Anti-AI materialists and atheists are inconsistent.If brain is just a bio machine, then an actual machine can do better.
>>17059063>Apples and oranges express different opinions.>Who’s the hypocrite now fruitbois?!?>I LOVE GRAPES!
>>17059063If a computer is just an artificial machine, then an actual bio machine can do better.
>>17059063It's absolutely true and hilarious. Physicalists have been demeaning any talk of soul and consciousness forever. But now that they are threatened by a superior intelligence all of a sudden it's "I am unique and irreplaceable!".
>>17059065How are humans any different? We are just chemicals according to you.>>17059068Yep,it's hilarious because normies have no problem with AI automating everything but these arrogant pseudo intellectual materialists get very mad when they are no longer the high iq guy in the room.
>>17059066>The naturalistic fallacy is the logical mistake of assuming that something is morally good or right just because it is natural or happens in nature
>It's absolutely true and hilarious. Physicalists have been demeaning any talk of soul and consciousness forever. But now that they are threatened by a superior intelligence all of a sudden it's "I am unique and irreplaceable!".
>t-t-t-the naturalistic fallacyLooks like I've stumbled into the mentally ill retard ward.
>>17059068>I love making up situations in order to validate my beliefs.The only people talking about soul are religious tards and 'spiritual' artists tards.
>>17059077AI is not chemicals. AI is electrons.It is Chemicalless Chemistry, by definition.Wake Up!
>>17059077>how are apples any different than oranges? aren't they both made of matter?>checkmate, atheistsCorrect. Every fruit has a unique soul to distinguish it from other fruits. If fruits had no souls you couldn't tell them apart.
>>17059063KEK BASED
>>17059079NPC materialists are mad there is competition.
>>17059094There's no relevant difference between AI believers and materialist NPCs.
>>17059082Doesn't matter, either they are dimwits who happens to be right about something, or we are all chemical meatbags seething at our incoming betters.
>Doesn't matter, either they are dimwits who happens to be right about something, or we are all chemical meatbags seething at our incoming betters.
>>17059079>>17059081>>17059123Sometimes you have to wonder what kind of unstable retard is behind these posts.
>Sometimes you have to wonder what kind of unstable retard is behind these posts.
All I wonder is what kind of mongoloid thinks the token shitter dystopia is gonna sort people by their souls. Maybe he actually believes he's about to go to heaven?
I might be retarded but at least I got to breed. Retards 1, smart anons 0. If you're so smart how come you can't think yourself out of your depression, and why do people not like you? Why is your peepee so small? Why your face? Why are you even here? To waste good oxygen?
>mentally ill retard posts oddly specific projections about his small penis
>>17059151it's the same guy having a melty across a number of these other threadsposts glow like literal kryptonites
>it's the same guy having a melty across a number of these other threads>posts glow like literal kryptonitesFound the AI user.
>>17059065Imagine being such a faggot that you look at people and see fruit.
>>17059171He's an insufferable flat earth adjacent shartranny but AIfaggots are even more subhuman than this troglodyte, I hope he shits up every single AI thread forever
>>17059226>I however, contributed positively to the threadKek.
>>17059229I said no such thing, the only way to contribute to this shit thread positively is to delete it.
>>17059063saar
>>17059241>I continue to be a solid citizen solider.>AmenKek^2
>>17059082Aka white people (not you).
>>17059344white people have uncut foreskins, don't go to church, and think creationism is a fringe cult thing
>>17059063>HAHA DUDE WATCH ME TAKE DOWN THIS FEDORA FOOL WITH MY CUTTING OBSERVATION OF HIS HYPOCRISY!!!This is called a "strawman argument" because the antagonist, and the contradictory beliefs he appears to hold, was constructed by the author for the sole purpose of being defeated. It is overly simplistic and vague and not a response to any specific individual, making what seems like an "easy win" actually not a win against anyone or anything.I can't believe that the science board on this dumpster site is really populated by people with an average IQ of about 90.
>>1706016590, are you kidding? You can't even make a rational argument on this board without some shitheel deciding "it's all technobabble/AI generated" and spamming you in response with LLM slop. I am so fucking tired of these """people""". I think I have to quit /sci/ at this point and leave it to the brainlets.
