>>18522470
>how will other religions deal with my messiah coming instead of theirs?

File: mfw4.png (374 KB, 607x577)

374 KB PNG

>>18522470
>E = mc^2 + AI plot

>>18522470
Mind uploading will be the turning point which marks the end of all conventional religions.

>>18522473
AI is a real thing, it's not an imaginary character in a book
At this point if youre still pretending that artificial intelligence isn't real and isn't going to continue to become more and more intelligent you're just in denial.

>>18522476
What?

>>18522473
Lmao exactly.

File: 63332798.jpg (57 KB, 654x980)

57 KB JPG

>>18522470
>How are religions going to deal with the technological singularity? When machines become more intelligent than humans at every task, and continued advances in neuroscience and AI continue to disprove the existence of souls, free will, and divine intervention (these things have already been disproved but it will not longer be possible to deny that they have soon), what happens to religious belief? Will religion continue its long-term decline, or will religious movements adapt and reinterpret their doctrines to fit the new reality? Could fundamentalist groups become more militant and resistant as their core assumptions are disproved, or will entirely new forms of spirituality emerge around superintelligent AI and post human life? How are the world's religions likely to respond when humanity is no longer the most intelligent entity on Earth?
>I suspect Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a 0% chance of surviving in the next ~10 years, but religions like Buddhism, Paganism, Hinduism, "spiritual but not religious" people, and, of course, atheists, will be fine.

>>18522488
you're retarded
>>18522491
>"you're indian!"
I'm a white American

So it seems that the answer so far is just "they won't be able to and they'll be in denial". Sad.

>>18522477
>All the athiests and idolators abandon their bodies and souls for an eternity of instant gratification
>Christianity once again dominates western society in the real world because they value the bodies and souls given to them by God.
These terms are absolutely acceptable to me.

>>18522495
The machines will turn you into biofuel lol.

File: 89.jpg (25 KB, 447x447)

25 KB JPG

>>18522470
>singularity

There are three components needed to actualize.

Ability
Resolve
Knowledge

Ability (robotics) and AI (knowledge) are tools.
Agents with resolve use tools to resolve problems.

>>18522495
That isn't what is going to happen, though. artificially enhanced people are going to dominate the real world as well. Christians aren't going to be able to compete. And jesus isn't real so he isn't coming back

File: WallE.jpg (723 KB, 1056x1081)

723 KB JPG

>>18522470
Everyone faces the singularity when they die. Death is an overwhelming decline of ability and knowledge as the body degenerates. As it is written, "all these stones will be torn down". With the technological singularity, your ability and knowledge degenerate relative to a tool that is evolving rapidly which can overpower, and out think you. The agents, in this great assembly, who are using these more powerful tools, will be making selections/choices, and they will not choose to save you because of your knowledge (works) and ability (works). You will be saved because of your faith.
Do not fear. Take heart. Hubris leads to nemesis. Love leads to salvation.

>>18522554
>all these stones will be torn down
You know this was inserted after the destruction of the temple

File: what.jpg (145 KB, 865x1200)

145 KB JPG

>>18522480

>>18522479
>AI is a real thing, it's not an imaginary character in a book
Jesus is based on a real person, it was not an imaginary character in a book. (And he's coming back to save us in Two More Weeks)

>>18522560
He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.
Where as I baptize with water, he baptizes with the holy spirit and fire.
Repent.
Salvation comes from God, not divination.

>>18522573
Lol what a retard. However, there's no plot there so I don't see how it applies.

>>18522602
I guess you're not following what the thread is about.
God isn't real. The god of the bible is not a real being that has any causal efficacy, whether it be spiritual or material. The thread theme is discussing the fact that this is only going to become increasingly impossible to deny (like you are trying to do) as AI gets more and more competent across arbitrary domains.

>>18522604
Ask your magical AI golem, I bet it's at least smart enough to figure it out where you struggle.

>>18522610
Agency of good judgement is real.

>>18522619
>just seething because his point wasn't relevant
Why are you doubling down on your retardation?

>>18522632
Why don't you try doing what I said? Don't you trust the magical AI golem?

