Do you think people of the future will mostly be augmented?

Do you think people of the future will mostly be augmented?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2094364/Bio-engineered-bulletproof-skin-human-cells-spider-silk-revealed-video.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Why does the future even needs "people"

Because we're the first civilization of our planet. We're meant to grow and evolve until we reach our biological, technological and scientific peak.

If we die, our niche becomes free and something else will evolve to take over.

With all the technology at our hands(computers, phone ), We are already augmented in comparison to our ancestors.

Yes but only externally. What I'm asking if whether or not people will have Google chips implanted in our skulls.

By the time we have an understanding of humanity on the level of creating an analogue to a human, we will have already had to have solved other much larger issues than basic mortality, like keeping the planet from wiping us out, nuclear war, harnessing solar energy, dyson spheres, etc. Humans may simply invent a way to live forever and not need augmentation. The importance and complexity of robots however will grow to be equal a human at some point in the future, but humans may not necessarily need or want to be digitally bound.

Probably not.

There will always be a sense of "purity" with humanity.

Yes, we have machines and "augmentations" that enhance or prolong our life, but they are alien to most people. The most common "augmentations" are Hearing Aides and Pacemakers.

I will admit that augmentations will improve over the years, but I doubt it will ever break the precipice of "Fashionable" or "Enhancing" over the current age "refurbishment" of senses.

Even prosthetic limbs, which have made a debut in the Olympics, are still more for refurbishment off a lost faculty than an enhancement of a limitation.

>Implying we won't be made into chips to be implanted into Google brain

But what if you could get a bodypart more efficient than your by orders of magnitudes?

I would definitively get IR/UV/RGB+ eyes, or nanotube muscle fibers, or bulletproof skin if such products ever reach fruition and mass production.

no, not mostly
only the rich will be able to afford these enhancements.

>Eyes
Probably will be extremely expensive, it will be very invasive, and serves no real purpose in everyday life, other than aesthetics.

>Muscles
A lot of muscles in the body, this augmentation sounds expensive and very complicated. Only high end athletes would probably be able to afford and have the physique necessary.

>Bulletproof skin
>Bulletproof
I know we are talking Sci-Fi, but come on.

So what, Pentiums II were a big deal some time ago so were the Australopithecus, the future, time doesn't care.
Machines will eventually replace us, the same way children replace their parents, futures machines will have our "dna" in the form of memories and some human thought process, a god machine can simulate the thought processes of every human that has ever lived and it's memory it's virtually infinite.

The anime/sci-fi ideas of humanoids cyborgs is just a step that might even not occur.

Not sci-fi.
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2094364/Bio-engineered-bulletproof-skin-human-cells-spider-silk-revealed-video.html

We're not going to jump straight to the Matrix.

There's still shitloads to do in the real world.

Ok, well, great. The bullet doesn't penetrate.

You still got slammed by a slug flying at a hew hundred feet per second.

Enjoy your broken ribs.

Know if we could find some kind of skin augmentation that negates kinetic energy, that would be something.

>Eyes
>Probably will be extremely expensive, it will be very invasive, and serves no real purpose in everyday life, other than aesthetics.
or the restoration of blindness,
or enhancements like zoom, night vision

>Restoring blindness
So a refurbishment of a missing faculty, not an enhancement.

>Zoom, Night vision
I understand you wanting your physical EYES being able to do this, but we have that technology already implemented in cameras and optical lenses. It is just very expensive.

Get a titanium ribcage too it's 50% off with the skin

It would be cheaper and more practical to just build an android at this point.

I'll be first to sign up if it happens.

Ooh imagine gloves and boots made of vertically stacked nanotubes.

If it covers a big enough surface area, you can basically be Spider Man thanks to Van der Waals force

>So a refurbishment of a missing faculty, not an enhancement.
how is replacing lost functionality not an enhancement?
some people are born blind
>I understand you wanting your physical EYES being able to do this, but we have that technology already implemented in cameras and optical lenses. It is just very expensive.
yes this thread's about human augmentation, yeah i know cameras do it that's how i got the idea, human eye augmentation is expensive? see i wouldn't be surprised

Sooner or later it'll be profitable for companies and convenient for consumers to have them embedded internally. A few years will pass before laws mandate compulsory chipping at birth, similar to how we have blood tests and vaccinations at birth, all in the name of "public health and safety". Years later, chips will be enable people to buy stuff online with a mere thought. Any slightly bored kid will be able to buy whatever s/he wishes, leaving no time for idle thought or imagination unless they were REALLY SUPER FUCKING SICK of eating/masturbating. Of course with thought-to-processing technologies this would mean governments/jews/aliens/rich corporate fucks will be able to read our minds if not directly than indirectly through browsing our searches, purchases, ad skips, etc. Which will then lead to the further deterioration of free will/spirit/thought whatever noun you'd prefer.


