The question is what sort of ethics we want our AIs to have?
Yes, that is the question, isn’t it? Of course, to a believer in Naturalistic Ethics like myself, the only sort of ethics really stable enough to be worth thinking about is “enlightened self interest”.
Conventionally, most proposals for machine morality follow Asimov—and start by making machines subservient.
If you don’t do that—or something similar—the human era could be over pretty quickly—too quickly for many people’s tastes.
The era of agriculture and the era of manufacturing are over, but farmers and factory workers still do alright. I think humans can survive without being dominant if we play our cards right.
We have the advantage of being of historical interest—and so we will probably “survive” in historical simulations. However, it is not easy to see much of a place for slug-like creatures like us in an engineered future.
Kurzweil gave the example of bacteria—saying that they managed to survive. However, there are no traces (not even bacteria) left over from before the last genetic takeover—and that makes it less likely that much will make it through this one.
There are no traces left over from before the last genetic takeover …
Plenty of traces left from the last takeover. You apparently mean no traces left from that first, mythical takeover—the one where clay became flesh.
… and that makes it less likely that much will make it through this one.
I’m tempted to ask “Why won’t there still be monkeys?”. But it is probably more to the point to simply express my faith that there will be a niche for descendants of humans and traces of humans (cyborgs) in this brave new ecology.
Humans as-we-know-them won’t be around a million years from now, even under a scenario of old-fashioned biological evolution.
You are talking about RNA to DNA? I was talking about the takeovers before that.
Whether you describe RNA to DNA as a “takeover” depends on what you mean by the term. The issue is whether an “upgrade” is a “takeover”. The other issue is whether it really was just an upgrade—but that seems fairly likely.
I wasn’t talking about a mythical takeover—just one of the ones before RNA.
There may not be monkeys for much longer—this is a pretty massive mass extinction—it seems quite likely that all the vertebrates will go.
There are no traces left over from before the last genetic takeover
A phenotypic takeover may be a highly significant event—but it should surely not be categorised as a genetic takeover. That term surely ought to refer to genes being replaced by other genes.
Conventionally, most proposals for machine morality follow Asimov—and start by making machines subservient.
If you don’t do that—or something similar—the human era could be over pretty quickly—too quickly for many people’s tastes.
The era of agriculture and the era of manufacturing are over, but farmers and factory workers still do alright. I think humans can survive without being dominant if we play our cards right.
We have the advantage of being of historical interest—and so we will probably “survive” in historical simulations. However, it is not easy to see much of a place for slug-like creatures like us in an engineered future.
Kurzweil gave the example of bacteria—saying that they managed to survive. However, there are no traces (not even bacteria) left over from before the last genetic takeover—and that makes it less likely that much will make it through this one.
Plenty of traces left from the last takeover. You apparently mean no traces left from that first, mythical takeover—the one where clay became flesh.
I’m tempted to ask “Why won’t there still be monkeys?”. But it is probably more to the point to simply express my faith that there will be a niche for descendants of humans and traces of humans (cyborgs) in this brave new ecology.
Humans as-we-know-them won’t be around a million years from now, even under a scenario of old-fashioned biological evolution.
You are talking about RNA to DNA? I was talking about the takeovers before that.
Whether you describe RNA to DNA as a “takeover” depends on what you mean by the term. The issue is whether an “upgrade” is a “takeover”. The other issue is whether it really was just an upgrade—but that seems fairly likely.
I wasn’t talking about a mythical takeover—just one of the ones before RNA.
There may not be monkeys for much longer—this is a pretty massive mass extinction—it seems quite likely that all the vertebrates will go.
I was referring to DNA → RNA → protein taking over from RNA → RNA.
A change in the meaning and expression of genes is more significant than a minor change in the chemical nature of genes.
Right—but I originally said;
A phenotypic takeover may be a highly significant event—but it should surely not be categorised as a genetic takeover. That term surely ought to refer to genes being replaced by other genes.