3 ms·
Sort of "god in the gaps". Once something is understood, all the intelligence goes away. And I mean that in a literal as well as a figurative sense. A lot of
by empath75 3y ago
Sort of "god in the gaps". Once something is understood, all the intelligence goes away. And I mean that in a literal as well as a figurative sense.
A lot of anti-AI rhetoric, both the rhetoric saying that it's not possible, or that whatever new AI thing "isn't real AI", or the rhetoric that says AI is dangerous, I'm fairly sure is rooted in a probably vague sense in most people that _what they are_ is not a collection of atoms, that their conscious experience of the world is not some emergent property of neurons, but that they are, deep down, a spiritual, immaterial being, which also holds up the possibility of being _eternal_. As AI sort of chips away at the frontiers of intelligence, and shows that deep down, our experience of the world, our consciousness, all of it is an ugly bag of party tricks, it provokes a profound sense of _unease_. You're not just sort of threatening to dethrone humanity's place in the center of the universe, it's also in a sense stealing _eternal life_ from people. That's fairly heavy.
It's also why people who work on AI or work with AI tend to also be intensely interested in life extension.
- Vecr 3y agoI think the life extension stuff is probably not going to work, not because it can't (i.e. is not physically possible or so unreliable or slow not to be practical) but because all or most of the current AI researchers will die first. Maybe people will keep working on it after that but how people think can change quickly. The progress of technology (especially in the exact direction you want) is not something to be taken for granted.
- weard_beard 3y agoIronically it is a problem that could be solved by having AI work on it.
- jhbadger 3y agoI also see a lot of contradictory arguments: AI is not impressive while at the same time dangerous and should be stopped.