Comments by "Night Raven" (@GiRR007) on "Cleo Abram" channel.

  1. No real proof of this but even if its true they could just add these things during the childs development.
    7
  2. Thats how every tool can be used so wont be anything new, and most certainly won't be a reason not to create the technology
    5
  3.  @rachelle2227  I'd imagine the restrictions on who would be allowed to use the technology would be naturally quite strict, even more strict than adoption even. And it would probably be a bit expensive also but would have TONS of perks. Wouldnt be like a human right though as humans can already naturally reproduce and invitro would still be a thing.
    3
  4. That and gentic editing This would also help in farming animal's
    2
  5. Realistically it will likly be simlar to all other forms of technology. Some positive effects, some negative effects. The extremems are always the most unlikely despite peoples doomsday propheceys or utopeanism.
    2
  6. There is no over population problem. Everyone human on the planet right now could fit in an area the size of Texas. We have the ability to provide clean drinking water to everyone already as well, we have the tech to provide enough power for everyone. Food. So no. Over population isnt a problem .
    2
  7.  @rachelle2227  I do wonder if there would be a point of having an in home birthing pod. It would seem like a waste of resources considering the pods would probably be reusable and rather large space wise so just using it to get a few kids and then never using it again would seem inefficient. Unless maybe perhaps these pods could be handed down to future generations so that they can also use them, or even have elderly people be able to raise a child well past their capability to actually give birth. Along with life extension technologys. So in my imagination I think that you would have places like say hospitals that just have large numbers of these pods in a room somewhere that are in constant use.
    2
  8.  @derasor  I feel its fine for the parents to make the choice, they already make all kinds of other life altering decisions for their kids in modern day so I think it should be alright as parents usually at least have their Childs best interest at heart.
    2
  9. This is why i think there should be a version of the Olympics where ANYTHING goes. Any kind of advantage a person can get be it drugs, technology, etc.
    2
  10. All of that could just be simulated thus its not too important.
    1
  11.  @Landgraf43  It is very much comparable to other technology. AI cant just operate on its own it needs input from humans. What we have currently isn't even ai. Its just a bunch algorithms design for specific purposes. It doesn't think, it isnt alive. Current technology is already smarter than humans. A calculator is better than any human at mathematics.
    1
  12.  @Landgraf43  The systems you are referencing do not set their own goals. They till need human input and feed back and likely always will other wise the tool has no purpose. Auto GPT still needs human input, its ability to sequence instructions in the best way to achieve the demanded out come isn't the same thing as autonomy. And we cant even really talk about AGI since we don't have it yet and possibly never will. And even still if we do reach that level the rule still applies of extremes being unlikely as with all other technology.
    1
  13.  @Landgraf43  Sub goals and goals arent the same thing, Sub goals are. One is autonomous, the other isnt. Its not autonomy its still responding to present instructions. Autonomy would be the algorithm coming up with its own independent goals completely separate from the goals given. Doing things FOR itself. Not because someone told it to. That's the kind of autonomy we are referring to. Human goals go beyond basic biological programming. A lot of which have no bearing on survival. Emergent capabilities don't make an agi, it requires much more than that. There's a difference between one kind of technology advancing rapidly, and a whole different technology existing at all.
    1
  14.  @Landgraf43  Again the type of goals people talk about in regards to AI arent sub goals, they are spontaneous goals independently choosen by the ai. Which is exclusively something you see for things with actual consciousness which ai might never have. In your example the system spontaneously making the decision to improve itself is unlikely. Unless that behavior was already pre installed or that goal was set by someone else it wouldn't have a reason to improve its internal scoring system like that if the rules arent set. In regards to algorithms a BIG part of what makes they useful in our eyes is to be ablity to understand the context of the goals we give it. So in reality its unlikely you would get an algorithm that spontaneously does things that are undesirable or even desirable. Sure other technology cant improve itself on its own but my point is neither can these algorithms unless we program them to do so. It does take ALOT of work to create and improve these algorithms as well as human intervention. We may not know exactly how it functions inside its black box but there is still alot of work put into it. Its far from just doing things on it own.
    1
  15. Yeah people are always scarred of new technology at first until its proven to them that it benefits their lives.
    1
  16. Most hormones could theoretically be manufactured so that wouldnt be a problem.
    1
  17.  @The_New_Abnormal_World_Order  No real proof of anything like that so it probably wont happen.
    1
  18. We really have no reason to be tied down by the limitations of nature any longer.
    1
  19.  @tristangybels8040  Alot of the types of radiations we are in close proximity to such as radio waves are relatively harmless, you forget heat is also radiation and we dont fear it, low energy radiation such as radio waves are the same, Pesticides probably do have some harmful side effects but they get washed off mostly and are necessary to maintain food production, although i would like us to perhaps maybe breed certain insects such as lady bugs to take the place of artificial pesticides. Medication can possibly be harmful but as of right now it saves more lives than it hurts. And we will eventually cure things like cancer as medicine improves.
    1
  20.  @blackbearelectronicswithco9541  We already have enough resources to give everyone on the earth currently enough food and water, the only reasons why people are still starving in other parts of the world right now is politics, that is literally the only reason, we have the technology, we have the space, we have the means, we just wont do it. Living perfectly fine, why would we settle for horrible lives when we can make something better.
    1
  21.  @blackbearelectronicswithco9541  pollution can be managed and the environment can be brought back to form as its mostly renewable.
    1
  22.  @blackbearelectronicswithco9541  Old trees arent any better than new trees we are only sentimental for them due to their age, we can alwyas plant more though. And we can manage our plastics and toxic chemicals fine, we just dont. Again a political issue, not an issue with ability.
    1
  23. No some parents would definetly prefer a biological child over an adopted one. And im sure this technology would have very strict standards, even more so than adoption does. And would probably also be a bit expensive.
    1
  24. Not needed but would be useful. Especially if some supplementary technology's could also be incorporated such as genetic editing to be able to design the child exactly how you want it.
    1
  25. It could be used to create clones but I dont think its inherently about cloning.
    1
  26. Might not be needed or could be synthesized some other way using advanced medicines.
    1
  27. I dont think it would be like that😂 It would probably just be a giant fish tank like structure that the child is grown in, probably at hospitals.
    1
  28. It makes me shiver to imagine a needle going into my spine
    1
  29. Its very describable,unessecary Pretty much all parental connections could theoretically be simulated.
    1
  30. Why would it be souless? God gives people their souls not mothers.
    1
  31. Not inherently with this kind of technology but there are other technology's that can be combined with artificial wombs to get that effect.
    1
  32. Why is womens only value giving birth? What value do men have then nothing?
    1
  33.  @mattiascamacho3875  Why settle for anything less than perfection? We have no reason to accept nature, humans are not bound by nature, we can mold and shape nature to our will, we have already done so via animal breeding, medicine, farming, building. Nature isn't the standard we should set for ourselves we can do better.
    1
  34.  @mattiascamacho3875  Yes I have heard of skin cells being turned into egg cells. Sounds like something cloning would make use of for what ever purpose we would have for cloning.
    1
  35. We have already gone against nature with modern medicine and are all the better for it. Basically doubled the human life span and eliminated countless sufferings.
    1
  36. Id imagine that the technology would be restricted to those who are already stable potential parents but cant have kids on their own. So single parents probably wouldn't be allowed.
    1