The AI thread(t)

... Keep in mind that term eugenics is used so broadly that things like the personal choice not to reproduce if you have a genetic condition, and laws against incest are also considered forms of eugenics.

That may be another whole discussion entirely. The big worry was, and is, that artificial selection of passed genes to create the best and strongest humans of the next generation ultimately diminishes the variety in the gene pool, which leads to worse mutations and physical disorders. The very same issues that affect generations created by incest.

I understand people not wanting sick children, but this miracle technology as an option, becoming just another commodity, is not just morally questionable but, I find, dangerous to the whole of humanity's future.
 
That may be another whole discussion entirely. The big worry was, and is, that artificial selection of passed genes to create the best and strongest humans of the next generation ultimately diminishes the variety in the gene pool, which leads to worse mutations and physical disorders. The very same issues that affect generations created by incest.

I understand people not wanting sick children, but this miracle technology as an option, becoming just another commodity, is not just morally questionable but, I find, dangerous to the whole of humanity's future.

Well, there's nothing stopping you from artificially adding variation back in if you want. I figure that will eventually be used to help some endangered animals recover from their population bottlenecks.

With regard to the use of genetic engineering, we want to avoid a Gattaca situation, where only the rich can afford to have it done. Another option is Star Trek where only authorized genetic disorders are allowed to be changed, no enhancement.
 
Lots of young feminist women are religiously applying some of the main Feminist lore to a T: get the high education + the well paying career + the well -to-do husband and suddenly, you're 40 and past your reproductive years (or you're all alone) and then you'll hit the ground hard when it comes to have children...very problematic. So, no; you cannot have everything! But's it's too late. "Unconscious Eugenics".

That's one type...then the other is also influenced by another type of Feminism called: Save the planet + climate change. Not to reproduce will pollute less (one less mouth to feed, clothe, etc) The carbon footprint will be less than normal families. It's a conscious choice and could be called "Conscious Eugenics"
Okay but it is an entirely relevant issue rather than being a feminist etc. It is demonstrably true that women do suffer disadvantages professionally for having children, or planning to have them in future.

I’m a bloke and have disadvantages in work compared to those of my age who have no children. I cannot go onto the more financially rewarding shifts due to childcare. Many my age and younger are just not prepared to accept those so choose to not have any.

Coupled with the very important facts that prices for things, including childcare, have rocketed to a point that two well off people can quite easily decide that the financial drain of children is not sustainable for them. In my case I pay £950 pcm rent, then £900-1000 pcm for nursery, before we get onto my council tax, TV licence, electric, heating, water, food, fuel bills, car tax, car insurance, car servicing/repairs, MOT, then the other costs my eldest accrues. That is simply not viable for many younger than me and my wife.

All of that is a much bigger concern to the wider population than the climate effect of children.
 
Lots of young feminist women are religiously applying some of the main Feminist lore to a T: get the high education + the well paying career + the well -to-do husband and suddenly, you're 40 and past your reproductive years (or you're all alone) and then you'll hit the ground hard when it comes to have children...very problematic. So, no; you cannot have everything! But's it's too late. "Unconscious Eugenics".

That's one type...then the other is also influenced by another type of Feminism called: Save the planet + climate change. Not to reproduce will pollute less (one less mouth to feed, clothe, etc) The carbon footprint will be less than normal families. It's a conscious choice and could be called "Conscious Eugenics"
I never got "save the planet" thing; the planet will be fine.

On the other hand: the PEOPLE will be in trouble...
 
With regard to the use of genetic engineering, we want to avoid a Gattaca situation, where only the rich can afford to have it done. Another option is Star Trek where only authorized genetic disorders are allowed to be changed, no enhancement.

I hope for the latter, but know it will be former.
 
AI is more about choice than consciousness.

Consciousness Definition: The state of being aware and being able to respond to one's own surroundings.....I guess a machine can be taught to be aware of it's surroundings, therefore a machine would be conscious.

Given the ability to learn from it's surroundings, it can have the ability to make a choice...a conscious choice.

A machine decides we're a virus and wants to eliminate human kind...that's really hard to do without robots gunning us down in the streets...yes they could turn off all the power etc, but humans can live without power. Kill off the structure of society and have us all turn on ourselves will eliminate a lot of us, but some would survive.

Robots like the stuff Boston Dynamics make are where I'd imagine the self awareness is most dangerous. We may be decades away from bipedal robots being our assistants and potentially our enemy's, but it's interesting.

If you gave a machine the ability to learn and make conscious decisions, then how dangerous is that.
 
AI is more about choice than consciousness.

Consciousness Definition: The state of being aware and being able to respond to one's own surroundings.....I guess a machine can be taught to be aware of it's surroundings, therefore a machine would be conscious.

