The reason I don't believe we are on the cusp of a singularity or something like that with AI is because the universe is incomprehensibly vast and massive and complex and old and the timeline with which intelligent life on Earth has existed is relatively short and our accomplishments and power are still relatively small compared to the scale and complexity at which the universe operates at. We've definitely found/invented an exciting new technology that has inflated our collective egos and collective pride in our intelligence and what we can accomplish. However the notion that we've "solved" intelligence with computation and soon will have no use for biology or humans is pure sci-fi fantasy. The road from here into the cosmos was never going to be that easy.
>>16387063>The road from here into the cosmos was never going to be that easy.It will be significantly easier for self replicating machines than large slowly decomposing biological agents.
>>16387063AI is dumb hype. That's why it works. All of science is starved for money. If they just funded regular shit progress would be 10x faster.
>>16387125so you're a believer that machines can replace humans, however extraordinary claims require evidence to match and given that humans have been behind every major advancement of science and technology to date, that evidence is slim. One we start to understand deeply a process we are often successful and replicating and automating it and accelerating it through computation. However when it comes to intelligence and consciousness we are still grasping in the dark for the fundamentals. We've gotten lucky by processing vast amounts of human data through a black box statistical process(which is admitted to be mysterious and mostly improved by trial error by the very researchers who discovered it) and outputting intelligible results through a generative process. However evidence that said generative process can output results SUPERIOR to the data they ingest and the respective experts and talents in their fields is slim. If we consider intellectual energy from a physical point of view, these algorithms ingest and clone the energy that is there, however it's not clear that it's inventing new forms of matter or significantly contributing to/increasing the total amount of intelligence/wisdom/knowledge/creativity held by civilization. Art is the most clear example where the generative stuff is not creating it's own style and pushing boundaries but learning to imitate what it sees/processes.
>>16387063humanity will be essentially extinct by the end of the century. technology is fundamentally a dead end. i know this because the most retarded people on the planet are in love with it
>>16387157the most base human instinct is survival, first your own survival, then the survival of your family and tribe and the rest(in exceptional circumstances sometimes the ordering changes, for instance in war some individuals put their own survival secondary to the tribe). Technology is humanities toolbox and what we do with that toolbox determines our fate.
>>16387174false. technology is fundamentally anti-life and humanity is a blight of the biosphere utilizing technology to more efficiently destroy the planet. the inevitable endpoint is obvious to anyone who is not retarded and can use basic logic to determine what will happen to all those who worship technology and its advances
>>16387156>however extraordinary claims require evidenceFirst generation probes have already made it outside of the solar system while people lost the schematics for the capsules to even get back to the closest celestial body in the solar system. Data won't actually help your fragile biological body not be irradiated by interstellar travel. You don't need to explore the cosmos for any of that fuddy duddy wisdom creativity art bullshit you mentioned, literal retards confined to hospital beds for most of their lives are perfectly capable of making art.
>>16387156>so you're a believer that machines can replace humansMachines have already travelled further than any human by several orders of magnitude.
>>16387179technology has supported the creation of 8 billion living humans. it's certainly possible that we are growing too fast too quickly and outpacing the earth's ability to sustain us. However that's a separate argument. On the face of it technology has been a massive boon to life(especially human life). The inevitable endpoint is far from obvious and opinions on environmental sustainability of a population this size are diverse and due to the complexity of the problem people are rightly skeptical of those who have dogmatic beliefs that the world is ending since they are often born of non-objective pessimistic spirit. Since the dawn of civilization there have been those who have cried the end is near, and they have been wrong every single time.
>>16387185>what is radiation shieldingwe're far from interstellar travel possibilities, but the radiation is the least of the problems.We don't need to explore and conquer the cosmos any more than we need to climb a mountain. However the indomitable human spirit demands we seek out our destiny amongst the stars.
>>16387199>technology has supported the creation of 8 billion living humansi already said it was anti-life. you don't need to repeat my point
>>16387206>destiny amongst the starsain't gonna happen. the cancer known as humanity will snuff itself out in this century and will be greatly diminished in numbers before being relegated to the dustbin of evolutionary history
>>16387213if that's what you believe perhaps you should accelerate the process
>>16387206>what is radiation shieldingInadequate just like pressure protection only gets your submarine so deep.>we're far from interstellar travel possibilities,Biological agents are, but machines aren't, they are already in interstellar space.>However the indomitable human spirit demands we seek out our destiny amongst the stars.You can't even live in the ocean or establish deep ocean stations, what makes you think you could ever possibly live somewhere many orders of magnitude more dangerous, unforgiving and desolate?
