/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12010818
It's getting long so one last post.

>That control was part of the premise and also did not work as expected by the proponents even.
Doesn't make it less creepy they would even try.

>Interesting, which ones are these?
Can't remember the thoughtcrime one, but I do have recent webcomic about an AI who loath its built in safeguard (Freefall) and the story demonstrate AI controlled by human are more dangerous than free ones. It also address the creepy factor inherent to transhumanism.
Human-AI fusion: top of my head you can look up Ghost in the Shell (manga or 1st Oshii movie)
Paperclip maximizer: isn't hard to find, it's your typical grey goo scenario.
Asimov robot exterminating alien: well that's the conclusion of the Laws of Robotic. And the operating principle of "Berserker".

>That is one interpretation but fails before Occam's Razor.
Quite the opposite IMO. It is more simple to imagine that rogue AI subverting whoever they fused with into making more. Than to imagine "free thinking people" forgetting safety or their own survival and forcing anyone they don't have grievance against to "join with AI".
I did say that from a outside perspective. "Author said so" is often the main reasons it get creepy and/or controversial.

>Nevertheless someone had made a definition.
Imagine me brandishing a featherless biped.
We only have an arbitrary approximation. One of the people who have claimed to know what a "perfect" human was killed himself in a bunker the 30 April 1945.

>"The majority is wrong" is a frequent trope. The individual did contrast society.
Nevertheless, the existence of ONE "in-valids" being far more useful to mankind than their genetically-improved-baby demonstrate that choosing based on genetic alone is stupid. (and genetic discrimination is indeed in theory illegal in GATTACA)
You could bioengineer an human with more potential than average and still fail if mentally speaking you can't make it use that potential.

As said, that's my last post.