/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11240358
t.meatbag

The amount of virgin meatpilled anons on this board is disappointing

>>9872313
Genetic augmentation will only work for the near future, the far future and the stars belong to post-humans.

>>9821213

>>9704514
https://intelligence.org/files/AIPosNegFactor.pdf

The most probable way we would develop the ability to scan a human brain neuron
by neuron—in sufficient detail to capture every cognitively relevant aspect of neural
structure—would be the invention of sophisticated molecular nanotechnology. Molecular nanotechnology could probably produce a desktop computer with total processing power exceeding the aggregate brainpower of the entire current human population (Bostrom 1998; Moravec 1999; Merkle and Drexler 1996; Sandberg 1999).
Furthermore, if technology permits us to scan a brain in sufficient fidelity to execute the scan as code, it follows that for some years previously, the technology has been available to obtain extremely detailed pictures of processing in neural circuitry, and presumably researchers have been doing their best to understand it.
Furthermore, to upgrade the upload—transform the brain scan so as to increase the intelligence of the mind within—we must necessarily understand the high-level functions of the brain, and how they contribute usefully to intelligence, in excellent detail.
Furthermore, humans are not designed to be improved, either by outside neuroscientists,
or by recursive self-improvement internally. Natural selection did not build the human brain to be humanly hackable. All complex machinery in the brain has adapted to operate within narrow parameters of brain design. Suppose you can make the human smarter, let alone superintelligent; does the human remain sane? The human brain is very easy to perturb; just changing the balance of neurotransmitters can trigger schizophrenia, or other disorders. Deacon (1997) has an excellent discussion of the evolution of the human brain, how delicately the brain’s elements may be balanced, and how this is reflected in modern brain dysfunctions. The human brain is not end-user-modifiable.

>>9677534
>>9677545

>>9644253
You're stupid if you think AI won't eventually be vastly superior to a human brain. It takes 18 years to raise 1 generation of humans, whereas an AGI could rewrite its code in 18 seconds.

What will your reaction be when it turns out the transhumanists were right all along?