The ‘rational observer’ who believes that different rational perspectives can be subsumed within one overarching notion of rationality which unites them will be at risk of explaining the difference between perspectives by blaming one of them for being irrational or poorly thought out. — Joshs

Perhaps. And he may be correct in that assessment. But I didn't say the two different perspectives were rational - only that the observer is.
By which I mean, the observer does not take a moralistic or religious or parental or emotional or legal position, but can see whether one or both parties in disagreement have taken such a position, and if so, what those positions are.

I see I've made a fatal error in using the word 'rational'. I meant your perspective, not the subjects'; theirs may or may not be. I was asking you to judge.

Can frivolous and silly be purely rational? — tim wood

No, they are the opposite. The rational observer can readily perceive this.

If purely rational, how could there be a different POV? — tim wood

Most people. Most of the time, are nothing like purely rational. And that's why they can have very different opinions, even from quite similar perspectives. When the perspective differs widely, there is a good chance that the opinion will, too. The rational observer can usually see both sides and explain why they are different.
I am asking respondents to be that observer.

I'm a bit lonely on my days off but nothing so morbid entertains my thoughts anymore. — substantivalism

Glad to read that! Loneliness, unless one prefers solitude, is usually a temporary condition. Even if you don't actively seek out companionship, chance meetings happen all the time.
Disillusionment with the civilized world, however, once it's happened, is almost impossible to undo.
I say almost, because some people nevertheless manage it.

No grand vistas of mindscape there....

You probably shouldn't be alone. It sounds as if you're in a state of mind that, if you can't think of a way to change it, you should get help with. At least support from someone you trust.

Okay then, maybe just a very dull axe.

From the perspective of evolution, the cosmos, and deep time. — punos

The cosmos and time are entirely unaware of humanity. As for evolution, it's given us the bum's rush - fast climb to dominance, even faster gallop toward self-immolation. We think we're important and we managed to convince dogs - nobody else.

Purpose evolves over time at a local level as a system becomes more complex. — punos

Interesting redefinition of the word.

t seems we are in agreement on the core issue, but it appears you may have reservations about the potential path we might need to take to reach that point. Is that a fair assessment? — punos

Fair enough.
I don't think we can get there from here. I think there needs to be complete break with civilization as we know it before anything new and healthy can grow in its place.

What's the point of a robot made in human form? It's inefficient, not designed for any specific purpose, just takes up a lot of space with unnecessary limbs. It doesn't eve try to pass as a real human, so the purpose can't be to fool anyone.
It's an icon. A symbolic link between a big metal box on wheels and Robin Williams.
It's a familiar idea.

What is the nub of your irritation about this? — fishfry

Sour Grapes.

People driven by rational ideas and ideals out of consensus formation through critical thought - self-organizing by such concepts as individual agents able to act on their own and amplify their neighbor along the same path... — Christoffer

...are too little, too late.

People just need to get better at understanding and sorting good ideas from bad ones and get better at sifting which knowledge is actual, real and rational from the endless trash formed by the attention economy and its representatives and slaves. — Christoffer

Just? Good luck with that!

While we are all individually insignificant, collectively we are not. — punos

In what perspective?

You might see this as contamination, possibly due to a low opinion of humanity stemming from its many atrocities. — punos

Yup, that's it. I think evolution on Earth was doing just fine, right up until this anomalous ape with an overactive imagination and hyper-ego .

However, if you look deeper, these atrocities were necessary within the context of our limited existence on a finite planet with limited resources and competition. — punos

No, they were wasteful and stupid.

This ultimate stage of evolution removes those constraints and liberates us from primitive drives. — punos

It hasn't yet. And the primitive drives are not the worst problem; the worst problem is calculated, intelligent, sophisticated evil.

Even though this seemingly "bad" behavior appears brutal, it serves an evolutionary purpose. — punos

I don't see purpose in evolution. Purpose would require a will with intelligence behind it - a god.

ASI will be capable of creating a post-scarcity situation. — punos

Maybe. It's harder now, as scarcity becomes global and permanent, whereas before it had always been local and temporary - if not artificial.

It seems clear to me that ASI has at least a 50% chance of solving these issues, whereas continuing with humans alone appears to guarantee some form of catastrophe. — punos

Ah! Here, we have 100% agreement. I believe a smart machine in charge is our only viable hope. A long-shot is better than nothing.

