Lifeboat Foundation

As we plunge head-on into the game-changing dynamic of general artificial intelligence, observers are weighing in on just how huge an impact it will have on global societies. Will it drive explosive economic growth as some economists project, or are such claims unrealistically optimistic?

Few question the potential for change that AI presents. But in a world of litigation, privacy concerns and ethical boundaries, will AI be able to thrive?

Two researchers from Epoch, a research group evaluating the progression of artificial intelligence and its potential impacts, decided to explore arguments for and against the likelihood that innovation ushered in by AI will lead to explosive growth comparable to the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries.

I would toss in Crows.

For the first time in the U.S., research with cephalopods might require approval by an ethics committee.

With the growth of the commercial spaceflight business comes new ethical issues about human experimentation.

The expansion of the commercial spaceflight sector opens new avenues for scientific study in the unique environment of space.

However, it also raises ethical concerns about the conduct of scientific experiments and studies involving human volunteers on commercial spaceflights.

Let’s say that it is a curse. The issue is he is also against life extension entirely. Maybe I want 200 years. Or 1,000. I have zero concern over a boredom problem as it is brain process which can eventually be controlled. And I am disgusted with the idea that I have to die because we might not progress very fast? Ugh.

Elon Musk has said a lot of potentially stupid stuff about aging and longevity, from saying that people shouldn’t live very long because society would ossify to advocating that we judge people based on their chronological age. Most recently, he’s taken to Twitter (aka X) to say “May you live forever is the worst possible curse once you understand deep time.” In this case though, he’s not wrong.

Continue reading “Elon is Right. Having to Live Forever is a Curse. Here’s How to Solve It” »

Summary: The revolutionary field of bio-computing is making waves as DishBrain, a neural system combining 800,000 living brain cells, learns to play Pong. Recognizing the pressing need for ethical guidelines in this emerging domain, the pioneers behind DishBrain have joined forces with bioethicists in a study.

The research explores the moral considerations around biological computing systems and their potential consciousness. Beyond its innovation, the technology offers vast environmental benefits, potentially transforming the energy-consuming IT industry.

Pigs with human kidneys? Brain-powered computer chips? Science is creating new kinds of living things – and our moral understanding needs to catch up fast.

A blog by the company’s chief trust officer, Dana Rao, highlighted the importance of ethics while developing new AI tools. Generative AI has come much more into mainstream awareness in recent months with the launch of ChatGPT and DALL-E systems, which can understand written and verbal requests to generate convincingly human-like text and images.

Artists have complained that generative AIs being trained on their work is tantamount to ‘ripping off’ their styles or creating discriminatory or explicit content from harmless inputs. Others have called into question the ease with which humans can pass off AI-generated prose as their own work.

Read more: Schools ban ChatGPT.

Every day we encounter circumstances we consider wrong: a starving child, a corrupt politician, an unfaithful partner, a fraudulent scientist. These examples highlight several moral issues, including matters of care, fairness and betrayal. But does anything unite them all?

Philosophers, psychologists and neuroscientists have passionately argued whether moral judgments share something distinctive that separates them from non-moral matters. Moral monists claim that morality is unified by a common characteristic and that all moral issues involve concerns about harm. Pluralists, in contrast, argue that moral judgments are more diverse in nature.

Fascinated by this centuries-old debate, a team of researchers set out to probe the nature of morality using one of moral psychology’s most prolific theories. The group, led by UC Santa Barbara’s René Weber, intensively studied 64 individuals via surveys, interviews and brain imaging on the wrongness of various behaviors.

How brain enhancements can correct disabilities is an important question. But not a Closer To Truth question. What happens to personal identity? Would “I” still be me? What about moral standing? Would it change? Could my mind be uploaded? Would “I” live on?

Featuring interviews with Michio Kaku, Antonio Damasio, Leonard Mlodinow, V.S. Ramachandran and David Chalmers.

Continue reading “What Would Transhuman Brains Mean? | Episode 2113 | Closer To Truth” »