Given the ability to learn from it's surroundings, it can have the ability to make a choice...a conscious choice.

A machine decides we're a virus and wants to eliminate human kind...that's really hard to do without robots gunning us down in the streets...yes they could turn off all the power etc, but humans can live without power. Kill off the structure of society and have us all turn on ourselves will eliminate a lot of us, but some would survive.

Robots like the stuff Boston Dynamics make are where I'd imagine the self awareness is most dangerous. We may be decades away from bipedal robots being our assistants and potentially our enemy's, but it's interesting.

If you gave a machine the ability to learn and make conscious decisions, then how dangerous is that.
It's the drones that make me nervous...
 
Okay but it is an entirely relevant issue rather than being a feminist etc. It is demonstrably true that women do suffer disadvantages professionally for having children, or planning to have them in future.

I’m a bloke and have disadvantages in work compared to those of my age who have no children. I cannot go onto the more financially rewarding shifts due to childcare. Many my age and younger are just not prepared to accept those so choose to not have any.

Coupled with the very important facts that prices for things, including childcare, have rocketed to a point that two well off people can quite easily decide that the financial drain of children is not sustainable for them. In my case I pay £950 pcm rent, then £900-1000 pcm for nursery, before we get onto my council tax, TV licence, electric, heating, water, food, fuel bills, car tax, car insurance, car servicing/repairs, MOT, then the other costs my eldest accrues. That is simply not viable for many younger than me and my wife.

All of that is a much bigger concern to the wider population than the climate effect of children.
34 million people pay taxes in the U.K. (total population of the U.K. in 2023: almost 69 million) do the math...less than 50% are paying taxeso_O
It's the drones that make me nervous...
Swarms of attack droneso_Oo_O:eek::eek:
 
34 million people pay taxes in the U.K. (total population of the U.K. in 2023: almost 69 million) do the math...less than 50% are paying taxeso_O
That is quite disingenous really as that statement doesn’t show any evidence as to what percentage of the population not paying income tax/ National Insurance are children, pensioners (who can be taxed on their pensions on some occasions), students, below the tax threshold in their personal allowance (which generally goes up meaning more fall below the threshold when they get their new tax code), disabled or caring for someone disabled, or a stay at home parent etc. Without that info it’s a bit of a meaningless statistic

It’s also not entirely true. If you buy almost anything in the UK, you will have paid 20% Value Added Tax. You own/finance a car, you’ll pay Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Duty.
 
In the UK, you also need a TV license to watch TV, and utilities are "pay as you go" (put the money in the meter) from what I hear. I'm pretty sure they tax the very air you breathe as well.

Their government must absolutely stink at managing their budget...
This is incorrect.

TV licence is not paid to the Government, and there are exceptions but the general rule is to watch live TV, or on demand service like BBC Iplayer you are legally required to have one.

Utilities are not all “pay as you go” at all. It is used in some places and is an option depending on certain circumstances/by choice.

Which Government, the UK one, Welsh assembly, Stormont, or Holyrood…….

Plenty of countries have issues with their spending, one big one is currently arguing about whether to let itself get into more.

Plenty also have much higher tax rates than the UK, such as the Scandinavian countries, who funnily enough do a lot better than us and others in many areas of life.

To link this to the AI discussion, if AI is to become a tool that takes up the slack of the economy, then all Governments are going to have to find a way to deal with the potential unemployment, as well as the lowering of income tax rates etc.
 
The AI could find ways to reduce Government waste and allow for more logical choices.
From a BBC report:


Scientists have used artificial intelligence (AI) to discover a new antibiotic that can kill a deadly species of superbug.
The AI helped narrow down thousands of potential chemicals to a handful that could be tested in the laboratory.
The result was a potent, experimental antibiotic called abaucin, which will need further tests before being used.
The researchers in Canada and the US say AI has the power to massively accelerate the discovery of new drugs.
It is the latest example of how the tools of artificial intelligence can be a revolutionary force in science and medicine.
 
This is incorrect.

TV licence is not paid to the Government, and there are exceptions but the general rule is to watch live TV, or on demand service like BBC Iplayer you are legally required to have one.

Utilities are not all “pay as you go” at all. It is used in some places and is an option depending on certain circumstances/by choice.

Which Government, the UK one, Welsh assembly, Stormont, or Holyrood…….

Plenty of countries have issues with their spending, one big one is currently arguing about whether to let itself get into more.

Plenty also have much higher tax rates than the UK, such as the Scandinavian countries, who funnily enough do a lot better than us and others in many areas of life.

To link this to the AI discussion, if AI is to become a tool that takes up the slack of the economy, then all Governments are going to have to find a way to deal with the potential unemployment, as well as the lowering of income tax rates etc.
As I said: "from what I hear". Thank you for clarifying that is not the case.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top