ImoJenny

ImoJenny t1_j3kze20 wrote

Read Iain M Banks books and invent new absurdly contrived sports and arts, maybe study and practice the sciences and technologies invented by the machines just to test the limit of the human mind.

Honestly whatever we want within our human limits and then abandoning our own humanity (in the narrowest sense of the term) to find new limits.

6

ImoJenny t1_j0slci8 wrote

As with most of this sort of question, no. The premise is reactionary and the conclusion is totalizing. Some people might merge into hiveminds. Some people might duplicate or divide themselves into copies which then network with each other, but to assume that all people will radically alter themselves in some specific way is not realistic.

Also who says we want to "beat AI."

2

ImoJenny t1_iyavc7p wrote

I feel like an editor must have made them change the lead because it appears to be about active support structures instead of space elevators.

Honestly it's a tragedy that so many forward-thinking writers are trapped under the thumb of a corporate management culture that spent the past 20 years purging everyone with more than half a brain.

3

ImoJenny t1_iwculp7 wrote

Not really sure, but that would make sense with the caveat that Heinlein kinda blows and Stranger in a Strange Land was a terrible book that promotes fascist ideation and is borderline unreadable even to someone who chewed through so many of his other works.

Edit, because the thread is locked: "Grok" is from Stranger in a Strange Land.

1

ImoJenny t1_iqw52e9 wrote

You bore me and you're totalizing. Other people aren't obligated to pursue your happiness and the fact that you think you can tell me I should indicates that you lack the ethical foundation to be making such determinations.

I hope you never have any authority over others as you are already admitting you would abuse it.

Also, destiny isn't a thing. That's magical thinking. We don't do that here.

1