"The first person to live to [200, 300, 500, 1000] has already been born"

[Amine]

Sounds like we should just let nature do its job.

Immortality would open up a whooooole can of worms.

If you want to let nature do its job, skip the antibiotics next time you get an infection and refuse to wear eyeglasses or similar such things.

---

---

But the matter is about finding a technology that would change the fact that everyone is going to get old at some point. By analogy, what if it were legal to abuse and kill people over 85 years old, simply because they are old? That's not how it works. Murder is murder because people are people. Many have made their principles clear in saying they think it is right for people to die when they are old, despite the current lack of practical application.


Thanks. I've read and listen to some stuff by Bostrom (and others in his camp) but I'm still fairly agnostic about AI. Another good viewpoint is elucidated here by David Deutsch: https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-...telligence

Excerpt: "I do not highlight all these philosophical issues because I fear that AGIs will be invented before we have developed the philosophical sophistication to understand them and to integrate them into civilisation. It is for almost the opposite reason: I am convinced that the whole problem of developing AGIs is a matter of philosophy, not computer science or neurophysiology, and that the philosophical progress that is essential to their future integration is also a prerequisite for developing them in the first place."

1. I know. That's why I said it concerns all of us. There's no disagreement here, just a misunderstanding, except for the part where you wrongly said that it's bigoted to say that of old people. It's not. As things are, unless we change that, we'll all get to be old, and so the idiots who dismiss the death of old people as less important are really talking about their own too, ultimately.

So you're saying you read his book, then? If not, do read it. It's more than worth your time, I assure you.

Haven't read the book but have seen his @google talk about it, not that this is any substitute. I'd like to read it but my list is long.. perhaps you could say what is so compelling about his case.

What is bigotry? To me it seems clear that saying different rules apply to some group because of an irrelevant distinction is the definition of bigotry. If I said it were wrong to look for a cure for a fatal disease that only (for example) deaf people could get, that would be bigotry. The mechanics in that situation are exactly the same.