Kudos to
@onwardjames for yet another enjoyable and thought provoking thread
Thank you! I genuinely appreciate this comment.
A couple years ago I had a cancerous tumor on one of my kidneys. Both actually, but one was pretty involved. They used a robot on me. It could actually tell the difference between healthy tissue and cancer in a much more detailed way than human eyes could. Still took most of my kidney whereas without it they would have just taken out the entire thing.
So there’s that.
I am very glad you had a positive removal of that bad tissue. This is a situation where the accuracy of the equipment eclipses human ability, and that, to me, is a most wonderful thing, but likely isn't a threat to homo sapien dominance.
More troubling, though not ncessarily (to me) frightening, is the expression of HUMAN ARTIFICE that's rampant @ this time.
And here is just one of the many problems I wanted to cover. What does it mean to be human, and inversely, what makes something sentient or "aware"?
As the tech improves, we've gone from extremely crude prosthetics to unimaginably intricate and continually improving replacements. Visit a VA hospital and look what has been done. On the horizon is the Neura (sp?) brain link that Elon is working on, and he or someone will make it happen.
On down the road, people might be as much as 35% aftermarket, in ways we cannot even dream about today, perhaps even more.
Genetically hand-picked children WILL BE A THING. I have zero doubt of this. Why? Because the tech is already here, and someone will cross that moral threshold, selecting traits they'd like their kids to have (always advantageous, but one day, who knows?) and someone will get paid for it.
The singularity, what it means to actually be human, and runaway, logarithmic A.I. intelligence is what I'm really concerned with.
Could any possible A.I. ever come to a conclusion that humans are worth saving, considering our track record?? Asimov's 3 laws of robots is already out the window.