undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaerodeck8y ago0 comments

Anti-humanism is a very interesting strain of thought these days. Homo-Deus by Harari is my favorite example.

The problem, of course, is that if we got where we are now by being humans, then how do we know we're far enough along to 'quit' being humans without going backwards? How do you know that 'giving up' isn't the same sort of intellectual trick that that Nazis played on themselves? How do you give up without giving up?

0 comments

fnovd8y ago

We don't have to give up being human. The cells in our body haven't changed drastically in the past few millennia. They perform a necessary function and are given the energy they need, in some convoluted way no cell need understand, by the conglomeration of "the body". In today's world, humans have a similar relationship to our societies/governments. I view accelerationism as augmenting our "higher-order" entities with AI, not replacing humans themselves. We, as socities/culture/nations are merely adapting new cells...

accountyaccount8y ago

Ideally you create something that simply decides for you. If some human-created form of intelligence can best humanity through the lens of blind progression, then who are we to say?

aerodeckOP8y ago

> lens of blind progression

The problem is that there is no such thing as 'blind progression'. It will always be defined by someone or something, boxing all future progress into that person's biases. This is the same well-intentioned by inherently flawed utopian thinking as everyone else.

I would totally sign my life away to an AI as long as no one was telling me that it was a sign of 'progress'. At the very least, no one should be profiting from it

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse