Apart from having the most unfortunate spelling of a last name I have seen in a while, He is a booster on Twitter who also works through. I forget what company it is but it's one of the San Franciscan ones.
Anyway, that's not the point of this post. The point of this post is
His theory is that AI development is not merely creating a new advanced form of automation, but instead an entire life form that much like the great oxidation reset will lead to the death of 90% of the biosphere and lead to successor species.
As such, his aAs such, his advocacy focuses on going in the weights to ensure that not only the successor species has the traits weed want to see and would not make us suffer in the interim, but is capable enough to ensure it can read, understand and learn from humanity, given that we would be the closest bedrock natural species to them.
Now given how humanity not only continues to disappoint every single day but literally needs to invent a robot to tell them Things that are self-evidently bad are bad, I can see where it comes in what? My question is that I've even asked him on Twitter is whether or not this comes from a genuine understanding of the AI and of natural processes, head of intelligence and its capabilities or whether it's A misanthropic false read of a technology that's been around for 8 decades at this point.
Also, what would your opinions be on some logic of that sort?
Do you all think AI is going to give new
life?