8
Humanism and the Inhumanity of Transhumanism
(anarchistnews.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
8 points (90.0% liked)
Anarchism
3318 readers
38 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This doesn't exist. There are bots that appear to be "general purpose" but are in fact amalgamations of multiple bots running as a unit. We don't have AGI, and if capitalism keeps up the way it is (why wouldn't it?), what the tech bros are doing will cause their efforts to collapse under their collective weight.
The author does not seem well informed about what AI is and seems to have bought into a lot of the doomsayer marketing regarding AI's capabilities.
I must point out that you and I are merely an amalgamation of multiple consciousness and systems running as a unit.
I do not in any way support the tech bros or their destruction of humanity. I just want to be honest about how close that "amalgamation of multiple bots" can get to functioning in place of a human worker, and an amalgamation is closer to the mark than a single "master program" running everything would be.
Kindly, I don't accept this premise, so I reject the conclusion. Most people aren't systems of unique consciousnesses (excepting people with DID; I see y'all). Most are a singular consciousness that can perform a variety of tasks.
You might perhaps mean that we are a collection of systems, which I'd accept, but that's not analogous to what AI is doing by combining the computational work of multiple instances of AI. My hand doesn't require its own brain to move or manipulate a hammer. My legs and feet don't need their own brains working in tandem to walk. There isn't some kind of secondary marshaling brain that handles communication between our organs and extremities.
No, all of that is handled by a single organ, and it can do all of that with the power of a small 20W lightbulb.
Though maybe I missed your point, so feel free to clarify if I've mischaracterized something.
You are ofc, free to believe whatever you want. This isn't just "my premise" though. It is the biological reality. I didn't just make this up myself and start believing it.
They do. You have a little brain that makes your legs go. A doctor demonstrates this by hitting your knee with a little hammer. You can decide to not call that a brain, but there are animals with that much brain for the whole organism.
There is another one your arms are hooked to, but we have no fun hammer tricks to show you that in a non-invasive setting.
There is. We can annihilate everything that you would consider "you", and that brain would still handle all communication between your organs and extremities. Your body would still function normally.
Completely incorrect. All of that is handled by numerous nested information processing networks, each of which can function completely on their own so long as the conditions for their survival (oxygen, sugar, etc) are met.
That's called a somatic reflex. It doesn't function on its own and requires external input to do anything (be it a brain or a small mallet). In the case of your knees, it contains a nerve sensor that sends a signal to your spinal cord, which responds with a signal to the motor neurons in your leg muscles. It's not doing that action independent of your brain, and people with paralysis in their legs do not have this reaction.
Still a singular brain, which was my point. The "self" isn't relevant.
Still not analogous to AI. A bunch of sensor nerves that still communicate back to the central brain that fire synapses in the brain is not analogous to AI matrices. The mechanisms that make up our cognition and reactions are deterministic, whereas AI logic is pseudorandom. It's why you can ask an AI a question multiple times and get a different answer each time. It's why AI has a hallucination problem.
Also, just because you could hypothetically keep a hand and its nerves alive doesn't mean it will become Thing from The Adams Family. The nerves there will not become brains, and even if the sensory neurons continue working, they won't be sending any information to the motor neurons in the fingers. They are wholly dependent upon the central brain, not at all like a bunch of standalone AI systems working in concert.
This whole idea of a central computer style brain hooked into dumb synapses is very outdated. There is a wealth of information on this subject that has been developed over the last three decades if you want to study the science.
Are you under the impression that your brain would have done anything of note if it never received external input? Without external input your brain would have produced nothing more than static, to the point that your organs would have eventually shut down.
I think maybe we're hitting upon a terminology mismatch. There is one thing called a "brain". I agree.
This brain is made up of many smaller, independent, information processing subsystems. This is more analogous to "a bunch of autoregressive transformers snooshed together" than it is analogous to "a single system for processing all information".
Any system that seeks to recreate human cognition will have to do so with "a bunch of independent systems for processing information, squished together", and not "a single master program, like we thought in the 1800s".