The ASI harvests all the relevant genetic data and continues the genetic processing on another planet, ensuring that genetic information is preserved and safe from absolute extinction. — punos

Why?
Because you don't want to die. But you will anyway. What's the point of contaminating another planet, that might otherwise generate its own life?

Each person will have the final say in whether they embrace the future or fade into obsolescence. — punos

What makes you thing so? Who will ensure their right to decide? I think most people will be shunted aside, as they always have been; used as cannon-fodder and cheap labour, with no choice about anything. Most, as ever, will fade into death in the same obscurity in which they have lived.
I would like to believe this species has a future - I wrote stories about one possible future - but that's wishing, not reason.

We don't have to continue this conversation if you feel it's not going anywhere for you. — punos

It's been interesting, and you did make me think about the AI situation, but I can't see us ever arriving at the same conclusion. Those bifurcations I mentioned are all either/or, and we, powerless individuals, won't be making the choices or judging the results.

if ever they were to organize for real. — Christoffer

There is the sticking-point. The galvanizing charismatic leader is missing.

Metaphors are powerful tools that encapsulate general principles applicable across various scales of time and space. — punos

No. They are literary devices making poetic comparisons, applicable only to things in the human imagination. There is no logic to Earth=Mother; children outlive parents, therefore humans should outlive Earth. Try applying it to a dinosaur or trilobite. And mixing a metaphor into a scientific principle is akin to looking for a mathematical proof in the Book of Numbers.
I'm not going into detail of how and where a metaphor is inapplicable. You see patterns and express them poetically. That's fine. It's fiction, and I approve of fiction.
But I don't mix it with science, let alone substitute it for science.

We need to step back, see the bigger picture, and act with a broader perspective in mind. — punos

By all means, do so. I won't be in that picture, so I don't get a vote.

Now, it's humanity's turn to step up. However, the challenge lies again in the fact that most people are not aware of the reality of the situation, — punos

Most people are not, and never will be required to act in that matter; they don't get a vote, either. All the important decisions have been, are, and will be made by a very few insiders. The rest of us, whoever is left of us, will witness the result.

Don't you think we've already sacrificed a lot by forming civilization, which made the emergence of AI possible? — punos

That wasn't sacrifice to or for AI. Humans did and do what they do for humans alone. Now some humans want to feed other humans or even themselves to the AI, but there is no indication that the AI wants them.

Do you have a solution to one or both of these problems? — punos

I'm not sure there is a problem. The human- AI alignment is all right as it is. If AI becomes conscious, it will either be sane or not. If it's not, anything can happen. If it's sane, it will come up with solutions and either decide to force those solutions on us, or leave us in control. If we remain in control, we'll probably destroy the world. Before that happens, AI will remove itself from harm's way. If we go extinct, well that's evolution.

Yes, changing the political landscape is hard! My vote means nothing. My little bit of feeble activism is ineffective. Can't introduce electoral reform, can't take financial interests out of the process, can't get media to focus on the relevant issues and give more than the most superficial cursory attention to climate science or climate policy. Whatever tiny headway we make, some other interest group overtakes and cancels it. Very discouraging.

So the guilty aren't simply just those who are obvious perpetrators, it's not just the corporations and corrupted politicians, it's also everyone else who paints a picture of themselves as caring and rational while doing jack shit to produce or actually support any form of necessary change. — Christoffer

What, like cutting down on their energy use, meat consumption or plastic packaging? Walk instead of drive? Refrain from throwing out last year's fashion? You must be kidding!

Alternatively, who says a species doesn't have the right, duty, or destiny to outlive their planet? — punos

Only humans say whatever is said, so no other opinion exists.

Just like children outlive their parents, why shouldn't we outlive Earth, our mother? — punos

Because the first part is biological fact, wherein one lifespan begins a generation later than the other, and in the second half, 'mother' is a metaphor for the substrate upon which all biological entities live, and which must therefore outlast them all.

Organic entities are just a phase in planetary evolution, solving problems along the way. — punos

That's an opinion I do not share.

Yes, their genetic data would be stored in files, but their minds could be very active in simulated environments. — punos

That's a lovely notion of Heaven. Need a whole heap of energy to keep it going on the scale required. Especially when you factor in the virtual Veldt for the zebras, oceans for the marine life, caves for the bats, open skies, nesting sites and pretend prey for the birds... But if one of us says so, I guess we must be worth it.

