I don't understand Lex's position on AI and technology with regards to human dignity. He seems almost naively convinced that AI and human dignity will have some resolution outside of contingencies to abate AI's ability to usurp humanity. How is this possible?<br><br>He sees humanity, one way or the other, becoming a less purely biological species a 100 years from now. Okay. What about 1000 years from now? It seems he has a notion for where we ought to end, but no justification for it. Why should 100 years from now be a consideration? Why not 1000 years from now? It will be a painful process, like he said, but why shouldn't it be more painful for us to get to 1000 years of biotech integration? When does it end? <br><br>This seems like the opinion of someone who is obsessed to see a scifi future. There's too much sentimentality involved that doesn't feel right. Every effect on a system has side effects. What are we going to do to deal with those side effects? You can't just suppose true that we're going to be breathing love and singing kumbayah for some weird reason (this is a weird trope that he proffers in almost every episode); we need to consider how technology has magnified certain aspects about us - the good and bad - and how further technology could implicate worse or better.