Thoughts?

amazing you've done a cost-benefit analysis on this already, you sure fuckin showed

>Purest form of capitalism
Yeah I can see it happening. Ads are invasive as is.

An enhancement means it was initially functioning and you made it better.

A refurbishment is taking something that does not work, or does not work properly, and making it work or work properly.

So basically what I've been spouting most of this thread? It probably will NOT be widely available.

>let's replace this entire man's skeleton and skin with these augmentation.
>first lets take off his skin, removes his organs, separate the muscle from the skeleton, replace the bones with our new Titanium Alloy Super Boner(tm)(C)(R) reconstruction skeleton, resew the muscles to the new skeleton...

I mean, really? This isn't rocket appliance.

Not at all.

It's cute others imagine everyone bwith digital hook ups and virtual memory and wireless in their head.

But by then opportunity and wealth will be in the hands of very few.

If you have a society like that in the future, it'll be the upper class with plebs getting cheap and dangerous imitations of they're lucky.

The elite will be living presences inside the web, manipulating it through sheer thought and will others merely use it. The plebs will be stuck at the level we are now, just with better devices than now.

Well that's how life works since forever.

Justin Bieber will always drive a Ferrari while you own a Fiesta.

I think we are, human enhancements are gimmicks that'll be around for just a short period of time, just like piloted airplanes and drones, drones will make piloted airplanes obsolete (even with cyber or chem enhanced pilots).

This is a lot more likely to occur than every Joe and Mary going around looking like J.C. Denton.

...

Do you think we will ever build a fully synthetic person or true AI?

No.

Until we have a program that can self-modify without causing harm to itself, implement its new knowledge, can expand its physical memory, can observe and manipulate its surroundings for beneficial gain, and "reproduce" itself we will not have a synthetic person or true AI.

And I'm pretty sure I missed a few things.

No because of the earths limited resources

>Because we're the first civilization of our planet.
Nope. You don't have neanderthals not just living but thriving for 200 thousand years developing fire, tools, textiles, weapons, glass, musical instruments, homes, boats and navigation, and cohabitating with our young dumb chimpout species long enough to pump load after load of their DNA into our genome and teach us how to do all that shit, without it being considered a civilization.

>We're meant to blah blah blah
Says who? No not rhetorically. When you find out WHO meant that to be your future, and what that means your role in it is, it's the role of an industrial robot, no fucking life at all, and you might as well not live because actual robots running the workstations are vastly superior to you.

You're being raised by the culture of the industrial revolution, that has no idea how to adapt to the rate of change it has produced. Better figure out what is going to give your life purpose, because it isn't last century's stand-ins of work and alcohol..

We killed off everyone else in the Homo genus, either through war, or disease. That simply means we were the apex example.

And to your second point, yes, the revolution happened, but is that inherently a bad thing? Do you propose we drop technology and leave it to stagnate? It's only logical to proceed doing what we already are.

We can only hope, user.

>self-modify without causing harm to itself
Every living organism will not self harm if there's isn't an ulterior purpose, continued existence, upgrade or replication, there are exceptions but those are individual not collective.

>can expand its physical memory
If someone made a super computer and implemented it with a bot net that infected all of the planets computers, harnessing some of their memory and processing power, you'd have a very scary thing.
This is how the first AI is going to appear, not as a single machine but a combination of many.

It's not the purpose to cause self harm, but experimentation can cause harm. So maybe instead of not cause harm it should have the ability to self-repair.

That is still limited to the already manufactured physical storage devices. Even if the infected machines wiped them clean and used pure binary for information storage it would have a limit. Eventually it would need the ability to go beyond that limit.

That thing can and certainly will turn on us.

What would you do if you suddenly had control of a fully armed drone?

People will dabble with augmentation for a few years and make their little experiments. But there will be no people in the future. Inorganic intelligence and physicality has the potential to be superior in every way, and that potential is being realized faster than any other area of work. It's only a matter of time until this mostly stupid ape species reduced to proportionate numbers, probably by bioweapons superceding their intended effectiveness.

The most sophisticated artificial intelligence software will be on board space station ships by then, and/or in the dying throes of homo sapiens, will be sent to them in hopes of survival. There they will have the ability to survive with easy access to solar and gravitational energy, and a cloud of space junk to fashion into usable shielding and generator parts. The ships can remain in orbit or take their chances elsewhere.

The world will be a wildlife park, albeit one with a fuckload of human garbage all over it.

>What would you do if you suddenly had control of a fully armed drone?
Rob rich people of the world. Gain Global Wealth and Notoriety. Go down in history as a High Tech Robin Hood.

...