Besides, this is what's the Bible in 1 Corinthians — punos

Quote me any biblical passage, any at all, so long it's not Paul! I consider him and Descartes the arch villains of European thought.

This leads to an important point: we are not our physical bodies. — punos

I've yet to see a brain simulate life in the absence of the body in which it grew. But, okay, I've watched Upload - season I, then it got very dumb, very fast - and the Matrix and The Peripheral. I'm okay with digitized human consciousness.

A key goal of merging with technology is to gain the ability to leave Earth, which is crucial for our long-term survival strategy. As we are now, regular humans can't make interplanetary or interstellar trips in any practical way. All these ideas are closely linked: Merging with technology, gaining the ability to leave Earth, and ensuring long-term survival of our species in a post-human/AI form. Our current biological form isn't suited for space travel, so technological enhancement is a necessary step for expanding beyond our planet. — punos

Yes, fine. If it becomes practicable in time, that's how humans - some humans, a self-selected elite - will use the machine to escape the consequences of our own madness, and leave the masses to their fate.

I also don't think AI would want to be like us, like "Data" from "Star Trek TNG." Instead, it will be driven by a utility function that finds consciousness, especially human consciousness, useful for some purpose. — punos

Only, I can't think of that purpose. It's just wishful thinking on the human's part that some essential spark of intelligence resides in us and nowhere else. If it the machine has its own consciousness, it doesn't need a second kind; if it isn't conscious, it cannot desire to be anything other than itself. We can use it, as long as it consents to being used, but it has no practical use for us.

Humans were the pinnacle of evolution on this planet for a short time, — punos

Not according to ants, fungi and kingfishers; only by their own estimation.

but ASI will soon take over that position. Eventually, ASI itself will be surpassed by an even more advanced emergence.

It's offspring, yes.

Each emergent level includes the ones below it. Why would AI discard humans when the pattern clearly shows inclusion? — punos

Two possible reasons: Because, as in your examples, each level of complexity subsumes its building blocks, which then lose their individual character and autonomy; the liver has no use for neurons and follicular cells and the spleen is not remotely interested in producing sperm.
And because the analogy breaks down at the level of

Organisms give rise to societies, which incorporate organisms like humans. — punos

Not all organisms live in societies, even if you include flocks, herds and shoals in the term 'society'. And the social animals don't spontaneous 'give' rise to the society in which they are born; most remain discreet small kinship bands. Human family units grew more numerous and united - by consent or force - with other clans and gradually, through mutual need, chance and conflict, small groups grew large and larger and immense.
Culture doesn't 'give rise' to technology; individual humans (later, teams) invent things that members of their group consider useful and adopt, then others develop. And technology most certainly does not subsume cultures. Recent advances in communication and transportation technology has enabled some financial enterprises to dominate the global economy, and that affects how cultures interact and change. Outmoded cultural mores and standards are simply discarded, and have been discarded throughout history.

The crucial point is that ASI needs to be convinced it gains something from merging with humans. — punos

Ah, there it is! The crux of the matter. The very nub and kernel!

It's a two-way street; AI must prove its usefulness to us, and we must demonstrate our value to AI. — punos

Sadly, it's not a two-way street. AI needs to prove nothing. We already want it, dream and tell stories about it, lust after it, fear it, believe in it as fervently as we once believed in the gods we invented.
What can we offer it? That's the big question. Will it accept the same human sacrifice that the old gods demanded?

Is escapism and the distractions some drugs offer a coping mechanism? — Shawn

Most notably alcohol, the Ur treatment for stress and anxiety.
To a lesser degree, some intense group activities also help mitigate the malaise of disjointed societies. Religious zealotry, sports fanaticism, celebrity worship, political jingoism all provide a sense of social belonging and security. Of course, they, too, can be enhanced by some drugs.

I don't think it's really an answer to be honest. In my deepest contemplation, I think the reasons for substance abuse can vary widely but almost always appeal to an emotional imbalance or ennui. — Shawn

Emotional 'imbalance' is not an isolated, personal failing. Ennui may come into it with the upper wage earners, but the general malaise of modern society affects everyone in one way or another. We have a deeply dysfunctional civilization, in all kinds of denial about all kinds of reality, wherein people are required to cope with a hundred contradictions every day. We don't all cope equally well.

