Survival or reproduction?

I believe the human species has a single utility function and that is to maximize one of these two, but not both. I could be wrong, but I believe that humanity will choose to optimize for only one of these in the future when we invent superintelligent AI, and I'm not sure which it will be. Would humans rather live forever and have no descendants or die and have infinite descendants? I'd pick the first, quite honestly.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Computers can't think. Numbers aren't intelligent. Numerology is not AI.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Computers can't think.
      yeah because you can.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        when was the last time you wrote code for a brain?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you program an analog computer you don't do it via code, if we keep the brain analogy. you are doing it via hardware, setting a certain hardware configuration results in a certain behavior.
          >when was the last time you wrote code for a brain?
          I made some shit that others learned about. I also teach friends random shit, in that sense I may have written some code (text messages) yesterday when talking with a friend. or maybe even now with this post. as long as it triggers thoughts in who's reading it then it is a sort of programming.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No it isn't.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i agree but thinking is overrated

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      forget the computers and answer the question: eternal life without sex or infinite descendants but you have to die?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        so like no kids or no sex altogether?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          no kids. sex without reproduction is simply a drug and definitely not the utility function of any species. not all species even have sex obviously

          Organisms that evolved reward systems did so to incentivise reproduction. After all why would any organism care about perpetuating their species if the experience of life was boring at best and brutal at worst? This is necessary for any organism that is capable of thinking. A chicken doesnt need to think or feel it just pecks at spots on the ground, sits on eggs and runs away from anything that is big and moves purely from programmed instinct. It never asks "why bother?" There is no purely logical reason to perpetuate the species. People do it because sex feels good, it's fulfilling and life can be good so why not give the gift to someone not born yet? There is a lot of pain in life too. The incentive structure is carrot and stick. Genetic code is engineered to self replicate by any means necessary. If you burn your hand on a stove thats your brain punishing you for doing something harmful to your chances of perpetuating the species. In an ideal world this wouldnt be necessary but we dont live in it. Pain can be just as much a motivator as pleasure. We need it too. If we felt no pain we would live like lepers scratching our bodies, getting infections and dying early. Life is not evolved enough to live without pain and who knows if it ever will be. To answer the question, why not both? The population needs to grow, colonize other planets or life could be done if something happens to our single non redundant planet. At the same time i see no reason why aging shouldnt be cured and we keep going until a freak accident kills us. Life needs to be worth living too. It shouldnt become miserable for the sake of productivity and growth.

          I don't know the answer to "why not both?" I just feel like humanity has to have one terminal goal or terminal utility function and everything else is an instrumental goal or instrumental utility function that serves the overall one. I can't think of a way that survival and reproduction are both integrated into one function. What would you even call that? Flourishing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The goal should be keep the species existing. Why? Because life is worth living. If life cant manage to survive or it does but life is so miserable everyone should just kill themselves then thats a big L for humanity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            is that actually what evolutionary biology supports? long-term survival of the species specifically? or is it about your individual bloodline? there's certainly sexual competition so I don't see how people could be putting the species first, but I could be wrong. I even think the elites want to branch off and become their own, more intelligent species (not that they're the brightest of the bunch but they're not 100IQ either). I see this as a natural instinct and I feel like splitting off to your own species isn't "survival of the species".

            The most intelligent species has sex almost exclusively without reproducing. Claiming that this activity is merely a drug undercuts the entire project; if humans are valuing things merely based upon evopsychological scars it becomes indefensible why anything is valuable in an objective sense. This is only exacerbated since humans are able to eradicate their own instincts, and will soon be able to do so genetically and permanently if desired.

            Humans may as well rewrite themselves into paperclip maximizers and follow that utility function.

            Also let's be clear, multiple species historically have eradicated themselves through Fisherian runaway because they just did value (this word is confused in the case of non-sapients) sex and sexual selection over maximizing descendants. Some have even survived this process and caused speciation through it.

            but humans won't rewrite themselves into paperclip maximizers. they'll either put survival first or reproduction first and I guess I'm trying to figure out which one it is, unless it's something I haven't thought of.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People are programmed to like those similar to themselves. This can be a wide ranging empathy for life but more for those most similar or extreme hostility, racism, chauvinism on the other extreme. Game theory shows pro-social strategies to be the most successful. Speciation can occur when a subgroup of one species is different enough at a genetic level that it occupies an ecological niche the rest of the species cant. Politicians are morons who get culled any time there is a civil war in their country so i dont think they are forming a new species any time soon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm one of those "schizos" who believes secret societies are running the show. GPT4 says you can have enough genetic diversity in a population of just 500 people to start a space colony (or breakaway civilization in general) and avoid inbreeding in the long term. I find it highly likely that there are members of secret societies who want to break off and form their own, higher IQ civilization which may or may not leech off of Earth's population, if they haven't already done so.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it doesn't matter what anyone "wants". it's about best fit for environment. current rewards serve current form and environment. and seeing how many are offing themselves I wouldn't say they're so useful in those cases.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The most intelligent species has sex almost exclusively without reproducing. Claiming that this activity is merely a drug undercuts the entire project; if humans are valuing things merely based upon evopsychological scars it becomes indefensible why anything is valuable in an objective sense. This is only exacerbated since humans are able to eradicate their own instincts, and will soon be able to do so genetically and permanently if desired.

