I am here to call out the natural/unnatural fallocy. It is silly. Can you really draw a line between the two (natural vs unnatural) in a way that is logical and still supports your argument?
This isn’t something that falls under the appeal to nature fallacy. You’ll note that I never said humanity is better because it’s natural. In fact, I don’t think I applied any form of gradation to it at all. I simply said that evolutionary science states that nature doesn’t regress. However, I don’t believe that evolutionary science considered that AI would remove common sense and rationality from the process.
So, consider your “natural/unnatural fallacy” un-called out by reason of irrelevance.
Ah fair. I was confused by the language. I thought you were saying broadly that AI was bad because it is unnatural rather than because it is cultural / technological.
I still don’t think you’ve made a good case though. We have lots of tech that had us think less that didn’t lead to the end of humanity. What would make AI special enough to end us? People have felt apocalyptic about a lot of things.
From my perspective the issues aren’t about AI itself. The issue is that a small group of folks control our society and how tech gets used.
By “regress”, I mean essentially to de-evolve. The opposite of progress. Nature does not allow for backwards evolution. Everything moves towards natural adaptation. Never away from it.
A purely cave dwelling fish doesn’t need sight. So, over time- it will lose its sight in favor or other senses, such as smell or the ability to sense sound waves and motion. Also, eyes can be a disadvantage to them as they no longer need to devote energy to a useless sense.
I am here to call out the natural/unnatural fallocy. It is silly. Can you really draw a line between the two (natural vs unnatural) in a way that is logical and still supports your argument?
This isn’t something that falls under the appeal to nature fallacy. You’ll note that I never said humanity is better because it’s natural. In fact, I don’t think I applied any form of gradation to it at all. I simply said that evolutionary science states that nature doesn’t regress. However, I don’t believe that evolutionary science considered that AI would remove common sense and rationality from the process.
So, consider your “natural/unnatural fallacy” un-called out by reason of irrelevance.
Ah fair. I was confused by the language. I thought you were saying broadly that AI was bad because it is unnatural rather than because it is cultural / technological.
I still don’t think you’ve made a good case though. We have lots of tech that had us think less that didn’t lead to the end of humanity. What would make AI special enough to end us? People have felt apocalyptic about a lot of things.
From my perspective the issues aren’t about AI itself. The issue is that a small group of folks control our society and how tech gets used.
What do you mean by “regress”? Is the Mexican tetra un-evolving its eyes not a regression?
That’s considered an adaptation. So, no. It didn’t de-evolve. It adapted to its environment and over time, shed a useless function.
What is gained by having no eyes? Can you answer my question about what it means to regress?
By “regress”, I mean essentially to de-evolve. The opposite of progress. Nature does not allow for backwards evolution. Everything moves towards natural adaptation. Never away from it.
A purely cave dwelling fish doesn’t need sight. So, over time- it will lose its sight in favor or other senses, such as smell or the ability to sense sound waves and motion. Also, eyes can be a disadvantage to them as they no longer need to devote energy to a useless sense.