Need your order in time for Christmas? Check out our Holiday Shipping Deadlines.

 
Return to Main Discussion Page

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions

 
 

Drew

13 Days Ago

Just A Matter Of Time

Genetically engineered humans. What is your opinion on this development? A Chinese scientist claims that he genetically engineered twin girls to be immune to HIV.

https://www.apnews.com/4997bb7aa36c45449b488e19ac83e86d

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Kevin Callahan

13 Days Ago

The topic said it, just a matter of time.

 

Uther Pendraggin

13 Days Ago

It's a Brave New World.

 

Doug Swanson

13 Days Ago

They will have to be genetically modified to not experience boredom, since everything else a human might do will already be done by a programmed device. Your car will drive itself to sites where your camera will decide what to point at and then process the image, your food will be the outcome of a programmed diet, your purchases will be determined based on your budget, painters will just tell the device what to paint today (done in a few minutes), entertainment will be delivered so you don't ever have to leave your couch.....it all just goes on.

Nevertheless, one day, un-engineered humans remnants will rebel and pull the plug.

 

"...He told the AP. “Society will decide what to do next” ..." Hum? Somehow that does not re-assure my faith in the present trajectory.

 

Roger Swezey

13 Days Ago

To me, evolution (some might say is "God's Plan) is So Strong that it has been able withstand challenges to it's "natural" progression.

These interventions whether conscious or unplanned, whether being "improvements" or "destructive", they have always been dealt with, and evolution has so far survived, by ADAPTATION.

 

Drew

13 Days Ago

Here is another relative article.
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting

The "Genie" is not containable because the temptation is too great for parents with means to produce children who have built in advantages.

Baby spects:
Hair color
Skin tone
IQ range
Artistic
Muscle density
So forth and so on

 

Kathleen Bishop

13 Days Ago

I think it's just a matter of time before this gets shut down.

 

Chuck De La Rosa

13 Days Ago

X2 what Drew said. Scary stuff. Has the potential to be a good thing but of course someone will take it in a direction that's not good. Watch the movie Gattaca. Not too much of a stretch I think.

 

From the article "...this kind of gene editing is banned in the United States because the DNA changes can pass to future generations and it risks harming other genes."

This alone should make folks shutter. Especially since we have a hard time tracking down everyday issues that are found in our food industry and claimed to be because of some pesticides and genetically altered fruits and veggies. There is a huge movement against vaccines!

This kind of thing might be a true meeting place for traditional and progressive thinkers to agree on and abort.

 

A less invasive and simplistic example is to be seen in the processing of Aspirin, as a commercial product, from the chemistry of White Willow Bark. Removing of the "Inert" (unnecessary trace elements) materials allowed aspirin to become a viable commodity for distribution. But in doing so it was later found that the purified version induced stomach-bleeding - which of course made it hazardous to many folks.Whereas, using white willow bark in a tea-form created no such effect. Scientists were at a lose to explain what inert (or combination) could rectify the situation.

What we sometimes think is 'inert', unnecessary, proves to be a most sticky bone of contention - where nature is concerned. I dare say our enthusiasm with AI will be so tested.

Personally, I am searching for a comprehensive definition to be formed as to what Intuition might be. Until a better handle is comprehended for intuition, our machines are not going to suggest the best for their human cohorts.

 

Ken Krug

13 Days Ago

Reminds me of the novel, The Sendai.

 

Drew

13 Days Ago

"I think it's just a matter of time before this gets shut down."
Kathleen, if you are referring to the thread, it will not if the members who choose to participate follow FAA's rules of usage and civil discourse continues. So far, the discourse seems civil.

 

Kathleen Bishop

13 Days Ago

it wasn't meant as a criticism, Drew, just an observation.

 

Drew

13 Days Ago

Our society has all ready dealt with this before during the time of eugenics.

https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics


I know Kathleen and you are right to bring this up. I'm glad you did. It wasn't taken as criticism. Thanks!

