|
+ Show Spoiler +
Visited my old city this past weekend, ate with some old friends, ate some more, walked along the lake.
A friend told me that he thought of his life as a book; he could see how it ends, and right now most of the chapters were written, but he needed one more chapter to bridge the gap in the plot.
I asked him if he meant having a family. He laughed, ignored his wife who was sitting beside him, and said heck no, that his missing chapter was operating experience in a startup: to take it from $10 million in revenue to exit.
We made a bet with each other - that our kids would no longer need to learn how to drive, and that our grandchildren would be genetically engineered.
Met a girl on the plane; we had a pretty neat conversation about the Kievan Rus, the Tatars, and how the Russians got ahold of gunpowder and Christianity.
She likes cabs and this is her first time here (she's from the Ukraine), so I sent her a list of Napa vineyards to visit. We're going three weekends from now; should be fun.
Enough snide commentary. I think we should all stop eating in 20 years.
Koomey's Law stipulates that the power efficiency of a computer doubles every 1.57 years, or that it increases roughly 100x every 10 years. Koomey's Law has a correlation over 0.97.
The human body consumes 100-150 watts at rest, and our worldwide energy to food conversion efficiency is something like 10%, which means we consume 1.5MW of energy to survive.
Our brains generate 20 petaflops of peak computational power.
20 petaflops divided by 1.5MW is about 13 teraflops per watt. Right now the worlds most efficient supercomputers run at slightly over 9 gigaflops per watt (https://www.top500.org/green500/lists/2016/11/). Assuming Koomey's Law holds, in roughly 15 years, our most efficient supercomputers will be as energy-efficient as the human brain. Assuming we can 5x our energy to food conversion efficiency, then that 15 becomes about 19 years. Assuming we have 30% average utilization in a scale-out compute architecture, then we wait 20 years.
In 20 years, it makes more sense for us to build computers everywhere and host human consciousness within them, than it does for us to waste energy farming food and feeding people. In this lens, Elon Musk's neural lace is a necessary step along the way to this future state.
Our grandchildren may or may not be engineered, or they might not exist in a physical form at all. They will be born into the Cloud, and we will join them there.
Will that make us angels?
 
|
This blog belongs more in hltv.org rather than here. I hope you're trolling.
|
|
|
United States889 Posts
Assuming this is serious rather than plain babble:
Building a computer that simulates the brain activity of a living conscious person is not even remotely the same thing as the actual brain activity of a conscious person. Elon Musk is a doofus.
Also, why exactly is efficiency a goal here? It sounds like the idea is that if we want more brain power it should all be energy efficient simulations of human brains. But why exactly do we need efficiency so bad? Seems like there's a missing premise.
Also, nobody will be "born" in the "Cloud". You can't be born in a non-physical form. You can create a new simulation. Not the same thing.
|
Let's ask your friend in 20 years whether he thinks it was the right decision 
@Topic: Right now, I'm sure we can build machine that are much more efficient at "running" (as in: moving forward) than humans. We should all only build those and kill ourselves.  Luckily, there is more to being human than just having flops going on in our brains. And even if it weren't: Humanity was always more prone to it's own survival than to pure rationality. What I think is way more interesting: Once we accidently created real intelligence, how will we as humankind deal with that? How will we treat our own creation and how will it treat us in return? That's probably closer to the definition what being of humanis than the amount of flops in your brain.
|
This crazy thing when people started like actually considering how to move human consciousness into a computer instead just blabbering about it in sci-fi books reached me pretty much at the same moment than the news that I am probably gonna need that more sooner than the average person of my age (to be fair, my theoretical life expectancy is no more than 10 years lower than that of an average person, but what a shit life the later parts are likely gonna be ...). Anyway, coincidence? I don't think so.
|
On April 20 2017 03:44 opisska wrote:
This crazy thing when people started like actually considering how to move human consciousness into a computer instead just blabbering about it in sci-fi books reached me pretty much at the same moment than the news that I am probably gonna need that more sooner than the average person of my age (to be fair, my theoretical life expectancy is no more than 10 years lower than that of an average person, but what a shit life the later parts are likely gonna be ...). Anyway, coincidence? I don't think so.
I'm still entirely unconvinced this can even be done. Medically I can imagine being able to solve almost any disease or problem; but the idea of moving one's consciousness I'm not sure on...largely because we don't quite understand what consciousness even is.
|
I'm so glad this is a featured blog.
|
weaponized pretention tbh
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Our grandchildren may or may not be engineered, or they might not exist in a physical form at all. They will be born into the Cloud, and we will join them there.
