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

It doesn't even need to be as generally intelligent as humans, no, to be danger

we already have this technology, it's just not in widespread adoption yet

but again we can clearly argue for why relying on AI is the *false step* and commit ourselves to bettering of the species along biological lines and in away that doesn't pose existential danger

to ignore this,

to think you cannot,

would demand that humans are suicidal and have no survival instinct

again, improving general cognitive capacity of human beings

a) lessens reliance on AI
b) makes people more and more aware of all the risks of AI
c) allows people to become more and more *organically minded* as a consequence

```but again we can clearly argue for why relying on AI is the false step and commit ourselves to bettering of the species along biological lines and in away that doesn't pose existential danger```

you will not ween everyone off against buying into mutations (and doing this will be socially acceptable by that time) that seem biologically beneficial to them.

the point is that users will replace non users, always, being more healthy, productive and sexually attractive. and that mutation will become wide spread.

the better people understand the risk landscape facing us in 21st century, very much the better for *our species chances' of survival*

it isn't entirely clear to me how you would argue against this

currently, not many grasp this

the real extent of the challenge ahead

you're not saying anything at this point

@Gerçek why would we want our species' future to be determined by an AI?

I certainly don't

I know very, very few people who do

that is my question to you, fren.

I do not, no