This is why I'm learning woodworking.

The AI might replace my data analysis skills, but it can't replace my human context. Lol.

It’s not diagnosing you, it will be like looking something up on like Healthline or webMD, it’ll just be more accurate and will probably always advise you to see a doctor.

Watch me skill out 1000’s nearly good pics while you use a pencil and we see who makes more money in a month

You're right. Many healthcare professionals will end up losing their jobs, including physicians themselves, since much more work will be doable by AI. I had wanted to go to PA school, only to have my dreams dashed due to discrimination for having autism, but you've now made me realize I probably would have been replaced shortly anyways. Thank you for that.

Yeah i think about that particular quote all the times

The AI would not be diagnosing you nor writing prescriptions or referrals. Just like when I get an X-ray and the technician sees a very clear fracture, he can't diagnose me accordingly. He notes what he sees and sends it to the provider who makes the final call. AI will be very much the same.

> At times. Transhumanism is about making things beautiful all the time

Heh. Need a functioning philosophy of beauty in the first place to figure out what you're aiming at!

I suspect that the nature of intelligence, even superintelligence, is extremely diverse, in that initial conditions could lead to many very different ideas and outcomes.

This is why its imperative that we actually get it right societally. So, in this enthusiast community I hope to create some thought-provoking questions that push the needle just a tiny bit father towards being likely to be a good outcome rather than a bad one! Heh.

I want to add in addition... my real goal is to get people to think more complexly and get out of their boxes, as boxes just damage reason in the first place.

Heh.

What if I turned you into a P-zombie but made your body more attractive and mind hyperintelligent?

> Does this mean it's all been pointless?

Heh. When you're IQ is 10 million, it might be impossible to ignore that pointlessness.

> I don't think so, in fact I'd argue that our life is more meaningful than those in the past who were destined to live their life forever in their own little village, and never experienced anything new.

Heh. Those people are all our ancestors though too, and as such, it can be quite nice to feel a real sense of gratitude to those people. To me, that is the meaning, more than what I experience here and now with my limited body and lifespan.

I love The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius for an illustration of this. He was a 4th-5th century philosopher whom Bertrand Russell remarked "He would have been remarkable in any age, in the age in which he lived, he is utterly amazing." Worth a read, to say the least. The life story of Boethius is one of tragedy but that tragedy produced his greatest work that had tremendous impact on the history of civilization, even though its so obscure today.

Also... I think the AI is either going to be hyper nihilistic or find God. I don't see any other outcome really. Everything between those two I find to actually be incredibly irrational. I.e. a lot of existentialism to me has struck me as equally delusional as any accusation of religious delusion, but where what you get at the end of the day is considerably reduced. Part of me is like "either just accept nihilism, or be religious, the in between is like being religious without the benefits of religion... perhaps dumber than just being religious!"

Lmao... Full disclosure I am a former nihilist and technically agnostic believer. Though that agnosticism just seems like a technical trifle at this point.

> But I am sure you understand heroin is not the only form of technology, and not the way most people use it, and not what my focus is on. Are you here to have an honest discussion, or to be a bad faith contrarian?

The former.

My most common method of calling someone's idea into question is to simply create an idea that creates a contradiction with their own idea or logical form. This is actually an extremely effective reasoning method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It's one of my favorites, but it is a pain in the ass to people I am discussing with, so sorry in advance!

I would point out that the contradiction doesn't make the idea instantly wholly wrong, but it usually just illustrates a sort of incompleteness and need for refinement. :)

> You wouldn't believe if a person who constantly accrues wealth says they aren't satisfied, isn't satisfied? Odd.

Not by the constant wealth accumulation alone. These people usually have other people in their lives.

> they have no consciousness at all.

Heh but which form of materialism do you prefer?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#PhyThe

> which I haven't seen any evidence of.

I think the empiricist's fallacy is to think that something cannot exist simply because there is not evidence. I view this as a sort of "equal and opposite" fallacy to the idea that one can make a positive assertion without evidence of any sort (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).

Actually diamonds aren't example of indistinguishable real/not real divide. We've started reaching high enough quality of "artificial" diamonds only recently for them to actually become harder and harder to distinguish from "natural" ones. Brands have started to even drop "artificial" label completely. This is what will happen with AI generated content - once a threshold is achivede where we no longer can distinguish the difference almost no one will care anymore about the source.

Now suffering can be mass produced https://futurism.com/chatbot-abuse

At times. Transhumanism is about making things beautiful all the time

Wow! I genuinely thought people would be interested in this. For those asking you can see the total sub number on the main page in the top right if you hover over "198K"

Let me know if you think this is truly not a good post and I'll delete it.

> Things, in general, are better now than 100 years ago.

There is no guarantee of this. It must be earned.

I agrée,

But, I can see it looking at a picture of a mole and then comparing it with millions of others and telling you exactly what it is, that and having an Apple Watch checking your readings. You medical history in a database and it would come up with a very clear diagnosis that it would sent to your doctor fir review

> Because nature doesn’t give us enough

Heh. I've experienced so much beauty at times that this actually made me chuckle.

"It looks like you're doing you job. Would your boss like me to replace you?"

Yeah but google is not diagnosising you.

There is too much regulation in the medical field for AI to be given any authority to diagnose, prescribe or treat people without oversight.

I am one😭

You don’t sue Google when it’s wrong. People google medical questions into search engines all the time.

Who do you sue for malpractice when it's wrong?