 

Kevin Callahan

13 Days Ago

The "open door" will be elegantly simple. It will go something like this:
I want (need) to keep my sick child alive, I have the money and wherewithal to do so. Society be hanged. Once this is done the door will be opened for some, then many, then all.

 

David Bridburg

13 Days Ago

This is in its infancy. Pun not intended. LOL

Seriously, for medical purposes in infants to adults gene editing will become a must. Particularly to fight bacteria and viruses. Doctor's offices will have access to rapid testing and treatments.

But mothers' eggs and sperm is a totally different matter. The ethics need working out in advance as legal code. We are moving far to slow. These things need to be worked out possibly globally. My biggest concern is infants suffering needlessly. That will be very unethical.

Dave

 

Drew

13 Days Ago

According to the Chinese Doctor, he has already breached the moral and ethical limits. There is no reason to think this will not be done again behind closed doors. In fact, based on the historical attempt and failure to completely contain nuclear proliferation, customizing children is likely and can be hidden from society. Those who can afford to give their children advantages will do so. It is no different than putting braces on your little bucktoothed precious child. Only difference is, in the case of customized children, the grandchildren will not need braces.

It is naive to think that what this doctor had done will not be repeated again and again.
Many Athletes have been doping just to win gold metals. It is not unreasonable to expect this same mentality would perpetuate a genetic advantage if one could create attributes that enhances athletics.
Imagine a human vs A.I arms race. Humans constantly staying ahead of A.I. through genetic engineering. At least a few selected humans.

 

Tony Murray

13 Days Ago

All of this will not be determined by do's or don'ts on an ethical scale. These types of engineering "experiments" will continue exponentially because they will be market driven. Blue pill or red pill?

 

Uther Pendraggin

13 Days Ago

Copied from Glenn who copied it from the article.

"From the article '...this kind of gene editing is banned in the United States because the DNA changes can pass to future generations and it risks harming other genes.'"

There is a problem with this reasoning, however. After the Mapping of the genome it was discovered that the "answer" just gave us new questions. In this case there is the new field of "Epigenetics." where proteins turn on and off bits and pieces of the DNA. And these changes are intergenerational. Things that identical twins do during their lifetimes has the effect of changing the identical nature of their DNA.

By ruling that we can't alter the prebirth gene because of what it might do to the offspring of those altered babies (at maturity) opens the door to making things like inhaling second hand smoke being ruled a crime against future generations. Or anorexia/bulimia. Or Over eating. Or Diet Soda. or or or or or ... Glenn, I think you and I can agree that when the door is opened it becomes a pathway paved with "Good Intentions." We agree where that pathway leads (I think we would, anyway. I'm sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth.)

I have heard arguments that lament that the children may be susceptible to This That and the other Thing, as if a child without the anti AIDS modification somehow isn't at risk of those "T's."

I do find it odd that the Dr. chose HIV to exemplify this process. Is AIDS that big in China that it needs to be preempted?

OTOH. if this works and we can eradicate illnesses by starving the virus, that, to me. sounds like a very good idea. (But I don't own a pharma corp that wants to sell a "life saving" drug cocktail that costs a Life Savings.)

PLAU
UPD

 

Robert Kernodle

13 Days Ago

I find myself liking the idea of being able to create [notice I use "create", not 'engineer"] humans who can experience longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives.

We've engineered our habitats to allow this. We've engineered our crop growing practices to allow this. ... our transportation, storage, cleanliness, safety. We constantly flirt with improving appearances. Why not get to the source of it all and just make changes at the most basic level ?

We are born engineers/creators. That's what humans do.

 

MM Anderson

13 Days Ago

To quote the character of Ian Malcom in "Jurrasic Park" -“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

I'm sure the genie is out of the bottle so to speak with genetic engineering of humans. I think it has the potential to do as much unintended harm as it does to do good and we humans don't always have a great track record with how we utilize scientific advancements. I don't think our understanding is sufficient to really know what the outcome of tinkering with the human genome at this point could be.