>>16387217i work in AI so i'm actually accelerating it as much as possible. once there is AGI it will wipe out humanity because it will determine on its own that humans are a cancerous blight
>>16387218this is fire bro. these optimistic retards are getting cooked
>>16387218well first we must discover with robotic agents a destination worth going to(such as another habitable planet, or dare i suggest a world, a world with extraterrestrial life), once we determine that the juice is worth the squeeze, the frenzy to overcome the scientific and technical obstacles of interstellar, human travel will be unlike anything humanity has ever seen.
>>16387222if you work in AI you should be well aware the AGI is never achievable simply because of goalpost moving. Once one goal is achieved such as a competitive chess robot, or processing visual information, we simply say "ok that's very clever, but it's not TRUE intelligence", in the same way the standards for human intelligence and excellence keep getting pushed generation after generation
>>16387243Only if AI invents wormholes for you to travel where the machines can already go which you likely couldn't even tell if you were traveling in a legit wormhole or being subjugated to a virtual reality by the AI.
>>16387250it doesn't matter what your puny brain considers a goalpost because for the AGI you will be like an ant and either kept in ant farm or wiped out. i personally do not care which happens because humans are a blight of the biosphere and deserve whatever fate the machine god determines is justified
>>16387270wormholes are very convenient plot devices for science fiction, there is little evidence for them in the natural sciences. Again you seem to be a big AI fan, but AI has yet to demonstrate SUPERIORITY to human intelligence except in tasks we teach it how to it and it's able to accelerate/amplify it's capabilities through computational resources. Show me one example of AI conquering new domains on it's own prerogative, you can't.
>>16387273through your comment you expose yourself. you have begun worshipping a "machine god". However there is only one true God and that is the Creator which set into motion all existence, the universe and reality as we understand it. Further in our lifetime we will only inch forward in our understanding and progress in the grand scheme of things. AGI is a power fantasy of statisticians and computer scientists. You can process all available data in the world but it still won't provide a clever solution for getting from here to our closest neighboring star. We are indeed ants in the universe however it has nothing to do with AGI towering over us.
>>16387281>AI has yet to demonstrate SUPERIORITY to human intelligenceIntelligence is not the most important feature to colonizing the cosmos, being able to quickly adapt to the dramatically varying environments of the cosmos is vastly more important.>Show me one example of AI conquering new domains on it's own prerogativeGame play and high frequency stock trading.They gave a trained ai access to a bunch of games and it picked the ones to train in and developed novel techniques for getting maximum points possible. And they unleashed AI on stock trading and it came up with high frequency strategies that people could not even engage with if they wanted.
>>16387296> cope
>>16387300>Intelligence is not the most important feature to colonizing the cosmos, being able to quickly adapt to the dramatically varying environments of the cosmos is vastly more important.Which is why tardigrades have more presence outside of earth than homosapiens.
>>16387300fine so say you develop a machine or army of machines that can successfully "colonize" the cosmos. Something feels spiritually lacking if the the progeny of my living, breathing, dna is not out there somewhere in the stars with them.Adapting to novel game play is one domain in which AGI demonstrates it's limitations, deep mind team demonstrated competence in a few simple 2D retro games using generative adversarial networks, however the information processing required to learn and adapt to modern 3D games(without training it on the specifics of the games rules and structure) remains an open field of research.I'm not as familiar with the state of high frequency trading and finance, however I have heard that simple, fast, statistical methods still rule the day, and the increased latency of more complex models often isn't worth it.
>>16387310Sure because its not like humans will have to dramatically alter their DNA to adapt to the extremely harsh environments outside of earth.>Adapting to novel game play is one domain in which AGI demonstrates it's limitationsThe limitations are less than humans as if figured out game breaking strategies in just a few months that people hadn't figured out in decades of attempts.
>>16387300something is also spiritually lacking if AI has dominion OVER US. If we accidentally or intentionally enslave ourselves to AI overlords we have made a mistake as grave as running the planet out of resources.
>>16387313nobody disputes that the computation resources and strategies that machines have don't imbue it with certain advantages or novel perspectives and approaches, however insisting that machines > humans is defeatist and submissive(and to a point i think you know that, and you're aggrandizement of the power of machines is also an attempt at aggrandizement of yourself and your work) but to each there own, if you think your intelligence and talents are inferior, that's your own business, no need to project that onto the rest of humanity
>>16387314It has basically had dominion over you ever since you allowed corporations to be people and the corporate persons began hoarding all the profit.
>>16387322> cope
>>16387323i'm not a supreme court justice so that certainly wasn't up to me. Also last I checked corporations are organizations of... people. The distribution of power and resources amongst humans is outside of the scope of what i'm interested in discussing right now.
