Posthumanism/A.I. thread, if you please.
Will such things improve human life? Is it too intrusive? Is there even any way to refuse it once nanomechs become practical?
General pros/cons on the subject.
The way I understand it is: artificially intelligent life is actually an alien lifeform.
>>17106611
I can kinda see where you're coming from, but why DO you think that an AI is an alien lifeform?
>>17106611
>Will such things improve human life?
Not in the ways that matter right now. The world's issues are societal, not material. Posthumanism won't stop things like religious conflict or greed.
>A.I.
Assuming we're talking about a fully sapient entity, there's two basic things to the matter.
1. There's no good reason to make one.
A sapient A.I. would have rights, due to being sapient. We couldn't force it to do things it doesn't want to do. It would in effect be a person with highly expensive maintenance.
2. It's almost certainly impossible to design one. Itelligence is weird and humanity doesn't understand it at all. We keep coming up with a definition of true A.I. Then, someone makes something that matches that definition, and everybody agrees that it still isn't true A.I. and the definition is changed. The only way I can see true A.I. coming about is it developing from a learning A.I. operating on a machine that mimics the physical structure of the brain, rather than an ordinary computer structure.
