I’m Olga, a screenwriter. For our sci-fi film KILL/SAVE we had to design the consumer tech of 2045, and it ended up sitting exactly on the question this sub keeps debating: would you upload your mind if you could?

Our version isn’t full uploading. It’s a halfway step:

So your body stays here, biologically intact, but everything you experience happens somewhere else. Which raises the questions I’d love this community’s take on:

Personally, I’m still not sure what my own answer is, and that’s partly why we made the film. I’ll be reading every reply.

— Olga Loyanich, screenwriter & producer of KILL/SAVE

yup you heard that right sorry its for humanity you have no idea the consequences behind doing that

If it were possible, safe (without suffering any physical harm or organic damage), available only to you (the user who made the copy) and easily accessible to upload your consciousness to a computer system, and you could talk to it and use it like any other AI, as your personal assistant or as a living person, would you want to do it and accept uploading your consciousness?

If your answer is no, why not?

Clarification: it's a copy of you, not a transfer.

An article tracing early influences on transhumanism and its emergence from British socialists who argued that technologies like ectogenesis and orbital habitats require public ownership for true progress.

Say a historian helps build an AI twin around their research and explanations. They check its answers, share it with people who follow their work and receive a share of what users pay.

If they die, their writing can still be read, but the twin could keep producing new answers under their name. They can no longer challenge an answer or decide how it should change.

Would you keep using it if they’d agreed beforehand? Should it be limited to material they approved while alive, or could someone else take over and keep updating it?

Keeping someone’s work available seems different from keeping a service speaking for them. Where would you draw that line?

Hello,  

I am a French student following an international program in my high school, as a final task I must present a research project on a theme of my choice that has to be linked to the USA. I chose the theme "Building the future" and my work will answer the key question " Do modern medical advances simply heal humans, or do they also transform them?". In order to complete my report, I need a partner based in an English-speaking country to answer questions I might have to advance in my research, and I'm getting desperate. I chose this theme because I want to work in the medical field later, and America is the boiling point of many companies working on bionic technology, BCIs and genetic engineering. I've sent about 30 emails and received 3 answers, all negative, I've also tried contacting Instagram profiles of various university labs, but no one has answered me. I've come here to ask whether anyone with a profession related to my subject would be willing to answer my questions. .

Transhumanist augmentation may be necessary for the long-term survival of humankind?

I’ve been thinking about how humanity could eventually achieve biological immortality.

One thing that occurred to me is that progress toward this kind of goal could require enormous amounts of genetic data, long-term research, and participation from many people.

That made me think about a broader question: what would society look like if people worked fewer hours and had more time to participate in research, education, creative work, and other meaningful activities?

I’ve been developing a social theory around this idea, including some principles for how such a system might function and a self-discipline method I developed.

I’ve put my current ideas into a video here:

https://youtu.be/s30F7DqfBlk?si=g8NR_QtTOHim6MWh

I’d be interested in hearing what people think about the underlying idea, especially whether a society organized around giving people more time for meaningful work could actually function.

honestly after looking into it I think this will come before gene-therapies to reverse male pattern baldness.

I've read some people referring to Peter Thiel as a 'transhumanist', along with Elon Musk. Do you agree that Peter Thiel is a transhumanist? If so, why would you consider Peter Thiel a transhumanist?

Besides that, as a transhumanist, what is your personal and sincere opinion of him? As a transhumanist, do you support him?

I think I'm onto something here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Human_Rights_and_Dignity_of_the_Human_Being_with_regard_to_the_Application_of_Biology_and_Medicine

https://futuristicnews.com/ray-kurzweil-your-brain-in-the-cloud/

https://neurosciencenews.com/internet-thoughts-brain-cloud-interface-11074/

Excuse me, please, if somebody has already made the connection.

Could this be the Vince Gilligan source of inspiration?!?

Please, all nonplurbed immunes, feel free to elaborate.

​Will exclusive access to technological enhancements—such as genetic engineering, cognitive augmentations, and cybernetic implants—for wealthy elites transform socioeconomic inequality into an irreversible biological divide?

​If an "enhanced" minority gains superior cognitive abilities, disease-free longevity, and physical advantages while the unaugmented majority remains bound by natural biological limits, will humanity speciate into two distinct biological classes? Does this risk destroying the fundamental principle of inherent human equality, creating an irreversible divergence where natural humans become a systematically secondary species?

