Speaking of bad union bosses, could someone remind me the the one that supported the tanned pedophile last election. Some news report at the time showed he had like a 10k square foot mansion. Thanks

Don’t listen to the other comments here, your question was a valid one. You could expand on the thought by asking who gets paid in the first place. If AI becomes AGI which becomes sentient, should that entity not get paid for the work they produce? Then I could see it paying taxes. Would it then have to pay rent to live in the computer provided it? I think yes. The key here is to consider that using this approach to AI autonomy could help constrain the reckless pursuits we are seeing today.

Went to check the definition to make sure I spoke correctly and given that it refers mainly to selective breeding I would say no. I am for genetic alteration using tools that will specifically target known genetic sequences to facilitate the removal of disease and other improvements that can make humans more resilient, better able to cope with the challenges of the future. An example of something often done in the past would be to breed to make larger and stronger humans for war. I would take the approach to make humans smaller to require fewer resources. Another one that would freak everyone out would be the enlargement of the medula oblongata to improve empathy (I’m not sure of the details or if I identified the right body part but you get the gist. I am very aware we don’t currently have the knowledge to accomplish these things safely but we should move faster and with less indignation to provide this knowledge.

You can research all you want but the bottom line is that we don’t understand nearly enough about any topic to make correct conclusions. Even those that are “obviously” correct, are based on humanity’s limited understanding of the world around us. I know this sound dismissive of the research you speak of but it is not intended as such. I think research and the collection of data from which to draw conclusions is critical to our survival. My point is only that not being constantly open to new ideas and espousing “one truth” is not productive.

I’m very much on the side of genetics being the main determinate. I also believe that we should be doing everything we can to implement genetic alteration of our species in order to save us from ourselves.

“went with his flawed understanding”? I think it’s safe to say that this is the level of everyone’s understanding.