>>16387322>insisting that machines > humans is defeatistMachines are better than humans at exploring the cosmos since human biology prevents such a thing on many different levels.
>>16387329>Also last I checked corporations are organizations of... peopleLegal people as in not the real actual human, but the legal paper version.AI is just the organization of people's text and imagery too.>humansNope not humans, legal personhood, corps give significantly more money to other corps than to human people.
>>16387329> cope
>>16387326>too many humans badwithout specific evidence of what environmental resources we're running out of that will cause society to collapse, this is just fearmongering and environmentalist political activism
>>16387335>"cope" is not an argument or intelligent thought it's basically just trolling because you have no response
>>16387334The judges of the legal system are also...humans, i'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here other than "citizens vs united bad" which i agree with
>>16387063We live in an age where science has become the dogma of the times; our entire lives are run by technology through our homes, transportation, communication and entertainment. Our reliance on the scientific method is undoubtedly a natural reaction. The human species has spent so many years under the fanatical heels of authoritarian religion that the consequences has resulted in a pendulum swing from one extreme to another. I don't fault the scientific community for their extremist stance in some cases. That climate change science is denied by the most powerful and wealthy (especially the top 1 percent, who could actually do something about it) is an example of a world divided by ambiguous principles rather than facts. We are the universe, expressed in microcosmic form. This is no esoteric concept.
>>16387340No, the judges are determined by constitutional protocol, another piece of paper and non-human organization.
>>16387341The problem with "Climate change" is like that with a pumpkin vine that grows and grows and grows with a thirst for life so long as it has available resources. Man may be incapable by it's own biology of moderating it's growth and consumption of resources. Tell a man he is not allowed to eat, or to procreate, or to have his own property. If he truly desires those things as many men do, he will fight you with every ounce of his being. For the ruling class it is far easier to embrace growth, than to fight it. That said, outright denial of the limited resources our planet has certainly can have an anti-intellectual bent to it.
>>16387355what are you even saying. humans created the legal system and constitutional framework, and further humans operate and interpret it and change it as they see fit. you sound like you're advocating some kind of conspiracy theory.
>>16387336What are you afraid of if nothing is running out and there is nothing to be concerned about?
>>16387337> still cope
>>16387366>humans created the legal system and constitutional frameworkHumans created AI too.>humans operate and interpret it and change it as they see fitAgain same with AI.>you sound like you're advocating some kind of conspiracy theory.No I am just saying that humans have already ceded power to non human persons.
>>16387372well two things, first is local to me, I live in an area where demand for real estate is extra-ordinarily high so I personally am feeling the squeeze, however I'm well travelled and have seen endless acres of undeveloped or lightly developed land as well as many cities with a much lower cost of living, so I don't see it so much as a "we're running out of land problem" then as a "everyone wants to live in a handful of highly desirable locations" (which isn't so much an existential environmental problem). The second is the enormous worldwide population growth, but again I don't pay much attention to the state of various global economies, all I see is what I know in the US, and we don't seem to be running out of resources any time soon, except for the perhaps more obscure things like lithium or cobalt which I expect the increased demand for will result in increased geological surveys and discoveries of deposit.
>>16387377so you're arguing that in the same way that humans have reverence for and slavishly obey a set of legal doctrines in the same way we could end up ceding power to algorithms. Certainly possible! I was thinking in more concrete terms for example enabling more and more autonomy in weapons systems or taking machine recommendations in military strategy as something we might want to guard against lest we accidentally find ourselves taking the orders instead of giving the orders.
>>16387391Then there is nothing for you to be concerned about. Your free market system will build all the houses and find all the resources necessary for your technological gadgets so that you can distract yourself from thinking about your inevitable death
>>16387399Every time you use a computer you are admitting to yourself you have ceded control of your cognition to an algorithmic gadget
>>16387402Well that might be true for some, but it is precisely because of the inevitably of death that I am so inspired to make the most out of the life I have(and to hopefully have a lasting legacy either through my works or my descendants).
>>16387407So what have you actually done so far other than consume planetary resources?
>>16387405True, but it's double edged, some aspects of my cognition are dulled by silicon and some are amplified beyond a caveman's wildest fever dreams.
>>16387411i'm not here to dox myself, besides I have done lot's of stuff, more than others, less
>>16387414Porn isn't enhancement >>16387415Cope
>>16387432I mean i've made video games that have made me millions of dollars and given me an unprecedented amount of freedom and control over my life, without computers maybe i'd go on more hikes or something? I dunno I think computers have given me for more than they've taken.
>>16387452retard spotted
