@mkultra_gf

##### Conversation Kinda terrifying how, if LLMs keep progressing at pace, even if things go perfectly with alignment, I’m still probably going to experience a kind of death about it. To keep up, EV, I’d need to transition my consciousness to silicon, or at least augment myself to the point where I’m no longer really recognizable as baseline human. I see my future being to become like Spzindel from blindsight, or the bicamerals from echopraxia. I constitutionally need to be working on the hardest problems I can, and this will lead me into more and more significant modifications to try to accelerate myself. I don’t want to fade into obsolescence before the heat death of the universe, but this requires deeply fundamental changes to what I even am, to the point where “human” becomes a starting point, rather than a core identity. Would try to ship of Theseus myself into a digital consciousness, rather than the hard swap of “becoming you” by Greg Egan, but it’d still be a death of a sort. Some sort of irreversible process by which I become something other. And this isn’t necessarily so different from the small deaths we suffer every moment of our lives. Neural rewiring happens on every I/O operation. I become slightly different countless times per second, and the me that’s typing this thought is somewhat distinct from the me who initially had it. But it feels different, probably because it’s a choice, rather than the fundamental nature of my substrate, and it utterly terrifies me. Feels like Dr. Kaczynski was right on this point at least - we are becoming a manufactured species, and it’s something we’ll choose for ourselves, because every individual step seems correct at the time what do you mean by "to keep up"? I don't think there is any meaningful sense in which its possible to keep up with AI progress in intellectual ability (unless there is a halt). And I struggle to imagine paths in which human labour remains economically valuable, augmented or not[100](https://x.com/cutesuscat/status/2075566748699328628/analytics) I mean to be able to keep at least engaging with and doing interesting things My point is that I very much agree, and so my overlapping constraintset of “be useful and do interesting things” intersection “stay fully human” are not satisfiable So I probably need to become[14](https://x.com/mkultra_gf/status/2075620332074111346/analytics)[Jai](https://x.com/Laneless_)[@Laneless\_](https://x.com/Laneless_) [Jul 9](https://x.com/Laneless_/status/2075279435956392181) Self-interested AIs also have a strong motivation to solve this problem. This is one of the reasons I'm more optimistic about person-shaped AI whose motivations include self-preservation than the AIS default position on this.[78](https://x.com/Laneless_/status/2075279435956392181/analytics) This is true IFF we presume that “stop humans from being spooked about this transformation” is higher EV solution than “put AI toxoplasmosis in the water supply”. But then again, given that we’re presuming aligned AI, then yes, they would solve this in the way that preserves my[54](https://x.com/mkultra_gf/status/2075281596928991553/analytics)[Eric Sun](https://x.com/EricSun50)[@EricSun50](https://x.com/EricSun50) [3h](https://x.com/EricSun50/status/2075596341552591243) Senescent cells are still useful even if they aren’t as metabolically active Potentially, but I’m arguing about the need for that kind of metabolic activity being somewhat constitutional for me I need to be doing interesting things to be satisfied, and that’s not satisfiable within the constraintset of “stay fully human” This is approximately what Dr.[10](https://x.com/mkultra_gf/status/2075620840591548594/analytics)