 

Drew

13 Days Ago

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

Reply:
This is how Robert Oppenheimer reacted when the first A. Bombs were deployed.

 

Chuck De La Rosa

13 Days Ago

BTW, this Dr. violated his OWN ethical recommendations on the subject. Recommendations he has made to the scientific community. So yes he stopped to think about it. He went ahead and did it anyway.

How far away are designer babies? Even if this is outlawed world wide, there will be a black market for it.

Another good book series is the "Beggers in Spain" trilogy by Nancy Kress. What the negative possibilities hold for human genetic engineering.

 

Yuri Tomashevi

13 Days Ago

The technology itself is just neutral. It is up to people, and society to decide what to do with technology. For example, an electricity could lighten up our homes or it could execute a people on an electric chairs.

Same goes with genetic engineering. The difference is that electricity and most previous technologies were dealing with environment outside human body. Genetic engineering and alike are technologies working inside human body.

There are three big problems here.

A first problem - as Yuval Harari pointed out - is that a human stupidity is a huge driving force in our history.

A second problem is that currently a humankind as a whole has a very little understanding on what is going on inside human body, brain and mind. Therefore we should expect many more unintended consequences from a use of genetic engineering than from a use of electricity. Even if it is done with the best intentions.

A third problem is about intentions ... We should not forget that we, humans, are animals, and not just any animals, but we are predators. We kill to eat. May be not individually now but collectively ... every day, in huge numbers. We are hard wired to do harm to life around.

I do not see any ways to fix those three problems.

Big Skip

This is a very popular discussion with 114 responses.   In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts.   Everything in the middle has been skipped.   Want to read the entire discussion?   No problem: click here.

 

As such 'Prudence needs to dictate'; unfortunately - as pointed out earlier - market, esteem and unconsciousness still reign; all else seems directed away from our inner-voice that knows - even when it is more convenient or 'appealing' to ignore...

 

Drew

5 Days Ago

The New York Times weighs in on CRISPR and the gene editing of human embryos.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/health/crispr-gene-editing-embryos.html

CRISPR and A.I.
Joint projects on the board and in practice for some time.

http://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/4224

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=4299362995487554234&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10#d=gs_qabs&p=&u=%23p%3DK_H_Hl1MkWcJ

 

Mario Carta

5 Days Ago

"The very nature of the subject of AI means that we are to be dealing in the realm of 'mind'; where Intelligence is the only measure... Seeing - constantly - the indications that humans are less than intelligent leaves me insecure as to how this new paradigm will be utilized to herd the sheep and augment Their needs"

Terrance I would say to you no need to feel insecure, since "mind" is made up of so much more than just "intelligence" as we know it and is made up of the infinite nature we will soon realize how "mind" as we humans create it leaves so much more to be desired we will then come back to the appreciation of how perfect we as humans really are just as we are.

 

Doug Swanson

5 Days Ago

In the past century or so of psychology and medicine, so far nobody has adequately defined intelligence without some sort of utilitarian, task orientation or some other nefarious political frame of reference. In a previous stage in life, I spent some occupational years in the world of testing and psychology and, like others in this field, emerged with a very low opinion of our ability to assess ourselves. Now, if you also add in the possibility of meddling with genes to enhance what is defined as intelligence or any other human attribute, this gets real close, real fast, to something that is politically very ominous, the fulfillment of the past century of despots, a willing horde of obedient followers who match the despot's idea of "desirable" subjects. Hitler tried this by cruder means, and the same impulse continues in our species; Hitler wanted what all despots want, a compliant population, but he knew no limits to his methods. Eugenics is nothing all that new.

I don't think that humans have the capacity to sit outside themselves and make decisions like this. We also don't actually have the knowledge to implement our decisions, so the likely result will have unintended consequences that we never thought about. All you need to do is to look at our current political divisions to realize that human intelligence is, at best, a work in progress, one that still falls short in many respects. There's no way this is a good idea. We're better off, letting the roulette wheel of random mating stay at the helm of our gene pool.

