When millions of cars learn, they all can send data back to the mothership which crunches the numbers and they all improve

Even without AI, this is how technology has always advanced. Humans simply improved things and copied it to all the implementations.

So basically, when it comes to competing with robots or software, it is a losing proposition in the long run. No biological animal can evolve faster than this.

But maybe we'll find out.

As the member of a species being extinct, I wouldn't like it and just "roll with it". Same way a race being told that they're there to serve, and if needed, be extinct to bring forward some other entity wouldn't.

Until we reach that "natural end" we shouldn't go "gently into that good night".

concur. the challenge in front of us (and always has been) to surf the waves we can find in this universe

Because it's bio-identical (ABO/Rh/HLA), no immunosuppressant is necessary and you can continue about a normal life.

Regenerative cloning should absolutely be a thing.

I disagree; though the phrase and its synonyms hides a lot of complexity — and I have to temper my optimism about research with the knowledge of millennia of snake oil — we'd recognise it if we saw it. (Unlike, say, "is this AI/animal conscious?", where we can't agree what the question means).

A lot of what makes us us with all the wisdom of our age is also the bits that lead to the eventual breakdown and decay of our body. I think we'd need to lose ourselves to get our "youth" back. We're hoping for some magic where we keep all the good with none of the bad.

Sadly, the usual problem is that rats aren't really very close to humans, merely closer than the other stuff we research with.

To be clear, this is not to blame your grandparent. We all deal with situation with behavior that life forged into us. But if your opinion is that free will exists, then you should probably agree that there are ways to improve ourself.

Misaligned and powerful, so an easy example of how an AI can go wrong; but you don't have to reach for Auschwitz or the Holodomor to find people much worse to clone than him.

As for Gates? The worst true thing I've heard about him was Internet Explorer. And possibly Clippy.

What’s the point of evolution for something which isn’t alive and has no will to live and no environment that it really needs to be part of for survival?

I think about this when we talk about bots that continually improve? Continually improve to where ? To what end ?

I’m asking out of curiosity not out of malice btw, it’s just an interesting thing to think about.

I’m hoping that we eventually realise that life is pretty awesome albeit slower and learn that even a bird is really an amazing thing.

The thing that makes evolution a special dynamic is that everything that exists and you get to perceive is either the result of evolution, or compatible with it.

Will to life is effectively an artifact of evolution. Things with ways to express some form of persistence and reproduction have an implicit will to live.

Leaving aside whatever goals AIs may be programmed for, if at some point a dynamic for persistence and reproduction appears it will dominate any competing systems that don't have it on that basis alone. Systems that incorporate and propagate useful features for their survival will have capabilities to adapt and persist that are very limited in known lifeforms.

Of course there is a point to evolution, which is to utilise the environment to preserve your genes and pass them onto the next generation.

Evolve to slow though and you die, evolve too fast, you’re no longer compatible with your environment and also die.

As I'm not a biologist, I would only be guessing if that corresponds to evolving 1 million times faster, or if the relative complexity of the organisms makes it either more or less than that.

evolution always wins, by definition - whatever wins, that was evolution

> Of course there is a point to evolution, which is to utilise the environment to preserve your genes and pass them onto the next generation.

that is just a concrete mechanism to evolution, albeit a special one for humans as we're a part of it

Evolution by natural selection has no objectives, goals, direction or, for that matter, point. It has no purpose, it just happens. Every living organism on earth is the result of an unimaginably large series of random mutations across an equally unimaginable span of time, all completely absent of guidance.

AI, however, is different. We set the objectives. We decide where we want it to go. And, based on this, we setup artificial selection to make it happen.

Are you sure? The robot is limited by its gears. However, animals have cells that can adapt and change through a super sophisticated mechanism called DNA.

We are still way far from reaching living organisms complexity. All stuff we make is very fragile compared to that. Once we are able to modify real humans, you'll know we have the real deal.

Wait till they hook up the robots to other robots including 3D printers.

Is there some minimal viable size for a 3d printer to be shrunk down to, aka, cellular level?

Is there diminishing returns or does one eventually just go to nanites for this?

Great, not only chemicals, bacteria/virus, nuclear radiation, drones with guns can kill us all very efficiently, bot soon nanobots can devour us alive.

Pretty much 99.99% of crime is related to our evolutionary process, imo. The edge cases of mentally ill people etc are low, but otherwise racist/homophobic/theft crimes are all just tribalism/being afraid of the other/resource contention at the end of the day; society and its rules are just a patch on top of millennia of forming small groups and marching over to hit other neighbouring small groups with rocks.

Sentient life would be both impressive & scary in that it can theoretically optimise itself far, far beyond what we can. Then again it could go the other way too: aggressive nanobots that start disassembling humans getting into tribal-like wars with other groups of nanobots to fight over resources aka humans to melt down.

Sure one does. Us.

When one human learns something, they communicate about it and often, they all do. As always, robotics and automation doesn't enable any fundimental new capacity other than what required many humans to do, now requires less humans to do. This just gives more control to the humans who own the robots.

The AGI apocalypse is just the fear that capitalist entities and morales will spread and grow faster than humans can compete with. AI already exists to further their reach. We already have profit maximizing paperclip runaway super intelligence. We call them tech companies, and they flounder occasionally but they learn and adapt efficiently enough.