Of course it's legal. How can you dispute AI generated personalities aren't a carbon copy of human artifice. Therefore, we are moving to a point where if you are not human, you have to provide sufficient evidence it's your DNA code. If it's not DNA then what is spontaneity has no value.
So if you read all that accurately... ^ = I am asking a question that should DNA be proven to disqualify AI as an entity designed to replace us. In other words, is our very DNA the next generation of patent information. Patent as in organizing our existence on a binary level.
So unless you have DNA (which cannot be copied) you cannot self describe as an entity. Basically, eliminating AI has a cause in this or any future time.
Think about this. Can DNA be patented or can AI have leverage against us be it used to commodify the human condition on a unilateral scale. Are we as a species going to have to patent ourselves in the natural order of things. DNA is your only choice to prove we are who we say we are. Therefore, does this limit the human evolutionary scale. If AI can learn, (i.e. copy and paste) replicating only what humans have accumulated. What is the point of being born with natural elements (DNA) as nature thereby intended. So the dilemma is in 2 equal parts: 1- Can we replicate DNA (manufacture DNA) through biological engineering. 2- If we are born with DNA from natural birth, what contains our rights above AI or Biologically engineered entities. So which is binary and which is non-binary = (non-binary) coded vs. god's creation (binary) The simplification of the argument looks like this: if you are a binary agent of change, you subscribe to being human, inclusive to our rights as mammals born from creation. In which case, if you are non-binary and believe coding-prisms as identity that is a patent of playing god. Would you agree. Agree that the advancement of AI is only playing god or are we willing to accept that AI is NOT an entity of false cause. Are you going to protest using non-binary technology and employ that as a useful instrument OR are you going to fight your god given binary nature to include everything as inclusive to being human. (This includes our rights across all races, genders, and culture) - Marco
Think about this. Can DNA be patented or can AI have leverage against us be it used to commodify the human condition on a unilateral scale. Are we as a species going to have to patent ourselves in the natural order of things. DNA is your only choice to prove we are who we say we are. Therefore, does this limit the human evolutionary scale. If AI can learn, (i.e. copy and paste) replicating only what humans have accumulated. What is the point of being born with natural elements (DNA) as nature thereby intended. So the dilemma is in 2 equal parts: 1- Can we replicate DNA (manufacture DNA) through biological engineering. 2- If we are born with DNA from natural birth, what contains our rights above AI or Biologically engineered entities. So which is binary and which is non-binary = (non-binary) coded vs. god's creation (binary) The simplification of the argument looks like this: if you are a binary agent of change, you subscribe to being human, inclusive to our rights as mammals born from creation. In which case, if you are non-binary and believe coding-prisms as identity that is a patent of playing god. Would you agree. Agree that the advancement of AI is only playing god or are we willing to accept that AI is NOT an entity of false cause. Are you going to protest using non-binary technology and employ that as a useful instrument OR are you going to fight your god given binary nature to include everything as inclusive to being human. (This includes our rights across all races, genders, and culture) - Marco
No comments:
Post a Comment