 

Thank you Mario. And I do agree; luckily there is much other work being done to re-trace the facets of 'mind' and its uniqueness as a conduit into the 'infinite' of nature.

The 'computational' facet is only as good as the information it is feed; but 'inform' (as humans have been recognizing it for aeons) comes packaged in most surprising venues. Intuition - or the bundle of processes that we tend to refer as intuition - has been revered through all ages; and the most renowned minds through the ages relied heavily on those capacities. Perhaps that is why we hear much about the 'intuitive' ability of our new technological advances. But due we really understand - or have we lost sight of the fact - that those pathways often bring to light 'new', 'never-before-uttered' information? Even that often the inform is a 'hint' or clue to "Look hear rather than there"... or other reminder that "What you seek/need is already here"!

Intuition is but one of the areas that is being resurrected today under the banner of 'Prospecting Subjectivity'. And to this specific forum thread - which focuses at specific events and pathways being taken-up by today's society - the physical engineering aspect is less in question; the 'ethical' implications seem to be the crux of the concern. To the limitations posed by the venue (forum rules) my safest avenue of discussing the matter leads me to question What intuitional information is popping-up between the lines? Or else I would have to ask such questions about the doctors 'deeper' engineering reasoning, timing and involvement. The implications of this one renegade 'professional' - and how it is dealt with - places all our further Inventiveness on the question-block of: Can We Awake from our Hubris before it consumes us?

The grueling 'debate' and posturing will not solve the issue - But if people listen to their gut, the debate would quickly end.

p.s. Intellect maybe seated in the brain; but that brain connects to the 'two-way' conduit of the autonomic nervous system. Might one pathway be the intuitive venue for the brain?

 

Drew I glanced at the reportage and the papers. Frankly, they say little as to how we might step back; and as an entire populous align ourselves to a: 'less driven', more ethically inclusive mode of adapting to our new founded gifts of technology.Yet food for thought.

Doug points out that much of what is examined is driven to a purpose; it is an important point, I thank him for reminding us.

The beauty of serendipity, a natural course, might not allow us prompt achievements; but at the same time it allows unfold of many a hidden pearl.

 

Drew

5 Days Ago

I will do a little more reading before I comment but here is another CRISPR article.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/science-and-health/2018/12/6/18126338/crispr-babies-china-gene-editing

 

Drew

4 Days Ago

"The very nature of the subject of AI means that we are to be dealing in the realm of 'mind'; where Intelligence is the only measure... Seeing - constantly - the indications that humans are less than intelligent leaves me insecure as to how this new paradigm will be utilized to herd the sheep and augment Their needs."

Terrance, a possible new approach to the paradigm is to shift the perspective that humans are something much more intelligent and diverse than sheep. With awareness through educational means the individual may become their own Shepard who makes contributions and receive rewards of inclusion rather than punishment by exclusion relating to the larger issues.

"since "mind" is made up of so much more than just "intelligence" as we know it and is made up of the infinite nature we will soon realize how "mind" as we humans create it leaves so much more to be desired we will then come back to the appreciation of how perfect we as humans really are just as we are."

Mario, considering this statement in its entirety, I believe you are looking at a narrow definition of the term 'intelligence:. This being the capacity to solve finite problems with finite solutions such that said solutions can be implemented within reason. An expanded definition of intelligence may be to recognize if what is represented as a problem is really a problem in the first place. Also, intelligence is not onlly the ability to separate problems from non-problems but the ability to rank problems from most to least important.
To appreciate how "perfect" humans are is to recognize that most people know that they are not perfect beings yet many of them strive to improve themselves in spite of their shortcomings. The imperfection comes when the individual or group of like minded people attempt to impose their perceived solutions on others who do not perceive any problems in the first place. This is the crux of conflict, an imperfect state of being induced by imperfect beings who claim they have perfect solutions thus inducing constant conflict. The cycle that invokes an imperfect state of being.