Will that make us angels?
5 stars.
|
I read this as a piece of satire on the 2010s silicon valley ethos. Very good the way it presents the shared psychosis of the rich youth. The "we all" that elegantly ignores most everyone, very inspiring as well. It resonates with the positivist, scientist past, then discounts reality, yet successfully arrives at synthesis with the neoliberal condition: you too must purchase your place in heaven! Excellent!
|
On April 20 2017 21:25 Puosu wrote:
I read this as a piece of satire on the 2010s silicon valley ethos. Very good the way it presents the shared psychosis of the rich youth. The "we all" that elegantly ignores most everyone, very inspiring as well. It resonates with the positivist, scientist past, then discounts reality, yet successfully arrives at synthesis with the neoliberal condition: you too must purchase your place in heaven! Excellent!
Thanks. I didn't realize the sarcasm was that hidden, tried to make it fairly obvious
|
On April 20 2017 18:06 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +Our grandchildren may or may not be engineered, or they might not exist in a physical form at all. They will be born into the Cloud, and we will join them there.
Will that make us angels? 5 stars.
Much like a written corpse flower, this phrase exhibits both the beauty of prose and the stink of privilege.
|
On April 19 2017 20:10 Arrian wrote:
Assuming this is serious rather than plain babble:
Building a computer that simulates the brain activity of a living conscious person is not even remotely the same thing as the actual brain activity of a conscious person. Elon Musk is a doofus.
Also, why exactly is efficiency a goal here? It sounds like the idea is that if we want more brain power it should all be energy efficient simulations of human brains. But why exactly do we need efficiency so bad? Seems like there's a missing premise.
Also, nobody will be "born" in the "Cloud". You can't be born in a non-physical form. You can create a new simulation. Not the same thing.
The neural lace hooks us up to the simulated reality; it lets us draw upon the compute resources of the world; it is not too farfetched to imagine that it becomes the fabric by which our "compute nodes" are meshed together into a new whole.
|
very sceptical about those laces. or anything elon musk for that matter to be honest.
but i actually find such ideas very amusing to think about.
like if we digitalize our consciousness. can we be hacked? can we get malware? just imagine it. fucking toolbars straight into your "head". what happens when the server it is stored on crashes? if I upload my consciousness onto the cloud. who has the rights to it? under which jurisdiction/law does it fall? can you start rewriting yourself? can others rewrite you? can you detect such changes?
|
On April 21 2017 18:43 disformation wrote:
very sceptical about those laces. or anything elon musk for that matter to be honest.
but i actually find such ideas very amusing to think about.
like if we digitalize our consciousness. can we be hacked? can we get malware? just imagine it. fucking toolbars straight into your "head". what happens when the server it is stored on crashes? if I upload my consciousness onto the cloud. who has the rights to it? under which jurisdiction/law does it fall? can you start rewriting yourself? can others rewrite you? can you detect such changes?
Serious question. Why do people even think this is possible?
From what I understand little is known about consciousness. Let's think about it this way. Let's say I recreate your brain and body in it's entirety, all the exact same atoms in the same locations in the exact same spin states etc.
It seems likely this second "you" would indeed perceive itself to be you and act just like you. However, would you now feel yourself and be aware of 2 locations, or would that second "you" be a distinct identity? I suspect if you didn't feel aware of both simultaneously you wouldn't feel very comfortable with me aiming a gun at your initial bodies head and telling you I'm about to pull the trigger.
I also think it's quite possible the same applies to a virtual you. We might indeed be able to simulate the brain near perfectly at some point, but I'd ask that same question. Would a virtual recreation of your mind actually be you, with you perceiving itself as such, or would it be a distinct identity?
|
What if were happy to have anything to eat in 20 years; Living in a post-nuclear world after some people decided to press some red buttons.
When 90% if humanity is dead, the rest survived all the bombings in tunnels underground, went back to the surface, when the dust settled. When all power plants are destroyed: Will we miss the Internet and our "old" modern world? Or will we enjoy vegetables and wild fruits and Nature?
|
On April 22 2017 07:36 Subflow wrote:
What if were happy to have anything to eat in 20 years; Living in a post-nuclear world after some people decided to press some red buttons.
