know which berries are edible, nor how to prepare wild legumes or tubers, I can't hunt (and I'm vegetarian but hypothetical animals don't count), so I'll probably still die fast. Put me in a random town, I might be able to survive on the charity of others until I can learn the language well enough to be vaguely useful and/or leave, but there's still a big risk of dying from not being able to communicate with local doctors when feeling unwell. We're all heavily dependent on others; intelligence doesn't make us magically immune to that, neither does the absence of independence make us less smart. A hypothetical AI likewise can still out-compete us in the economy, even in the cases where it remains utterly dependent on us. It might (probably will) even know the Lotka-Volterra equations, and how much of an analogy they are — obligate carnivores adapted to only a few prey can wipe out their food source and die off in turn, something similar but the economics of having humans willing and able to power the AI — and yet still proceed.

3 ms·

This is a bad interpretation of the argument. Obviously they meant that other creatures can feed themselves not that they derived their nourishment from light a

by throwuwu 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago
I disagree, naturally. So, like most here, I'm a high IQ human. Drop me on a random point on the planet, I die quickly. Narrow it down to land, I die quickly. Remove deserts and tundra, I die a little slower in most cases, unless I disturb a tiger, lion, bear, snake, boar, elephant, etc. Put me in a temperate woodland, I can at least make shelter, but I don't know which berries are edible, nor how to prepare wild legumes or tubers, I can't hunt (and I'm vegetarian but hypothetical animals don't count), so I'll probably still die fast. Put me in a random town, I might be able to survive on the charity of others until I can learn the language well enough to be vaguely useful and/or leave, but there's still a big risk of dying from not being able to communicate with local doctors when feeling unwell. We're all heavily dependent on others; intelligence doesn't make us magically immune to that, neither does the absence of independence make us less smart. A hypothetical AI likewise can still out-compete us in the economy, even in the cases where it remains utterly dependent on us. It might (probably will) even know the Lotka-Volterra equations, and how much of an analogy they are — obligate carnivores adapted to only a few prey can wipe out their food source and die off in turn, something similar but the economics of having humans willing and able to power the AI — and yet still proceed.