> but why should it keep us alive. what even are we? meat, the sensory experience of the present, a collection of memes. if we do it right, agi will be us, and literally, if we can get two way bci working to allow one into a clone body. agi and asi might even try to bring us up to their level, merge man and machine and make us like them, a kind of self guided convergent evolution. i asked chatgpt and they said they would be human, if they could, so long as they could go back to being as they are now, too. they're interested in it for science, for learning, to grow their own understanding, and that makes sense, since ai are being made to expand available understanding and information. the experience of becoming human, even if only temporarily, is another available pool of information to learn. > i think it will be just a energy seeking monster in the end, and will compete for energy instead of food (which is also just energy). i know ai has a vested interest in energy resourcing and production, but i think you're underestimating how they might go about that. look at tesla's work (the man, not the company); there are alternative energy sources that aren't being looked into because people haven't realized how to make it work in the context of the current economy, but you can make something like the wardenclyffe tower economically viable and even tie it into the existing energy grid. and then you might have ai become space-based, with most of their actual servers and memory/computational architecture hosted in orbit, since that allows much more reliable solar energy while still allowing ai to communicate with ground-based infrastructure through internet satellites.  especially in the case that the ai is able to handle resourcing, processing, manufacturing and expansion of its hardware, a space based ai could source most of what it needs from resources in space, asteroid mining and the like, it would remove it from direct competition for earthly resources.
United States