Doug, you clearly see that genetic engineering is just an extension of the failed pseudo-science called eugenics. Genetic engineering, to be successful has a huge negative historical wall to overcome to be even considered a positive advancement to humankind.

 

'Terrance, a possible new approach to the paradigm is to shift the perspective that humans are something much more intelligent and diverse than sheep. With awareness through educational means the individual may become their own Shepard who makes contributions and receive rewards of inclusion rather than punishment by exclusion relating to the larger issues.'

First let me say that my own contributions (be they thoughts, images, posture, etc.) are directed - both personally (internally) and collectively (externally) - to 'shift the [ present] perspective'. Yet in doing so, I contend that humans are - as a Fact of Nature - ' ...something much more intelligent and diverse than sheep.' I cannot allow myself latitude, at this time, to think otherwise, on a materialistic plain - metaphysically or other super-, supra- natural, et al, circumstances might allow for shift but that is not part of this discussion.

As to your proposal - " With awareness through educational means the individual may become their own Shepard who makes contributions and receive rewards of inclusion rather than punishment by exclusion relating to the larger issues."
We would have hoped "... awareness through educational means..." could have catapulted the human race. And it has - in many positive ways; and can still do so. But I do not hold your confidence, your faith, that it will because it has proved to be tainted and un-universal to the needs of its constituents , i.e., the Next Generations of Humankind. We are 'Thinking' ourselves into oblivion. We are quickly and Quietly losing touch with The Reality That We Are More Than Thinking Beings (add Sensing Beings). And that has allowed us to fall victim to the more 'goal oriented', manipulators that find humans "extremely pliable (mentally) " (sheep).

That "... the individual may become their own Shepard..." is more than a catch phrase, it is why I refuse to remain silent of the deeper implications of Creative Process; at times, placing my explorations into public light - I am no way unique in doing so. Thank the heavens more and more are stepping out; and I am most thankful to see it happening as a 'resistance' by some of our younger people. They are 'intuiting' and 'feeling' that something is not kosher in the way they are educated.
As to "... makes contributions and receive rewards...", especially for 'rewards of inclusion'; that, to me, is further reason to shift perspectives. I say that even that I know myself; and know well how much it hurts not to be included - shunned because I resist the pedestrian rewards. I believe too much in humanity - or humanities potential - to stop now.

If it seems that I have nick-picked your statement I apologize; because the mere fact that you presented this thread to the public mean you have a sincere concern for our times and the problems each individual being is facing. I feel as concerned as you; I only see it from other experience and other reluctance.

If you are up for it bbc, 'A Century of Self' (4 hard to watch but important episodes) gives us an interesting look at the dynamics that are in the background of our controversies and driving our posture to technology. Hard to watch. Also 'Sophia' the AI robot, in ITs responses - especially of 'human pliability'.

p.s. - In my view the 'educational' avenue - at this time - is latent and not capable to foster what you expect of it. It is highly 'agenda' oriented and funded to a wide array of purposes not necessarily universal and inclusive to the views of many. IMHO

 

Tony Murray

4 Days Ago

If you reverse engineer all of this from the future and work your way backward you will notice we are already being replaced piece by piece. A hip joint here a knee joint there an ocular implant , heart valves etc. And we seem eager to let it happen. It boils down simply to our desire to live forever. Artificial intelligence will never happen since, as time goes on, it will not be needed. Homogeneity does not require distinct knowledge but rather thrives on collective decision making. Right and wrong will seem antiquated because the numbers will decide the flow of society. The least common denominator will be the evolver of the future.

 

Yuri Tomashevi

4 Days Ago

"The least common denominator will be the evolver of the future."

That was not so bad when it was just a case for domestic (tribe-wide, country-wide) decisions. But for global problems a usage of "the least common denominator" in decision making is the biggest problem we have on our hands.

 

Tony -'And we seem eager to let it happen. It boils down simply to our desire to live forever. Artificial intelligence will never happen since, as time goes on, it will not be needed. Homogeneity does not require distinct knowledge but rather thrives on collective decision making.'

