yes, but again over time. it can take years for some buisnesses to feel the effect of competition, and it can take some companies decades to go out of buisness because of a lack of adaptability.

Dude you are being super unpleasant. It’s entirely possible to have this discussion in a respectful and open way, but you’re making every exchange into a combative showdown. Does it occur to you that, even if Bostrom’s stance on eugenics is distasteful, you are being exactly the type of interlocutor that he’s criticizing? You’d persuade more people to your side if you didn’t start from a position that everyone who doesn’t exactly mirror your opinions is shamefully wrong.

This has nothing to do with augmentation though?

I was definitely shocked to read that email. But I found his apology acceptable. And yeah, I'm probably biased, cause I've enjoyed a lot of his work.

Jennifer Doudna (creator of CRISPR) wrote a book about the subject of genetic engineering and while she does caution against misuse of the tech, she thinks much more good can come of it.

Would companies that don’t adapt just end up becoming less profitable and go out of business

I think the bottleneck is the speed at which society CAN change. Put a different way, how fast we can turn the wheels or put into action the technology and innovations offered to us by AI and quantum computing advances. It will be a feedback loop, but it will likely take a bit of time to get off the ground. That said, I think your timeline could very well be accurate, but I tend to think it’ll be more towards the latter end.

Well we already see today that as soon as one type of AI became popular a bunch of copycats or similars popped up. Like Midjourney and all the other image AI's.

We saw with Siri led to Alexa, Cortana, Bigsby and Google Assistant. I don't see why an AGI would be any different.

Where is brain augmentation mentioned in this image? This is only loosely comparing the capabilities of AI to human brain capabilities.

[deleted]

I'm a professional contemporary artist and have made about $50K in the past couple of years just on my ai-assisted artwork. There is not an obvious difference IMO, it's just that 99.99% of ai-art prompts are generic in the same way that the vast majority of traditional artists are generic. AI-art tools just raise the bar so that what used to be evidence of certain skill has been automated, but there are now different skills to wield in order to use creative-generators in more interesting or unprecedented ways.

Would be awesome. The slower AI developes, the better will be the end result, the smoother it's integration into humanity and integration of humanity into AI, the less catastrophes from AI misuse, the better understanding of all other nuances, the more preparedness against danger both directly from AI misuse, and from any other research which can be accelerated by AI.

I've been saying this for a while, the current AI models can definitely be linked together and combined with eachother to create more complex interdependent systems.

It’s relevant to human enhancement though, which is also topic of the sub ;)

interesting yes, but not relevant to learning or intelligence, which this sub is based around.

Why?

My point is its not simulating any of the computational aspects of the neuron, which lie mainly in neurotransmitter receptor expression and regulation, its basically just simulating the biochemical version of wires, which for computational purposes, can be simulated more simply with just regular wires, which are also much faster.

Maybe you accidentally chose my comment to reply on in the beginning after reading the long discussion about the topic of brain devices and Elon Musk? 🤣

I understand being sceptical. For me it’s a promising step into a more precise way of combining bio brain with computing. The other approaches can still be valid!

It has ion canals that can be more narrow and more wide depending on the thickness of the polymer used, and it can be placed in between biological neurons, providing a „gate“ of sorts. It’s also made of artificial organic material with semiconductor properties.

But if it doesn’t seem interesting for you, oh well - you can have your opinion and I can have mine.

I'll give you that you probably understand it better than me haha. i agree it is interesting research that could be useful in understanding the nervous system, my point is that it that it doesn't seem to have the relevance to the singularity and BCI that people in the comments are assuming. I'd imagine that BCI would require more understanding of neuroreceptor regulation and how expression levels change to allow useful self organizing properties(and therefore learning, self regulation etc), and that signals could be transmitted in such a system just as well through purely electrical means rather than simulating the slower electrochemical propogation of action potentials.

I think it's hard to tell.

I see this being most applicable to some brain and nerve damage, and maybe reduce the effects of decaying brain function in old age eventually.

It could also be a step towards better research of the brain. Since neurons are one of the building blocks of the brain, they might be able to create their own artificial synapse networks and learn more about how to treat, repair, or even augment complex neural networks inside of a real brain. Hell, if you push it far enough it might even be a means for them to build mimics of (or even totally new and useful) neural networks for people.

I'm getting ahead of myself though. I think the big step in this is that it's a fundamental piece of doing those crazy brain and CNS things we want to do. On its own, it's probably not going to be any thing super crazy. But it is a big piece of the puzzle.

its chemically activated in the same way a pH meter is, and biocompatible in the same way as existing electrostimulation, which has been around for years. its not sensing particular neurotransmitters, just ion charge, and isn't able to provide any computational ability or useable connection to the brain.

Well, I studied neuropsychology and neurobiology in university, finished successfully too (Master’s level), so we are probably even ;) And to me it seems like a really nice direction of research with great results.

Why do you think that this direction is less interesting than direct brain stimulation/sensors? If you don’t mind writing more on the topic.

Edit: glad you corrected the „feels“ thing to field, it was rather confusing.

Would love where we can read the book and give the a.i tasks of removing or changing things we don´t like.

typo, i meant field. ive studied neuroscience for a few years in college and a good bit on my own. i read the article before commenting, also did just finish reading the study, and this tech really doesn't seem all that useful as opposed to existing electrostimulation of neurons and basic ion sensors. it could be useful in treating some neurological conditions in the future as a feedback device similar to a pacemaker, but doesn't really have any bearing on intelligence, computation, or the singularity.

>Ted Kaczynski

Replace "Ted" with that "H" name from WW2 and read it again, aloud.