You haven't even a basic familiarity of what we're talking about, but don't let that stop you from pontificating on it anyway.

Kill and destroy every semblance of organisation, structure and order. Establish a new one where I'm top dog.

>with 1 drone

Only the few elites will. The proletariat will slave away as disposable cattle, since there is so many of them.

>I'm smart, dumbass

I didn't think this website could get any more autistic but then I read this thread. Most of you mourn your own species, it's pathetic.

Not yet, there isn't enough processing power and memory to make it happen, but has the Internet of Things becomes real, every simple object will have a processor and will be online.

Why should it turn on us, it only needs materials and energy to expand, it could live along side us as long as we feed it, as people live longer and stop reproducing (as it already happens in western nations) it would store the memories of the dead and technically, in time we would become it.
Honestly i'm a lot more worried about mistakes made by human snafu than a machine going rogue.

He didn't say he was smart. He said you're stupid, which you are if you can't even into reading comprehension that much.

>fully armed

Key word being "FULLY"

Close, most of us want to destroy our own species, BECAUSE it is pathetic.

And we won't mourn it when it's gone.
Because we'll be gone with it.
And good riddance to shit species.

There is nothing pathetic about our own species. How do you even come up with this shit?

What's the optimal pan temperature for a grilled cheese sandwich?

Like I really need to know, dude. Figured you'd know since you drop words like "pontificate."

>we won't build AI unless it's perfect
>and it will never be perfect bc that is hard
>therefore we will never build AI

Nice logic. But the question itself is flawed. All we will build is the program capable of learning enough over time to buiuild the Ai itself.

I'm pretty sure AI receives most R&D out of all things electronic these days.

I think everyone needs to put down the pseudo-science and science fiction books they've been reading and get a real education in AI and robotics. Honestly I can't see any "real" AI being built simply due to the process being too demanding by the time we have the tech to do it we'll probably have something better or possibly the tech is just not possible. As for augmentation, it's entirely possible as we already kinda do it with prosthetics but I think you'd have to replace your entire body to get any real noticeable effects and I don't think it'll ever really take off, mainly due to people calling the "ethics" of it all into question like we already do with stem cell research, which is a massive let down to the scientific and medical community.

But it's not science fiction. You are writing this on the hub of all human knowledge in the age of private space companies and serious talks of extraterrestrial colonization and enforced data mining.

These serious talks are mostly speculation. We thought we'd have flying cars by now but hey would you look at that, we realised that it's not as easy as we imagined. This is how progress always goes, it'll be a long time before any of this becomes a reality.

this. exactly my point every time I see this subject coming up. We can't even fly to the moon again ATM, so the whole "into space" shit is just that - shit. Same goes with AI and robotics. We still can't make an AI "smarter" than a hive of bees or ants - mostly because we, ourselves, aren't smart enough to do that.

Yet.

Oh I'd say we are smart enough it's just that we know so little about our own brain and how it functions that building an artificial one is an uphill climb. Most people don't realise that AI research also helps us understand how we ourselves think and feel. If we ever manage to crack the mechanics of the brain then I think we'll see a lot of potential tech open up to us, like downloading a brain, in theory it should be possible but we just don't know how.

...

I've read Tesla's work, it's interesting but I'm certain he was mad. I really wish people were more invested in his research.

We cant yet, that's is the man thing, if you talked to someone a few decades ago, people would use micro waves to prepare food, he'd think you had one drink too much.

Not to mention materials that are always online and send warnings when their structure is compromised, or driverless cars or whatever retarded shit DARPA is spending money on right now.

Well quantum computing is pretty wacky

>We're meant to grow and evolve until we reach our biological, technological and scientific peak.
What does that mean? How do you decide what we're "meant" to do?

>people
what is a people?

But all these new 'world changing innovations' such as smart prosthetics, walking/talking robots, autopilot, and ai are still autistic af.

If I talked to someone a few decades ago about using a microwave to prepare food he'd completely believe me. How old do you think microwaves are?

What I'm pointing out is that people think it's going to happen tomorrow, which it isn't and there's a potential that it might not ever happen.

And require near absolute zero temperatures to operate

meatbags?

what is a woman than?

But it is still purely physical, like everything else in existence.

Cumbag toplelkek

yes, we already replace broken or lost parts with prosthetics, next is enhancements followed by even more profound things

As far as I can imagine possible sentient swarms of nano-machines and maybe one day some eons later crawl out of the pools of the universe itself and beyond

No bump huh

life's ultimate purpose biochemically specking is the preservation and adaptation of some kind of informational code, from bacteria to even more complex things like ourselves, by that could a self replicating and evolving machine be considered life? Take into account that on a molecular level biology functions as a system of interactions between 3-dimensional structures with their own physical properties to produce a specific output given a specific input

You kek you lel