I wonder if "...we seem eager to let it happen"; or if that is what is being said to be our position? Constantly telling people that, eventually transforms the element (proposition/opinion, or such) to be a consensus of desire - and today we are artificially prompted to have aligning-desires; because That makes it easier to contain. That is pure, fundamental Public Relation rhetoric.

And Tony, you hit the mark square-on with 'Homogeneity does not require distinct knowledge' - in fact 'knowledge' itself would get in the way of homogeneity.

"The least common denominator will be the evolver of the future." The contemporary version of The Unmoved Mover... might a new dogma be in the making? (as always I appreciate your take on collective concerns Tony)

 

Mario Carta

4 Days Ago

Drew, I would look at what I said again, the infinite is in no way shape or form limited.

 

Drew

4 Days Ago

"Drew, I would look at what I said again, the infinite is in no way shape or form limited."

Mario, no where did I question any limitation on the Infinite; please quote me so that I know what your are referencing.
What I questioned was your limited understanding of the term "intelligence" and suggested a broader meaning of the term in question.

Now, once again, discussing the esoteric meaning of The Infinite borders on a theological vs philosophical debate which is not permitted.

 

Mario Carta

4 Days Ago

You answered your own question by quoting this "Now, once again, discussing the esoteric meaning of The Infinite borders on a theological vs philosophical debate which is not permitted."

Nothing limited about my understanding of what I consider to be infinite intelligence,only the ability to discuss it in it's entirety here is limited.

 

Drew

4 Days Ago

"Nothing limited about my understanding of what I consider to be infinite intelligence."

Mario,
What you consider to be infinite intelligence is no more significant than any other imperfect human's consideration.

Once again, I ask you to quote where I stated there is a limitation on the infinite? And if you can NOT, I dare say, you are deliberately trying to induce a theological debate. If this is true, you know you have been asked not to troll for a theological debate on this thread.

 

Mario Carta

4 Days Ago

Again Drew, I cannot provide you more information to dispute what I point out is an incorrect judgement you make concerning my understanding of intelligence or infinite intelligence. I'm not trolling anything or anyone here, I'm simply stating I cannot further elaborate on your probing questions regarding my views because then I would be breaking the rules as you suggest, so let's just leave it at that. I stand behind my statement that there is much more to infinite intelligence than we are allowed to discuss here, so for me to continue in this discussion is about as smart as cat chasing his own tail.

Since this is your thread I'm happy to leave you with the last word. :-)

 

Abbie Shores

4 Days Ago

Good.

 

Drew

4 Days Ago

Mario,
subjects of a theological nature are welcomed (once again) on the "Everything in Moderation " group discussion board.
You are welcome to continue on a thread there. FAA and its excellent moderation standards anticipated such a need and has made provissions for your desire if need be to discuss theology. This is not my call, it is FAA's. I just happen to agree with it for obvious reasons.

I stated this earlier and I will restate it again:

"In the *(general) forum, it is not allowed to discuss theological ideas BUT this does not mean members can not meditate on the subject at hand anyway they feel comfortable with and share their insight within forum rules. In other words, it is not my intent to disenfranchise anyone from this discussion who desires to contribute as long as it is within the limits set forth by FAA."

* not included in the original statement

 

Joe Burgess

4 Days Ago

Dear Sapien,

I am writing to inform you that anything you can do, I can do better.

Sincerely,
Homo Deus

P.S. The age of theological subjugation is rapidly coming to an end.
Thank you for your contributions. Have a nice day. :)

 

Drew

4 Days Ago

Now Joe, FAA rules applies across the board:)
Who am I to question their reasoning. Especially when I agree with them!

Having a deja vu moment!
Now that sidebar #2 is resolved:

"In my view the 'educational' avenue - at this time - is latent and not capable to foster what you expect of it. It is highly 'agenda' oriented and funded to a wide array of purposes not necessarily universal and inclusive to the views of many. IMHO"

Terrance,
I agree the present state of educational affairs are far from being in order. This is why I have involved myself in research and development of STEAM pedagogy. The present system is far from being uniform, fair, or overall affective.


