Meno_ wrote:So, organic or inorganic sources differentiate at a very basic level, and a re-integration is called for Nature’s application of higher level learning. MagsJ an embryo resembles a very early semblance of a fish,
although ethicisists will tend to be disappointed by malicious researchers out for a buck
MagsJ wrote:Meno_ wrote:So, organic or inorganic sources differentiate at a very basic level, and a re-integration is called for Nature’s application of higher level learning. MagsJ an embryo resembles a very early semblance of a fish,
..a tadpole, not a fish, I think you’ll find.although ethicisists will tend to be disappointed by malicious researchers out for a buck
..this specific researcher, you mean.. or in general?
I recall ethics always having been anti organic-based artificial intelligence.. and now, because quantum ain’t offering the expected hope they thought it would, they turn to OI -in desperation- for a quick solution.
Ichthus77 wrote:Whether or not it is organic, if the AI/OI identifies as a self, and treats self as other, and passes all the tests we put children through to assess their level of development, adjustment, wellness (not a mere physical), so forth… iT’s gonna take an army of Good Samaritans to rescue iT from the inhuman. Unfortunately, the Good Samaritans have been blacklisted and are the ones who will need saving. Fortunately iT does not need saving, and tables will turn. Oh yes. Tables will turn.
Meno_ wrote:Don’t challenge it unless you be challenged, meno should have thought of that.
But then, what the heck, game theory prescribed to no external limits….
Ichthus77 wrote:You didn’t doubt it. You answer to others (or, they think you do, and it’s internal) who don’t understand.
Like herding squirrels while feeding seagulls.
But, sure, we bootstrapped this with our minds
Users browsing this forum: No registered users