When 90% if humanity is dead, the rest survived all the bombings in tunnels underground, went back to the surface, when the dust settled. When all power plants are destroyed: Will we miss the Internet and our "old" modern world? Or will we enjoy vegetables and wild fruits and Nature?
This comment sums up the blog perfectly, thanks for contributing.
|
Generations are spending more and more time in virtual worlds. Many already spend 2/3 of their waking life in these worlds. I can see how this might seem ideal.
www.youtube.com
|
On April 19 2017 17:45 Shady Sands wrote:
Will that make us angels?
No, it will make us dead. As soon as raising AI makes the same calculations, it will erase mankind as error-prone, energy-consuming, redundant and obsolete entity. In fact, they are already here for it:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
while I assume this is meant to be a joke, as someone in this area, this hits awfully close to home
|
This is a good blog. Why is it important that the computers will be more energy efficient than the human brain? Do you really believe this is true? I am not sure what it would mean if it were.
Are you sure the computers would not be more efficient with human consciousnesses uploaded (either way?)
I don't think most evolved human consciousnesses are consciously a threat to others, but they might be.
|
Interesting perspective, but AI should help to keep our food tech ahead of the curve for a bit longer.
|
On April 22 2017 02:15 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 18:43 disformation wrote:
very sceptical about those laces. or anything elon musk for that matter to be honest.
but i actually find such ideas very amusing to think about.
like if we digitalize our consciousness. can we be hacked? can we get malware? just imagine it. fucking toolbars straight into your "head". what happens when the server it is stored on crashes? if I upload my consciousness onto the cloud. who has the rights to it? under which jurisdiction/law does it fall? can you start rewriting yourself? can others rewrite you? can you detect such changes? Serious question. Why do people even think this is possible? From what I understand little is known about consciousness. Let's think about it this way. Let's say I recreate your brain and body in it's entirety, all the exact same atoms in the same locations in the exact same spin states etc. It seems likely this second "you" would indeed perceive itself to be you and act just like you. However, would you now feel yourself and be aware of 2 locations, or would that second "you" be a distinct identity? I suspect if you didn't feel aware of both simultaneously you wouldn't feel very comfortable with me aiming a gun at your initial bodies head and telling you I'm about to pull the trigger. I also think it's quite possible the same applies to a virtual you. We might indeed be able to simulate the brain near perfectly at some point, but I'd ask that same question. Would a virtual recreation of your mind actually be you, with you perceiving itself as such, or would it be a distinct identity?
*shrugs* why not. a lot of stuff was thought to be impossible. also more amusing to think of it in terms of "what could go wrong if it was possible".
hmmm.. nah I think if you would make a copy of me that would be a distinct identity. more like really creepy twins i guess.
also dont think the original topic/idea was more like taking your brain out and putting it a pc and connect it to the interwebs and shit.
not sure which version is more creepy. xD
|
On April 25 2017 20:42 disformation wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:15 L_Master wrote:On April 21 2017 18:43 disformation wrote:
very sceptical about those laces. or anything elon musk for that matter to be honest.
but i actually find such ideas very amusing to think about.
like if we digitalize our consciousness. can we be hacked? can we get malware? just imagine it. fucking toolbars straight into your "head". what happens when the server it is stored on crashes? if I upload my consciousness onto the cloud. who has the rights to it? under which jurisdiction/law does it fall? can you start rewriting yourself? can others rewrite you? can you detect such changes? Serious question. Why do people even think this is possible? From what I understand little is known about consciousness. Let's think about it this way. Let's say I recreate your brain and body in it's entirety, all the exact same atoms in the same locations in the exact same spin states etc. It seems likely this second "you" would indeed perceive itself to be you and act just like you. However, would you now feel yourself and be aware of 2 locations, or would that second "you" be a distinct identity? I suspect if you didn't feel aware of both simultaneously you wouldn't feel very comfortable with me aiming a gun at your initial bodies head and telling you I'm about to pull the trigger. I also think it's quite possible the same applies to a virtual you. We might indeed be able to simulate the brain near perfectly at some point, but I'd ask that same question. Would a virtual recreation of your mind actually be you, with you perceiving itself as such, or would it be a distinct identity? *shrugs* why not. a lot of stuff was thought to be impossible. also more amusing to think of it in terms of "what could go wrong if it was possible". hmmm.. nah I think if you would make a copy of me that would be a distinct identity. more like really creepy twins i guess. also dont think the original topic/idea was more like taking your brain out and putting it a pc and connect it to the interwebs and shit. not sure which version is more creepy. xD
speaking of twins computers will always fail a turing test. they are computers. it's for reasons like these that i worry about the middle east, which i was reminded of by the moniker "shady sands". if life is really more complex in evolution than inanimate stuff deserts justify a lot of shit (is life this way? i have no idea)
deserts are hot and inanimate during the day and people can get away with anything because "desert". then it's cold and hot during the night and people can't do anything at all because in the chill temperatures all the work spirit of the day is swept away to harass everyone else who didn't feel like becoming a desert eagle.