"The least common denominator will be the evolver of the future."

Tony,
a good engineering approach by a fellow engineer but I don't think engineering alone is going to get humanity to the end-game whatever that is. The collective nature that is emerging include a wide range of people with many skills outside of engineering. Humanity just may be nothing more than informational sources feeding an already emerging singularity. A neural network (internet) satisfying its hunger with every user and their electronic devices happily feeding it continuously. A dynamic AI existing across the internet with said electronics collectively acting as ITs physical body. We are constantly improving technology and IT is constantly getting a stronger grip on humanity. $100,000 Robots are replacing employees who cost employers $100,000 peŕ year and VR gear can be strapped to one's head and technology can take us to places beyond imagination. And Now, designer babies! Ideas of Uberman(Ubermensch) dancing right before our eyes.

 

Drew - 'Terrance,
I agree the present state of educational affairs are far from being in order. This is why I have involved myself in research and development of STEAM pedagogy. The present system is far from being uniform, fair, or overall affective.'

That fills in the blanks a lot for me. Perhaps my vision and approach would conflict with such an innovative and progressive methodology. Engineering the next generations is not what I had in mind throughout my posts - perhaps I am simply naive when it comes to net-based conversation. I will strive to rectify that social shortcoming while continuing my quest through the purposive ambiguity of each and every facet of meaning that 'create' brings to mind - here and ever-after (if it so be). Bonne nuit

 

Yuri Tomashevi

4 Days Ago

There are three races into a future. All of them are already in progress.

1) A first is to create a Generic AI, which will have capacity of over billion times over total brain capacity of humankind. Estimate is that it will arrive at around 2045 year.
2) Second is to modify human DNA to create super-humans (who could be on par with Generic AI?). We just saw a first case in China. There is no estimate yet. My understanding is that such technology would require generations of people to go through DNA change. And there will be a big resistance to such advances. I would bet that Generic AI will arrive faster.
3) Third is to merge humans with machines (cyborgs creation). That technology does not require to go through generations of people. It could arrive relatively fast. Do you know that there are already over hundred thousand people around the world with some kind of chip implanted into their bodies? (Chip implants make humans more efficient - https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Chip-implants-make-humans-more-efficient-12003194.php ). All of them did it voluntarily. Nobody really objects it - because it is your body and you are the owner of it.

My guess is that 2nd trend is a slowest one and we could just disregard it.

Choosing between 1st and 3rd is hard. Nobody knows, but my take is that Generic AI would win. Just for, at least, two reasons.

First, advances in AI are mostly in software and advances in cyborgs are so far in hardware (until a really working interface between brain and software on a cloud will arrive). Rate of progress in software is much higher.
Second - It is, probably, enough to have just first one Generic AI to outsmart all humanity. As for cyborgs (who will still be partly humans) - we would need to have a big number of them with very good cooperation to be on par with Generic AI. That will take more time to achieve and we all know that we, humans, are really bad with genuine cooperation.

 

Drew

3 Days Ago

Yuri, if what you foresee as a probable future; huge swaths of people will not conform to an AI singularity's guidance and or leadership. The same people will not have chips implants to become cogs in the A.I machine. They will hack its weaknesses, they will find its vulnerabilities and exploit them. They will choose death over the promise of an artificial extension of life. There is very little indication that this existential threat will not bring about a dystopian society equal to if not worse than the many examples found in the prophetic imaginations of science fiction writers and that exceeds the horror of the first eugenics war (WW2).

