4 ms·

This is a contradiction: "adding robots to ourselves until there is no human left", "the new AI would be compassionate towards humans." If we use people as the

This is a contradiction: "adding robots to ourselves until there is no human left", "the new AI would be compassionate towards humans." If we use people as the foundation for building AI which eventually abandons all human foundation, then the result would not be human. It's as if you had a car and every day replaced a single part with the part for a different car. In the end, the original car would no longer exist, even though there was, as it were, a continuous camera shot of the transformation. This is a tangent, I admit, but the contradiction needs resolved.

human_v2 17y ago
Not every human would become a robot. Not every robot would have started as a human. This is where homo sapiens branches in the phylogeny of life. Some become robots, some stay human. Those that stay human may eventually evolve into dwarves and night-elves and maybe tauren. Those that turn into robots may want to explore reality like the wanderer in TNG, season 1, episode 7. (that's what i want to do anyway) Basically, what you're telling me, is that an ape that evolved into a human is no longer an ape. True, but not true. It just so happens that historically, in evolution, changes were subtle. Humans are neat because it will be the first time that a species evolved into something that barely resembles, if at all, the generation of life that spawned them.