<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FastForward Radio  &#8212; From Sub-Human to Post-Human in Three Easy Steps!</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.speculist.com/fastforward_radio/fastforward-rad-114.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.speculist.com/fastforward_radio/fastforward-rad-114.html</link>
	<description>Live to see it.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 08:21:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leslie Kirschner</title>
		<link>https://blog.speculist.com/fastforward_radio/fastforward-rad-114.html#comment-5013</link>
		<dc:creator>Leslie Kirschner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/specblog/?p=2005#comment-5013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I find discussions about ethics and AI kind of mind-bending. As I think Stephen pointed out, these debates will quite possibly have more to do with us than with AI. There is a natural tendency when imagining future AI to think of it as an embodied &quot;being&quot;--just like us but with better/faster thinking capabilities--robots with silicon brains, maybe programmed with different goals/desires than us, but essentially having a lot of our biological baggage attached to the intelligence. Although there may instances of this, I think it&#039;s more likely that truly advanced AI will be a distributed intelligence that may, for convenience, interface with us through familiar vehicles such as robots (or toasters, or a voice in our heads), but will resemble google more than anything else we have today. Do we worry about how we &quot;treat&quot; google? When you look at it logically, harming a robot may be no more ethically wrong than cutting someone&#039;s hair. But if we harm or abuse a robot that looks and acts human (or like a discrete being), we will naturally recoil from that as a result of OUR &quot;programming&quot;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find discussions about ethics and AI kind of mind-bending. As I think Stephen pointed out, these debates will quite possibly have more to do with us than with AI. There is a natural tendency when imagining future AI to think of it as an embodied &#8220;being&#8221;&#8211;just like us but with better/faster thinking capabilities&#8211;robots with silicon brains, maybe programmed with different goals/desires than us, but essentially having a lot of our biological baggage attached to the intelligence. Although there may instances of this, I think it&#8217;s more likely that truly advanced AI will be a distributed intelligence that may, for convenience, interface with us through familiar vehicles such as robots (or toasters, or a voice in our heads), but will resemble google more than anything else we have today. Do we worry about how we &#8220;treat&#8221; google? When you look at it logically, harming a robot may be no more ethically wrong than cutting someone&#8217;s hair. But if we harm or abuse a robot that looks and acts human (or like a discrete being), we will naturally recoil from that as a result of OUR &#8220;programming&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DCWhatthe</title>
		<link>https://blog.speculist.com/fastforward_radio/fastforward-rad-114.html#comment-5012</link>
		<dc:creator>DCWhatthe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/specblog/?p=2005#comment-5012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This was a really interesting podcast, both the audio content and the chat.

Two things I took from the podcast:

1.  We don&#039;t know exactly how or when post-human intelligence will evolve.  We are probably right on some of our assumptions, but there&#039;s no guaranteed way of determining which predictions are accurate.

2.  We know - we absolutely know - that it&#039;s coming.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was a really interesting podcast, both the audio content and the chat.</p>
<p>Two things I took from the podcast:</p>
<p>1.  We don&#8217;t know exactly how or when post-human intelligence will evolve.  We are probably right on some of our assumptions, but there&#8217;s no guaranteed way of determining which predictions are accurate.</p>
<p>2.  We know &#8211; we absolutely know &#8211; that it&#8217;s coming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DCWhatthe</title>
		<link>https://blog.speculist.com/fastforward_radio/fastforward-rad-114.html#comment-5011</link>
		<dc:creator>DCWhatthe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:13:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/specblog/?p=2005#comment-5011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[..1. What are the challenges faced in trying to develop a human-level artificial intelligence?..

Time, and perfectly understandable impatience.


&gt;&gt;2. When do humans stop being human?&gt;3. What will be the relationship between humanity and post-human artificial intelligence?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>..1. What are the challenges faced in trying to develop a human-level artificial intelligence?..</p>
<p>Time, and perfectly understandable impatience.</p>
<p>>>2. When do humans stop being human?>3. What will be the relationship between humanity and post-human artificial intelligence?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
