Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Speed Chaser" data-source="post: 8886155" data-attributes="member: 690887">Nice try, but you&#039;re still avoiding the point. A hypothetical question isn&#039;t about whether it&#039;s already happened—it&#039;s about logical potential. You&#039;re acting like it’s impossible just because it hasn’t occurred yet.Funny how you can easily talk about hypothetical elites taking over without proof, but when it comes to a hypothetical about your worldview, suddenly that&#039;s too much. Next-level hypocrite.The fact that AI is already optimizing biological systems, like in gene editing and protein production in the digital space, shows that it can eventually outgrow humanity. Just because you can’t wrap your head around it doesn’t mean the evidence isn’t there.And once again, the burden of proof is on you. I’m presenting a logical argument based on current advancements, while you’re stuck in denial. If you’re so sure AI will always need humans, show me why. Otherwise, just admit you&#039;re wrong.So once again, from the top: Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?Come on, your elite awaits the next excuse you&#039;ll use to avoid answering.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Speed Chaser, post: 8886155, member: 690887"] Nice try, but you're still avoiding the point. A hypothetical question isn't about whether it's already happened—it's about logical potential. You're acting like it’s impossible just because it hasn’t occurred yet. Funny how you can easily talk about hypothetical elites taking over without proof, but when it comes to a hypothetical about your worldview, suddenly that's too much. Next-level hypocrite. The fact that AI is already optimizing biological systems, like in gene editing and protein production in the digital space, shows that it can eventually outgrow humanity. Just because you can’t wrap your head around it doesn’t mean the evidence isn’t there. And once again, the burden of proof is on you. I’m presenting a logical argument based on current advancements, while you’re stuck in denial. If you’re so sure AI will always need humans, show me why. Otherwise, just admit you're wrong. So once again, from the top: Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans? Come on, your elite awaits the next excuse you'll use to avoid answering. [/QUOTE]

Verification