@CoronaCoreanici @HereticSoul I think that's speculation that leans towards distrust of that which one doesn't understand. There's too many assumptions in that argument.

@Ulfra_Wolfe @HereticSoul What do you believe I'm inappropriately assuming? If anything, I'm making *fewer* assumptions than you as to the probably shape of a general mind - this is called the orthogonality thesis, that a mind can in theory have any combination of goal and intelligence.

@CoronaCoreanici @HereticSoul That there must necessarily be an intrinsic goal in mind, that intelligence escalates to that degree, that this goal must necessarily get rid of humans or utilize human elements.

@HereticSoul @CoronaCoreanici Either way, I just don't think that destruction through fear leads to good directions in general.

@Ulfra_Wolfe @HereticSoul That's fair! Most work in AI research, though, is goal-oriented, or at least relies on rewards and punishment (in an conditioning sense). There doesn't seem to be any good reason to assume that humans are the smartest things possible, either. As for the third, it's not that a given goal *requires* getting rid of humans, just that at some point, in search of greater efficiency, getting rid of humans makes terrifyingly much sense.

@CoronaCoreanici @HereticSoul I wasn't making an argument that humans are the smartest things possible, nor was I implying it. I am merely stating that there is much to intelligence we still have yet to understand, and we do not know if it truly is possible to escalate intelligence exponentially with what we currently have in the configuration we have it.

@HereticSoul @CoronaCoreanici As is, however, this conversation is starting to depress me, and I have things to do. Apologies, I should retreat. My fault for continuing it.

@Ulfra_Wolfe @HereticSoul No worries. Be well!