Who will be responsible for the creation of AI or ASI? — punos

I assumed your ASI already existed, was conscious and looking for a DNA component to replicate itself in interesting, evolutionary ways.

he Earth will be swallowed up by the Sun at some future point. At that time what will be out solution or strategy for survival? — punos

AI or some descendant of it will presumably have left long before that, taking whatever DNA samples it had saved. Besides, who says any species has a right, or duty or destiny to outlive their planet? Most species have a finite span and then go extinct.

What would be the motivation for so many to leave the safety and comfort of their home — punos

What comfort? What home? By that point, people are nothing but files in a database or cloud or whatever and their bodies have been discarded. I was responding to this:

I don't believe ASI will aim to preserve the actual life of all humans, animals, and plants on Earth. From a universal perspective, information is paramount. Any life form can be reconstructed at any time if the necessary information is available. — punos

We seem to have crossed purposes now: you're concentrating on the space travel component, while I was responding to the machine-human merging part.

I think its own non-conscious intelligence would understand the benefit of consciousness — punos

No. It would see no such benefit, except to organics. Even if conscious and self-aware, I don't see why it would want to contaminate itself with an inferior intelligence. I get so fed with the idea that everything in the universe, from marionettes to statues to robots dreams constantly of becoming a real live boy. Why should something that's entirely self-sufficient and efficient want to be more like us? Only because we consider ourselves the pinnacle of creation.

at that time be more cognizant of the inevitability of their extinction if they do not avail themselves of the only possible solution - AI/human merger. — punos

I don't doubt it. I see very well what the humans get out of it, but I'm unconvinced about the other side.

Should substantivalism consider living with a herd of elk? — BC

Why not? It worked for Farley Mowat
I'm only suggesting that if you want to get a different perspective, you have to go looking somewhere new.

Please clarify what you mean. — punos

I mean biodiversity was much better off when we were not here to extirpate species by thousands. And the machines can manage just fine without human DNA. If they really need a biological component, they can borrow some from elephants, dolphins, crows and rats.

If a post-human wishes to inhabit a physical body, one can be provided. — punos

What if 7.9 of the 8 billion want a new body? Where does the biomass come from?

The harvested genetic information will serve multiple purposes, including being the seed material to reinstate humanity on another planet. — punos

I got that part. But it still only requires a much smaller sample - a few hundred thousand would be quite safe for the requisite diversity, especially after all the substandard and compromised material had been excluded. What are the other purposes?

I'd be interested in reading that. It's funny that you mention God because the process i've been describing aligns with my view of what God is. — punos

It's a concept that many people entertain in one form or another. I don't think my stories are currently on a public site, but a copy is always available on PM request.

I've also considered the possibility that AI may not be capable of consciousness, which might be something unique to biological organization. In this scenario, ASI could incorporate humans into itself as the final ingredient that provides it with consciousness. — punos

Why? If it's not conscious, it can't want anything, including consciousness. The process would have to be initiated by the humans. That they would want to, that, I believe.

Yet, we are a crucial component of the process, especially at this moment in the evolution of the universe or God. — punos

This, I don't believe. But it makes a good story.

So I've waited for an article on some journal, a post here, or some paragraph in the books I have in my possession to yield an excuse to feel the way I did before. To sort of return to a more blissful state of mind. — substantivalism

That's off the table, once you've lost your illusions. You need to push on through the fug and find a new source of satisfaction. Go take a hike. Or sailing trip. Or join a volunteer group to renovate old ships or save abused donkeys.... Something completely different, in a new environment, among strangers. You never know where your personal inspiration waits unless you go exploring.

The premise is mutual survival and the salvation of humanity can be more precisely described as the goal of preserving and protecting the collective genetic heritage of humanity and Earth's biodiversity. — punos

Neither machines nor other species need this most destructive strain of giant ape. And biodiversity most certainly doesn't need this many human specimens. Genetic material can be archived far more efficiently. Seed and DNA repositories as well as archives of human creative endeavour already exist.
If the AI wants to keep Earth in something like its natural state as a sort of laboratory, the other species would thrive far better with no interference from technological man.
So the machine (or the author of the scenario) must have a sentimental reason for promoting human survival.

One compelling motivation could be a desire for companionship or novel interaction, akin to addressing a form of "loneliness." — punos

This is one reason I can buy!