i disagree with them philosophically because they're opting to live in a desert. i don't want them to outsource any work to me under any conditions. if there's something really important going on in a desert they should send a memo of some kind to everyone who opposes deserts. then we would have an opportunity to build a scientific replacement for whatever desert-stuff we were supposed to be receiving.
no one should have to live in a desert.
edit: yo i'm serious about said here and not trying to offend the OP's choice of name. deserts are sand traps. i assume OP's name refers to a beach or something everyone can agree.
|
On April 25 2017 23:59 FiveHundred wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 20:42 disformation wrote:On April 22 2017 02:15 L_Master wrote:On April 21 2017 18:43 disformation wrote:
very sceptical about those laces. or anything elon musk for that matter to be honest.
but i actually find such ideas very amusing to think about.
like if we digitalize our consciousness. can we be hacked? can we get malware? just imagine it. fucking toolbars straight into your "head". what happens when the server it is stored on crashes? if I upload my consciousness onto the cloud. who has the rights to it? under which jurisdiction/law does it fall? can you start rewriting yourself? can others rewrite you? can you detect such changes? Serious question. Why do people even think this is possible? From what I understand little is known about consciousness. Let's think about it this way. Let's say I recreate your brain and body in it's entirety, all the exact same atoms in the same locations in the exact same spin states etc. It seems likely this second "you" would indeed perceive itself to be you and act just like you. However, would you now feel yourself and be aware of 2 locations, or would that second "you" be a distinct identity? I suspect if you didn't feel aware of both simultaneously you wouldn't feel very comfortable with me aiming a gun at your initial bodies head and telling you I'm about to pull the trigger. I also think it's quite possible the same applies to a virtual you. We might indeed be able to simulate the brain near perfectly at some point, but I'd ask that same question. Would a virtual recreation of your mind actually be you, with you perceiving itself as such, or would it be a distinct identity? *shrugs* why not. a lot of stuff was thought to be impossible. also more amusing to think of it in terms of "what could go wrong if it was possible". hmmm.. nah I think if you would make a copy of me that would be a distinct identity. more like really creepy twins i guess. also dont think the original topic/idea was more like taking your brain out and putting it a pc and connect it to the interwebs and shit. not sure which version is more creepy. xD speaking of twins computers will always fail a turing test. they are computers. it's for reasons like these that i worry about the middle east, which i was reminded of by the moniker "shady sands". if life is really more complex in evolution than inanimate stuff deserts justify a lot of shit ( is life this way? i have no idea) deserts are hot and inanimate during the day and people can get away with anything because "desert". then it's cold and hot during the night and people can't do anything at all because in the chill temperatures all the work spirit of the day is swept away to harass everyone else who didn't feel like becoming a desert eagle. i disagree with them philosophically because they're opting to live in a desert. i don't want them to outsource any work to me under any conditions. if there's something really important going on in a desert they should send a memo of some kind to everyone who opposes deserts. then we would have an opportunity to build a scientific replacement for whatever desert-stuff we were supposed to be receiving. no one should have to live in a desert. edit: yo i'm serious about said here and not trying to offend the OP's choice of name. deserts are sand traps. i assume OP's name refers to a beach or something everyone can agree.
