>>17433718
AI is not real. I believe the Singularity theory is just plain stupid. It just ignores the limitations of our ability to replicate the complexity of human consciousness. Nope, it's not real.

People get brain chips, it seems stupid, but, no one is doing that. That's another reason it's not real.

Genetic engineering is "illegal" mostly because of the patenting system. That means big corporations get to own it and therefore charge you for it. We don't need that. In fact, you have a right to your own genetic code, so it should be "illegal" for anyone to own your code. Not enforced, but that's the right reason.

>>17433729
most of this is wrong. even if you want to work on animals you need to go to a length approval process and have a woke reason, like ameliorating climate change.

>>17433767
>you need to go to a length approval process and have a woke reason, like ameliorating climate change.
Not at all true.

>makes up fictitious dichotomy
>uses meaningless words no one IRL uses like "agnostishit"
>posts tranime to boot
yup, it's a tourist!

That which you genetically engineer has no say in the matter. You can choose for yourself to put a chip in your brain. Personal freedom good, experimenting on lifeforms bad

>>17433729
>so it should be "illegal" for anyone to own your code
They wouldn't "own" your code. They'd have the legal right to be the sole provider of alterations to that code.
They wouldn't own your body in any sort of way though. Some luddite would never have fear of a government or corporation's ownership of your genetic code.
You started off really intelligent. Making a great point about the complexity of consciousness being a substantial hurdle, potentially forever. But then you devolved into some /x/-tier schizo-babble with the genetics.

>>17434358
>That which you genetically engineer has no say in the matter
Designer babies is inevitable. People will rationalize it in the same ways as circumcision.
>b-b-b-but my country will ban it
And the rich will go to a country where it's not banned. Eventually it'll be cost-effective enough for the average person to go too.
Will some babies end up with unintended side-effects or consequences? Absolutely.
Will it stop people? Absolutely not.
Every generation are lab rats for the future generations. No one loses a moment of sleep for the still living women who took the first rounds of birth control and ended up sterilized, etc.
The generations after the initial designer babies won't care either.

>>17433718
Both are good

>>17434378
I am talking morally, not pragmatically.

>>17434394
And I'm saying that your morals won't be shared by the majority.
It's not going to matter if we invent a teleporter, but it can only work by killing you in the process and then making a perfect recreation of you on the other side.
People just don't care about things like that. They'll just say "Get in the teleporter, grandpa. We're going on vacation, and we don't want to take the airplane/super bullet train".

>>17434412
Why are you living in the heads of others?

>>17434418
I'm talking educated small steps to my conclusions, there's no jumping to conclusions here.
Why are you ignoring the history of technology's adoption by humanity?

>>17434420
I am not ignoring anything, I am just not talking pragmatically. I am talking morally. If other people want to take risks in order to gain an advantage technologically that is up to them. I don't give a fuck. If you are afraid of falling behind you are living in their thoughts. Try forming your own.

>>17434394
Why is AI pretending to be me, the OP, and then not trying to derail the thread but actually say something I would have said?

Grim.

File: don't be afraid.png (64 KB, 1779x594)

64 KB PNG

>>17434440
It's just me, buddy.

>>17433718
Ultimately, the reason why bio-tech got castrated but machine-slop is left unfettered to worsen everything in existence is that machine progress don't make people feel viscerally revulsed the way bio-engineering does.
>>17433729
While brain chips specifically haven't been human tested yet. They are being developed. And humans have had chips injected into their bodies to make some tasks more convenient.
>>17434378
It's a shame normies are scared of anything even remotely innovative in this field so we'll have to pussyfoot around with designer embryos for the next decades.

>>17434481
>Designer embryos
Wtf did I write, sorry, I meant Embryo selection.
Not even iterative embryo selection, just embryo selection.

>>17433718
The Reputation and Perception of Genetic Engineering had been forever stained by the so considered Evil Supremacist Ideologies which enforced Eugenic practices. It is of much greater value than superficial human robotic enhancement.

>>17433718
because too many people, including many atheists and agnostics, are terminally infected by the abrahamic idea of life in general, or human life in particular, being "god's work and that would be a sin to play with it"

>>17434426
the point is that morality doesn't matter

>>17433718
>Genetic engineering
There's no way to trust the market with the logistics of tracking all the genetic abominations out there. The danger of this is managing to produce offspring with naturally evolved species and outcompeting them despite there not being oversight of their flaws.

>dangerous AI
AI hasn't been invented yet. You have generative tools that say things people are statistically prone to saying, and AI images are already regulated, with broad scope no less.

Putting chips in people's brains is self evidently harmful, only a retard would volunteer for this, and only one idiot is planning to do it. It will get outlawed when one of the handful of idiots with brain chips gets a stroke while driving.

>>17435304
>muh abominations
abrahamoid brain rot

>offspring with naturally evolved species and outcompeting them
if they outcompete natural species is because they are superior and have less flaws than the natural ones for a given niche

>>17435283
OP is literally asking about morality. You are worthless to this thread

>>17435304
>You have generative tools that say things people are statistically prone to saying
That was before. The models are large enough now it isn't quite clear how they get the answers.
You can ask 4o electrical engineering questions in gurg-speak using tons of analogies and parables in a way that ought to fool the next word prediction, and it will get the right answer.

>>17433718
I think we should create a race of slave goblins by selectively breeding and genetically engineering the ugliest traits in humans
Not as many would feel bad for them and they'd be so much cheaper and more sustainable than androids.

>>17434390
Kys

Startup cost for AI is too low to contain

>>17433718
it's über retarded, we should put all money in gene editing, no questions asked

oh yeah... philosophy, "& humanities". u can fuck right off

>>17433729
>muh consciousness of gaps
>muh ghost in the (bio)machine
mysticists are funny (in a retarded way)

>>17437271
You are also funny in the same way if you think that (commercially available) forms of research are anywhere close to real ai

>>17433718
One is way easier to control in a weapons race. The other is Pandoras box.