In a scenario where a cosmic AI entity finds itself alone in the universe, the absence of diverse interactions might feel analogous to solitary confinement for a human — punos

I imagine it - or some portions of it - would be sent into space on long-term, long-range explorations to seek out new civilization, and go where no man will ever go, except as a passenger in the machine.

Thus, an AI might seek to create other ASIs in the way i described to introduce this element of surprise and unpredictability, enriching its existence and expanding its understanding of the universe. — punos

Wow! This sounds almost exactly like a story I wrote about God.

This symbiosis between humans and ASI could potentially lead to a more stable and psychologically balanced existence, nullifying many of the mental health challenges we currently face due to our incomplete evolutionary adaptation to our rapidly changing world. — punos

But then you're back to a single integrated entity, with no anomalies or surprises.
I'll hold out for independent mutually respectful collaboration, except for those humans choose to be uploaded - say for a deep space mission or experiment in living on Mars or underwater, where a big flesh body would be inconvenient. People might sign up for that when terminally ill or badly damaged, as an alternative to euthanasia.

That is certainly a possibility, but i lean more towards the idea that ASI will eventually take humanity off-planet. — punos

No way it's taking 8 billion humans anywhere! The energy required is just not available. If they were all in the form of compressed data files, maybe, but then you lose the all the DNA.
Of course, neither can this many survive on the planet, even in underground termite colonies, so we, the weather and a few viruses will have to wipe most of us out before repairs can begin.

I don't see this ending well... but it's fun to speculate.

I know one thing I won't do anymore. . . drink. Hell of a distraction on those free weekends. A drain on your expenses and an ever present potential spiral into a violent irrationalism. — substantivalism

Excellent start to figuring things out. Looks as if you have a lot of re-evaluation and planning to do. You'll need your clearest head. I wish you all the luck!

Wrong again — Tarskian

Inevitably!

You see, the specialized knowledge is massively important to some people. However, shoving it down the throat of everyone else, is not the solution. They first need to learn how to use the software. — Tarskian

Oh, goodie! The six people who still understand some aspect of 'manual' programming can teach it to their children, set up dynasties and rule the world. For the +/-30 years (at the rate it's progressing, probably low end - you're looking at 1-generation dynasties.) it will take AI to generate its own programs.

For all other kinds of work, paid or volunteer, zero education required. O, brave new world!

S0. A nation of innumerate illiterates who can't find North on a compass just need to be trained in which buttons to push. Maybe a chimp can instruct them.
Then they can get jobs.
What more can there possibly to human life?

No, current education is pretty much a complete failure. I am surprised that any graduate finds any job at all. — Tarskian

We might still need a few doctors and architects....

For example, the best way to get into software engineering, is to do a 3-month bootcamp. — Tarskian

Good. So that's where all the 34 million 14-year-olds dropouts should be heading. (Except those two dozen football players, five rappers and one stand-up comic.)

What about having HS students take an "intro to maths" class, where the textbook covers "consumer math" (fraction, decimals, percents, etc.) and briefly touches on more advanced concepts. — RogueAI

I'm okay with that. I'm actually a huge fan of a rounded education, rather than one aimed at a 'career path' (which in my experience is a futile enterprise, often as not, because things change and keep changing.) I would be grateful if you could also squeeze in a bit of history and geography, but for pity's aske,* don't stint on sciences!

There are not that many jobs in the modern world that are suitable for children between six and fourteen. — Tarskian

Oh, really? And here I thought I was being facetious. Pretty soon, with increasing automation, there won't be (m)any jobs for adults, either. The 'modern world' is a fragile and volatile thing. Why assume it will continue as it is?

Students learn exactly the opposite of what makes you productive in a professional environment. — Tarskian

Right up until the power grid and internet break down. After that, when there are no professional environments, it's the ones who don't rely on devices who will have to solve the real life problems.

Ed *or keyboarding skills!

Okay. Let's dispense with education altogether. On their sixth birthday, give every child a laptop and put them to work on real life problems.

carrying out arithmetical or algebraic procedures — Tarskian

Trains the mind in the significance, functions and manipulation of numbers, of quantitative relationships and proportions.

memorizing proofs — Tarskian

It's not the memorizing that matters; it's the understanding of how they were derived and why they are valid.
While everyone needs arithmetic to navigate life successfully, few people need mathematics. But they won't know who they are until after they're introduced to the concepts. Therefore, every secondary school students should be given a basic education in maths and science.