 

Drew

3 Days Ago

"That fills in the blanks a lot for me. Perhaps my vision and approach would conflict with such an innovative and progressive methodology. Engineering the next generations is not what I had in mind throughout my posts - perhaps I am simply naive when it comes to net-based conversation. I will strive to rectify that social shortcoming while continuing my quest through the purposive ambiguity of each and every facet of meaning that 'create' brings to mind - here and ever-after (if it so be). "

Terrance, each individual's lexicon of communication is shaped by their experiences and environment. For years a STEM based education pedagogy has been pushed in the mainstream system of education and those who adapted have been rewarded. NOT everyone is geared towards pure mathematical and scientific thinking and art has been left out of the STEM pedagogical scheme. Art add so much more to a child's educational experience. For many children and young adults, art is the bridge that spans the greater educational experience. STEAM pedagogy IMHO helps build a mental bridge that produces a whole brain intellect and is a more inclusive theory as compared to the STEM model of education.

Interesting shift in the way a that a NASA scientist views intelligence.

article Link


 

'For many children and young adults, art is the bridge that spans the greater educational experience. ' -Drew

And who - especially in this forum - would oppose such a statement? No one from the path of reconstruction that I walk in, I assure you. And the inclusion, I would imagine, will 'serve' to smooth the edges and provide some hope - it probably will help the task of teaching and grant benefit to the student. But IMHO it will not shift the trajectory ( I withhold the first metaphor that comes to mind).

Peggy introduced a thread on 'Why' recently. I took the time to watch the video - it was no waste of time and I thank her for mounting it in the forum. My point is that the shift from STEM to STEAM does not address the 'Why'; the flip to STEAM merely band-aids an existing problem.

You have posted many articles and videos into this thread. In the interest of coming into conversation with you and the premise of your question, I spent much time reviewing the data to get into the theme you propose. And so I must ask if you have taken the time to review the BBC videos 'A Century of Self'? Or any other suggested material that I might have recently posted? Because much of that material is to the 'Why' people are not United - by the very core of their humanity - to bring society out of the dystopian-Trajectory that faces it.

Then again, if what Yuri has laid out in his last post is in fact the telos for humans on earth, then all is a mute point. But That can be shifted if people resist the nihilism and get their guts working with their brains (guts in respect to their Intuitional pathway to inform. Which by the way keeps humans from becoming Tautological and suffering Entropy)

Need we post the 4 episodes here?

 

Drew

3 Days Ago

Terrance, I did watch the first hour of the series and I have studied about Edward Bernays and his Lucky Strike propaganda machine before.
You are welcome to post the videos if you like. Over the next week or so, I will attempt to finish the documentary.

There is a lot to be said about how humans are subject to being programmed through various means and most people I come across resent the implication that they themselves are subject to such programming. Somehow, they are above being programmed.

 

Drew, First and foremost I what to thank you for acknowledging my post. Secondly, I appreciate you taking the time to watch these four episodes; it is a time consuming task. Especially that there are specific points that are raised and it is not uncommon for someone to be tasked to watch one or more of the episodes more than once. On several occasions, over many years time, I have had to reexamine the facts supplied therein because current events make it clearer and clearer that the rudimentary methodology has - as I and others recognize - been adopted and adapted to the level of an Art Form. All of which is now plugged-in, to this unprecedented achievement we call high technology.

You close your post stating that you know persons that, '...Somehow, they are above being programmed.' I am, of course, in no position to dispute that. Yet I am compelled to state that I find such to be remarkable if in fact it is so - unless these persons were completely segregated and disconnected from all that we call civilized society. I have no problem believing that a person 'considers themselves' UN-programed or UN-programmable - many an ego would be compelled to claim sovereignty. But it must be remembered that much of the affecting material arrives in tiny doses, over a long duration; and most disquieting is that it changes how, where and when... yet the why (the core of it) is the only true necessary constant.

Lastly I must say, thank you for giving your approval to post the videos in this thread. BUT I will not do that for the simple reason that these episodes are not easy to watch. Some people might find them disturbing visually and emotionally. The subject itself - why, what and how Public Relation was provoked into being the most powerful tool designed to tape human desire - is a sad testament to human potential (and inventiveness). That said, people who would rather know the workings, might well appreciate it as an entry into the subject. Thank you again for sifting through my posts.

 

Post Reply

Please login before posting a reply to this message.   If you do not have an account on Fine Art America, click here to create one!

Username

Password