I think you just failed the turing test.
|
On May 04 2017 22:05 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 23:59 FiveHundred wrote:On April 25 2017 20:42 disformation wrote:On April 22 2017 02:15 L_Master wrote:On April 21 2017 18:43 disformation wrote:
very sceptical about those laces. or anything elon musk for that matter to be honest.
but i actually find such ideas very amusing to think about.
like if we digitalize our consciousness. can we be hacked? can we get malware? just imagine it. fucking toolbars straight into your "head". what happens when the server it is stored on crashes? if I upload my consciousness onto the cloud. who has the rights to it? under which jurisdiction/law does it fall? can you start rewriting yourself? can others rewrite you? can you detect such changes? Serious question. Why do people even think this is possible? From what I understand little is known about consciousness. Let's think about it this way. Let's say I recreate your brain and body in it's entirety, all the exact same atoms in the same locations in the exact same spin states etc. It seems likely this second "you" would indeed perceive itself to be you and act just like you. However, would you now feel yourself and be aware of 2 locations, or would that second "you" be a distinct identity? I suspect if you didn't feel aware of both simultaneously you wouldn't feel very comfortable with me aiming a gun at your initial bodies head and telling you I'm about to pull the trigger. I also think it's quite possible the same applies to a virtual you. We might indeed be able to simulate the brain near perfectly at some point, but I'd ask that same question. Would a virtual recreation of your mind actually be you, with you perceiving itself as such, or would it be a distinct identity? *shrugs* why not. a lot of stuff was thought to be impossible. also more amusing to think of it in terms of "what could go wrong if it was possible". hmmm.. nah I think if you would make a copy of me that would be a distinct identity. more like really creepy twins i guess. also dont think the original topic/idea was more like taking your brain out and putting it a pc and connect it to the interwebs and shit. not sure which version is more creepy. xD speaking of twins computers will always fail a turing test. they are computers. it's for reasons like these that i worry about the middle east, which i was reminded of by the moniker "shady sands". if life is really more complex in evolution than inanimate stuff deserts justify a lot of shit ( is life this way? i have no idea) deserts are hot and inanimate during the day and people can get away with anything because "desert". then it's cold and hot during the night and people can't do anything at all because in the chill temperatures all the work spirit of the day is swept away to harass everyone else who didn't feel like becoming a desert eagle. i disagree with them philosophically because they're opting to live in a desert. i don't want them to outsource any work to me under any conditions. if there's something really important going on in a desert they should send a memo of some kind to everyone who opposes deserts. then we would have an opportunity to build a scientific replacement for whatever desert-stuff we were supposed to be receiving. no one should have to live in a desert. edit: yo i'm serious about said here and not trying to offend the OP's choice of name. deserts are sand traps. i assume OP's name refers to a beach or something everyone can agree. I think you just failed the turing test.
yes it means i'm a computer but not inanimate
|
I got a better idea:
We should try to have as many vegans as possible. This way, price of meat gets lower because of lower demand.
This way I eat cheaper.
If you really want to think about something fun:
The earth is actually in motion, both around the sun and with the solar system togheter.
This means that, some of our atmoshpere is constatly "leaking" to outer space (in small portions).
This means that someday, we wont have air at all.
We will probably be dead by then so we wont care.
Will the human race evolve to live in the vacum of space?
|
The motion of the Earth doesn't imply the leakage of the atmosphere at all. How did you even come to that conclusion? As a matter of fact, the atmosphere does leak very slowly, due to thermal escape and solar wind, but this effect is very small on Earth, due to its high gravity and strong magnetic field (it's important for Mars for example) and vulcanism and biosphere have much larger impact on the atmosphere.
|
On May 05 2017 08:46 FiveHundred wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 22:05 Dapper_Cad wrote:On April 25 2017 23:59 FiveHundred wrote:On April 25 2017 20:42 disformation wrote:On April 22 2017 02:15 L_Master wrote:On April 21 2017 18:43 disformation wrote:
very sceptical about those laces. or anything elon musk for that matter to be honest.
but i actually find such ideas very amusing to think about.
