we don't even really understand what that would look like

there's not even blueprint for how to go about creating a vague concept

the narrow AIs themselves however will be dangerous *in certain contexts*

for example,

in situations where you'd replace all humans in military and police with them

dystopia level right there

*Looks at Xi Jinping*

Though the west will probably come around eventually

they'd be able to carry out any task, any order, any command with zero remorse or consideration for such, if they'd even possess anything resembling sentience which they indeed probably would not. You could order an narrow-AI based army to nuke Texas **for no reason** and it would obey because, well, *of course it would.* Human soldiers might revolt when faced with such command.

So there are some golden rules I have for going forward with this kind of tech:

1) limit it to narrow AI
2) ban general AI
3) limit all narrow AI to be outside police, state, military, general chain of command or offices of civil servants

but you can't possibly stop all AI development, there's far too much investment in it

by far too many people

@Xinyue the obvious solution is to replace humans with AI

so we are all on the same playing field

evolution waits for no one

Narrow AI is too relative and machine learning in general is dangerous

christ

are you guys really going to go mechanicum of mars on us

@Ten-Speed_Bicycle except that is not the solution at all 🤔 that's a non-solution

HURR TECHNOLOGY BAD CUZ IT CHANGES THINGGGSSS

>When you make a robot and then kill yourself so that the robot can live your life <:ancom:520002567988838401>

Why would you cuck your entire species though. That goes against pretty much the whole reason why you, and your entire species line, exist.

Also there's no gain in it

the mind uploads aren't gonna work

>cuck your species

are you cucking cro-magnon men when you evolved to be homo sapiens?

Ok this is epic

Funny, man survived wars that killed millions, massive plagues that nearly wiped out their own people, yet, if things are to continue in technological development, its own creation will be its undoing

That was a remarkably bad point man. First of all, the genes were still present there, albeit in different form. There was still continuum between the one that came before, and the one that came after. Second of all, that wasn't a choice on anyone's part - therefore, not *cucking.*

Now, you though advocate for the abrupt phasing out of biological life it seems, becoming AI, which is - not only probably impossible from scientific standpoint - the most insane concept there is.

But lets dwell on that little point of scientific untenability for a moment

see, it might be that the brain is non-computable. And if it is non-computable, then it quite literally can never be transferred over to digital form. And to make matters worse, it might be further that *no computer can ever be conscious,* specifically because the mind has an element of non-computability to it, a semantics in addition to syntax, whereas the computer doesn't have that element of non-computability.

My point is that banning technological advancement is kind of a shitty idea too.

>the mind has an element of non computability

<:lol:521377935672737792>

Well yes

mate, your brain IS a computer.

just because it isnt binary doesnt mean sentience isnt a gestalt construct of a computational organ.

you are probably aware with Penrose's views on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjFEnbKttqc

47 mins

im not gonna waste my time watching a philosophical circlejerk.

ahahahaha

so wait

hes claiming that a computer is incapable of replicating a human mind. that is patently false.