@Gerçek Nootropics doesn't demand genetic editing, but even beyond that genetic editing will have certain very beneficial applications which will demand use at some point in future; too many good things can be achieved with these limited applications (such as removing deadly inherited diseases, etc).

And these basic applications (alongside future advanced nootropics) will be enough to yield the outcomes I've talked about for the past few hours. AI itself is not a necessary factor in this.

@Bee Third position does what was previously thought impossible and combines the worst aspects of the first two positions.

^^^^

it won't stay limited in it's application is the point as people see the benefits, adoption increases and adoptees replace non users

It can yes

lmao

easily

and neither can you prevent people from using those beneficial limited uses

you will never accomplish this

well, there is an element of inevitability yes

What you can do is argue for true AI ban because it is an existential threat

nootropics and limited use of gene-editing *isn't*

but that's not the point, you're making an active claim for this

without dealing with ethical concerns

I'm making an active claim that nootropics and gene-editing will be used, yes, and will yield certain outcomes.

Now,

humans are a species imbued with strong survival instinct

there's no reason to assume that strong AI research *must* in every scenario be a factor

```and neither can you prevent people from using those beneficial limited uses```

this

```nootropics and limited use of gene-editing isn't```

and this idea of *limited use* don't fit together

limited use, yes, which doesn't pose a risk

not all uses of gene editing pose a risk

to say that we *must* utilise the very dangerous applications is like saying that, due to the emergence of nuclear technology, we must instantly devolve into nuclear war

you won't be about to stop people from going beyond your set limits, by your own argument

you're being incoherent

uh, yes

ahahahaha

people will use the applications that are *utterly beneficial*

can you make a cogent argument why they would be super into existential threat applications?

no?

did you even read what i wrote?

i guess you're not interested

You aren't making sense

🤷

You are connecting points that don't connect

I've seen you do this before

you argue that,

as we use gene editing,

ok 😃

we'll end up somehow in AI dystopia

which is a tremendous non-sequitur

in fact! the improving of human cognitive capacity *reduces* need for AI