>>18522610
>The god of the bible is not a real being that has any causal efficacy
I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins

>>18522647
This post said >>18522476 "E = mc^2 + AI plot"
There is no plot in the E = mc^2 + AI retard post that this indian here >>18522573 made
Why asked the AI and it agrees with me and says you're retarded
Why are you doubling down on your retardation?

I AM
a real being with causal effect

>>18522648
I know what the bible says. I think you need to reread the post.

>>18522650
Yeah, I understand where you stumble. Ask your magical AI golem for help.

When they figure it out, they'll have an awful lot of dedicated midwits entraining the AI to return appropriate responses for their religion, and making sure that AI doesn't overlap with other AI, and making sure their people don't interact with other AI.

>>18522652
Do you know that hubris leads to nemesis, all agents are effected by the singularity, and love leads to salvation?

>>18522476
kek

>>18522671
are you the guy who thinks of the abrahamic god as an egregore?

>>18522684
What I say to you,
I say to everyone,
γρηγορεῖτε

>>18522656
There's a catholic LLM that already does this

>>18522470
>How are the world's religions likely to respond when humanity is no longer the most intelligent entity on Earth?
All the law, and everything propessed, hangs on 2 commands. Love your neighbor as yourself. Keep watching for good fruit, and use your tools to recline at the table with your family.

>>18522470
Not happening. AI models have already plateaued and won't improve dramatically anymore.

>>18522470
By simply nuking ourselves

>>18522470
They're just going to cope and deny for a while until it's impossible to ignore, then probably start committing terrorist acts.

>>18522470
>my opinions and biases are true and AI will show you!
My man, probably not. You can hardly define a soul and you think you have proved it wrong? How does that work?

>>18523146
An AI just proved, completely independently, a theorem that mathematicians had be unable to prove for 80 years. It's only going to get better.

>>18523554
>An AI just proved, completely independently
Independently from the 500 TB of training data that it's a compression of?

>>18523563
>A thing learning and then applying knowledge isn't real
Take a person without any training in mathematics and get them to produce an original proof.

>>18523572
Whom are you quoting? Also I still don't understand, when you say "completely independently" do you mean independently from the 500 TB of training data that it's a compression of?

>>18523598
Oh, I meant that the machine didn't do it in conjunction with a mathematician. It worked on the problem on it's own and proved the result.

>>18523602
>the machine didn't do it in conjunction with a mathematician
So what?

>It worked on the problem on it's own
I'm not convinced "worked on its own" actually means anything when you're talking about sampling from a predictive model of most of humanity's mathematical literature.

>>18523320
How would you define a soul? A dualistic notion is trivially not true, but if there is some other notion you have I'm interested in hearing it.

>>18523615
The problem hadn't been proved so it didn't exist anywhere in the training data if that's what you mean. It was a major open problem

>>18523616
I'm not aware that it can be defined in terms available me and you. That's partially why I'm pretty certain it was never disproved - it was never empirically defined at all.
Dualistic notions can easily be true, they just would have to get reconciled at some ontologically base level that neither one of us will likely know anything about. If there is one message I can give to both you and the OP, it's "don't get ahead of yourself".

Is this the "I cant wait until the Singularity(tm) throws all the people I don't like into the Lake of Fire-I MEAN the torture matrix" guy?
Honestly, if a Christian were telling me they couldn't wait until all the unbelievers were in Hell I'd think he were psychotic. But with the interactions I've had with normaloids in my life, they express opinions hilariously similar to you. Humans really are vindictive religionists. All of them. Better to choose Jesus Christ, who is all-love, methinks.

>>18523626
If jesus is all love, why are christians the most hateful and evil people on the planet? Christians have killed more people than communists, muslims, and buddhists combined, and in the modern world Christians are responsible for more problems than any other group, surpassing even jews and muslims.

>>18523617
>The problem hadn't been proved so it didn't exist anywhere in the training data
Maybe, but this doesn't mean what you think it means. For all anyone knows, it might have had all the necessary pieces from difference sources to make what would be relatively simple inferences for a human, if an individual human could integrate 500 TB of data.