            Humans may as well rewrite themselves into paperclip maximizers and follow that utility function.

            Also let's be clear, multiple species historically have eradicated themselves through Fisherian runaway because they just did value (this word is confused in the case of non-sapients) sex and sexual selection over maximizing descendants. Some have even survived this process and caused speciation through it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Also let's be clear, multiple species historically have eradicated themselves through Fisherian runaway because they just did value (this word is confused in the case of non-sapients) sex and sexual selection over maximizing descendants.
            Which ones? I don't think it's what's going on. It makes perfect sense to use excess resources for ornamentation, to show off that you are mfed more than adequate. Even in people beauty seems to depend near 100% on nutrition.
            >Some have even survived this process and caused speciation through it.
            Which ones?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It makes perfect sense to use excess resources for ornamentation, to show off that you are mfed more than adequate.
            No, Fisherian runaways (like the one currently occuring) are the just exactly an example of survival mechanisms becoming extinction mechanisms.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fisherian runaways are dreamt up bullshit. It's good for survival to be beautiful. Why? Let's say there is a limiting nutrient that is hard to obtain, and limit the species' survival. How does it turn out when the species has no ornamentation? It evolves to be better at obtaining the nutrient. But once it reaches 100%, its evolution gets stuck, as there is no way to be better than perfectly fed. It doesn't matter if you could get 120, 280 or more %. You are stuck at 100%

            Let's say there is another species that uses the excess rare nutrient on growing ornamentation, that needs that specific nutrient to grow. It can keep evolving, even if its essential needs are fully met.

            Now, what happens when hard times come, and the availability of the nutrient drops to 1/3? The first species will perish, with perhaps a few exceptional individuals able to obtain 60 or 80%, but not more. But the beatiful one, where individuals get easily 360-480% of their actual needs can survive with no problem, only their ornamentation will be less. They will be alive, only a bit less beatiful.

            Ergo, once the species evolves for survival, it's natural to progress into evolving for beauty.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's crazy how deluded comp sci morons have become. Are they living in the same universe as us, in which hardware innovation gets cancelled out by increasingly bloated technology? "Single Utility function", Black person do you understand how evolution works? Genetic diversity is a thing. Try optimizing your hill climbing algorithm for getting b***hes, homosexual.
    t.ML engineer

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Organisms that evolved reward systems did so to incentivise reproduction. After all why would any organism care about perpetuating their species if the experience of life was boring at best and brutal at worst? This is necessary for any organism that is capable of thinking. A chicken doesnt need to think or feel it just pecks at spots on the ground, sits on eggs and runs away from anything that is big and moves purely from programmed instinct. It never asks "why bother?" There is no purely logical reason to perpetuate the species. People do it because sex feels good, it's fulfilling and life can be good so why not give the gift to someone not born yet? There is a lot of pain in life too. The incentive structure is carrot and stick. Genetic code is engineered to self replicate by any means necessary. If you burn your hand on a stove thats your brain punishing you for doing something harmful to your chances of perpetuating the species. In an ideal world this wouldnt be necessary but we dont live in it. Pain can be just as much a motivator as pleasure. We need it too. If we felt no pain we would live like lepers scratching our bodies, getting infections and dying early. Life is not evolved enough to live without pain and who knows if it ever will be. To answer the question, why not both? The population needs to grow, colonize other planets or life could be done if something happens to our single non redundant planet. At the same time i see no reason why aging shouldnt be cured and we keep going until a freak accident kills us. Life needs to be worth living too. It shouldnt become miserable for the sake of productivity and growth.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That is a belief, it is common to see organisms investing varying amount on both individual life span or reproduction rate and rare to see extreme of 0 life inf reproduction or inf life span 0 reproduction without twisting what life/reproduction/organism is.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How do we know that it's normal for them? People also do it today, at least in some areas, even though we know that even rather recently it wasn't normal.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Frick off moron

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      not an argument moron. human brains are an analog computer which self-modifies based on data input. there's no fricking digital infrastructure to "code" a human brain, as your moronic mind is used to from digital computing.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *