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

jfc

this is obvious

you choose the path of the biological species improvement and consistently reject silicon and AI based solutions

you're not gonna be able to do that when AI can come up with better mutations

that are mutually beneficial to AI and the human individual

the AI hype first of all is overblown, there's no clear reason to believe that we will somehow end up in a situation where the AI progressively becomes much smarter than human beings. there are considerations of data storage, energy consumption, efficiency and processing power here which aren't clear are possible to allow for the "Superintelligent AI hypothesis".

Second of all, why would you think that people want to apply dangerous gene-editing solutions into themselves.

it doesn't have to become much smarter than human beings

that's what i said

this doesn't require a general intellegence AI