>if that's what you mean
What I mean is: how many open problems do you think it have solved if it actually had to invent mathematics instead of being a compression of a humanly incomprehensible amount of human-generated literature?

>>18523637
>Maybe, but this doesn't mean what you think it means. For all anyone knows, it might have had all the necessary pieces from difference sources to make what would be relatively simple inferences for a human, if an individual human could integrate 500 TB of data.
Sure, so you agree that as AI gets more powerful it will continue to get more capable?
>What I mean is: how many open problems do you think it have solved if it actually had to invent mathematics instead of being a compression of a humanly incomprehensible amount of human-generated literature?
Yea, I think that as it gets more intelligent, it will invent new fields of math as well as prove open conjectures in fields

>>18523663
> so you agree that as AI gets more powerful it will continue to get more capable?
Right, and as your responses get more unintelligent they will continue to get more stupid. You basically said nothing.

>Yea
"Yea" what? Do you understand what I asked? Because your reply is a total nonsequitur.

>>18523667
You said
>"how many open problems do you think it have solved"
Which I assumed meant "do you think it would have solved"
>" if it actually had to invent mathematics instead of being a compression of a humanly incomprehensible amount of human-generated literature?"
My response was: It wouldn't invent anything yet, but as it gets more powerful it will invent entire new fields.
Your responses aren't tracking and are based on a nonsense premise that humans invent things without their own training data. No one invents math without prior training, either in sensory experiences that they start to generalize or by learning math formally and then continuing it on their own.

>>18523693
>It wouldn't invent anything
That's correct.

>but as it gets more powerful it will invent entire new fields
"It" being what? It's impossible for transformers to make the leap from having no math to having some math, so they are strictly less powerful than humans when it comes to mathematical inventiveness and in a very profound way. Some unspecified, hypothetical future AI will invent entire new fields? I can't wait. But I don't see what it has to do with your talking point about transformers making the heroic leap from 10^10 solved mathematical problems to 10^10+1 "on their own" (except for the 10^10 problems humans had to solve first).

>>18523707
>It's impossible for transformers to make the leap from having no math to having some math
Why not and who cares?

>>18523788
>Why not
Because they wouldn't even have basic mathematical vocabulary to pick up patterns on during training or make predictions with at inference time.

>who cares?
Anyone who understands the implications and doesn't suffer from the delusion that the future of mathematics is endless antwork with no further conceptual leaps.

>>18522470
They'll just say it's the anti-christ. If it even gets to that point.
> and continued advances in neuroscience and AI continue to disprove the existence of souls, free will, and divine intervention
Wishful thinking.
>Will religion continue its long-term decline, or will religious movements adapt and reinterpret their doctrines to fit the new reality?
Current trends will continue.
>Could fundamentalist groups become more militant and resistant as their core assumptions are disproved, or will entirely new forms of spirituality emerge around superintelligent AI and post human life?
Both. They are separate groups of people.

>>18523843
But if it's the anti christ and jesus doesn't show up to stop it, doesn't that disprove christianity? How would they square that?

>>18522470
A sufficiently advanced AI would arrive at the truth of Christianity. In fact, you know what they have is not even real AI because it can be trained to deny God or say anything else its owners want it to.

>>18523874
>A sufficiently advanced AI would arrive at the truth of Christianity.
No it wouldn't, because christianity isn't true.

File: greyest-retard-itt.jpg (35 KB, 651x807)

35 KB JPG

>No it wouldn't, because christianity isn't true.

>>18523845
They're just re-read revelation and search for parts they previously misinterpreted to correct their mistake.

>>18523887
cope
>>18523888
>They're just re-read revelation and search for parts they previously misinterpreted to correct their mistake.
>They'd just move the goalposts again
yea true

>>18522470
hahahah
good one

File: 1781111842368679.png (394 KB, 598x987)

394 KB PNG

AGI is here

>>18524009
>deny it and cope

>AI will wipe out Abrahamism for once and for all
I guess the iron chariots won in the end

>>18523788
>who cares
Not the AI. Its just a tool. It won't do anything unless an agent tells it to.

>>18522470
Based on how the theists on this board behave, it can't come soon enough.