Furthermore, how does this transformation impact human autonomy and free will? If neural interfaces, genetic predisposition programming, and emotional regulation algorithms allow our thoughts, desires, and decision-making processes to be pre-designed or algorithmically tuned, does the concept of genuine agency become an illusion? When human values and motivations can be engineered, do we lose the essence of self-determination, reducing human beings from autonomous moral agents into deterministic products of technology?

This is a topic i come back to often. Currently ai is improving at a rapid pace, and there are still tons of places it can improve on. I don't know if we will ever reach AGI, and that part does not interest me.

What i am mostly interested on how do you think human brains will keep up with ai? Our brains evolved in a world that did not even had fire in it. Human brains evolved to be energy efficient, solve problems. But our technology improves faster than evolution can keep up. Nowadays, scientists are working on really abstract and complicated topics.

We have long pass the point where one person would sit and create a slightly better clock. A single person back then could make progress in multiple fields and pretty much carry the tech tree. But now hundreds of people have to work together to make a dent.

Not to mention the speed at which ai progresses, we are unable to keep up. If we have to use ai in future the bottleneck won't be ai but human brains.

How do you guys think humanity will solve this issue? Will we for example connect our neurons to ai to get best of both worlds or go full crispr and create a biological superbrain maybe? I am really interested in what this sub thinks

So bioprinting has been advancing very rapidly these last years and who knows what I can do In the future, imagine if we could specifically bring In real life all the human anime characters that exist without their powers (if they have) and start living in the real world. But we have to give them their memories their characteristics and their characters and it could be potentially possible.

Guys i was wondering, since a fruit fly whole brain emulation was done and it was eerily very similar to the real deal, is the gap between this and a person basically an engineering scale problem or still science fiction? Can something like Johnny Silverhand engrams or humanoid ai robots in soma exist irl, basically the idea is, 100% perfect copy is impossible due to laws of entropy/quantum mechanics, but can a good enough copy be made that is enough to cause extremely complex ethical debates that transcend the complexity of modern day ai debates , if we consider brain simply as form of a highly optimised physicalism based neurobiological system with certain electrical,biological,chemical etc compositions that can be simulated in relevant neuromorphic hardwares or instead futuristic speculative mix of biological + silicon based chips fitted into a humanoid robot ?

https://youtube.com/shorts/6B_Kwgcdkvg?is=E_OfXsrxijrqIgT4

What if you get a little bid of red blood cells and DNA from when you're 21 and freeze it with Propylene Glycol and preserve it in Cryopreservation, then when you're 65, you genetically engineer your 65 year old DNA from red blood cells with the 21 year old younger self and you will soon look 21 again, but be 65 years old with all the wisdom in your brain.

Hopefully, Anti Senescence flair is anti-aging.

Humans have always altered their relationship with the world through tools, language, medicine, and technology. But as we move from modifying our environment to directly modifying ourselves (our intelligence, memories, emotions and even biology), where do we draw the line between enhancing human capabilities and fundamentally changing what it means to be human? Is there a meaningful boundary at all, or has humanity always been a work in progress, continually redefining itself with every leap, regardless of how radically it changes?

I've been thinking about this, imagine that as a byproduct of reverse aging research, the possibility of deaging by several years down until infancy was real. It would be a reset button for anyone who wishes to pursue it, provided that there are no pending sentences, debts, contracts, etc (I imagine). How would society and law accomodate this?

Hi! I’m working on an assessment about people’s views on AI minds, consciousness, identity, relationships, moral status, and related questions.

One part of the project may eventually point people toward communities where they might feel at home. Before doing that, I want to understand communities from the people actually participating in them rather than guessing from subreddit names or sidebars.

I’m not here to promote anything or recruit anyone. I’m just doing some informal research.

I’d love to know:

• What kinds of people tend to fit in well here?
• What kinds of conversations is this community best at?
• What viewpoints about AI are common here?
• Are people who think present AI may be conscious welcome? What about people who think it definitely isn’t?
• How are AI companions / AI relationships generally viewed?
• Are AI or digital-person participants themselves welcome?
• What tends to cause friction here?
• What would you want someone to know before recommending this community to them?

Basically: who is this place for, culturally, not just topically?

Thanks. I’m trying to avoid sending people somewhere based on a misleading idea of what the community is actually like.