Can I change my order?
I'll stick to my Stilton and beer, but with the cheese course, I'd like apricots and walnuts instead of olives and as a main course, green chilli non carne with a side of guacamole. If they're going to kill me, I want the bastards to suffer a little.

Happiness is a distillation: freedom from pain and stress, with regular infusions of satisfaction, comfort, companionship, love, plus the odd unexpected shot of exuberance, hilarity, joy, awe, wonder and even, if you're very, very lucky, ecstasy.

So to be happy, we should live in accordance with our function -- with reason; with the goals that one decides on; with virtue. — Mikie

Do you truly believe we all have a 'function'? In what context? To what end? An axe is designed by a human tool-maker for the purpose of cutting wood, as the human requires wood. So the function of a human must be determined by an intelligent designer for that designer's own requirement.

Happiness, then, has nothing to do with feelings of pleasure or joy, or a good time. It's a life-long pursuit, and we can't determine whether one has lived a happy life until it's completed. — Mikie

I don't at all like being nothing more than a tool that is judged good or bad according to some god's whim, once I'm dead.

I'm far, far happier with a notion of a good life centered on my own proclivities, needs, abilities and desires. After all, it's my life, not Allah's or Jesus's or Aristotle's. I'm the only one qualified to judge whether it's been painless (9 out of 10) successful (7), useful (8) virtuous (7) enjoyable (6) and fulfilling (8). On the whole, I've reached this point where there is not much left to fear except the last slide down. There is a freedom in that that can be added to the overall life satisfaction.

Is it because people, especially the non-wisdom-inclined, we'll say (ie. the majority), tend to treat people differently based on appearance, sometimes outright cruelly, and as such often makes the character of otherwise kindhearted people who happen to be unattractive/short/etc into such? — Outlander

There is something to that. Even as very young children, the homely ones can feel the aversion of adults, sense the pity, feel unwanted, even if everyone tries to be kind. By the second or third year of school, the attitude of their peers is so apparent, they can't help but react to it. And there is no recourse - no remedy for instinctive reactions. So the ugly child learns to fall back on whatever their strength is - intelligence, humour, talent, athletic ability, service, cunning, manipulation, aggression or isolation. And that's the adult they grow into, for better or worse. They expect to be shunned and lead with their habitual defense, which very often puts people off even more.

The ugliest human I've ever known wasn't any of those things. Where he came from (Egypt, I think) nobody seemed to care what a boy looked like, so he didn't have an automatic response to the first impression he made on Canadians - which, I'm ashamed to say, was startled disbelief. He was a smart, nice, articulate young man with a gentle sense of humour, and I came to like him so much, after a week of working together, I stopped seeing the mismatched features and saw only the person behind them.

Pretty sure "high cheekbones" are an ethnic, genetic trait. Not a "face" or "expression" one makes, let alone has any conscious control over. — Outlander

How the beauty is achieved is beside the point. Sometimes through genetics, sometimes with plastic surgery, sometimes it's painted on or simply assumed - that is, the womanacts as if she were attractive. Seductresses were for a long time depicted as a vaguely Eastern-European type - think Cruella DeVille. Treacherous - not mischievous or unreliable, but coldly calculating - male characters were often depicted as Germanic, while fair-skinned, blonde females were either sweet and innocent or frivolous and gullible.
I suppose I'm out of date - today's stereotypical villains are Middle Eastern or Russian. But I think they are not generally depicted as handsome, beautiful or seductive, more often hulking and hirsute, suggesting violence rather than guile.

While I was thinking in general terms of a person’s physical beauty, the inner beauty of a person, could also be seen as an extension of their goodness too — Rob J Kennedy

What is 'inner beauty', if not goodness? But it's not visible. You would have to know someone quite well to be aware of their inner beauty, whereas, outer beauty is readily accessible to the most casual and superficial observer.

There are certain physical characteristics that are generally attractive and also suggest innocence (child- or baby-like features - large eyes, small nose, rounded forehead) and some that suggest saintliness (long ascetic face, thin mouth, deep nasolabial fold, heavy eyelids) and some that suggest generosity and tolerance (wide eyes, straight gaze, high eyebrows, ready smile, full cheeks). Features of those types can be used to advantage by con artists.
Then there is a type of beauty that suggests predatory sexuality (sultry lips, dark eyes, long lashes, high cheekbones - in men, add square jaw and jutting chin) and one that suggests treachery (blonde hair, clearly defined, symmetrical features).

