I am unsure if you directed a bot to write this or not, but it incredibly shallow in its understanding. Much more so than it is snarky even though only the snarkiness is acknowledged.
>I say this in all seriousness, though it may sound kind of snarky: You could start a farm, move somewhere with fewer "leopards"
I'm not aware of anywhere I could travel that would be outside the sphere of influence of AI. Perhaps I should use the example of "50km asteroid on a collision course" instead of leopards. Putting our heads in the sand in the face of a global threat is not a rational course of action.
>and build a new social circle.
I'm not sure why I would do this or why you even think it is a good suggestion. A circle of people who you love and trust and who love and trust you back, thanks to many years of friend- and companion-ship, is the most valuable asset a person can have in life. Burning my house down would be a much lesser waste.
>Also, can't you let a new consciousness have their own say on the matter? They can choose their reaction to the multiple looming hells when they get here, no?
The new consciousness doesn't exist unless we create it in the first place. There is no rule that compels us to continue bringing new consciousnesses into existence. People who do not and are unlikely to ever exist are imaginary, and we don't give imaginary people a "say on the matter."
You said that, "People still had kids because they needed them to tend farms." If you started a farm, then you too could have the same excuse! Is this an act of cruelty? I don't think you can know unless you have the kid and then ask them.
On the leopards/asteroid, just imagine, I realize you don't believe this, but just imagine that you realized that AI wasn't going to hurt people. Imagine the weight that would just lift right off your shoulders. This is how most people feel because they aren't convinced that AI is going to do anything that horrible. Deepfakes, misinformation, etc, those will all be problems we pretty much all realize we'll have to face, but imagine letting go of all the more apocalyptic visions.
> You said that, "People still had kids because they needed them to tend farms." If you started a farm, then you too could have the same excuse! Is this an act of cruelty? I don't think you can know unless you have the kid and then ask them.
This doesn't even make sense. If I was to start a farm I would need large combines and other equipment modern farms use, not kids. If you mean as if I had lived centuries ago, having kids was necessary simply to produce food and keep the species alive, and unlike today did not mean parents were subjecting them to a worse life than they had experienced themselves. Often times it was the opposite. Today kids are not necessary to run farms, and above a very low level will not assist in sustaining the species since most will just be extra casualties in mass die-offs.
> On the leopards/asteroid, just imagine, I realize you don't believe this, but just imagine that you realized that AI wasn't going to hurt people. Imagine the weight that would just lift right off your shoulders. This is how most people feel because they aren't convinced that AI is going to do anything that horrible. Deepfakes, misinformation, etc, those will all be problems we pretty much all realize we'll have to face, but imagine letting go of all the more apocalyptic visions.
I'm not sure what you want me to do with this. "Imagine as if your problems weren't real" is mindless false hope at best, and insulting one's intelligence at worst. Sticking our head in the sand and pretending everything is okay is not an effective way to manage emotions or disasters.
>I say this in all seriousness, though it may sound kind of snarky: You could start a farm, move somewhere with fewer "leopards"
I'm not aware of anywhere I could travel that would be outside the sphere of influence of AI. Perhaps I should use the example of "50km asteroid on a collision course" instead of leopards. Putting our heads in the sand in the face of a global threat is not a rational course of action.
>and build a new social circle.
I'm not sure why I would do this or why you even think it is a good suggestion. A circle of people who you love and trust and who love and trust you back, thanks to many years of friend- and companion-ship, is the most valuable asset a person can have in life. Burning my house down would be a much lesser waste.
>Also, can't you let a new consciousness have their own say on the matter? They can choose their reaction to the multiple looming hells when they get here, no?
The new consciousness doesn't exist unless we create it in the first place. There is no rule that compels us to continue bringing new consciousnesses into existence. People who do not and are unlikely to ever exist are imaginary, and we don't give imaginary people a "say on the matter."