Humans must merge with machines or become irrelevant in AI age

[SilverEagle]

When was the Gorilla-Human War you keep talking about? 1710? 1745?

This is the part that is so frightening about AI. No war required... just replacement. If an AI exterminates us it will probably be out of carelessness, the same way we exterminate.

Start thinking of really good reasons why our existence is at least as important as whatever goals an AI has, cause you aren't going to convince the technologists to stop building it.

I guess you can't stop them, given they don't care much for human life anyway.

Best way to stop AI is not to allow it in the first place.

[Speaker to Animals]

AI is not the problem.

[Dand]

AI is not the problem.

Is the machine the problem?

In mankind's darkest hour, is the MKUltra-addled mind of a genius terrorist our last best hope?

#FreeTed

[C-Mag]

I'm just trying to decide what machine to merge with.

[Speaker to Animals]

AI is not the problem.

Is the machine the problem?

In mankind's darkest hour, is the MKUltra-addled mind of a genius terrorist our last best hope?

#FreeTed

Humans are the problem. AI is a good in of itself that can be misused.

Transhumanism is intrinsically evil. That's completely separate from AI.

[Fife]

Where is the good/evil line on transhumanism? Is an artificial heart evil? What about artificial eyes or ears?

I don't argue that there isn't a wide field for argument on the morality of transhumanism. Bostrom, who I cited a few posts back, has written a good deal on the topic. http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/dangerous.html

But, isn't AI (as we conceive of it) artificial human intelligence?

[Speaker to Animals]

Where is the good/evil line on transhumanism? Is an artificial heart evil? What about artificial eyes or ears?

That's the garbage argument used by transhumanism to defend it.

It's the same form of argument used to justify abortion, and just as fallacious.

[Zlaxer]

Transhumanism is going to be the greatest threat to our species we ever faced, with nothing even remotely near it in terms of impact and negative consequences.

What do you think it would look like? I have a feeling that the first guy that does it will in fact die, even if the AI can create a simulacrum of the subject's consciousness. But people will just see the simulacrum and then file into the suicide boxes like lemmings.

The Ship of Damocles my friend.....

Slow and gradual is the path to immortality.

[Fife]

Where is the good/evil line on transhumanism? Is an artificial heart evil? What about artificial eyes or ears?

That's the garbage argument used by transhumanism to defend it.

It's the same form of argument used to justify abortion, and just as fallacious.

Not an answer to the question.

I'm honestly asking where does transhumanism begin? Because I don't know how that line is drawn.

[Speaker to Animals]

Where is the good/evil line on transhumanism? Is an artificial heart evil? What about artificial eyes or ears?

That's the garbage argument used by transhumanism to defend it.

It's the same form of argument used to justify abortion, and just as fallacious.

Not an answer to the question.

I'm honestly asking where does transhumanism begin? Because I don't know how that line is drawn.

Transhumanists want to argue it begins with the slightest augmentation so as to obfuscate the immorality of destroying one's humanity and defiling one's very nature (which is their ultimate goal and purpose). It's similar to how pro-aborts try to obfuscate their intentions by quibbling over when life begins. We could sit here all day arguing that and get no where, but you can't deny that half-delivering a baby only to sever her spine with scissors is intrinsically evil. Transhumanism is sort of the same kind of moral issue.

Look at the motivations for an act and what are the actual intended purposes. When that purpose is to alter one's very nature, that's transhumanism.