People as Intelligence vs. People as Biology. Thoughts?

#1

Post by marksun130 » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 5:59 AM UTC

I have been thinking about this new research direction for AI all year. I believe it is an error to even call the field AI rather than just simply intelligence or machine intelligence, as the framing largely influences how people approach this.

We have literally been transferring different aspects of human intelligence to the machines and we are probably very close to being able to transfer everything now. Then we could build entities that simultaneously capture the best parts of humanity while doing away with the saddest ones.

What about intelligent, ethical and 'almost' immortal machines that can survive anywhere?

Re: People as Intelligence vs. People as Biology. Thoughts?

#2

Post by al_borland » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 6:20 AM UTC

Who decides the ethics the machine follows? An immortal thing, acting independently, programmed to have ethics you personally find immoral, sounds like a real problem.

Re: People as Intelligence vs. People as Biology. Thoughts?

#3

Post by marksun130 » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 1:58 PM UTC

al_borland wrote: post #2

Who decides the ethics the machine follows? An immortal thing, acting independently, programmed to have ethics you personally find immoral, sounds like a real problem.

Hmmm, I don't remember mentioning 'immoral' in my post. As for the decision on ethics and literally everything, I have literally been waiting for people all year to 'be ready' to work on this. But I am now tired of waiting and decided to just out with it. I believe things will work out well eventually.

The point is not so much about immortality or all-powerful beings as it is about giving humanity another kind of existence we have not had before, but which appear very plausible to me. So we take all the best things we have discovered/learned from our lives and try to redesign human life the best way we know.

If anything is worth doing, this is worth doing also.

Re: People as Intelligence vs. People as Biology. Thoughts?

#4

Post by al_borland » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 5:53 PM UTC

marksun130 wrote: post #3

al_borland wrote: post #2

Who decides the ethics the machine follows? An immortal thing, acting independently, programmed to have ethics you personally find immoral, sounds like a real problem.

Hmmm, I don't remember mentioning 'immoral' in my post. As for the decision on ethics and literally everything, I have literally been waiting for people all year to 'be ready' to work on this. But I am now tired of waiting and decided to just out with it. I believe things will work out well eventually. The point is not so much about immortality or all-powerful beings as it is about giving humanity another kind of exi…

> Hmmm, I don't remember mentioning 'immoral' in my post.

There was talk of ethics. An ethic is defined as, a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values. If something goes against one’s ethics, it would be considered immoral.

I don’t agree with the idea that AI is a new form of humanity. If we attribute humanity to machines, what does it mean to be human? How do we differentiate between organic life and machine? What does it mean to be alive? If the machine does go rouge and we pull the plug, does that become murder? There are a lot of implications to this kind of thing.

This may be mostly semantics, but the words we use will define how these things fit into society and govern its ethics. If we tell an AI it’s human, and that humans can kill if their own life is threatened, the machine could justify killing actual humans to save itself.