Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Frumpagumpus t1_j1h3l82 wrote

Reply to comment by a4mula in So… Do you guys want to form a cult? by [deleted]

i think dawkins selfish gene hypothesis is mostly wrong.

biological systems are in programming terms, function factories and not functions themselves.

They don't have discrete goals, just constraints. They amble along in a higher dimensional "goal space".

but yes I'm sure there will be some better scissor statements.

similar to your worry but what I would be more worried about is someone using a programming AI to develop a family of viruses that almost simultaneously encrypt all computer memory on the planet lol. as far as existential risks go.

1

a4mula t1_j1h3qlq wrote

Many people have objected to Dawkins over the years, but never has anyone proposed anything that effectively negates his thoughts.

Agree or disagree, that's alright. Again, personal views don't really matter.

This isn't about the book. Just the idea of memes as presented in the book, and I've never found anyone that has ever challenged him in that regard.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_j1h3vrj wrote

https://youtu.be/p3lsYlod5OU

i dont think you understood my take then, unfortunately i dont have a timestamp for you but basically I agree with this biologist by the name of michael levin.

https://youtu.be/p3lsYlod5OU?t=1946 maybe around here

1

a4mula t1_j1h4u4v wrote

I'd not challenge your beliefs. We're all free to see this reality however it is we'd like.

Yet, if you're embedding beliefs into these machines, they will only amplify them.

Instead, we should be promoting principles that all stakeholders can agree are beneficial.

Inviting everyone to join, I don't care what your beliefs are. Be Muslim, Be Christian, Be Atheist, Be Conservative, Be Liberal, Be whatever it is you are.

Those things don't matter anymore, and if we make them matter. These machines will ensure they do, and not in ways that are healthy to all stakeholders.

1