[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 1536843570611[1].jpg (806 KB, 950x713)
806 KB
806 KB JPG
If you believe this, you believe in magic.
>>
>>9999898
Magic is real
>>
>>9999953
this, fpbp, /thread, and so on
>>
>>9999898
What if you just simulated a human brain structure completely?
>>
>>9999898
Cool assertion, bro. But that's not how programming, software, AI, or computers work.
>>
>>9999898
>permutation of characters
that's fine, but as i already tried to explain to you is that is not how computers have to operate, this is an antiquated conception of computing and is not how modern AI works. All of the current hype is around neural networks which are not that type of computing. Please just listen
>>
>>9999898
I agree. If you believe that "No permutation of characters in a piece of programming code can produce a consciousness," then you believe that human consciousness is fundamentally magical.
>>
>>10001339
As a programmer that has worked with neural networks in C++ I know that we will never because it's impossible, replicate consciousness.
>>
>>10001313
There are some quantum effects that cannot be simulated

t. penrose
>>
Consciousness doesn't even exist, no wonder we cant simulate it. We are all automatons, propelled by our programming and conditioning.

People talk about the Chinese translator who just processes characters, without understanding. But that's all we are. There is no such thing as understanding, just processing as per rules. We express our programmed instincts to form relationships, feed and mate. We create models of others for a survival advantage. We are creative, but creativity is just processing familiar data to fit new situations. Machines can do it. There is no reason a machine can't do anything a person can do.
>>
>>10001848
We exist, of course consciousness exists. The universe exists through us

P zombies I swear...
>>
>>9999898
How do we know calculators aren’t conscious?
>>
>>10001755
I don't care about that nonsense. I too can pretend some words have great, inexplicit meaning. Though obviously you are taking a leaping assumption in your assertion. Your qualifications mean nothing as my own and anyone with a couple of weeks to spare exceed them, further, they mean absolutely nothing in regards to the capabilities of computers, the involved mathematics, nature of human consciousness, the nature of generalised intelligence, and the actual discipline of AI.

I was taking issue with the OP. Software is not mere permutations of characters and AI is not limited by a programmer. His wording has poor aesthetic.
>>
>>9999898
Who says it isn't conscious in the first place?
>>
>>9999898
I imagine its as much in the implementation as the code that allows consciousness.
>>
>>9999898
Your DNA is just a permutation of characters in a programming code.

So do you have consciousness ?
>>
>>10001770
You forgot to add "thus far"
>>
Making a convincing AI humanoid is towards the ideal of being indistinguishable from another person. You cannot prove anyone elses conciousness to your own. Between the humanoid AI acting human, or a human acting human, you wouldn't know the difference either way if the only value of comparison you may cite is whether or not something acts human.

But thats not the ideal for humanoid AI. The ideal is instead to not be humanesque, to obey without argument, and to serve selflessly, but this shouldn't be considered as meaning humans can't do this. At every stage it would be optimal to know that differentiating between human and humanoid AI can be easily understood, but computer learning discards manual effort for automatic on blind and heavily misguided faith, as proven by various chat and twitter or skype bots. Instead of being taught to be subservient, the AI learns how other people aim to treat other people, which is dominance.


Realistically, it doesn't matter, because neither philosophy or tech will advance far enough to producing admirable results. What good is a fact of fantasy made reality when your goal is to blur the line between the distinction of fact and fiction?
Do you want to know whats real and what isn't? Or do you only want to know what you think feels good, regardless if it isn't real?
>>
>>9999898

Google programmed a few AIs with the job of virtually 'picking up apples from trees'. When apples became sparse, the AIs blocked each other. Where is the difference between this and survival instinct?
>>
>>10001770
What, permutations of characters are not random enough to produce consciousness? We can compute permutations from the output of a quantum random number generator.
>>
>>10001848
Understanding is a state then the subject can reliably operate any known aspect of a notion.
>>
>>10003761
is this fucking ad text?
>Google Programmed an AI to Pick Apples. What Happened Next Will Make You Laugh Out Loud
>>
>>9999898
Intelligence doesn't require consciousness, which is what people like Elon Musk are worried about.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.