On 2/1/2014 2:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:48, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially
survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced
indefinitely. At present, we can repair or replace some parts in the
human body, but not enough to prolong life for more than a few years.
Actually I think we can make people live indefinitely now. I have seriously
considered starting a business to do this. I certainly think I can do it
more legitimately than those cryogenic preservation services. What I would
do it is gather as much information about the person as possible. If they
were still alive this would include extensive video recordings and
interviews. Then they would be 3d-modeled in CGI, with adjustment of age
appearance as desired. This model would then be inserted as an avatar of
the person in an artificial CGI world, similar to many computer games. The
avatar would be provided with an AI based on all the writings, video,
interviews etc so that it would respond like the person modeled in most
conversation. It could access current events etc from the internet so it
would be able to discuss things.
Would the avatar be conscious? According to Bruno it would be if it's AI
were Lobian - which isn't that hard. But really it's beside the point. AI,
such as Watson, could easily appear as conscious and intelligent as your
90yr old aunt and tell the stories she tells and exhibit the quirks she has.
Would the avatar be alive? conscious? Who would care? Not the loved ones
that paid to preserve Grandma for future generations.
Anybody want to invest? It'll take big bucks to do it right.
If you really could do that, we could send these AI's into the world
to work for us and represent us.
That would be a much more ambitious project to implement the CGI avatars as robots so they
could act in the world. I'm proposing something much less difficult, something half-way
between the robot avatar and a collection of videos of Grandma.
We are nowhere near doing that. Then
there is the additional question of whether the AI is a continuation
of the person's consciousness.
Indeed. And supposing I created an avatar of Grandma with whom you could interact via
your computer monitor, what would be the ethical implications of turning off "Grandma1.0"
or of erasing "Grandma1.0"? Would the answer turn on whether we could show Grandma1.0 was
conscious? I think not. But it seems that most people on this list think that's the
crucial point.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