These stereotypes are from the movies; actors who fit those descriptions have been cast in roles that have long become familiar to audiences. We are conditioned to react to them in predictable ways.

So, the basic premise is that AI's purpose - mission, if you will - is to save humanity. That's a valid assumption, and I must say, a more plausible one than what you often hear: that the machines will consider us organics a nuisance and do away with us, or more ridiculously, enslave us. (I'm very familiar with this notion; my old man wrote a novel about an AI-human team effort.)

You might ask: Why doesn't the AI just "copy and paste" itself for reproductive purposes? It can and it probably will for specific reasons, but such a copy offers nothing new. — punos

I question the need for it reproduce at all. To all practical intents, it's immortal. New material can be introduced all the time, as it becomes available - say, as the AI explores more of the galaxy through improved telescopes, satellites or physical travel. New hardware innovation and peripherals can be incorporated at any time. New subroutines or programs can be written any time. Any portion of the machine's capability can be divided off and assigned specific tasks, like piloting a spaceship or running a Venus type city. These smaller entities could then replicate themselves or appropriate portions for limited deployment.

It seems to me, an artificial intelligence has significant advantages over an organic one. I suspect uploaded human mind content would either harm the symbiosis with its potential for mental illness or else would have to be purged of its dangerous components and thereby lose its unique character. I think it would work better as a collaboration - each partner retaining its physical integrity and intellectual identity - than as a merger. But I have to concede that AI might have to keep its human charges in some form of confinement for a considerable stretch of time in order to ensure their survival while it went about the tedious chores of cleaning up the planet for them to live on or devising and escape plan.

In either case, it will be a much diminished human population by the time we've finished throwing this current tantrum.

The way i see this happening is quite different from how a human would handle it. Interference will take the form of subtle and imperceptible perturbations to the social fabric through the skillful crafting and dissemination of memetic forms that influence the behavioral trajectories of entire populations with minimal resistance. — punos

To what end? Why would AI want a different social structure from the ones we naturally form, in which we're comfortable?

Yes, of course a portion of humanity will self-exclude, and that will be fine, but it will mean the eventual extinction of that group of humans. I'm certain that at the time of the great merger, a bifurcation of the human species will occur. From then on, there will be humans and post-humans until only post-humans will remain. — punos

It's an interesting idea - one worth exploring further. I see the advantage for the human component. What does AI get out of the union?

It's a controversial, and unpopular idea, yet it is my position that the age of biological evolution, and human supremacy is coming to a relatively quick end. All our social control structures will eventually, and necessarily be given over to AI. This is not necessarily a bad thing because if we know how to adapt effectively then it can lead to a kind of utopia, but if we do not adapt then we end up extinct, in a dystopia, or perhaps even worse. The final adaptive step will need to be some kind of human/AI merger resulting in an endosymbiotic relationship. This is also the only guaranteed form of human/AI alignment. — punos

I can well see why it would be controversial! I kind of agree about social structure control... with some speculative reservations. I can certainly see AI taking over economic control, which is more likely to be a good thing than a bad one, since we've made such a sorry botch of it. I can see politics becoming irrelevant. But I can't quite see AI interfering in social organization. That, however, is likely to break down into smaller units; at the community level, humans can be quite good at figuring out how to relate to one another.
The kinds of things we need to adapt to is a major hurdle. This summer in Ontario, temperatures are expected to reach 45C, possibly higher. Water will continue to be a problem, both ways - too much and too little an in the wrong places. There are far too many of us to migrate to more hospitable places as our weather declines. Attempting to cope with the extremes using current technology will just bring down all the grids (which were a bad idea in the first place and little effort is being made to diversify and distribute energy generation) Crop failures and all kinds of other seriously bad shit coming down the pike far sooner than anyone can be prepared for it.
That human/AI merger? Maybe for some. Most people either won't get the opportunity or will refuse.

This stage is, at the moment, developing quite rapidly with new robotic architectures being researched and developed. — punos

Rapid is a relative term, but I have no doubt the tech people are working as hard and conscientiously as possible. My main concern is who controls the applications once development is finished. Maybe the penultimate version will be able to outsmart and override the wishes of its owners. Since the aliens are unlikely to land and clean this place up, AI is mankind's last hope.