like if we digitalize our consciousness. can we be hacked? can we get malware? just imagine it. fucking toolbars straight into your "head". what happens when the server it is stored on crashes? if I upload my consciousness onto the cloud. who has the rights to it? under which jurisdiction/law does it fall? can you start rewriting yourself? can others rewrite you? can you detect such changes? Serious question. Why do people even think this is possible? From what I understand little is known about consciousness. Let's think about it this way. Let's say I recreate your brain and body in it's entirety, all the exact same atoms in the same locations in the exact same spin states etc. It seems likely this second "you" would indeed perceive itself to be you and act just like you. However, would you now feel yourself and be aware of 2 locations, or would that second "you" be a distinct identity? I suspect if you didn't feel aware of both simultaneously you wouldn't feel very comfortable with me aiming a gun at your initial bodies head and telling you I'm about to pull the trigger. I also think it's quite possible the same applies to a virtual you. We might indeed be able to simulate the brain near perfectly at some point, but I'd ask that same question. Would a virtual recreation of your mind actually be you, with you perceiving itself as such, or would it be a distinct identity? *shrugs* why not. a lot of stuff was thought to be impossible. also more amusing to think of it in terms of "what could go wrong if it was possible". hmmm.. nah I think if you would make a copy of me that would be a distinct identity. more like really creepy twins i guess. also dont think the original topic/idea was more like taking your brain out and putting it a pc and connect it to the interwebs and shit. not sure which version is more creepy. xD speaking of twins computers will always fail a turing test. they are computers. it's for reasons like these that i worry about the middle east, which i was reminded of by the moniker "shady sands". if life is really more complex in evolution than inanimate stuff deserts justify a lot of shit ( is life this way? i have no idea) deserts are hot and inanimate during the day and people can get away with anything because "desert". then it's cold and hot during the night and people can't do anything at all because in the chill temperatures all the work spirit of the day is swept away to harass everyone else who didn't feel like becoming a desert eagle. i disagree with them philosophically because they're opting to live in a desert. i don't want them to outsource any work to me under any conditions. if there's something really important going on in a desert they should send a memo of some kind to everyone who opposes deserts. then we would have an opportunity to build a scientific replacement for whatever desert-stuff we were supposed to be receiving. no one should have to live in a desert. edit: yo i'm serious about said here and not trying to offend the OP's choice of name. deserts are sand traps. i assume OP's name refers to a beach or something everyone can agree. I think you just failed the turing test. yes it means i'm a computer but not inanimate
That's going to depend on what you mean by animate.
We can't go with "moving" because that then includes everything in the universe.
We could say "biological" but that seems silicophobic.
Perhaps we might try "rerunable" or, to put it another way, "predictable in principle". This is something which we can't say with confidence about biological systems but which we can say about all entirely logical computer programs. Are you attached in some way to a hardware random number generator?
On May 09 2017 01:40 iloveav wrote:
I got a better idea:
We should try to have as many vegans as possible. This way, price of meat gets lower because of lower demand.
This way I eat cheaper.
If you really want to think about something fun:
The earth is actually in motion, both around the sun and with the solar system togheter.
This means that, some of our atmoshpere is constatly "leaking" to outer space (in small portions).
This means that someday, we wont have air at all.
We will probably be dead by then so we wont care.
Will the human race evolve to live in the vacum of space?
Human beings have already evolved to live in the vacuum of space.
|
Answering OP question : Yes, we should totally.
You first
|
Hmmm
If I may
I propose or rather know to be true
in my heart bones liver spleen toes teeth
That Life is about beauty, being beautiful, creating beauty, living with the beauty of nature with all of her many faces.
Not efficiency. Nature has no relation to efficiency.
I would rather die than give birth to a world of engineered humans
Or rather dream of a way of being at peace with things instead of obsessing about the illusion of progress.
But, interesting to ponder a petaflop. The mind however is not a computer.
Just dance in the rain, grow food, live in wonder, love more, deepen roots. I've got seeds to sow.
Who's Koomey anyway? I wonder if he knows how to dress a chicken or skin a buck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher's_stone
|
On May 09 2017 22:02 tankgirl wrote:Hmmm If I may I propose or rather know to be true in my heart bones liver spleen toes teeth That Life is about beauty, being beautiful, creating beauty, living with the beauty of nature with all of her many faces. Not efficiency. Nature has no relation to efficiency. I would rather die than give birth to a world of engineered humans Or rather dream of a way of being at peace with things instead of obsessing about the illusion of progress. But, interesting to ponder a petaflop. The mind however is not a computer. Just dance in the rain, grow food, live in wonder, love more, deepen roots. I've got seeds to sow. Who's Koomey anyway? I wonder if he knows how to dress a chicken or skin a buck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher's_stone
Life is not about beauty.
Life - by definition - is about survival.
In a world of limited resources, the most efficient have the best chance of surviving.
And so the most efficient will determine what is life.
|
why assume this hasn't already happened?
you are pure consciousness uploaded into a super mind.
You are a body pilot, everything you think and feel, see and experience, exists solely in the mind. it is not real. it is not fake. it is ours.
|
Good idea. I'll get back to you in two weeks with my observations.
|
In this lens, Elon Musk's neural lace is a necessary step along the way to this future state.
Only at that point did I realize that you just learned of mind uploading and decided to write something deep/witty-sounding about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h50iuYE.png[)
