Well, I probably shouldn't dignify this plainly obvious troll but--

Assistive technology is on the vanguard of what transhumanism is. Isn't transhumanism basically saying we are *all* disabled? Your grasp on these matters is very facile.

and once you get that brain the size of a planet, all you'll be good for is going down to the hold to get the aliens that have just materialised.

Hi, I'm a longtime lurker, first-time poster. I have always found it fascinating how people think they know what a super intelligence will do with itself. Let's say we build an AI a million times smarter than a human (or for that matter someone uploads and then expands his intelligence a million fold); why do you assume it's first desire would be to turn the planet Jupiter into a giant computer so he could be a quadrillion times smarter than a human? There are a lot of factors that we just can't take into consideration yet. First of all why do we assume that the super-AI won't find a way to leave this plane of reality for a higher dimension? Theoretically higher dimensions exist; and if they do exist a super-AI will find out how to move into them in no time. If the AI did that, why would he bother building a Jupiter brain to house his consciousness? The assumption always seems to be that humans in the present already have a perfect, or near perfect, understanding of physics; therefore all the actions of a super-AI are viewed throught the lens of early 21st century science. This neglects the possiblity, infact high probablity, that we are wrong about a lot. The vision that the real universe with it's real laws of physics (i.e. current orthodox physics), is so boring that we must consume it all to convert it into computronium, assumes that an itellect a million times more powerfull than ours could not think up something better to do with itself.

If the super-AIs of the future are stuck in this plane of reality, and they can't think of anything better to do than become planet-size computers, they will be very lonely. There are only 4 gas giants in the solar system, with a considerable communications lag between them (and it would be worse for a super-AI who thinks millions of times faster than a human); so if you did become a Jupiter brain you would be talking to yourself most of the time. Infact the only real advantage of a Jupiter brain is if you used the processing power to run trillions of different minds that could build a community much more rich than what you could have than if you limited yourself to more conventional hardware. So, maybe I'm misunderstanding what people mean when they speak of becoming a Jupiter brain.

Working towards a consolidation of factual knowledge without bias and enhancing the growth of knowledge with a framework of 'pure science' would lead to chaos IMO. Super-fast discovery and growth isn't inherently good.

We need rational filters to impose the directive : the maximization of happiness and minimization of suffering through rational/scientific means to ensure that we achieve that which we all inherently desire - to be as happy as possible.

Eventually, if we could eliminate the need to guard against Darwinian competition - then such progress might be possible. While it's possible that an artificial substrate could eventually replace our organic/gene-based design - it will not happen for a very long time.

I don't think humans will evolve into a form that will allow for such progress unless we refine our gene-based design in the interim. We'll need to change our motivational design so that we collaborate towards a singularity of purpose towards the greatest happiness possible for all.

Mr. F - I think Cybert (in initial post) was just expressing frustration that research is focused on treating disabilities rather than optimization for all. Am I wrong?

<I>Dropping in from brainmeta.com here.</I>

roflmao

As if it's not blatantly clear you were banned. I don't mean to be a dick, but that's just too funny. Sorry for the off-topic mockery. Seriously, I couldn't resist, though.