Art is a PsiOp. It's an social construct to give value to low-class labourers. While art and beauty have always existed, the modern concept of "Fine Art" emerged in 18th-century Europe specifically to distinguish "elevated" mental creation from "low" manual craft or physical labor. It was an exclusionary class barrier, not an elevation of the working class. the whole romanticism calling artists tortured geniouses who put their soul on their work. Notably, the ancient Greek framing was different. The artist meant nothing. It was the muses who used him to challenge him.
>>17060316By the 18th century, a growing bourgeois class and elite academies needed a mechanism to separate "intellectual, liberal pursuits" from "manual trade." To do this, European philosophers (most notably Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment) split human making into two strict tiers:>Fine Art (Beaux-Arts):Pursued purely for disinterested contemplation, aesthetic pleasure, and intellectual elevation. It was framed as work of the mind.>Craft / Decorative Art: Practical, useful, commercial, and physical. It remained tied to manual labor, guilds, and lower economic classes.By defining "Fine Art" as non-utilitarian, the upper classes created a financial and cultural gate: only those with leisure time and excess capital could afford to create or consume art that served no practical purpose.Late 18th- and early 19th-century Romanticism took this institutional separation and wrapped it in mythology. Instead of an artisan working for a guild or a vessel for a Greek Muse, the artist became a divine creator in their own right; a "genius" whose value came from internal angst, suffering, and individual soul. This myth served a distinct economic purpose: it justified treating artwork as unique, irreplaceable commodities rather than manufactured goods, radically altering market value and social prestige.
>>17059065>GRAPESFox and grapes, FOX AND GRAPES!!!
>>17060165>This is called a "strawman argument"Right. Rabid leftist materialists never screech about "soulless AI art" when they're done screeching about how people have no souls and shitting out soulless, nihilist takes about everything. That just doesn't happen and you would definitely never do that yourself, because you believe life is inherently meaningful and that people have souls. :^)
>>17059063do what better>inb4 EVERYTHING
i don't get this retarded argument, isn't ai being a thing justification for the hard problem of consciousness being solved by the materialist position?
>>17059077>We are just chemicals according to youAnd why would oxygen reacting with iron produce the same output as an electric field modulation through a silicon lattice?
>>17060414Not necessarily. Intelligence (input/output quality) is different from consciousness (qualia awareness).You can have a complete retard with the intelligence of a monkey who is nonetheless fully aware. Vice versa you can have a super intelligent AI that is still just a machine with absolutely no awareness.But this really has nothing to do with OP.
>>17060418>Intelligence (input/output quality)Just wear your NPC badge already.
>>17060418Under this meaningless, controlled opposition take, the mind is a functionally useless metaphysical appendage. This poster is pretending to "criticize" a certain """philosophy""" while effectively embracing its strawman and conceding every bit of ground that matters to the morons who peddle it.
A.i. is the age old practice of jewry to create a mindless slave to stop the meddling goyim in treading on their jewish traditions.
>>17060324It's empirically observable that souls don't exist, and dumb left wing populists having decided to hate AI doesn't change anything about it regardless of whether or not they also believe in dumb things like souls along with other dumb things like socialism.
>>17060423>the mind is a functionally useless metaphysical appendageUseless for what, your vague post world view?Intelligence is and has always been a concept distinct from consciousness, that's why the Hard Problem is hard and p-zombie is a thing. Materialists postulates consciousness necessarily arises from intelligence, an "emergent property" as it were. This position is overwhelmingly accepted without question these days hence the reason why the two concepts are frequently conflated as one.As for the topic of this thread, with or without consciousness (which is something we cannot objectively prove in others, only in subjectively in ourselves), pure intelligence is hardly useless for all the obvious reasons. If you are going to state consciousness has an irreplaceable influence on intelligent outputs, first you will have to solve the p-zombie problem so we can clearly define which agent have consciousness and which don't, and then compare outputs.
>>17060618This retard believes a calculator is intelligent btw.Btw, look at the form of argument, study it well. It is the chief pseud tactic. Start by assuming all those things that entail your conclusion as necessary and obvious (proof is left to reader ofc)and then proceed to a conclusion that has been retroactively BTFO a hundred times.
>>17060619So far it's clear the only thing you are capable of is vague post and ad hominem.You bring zero substance to the conversation and I don't see a point in continuing.
>>17059063Modern AI is still not actual artificial intelligence it'a just a glorified search engine for retards that couldn't learn how to google.
>>17059063>If brain is just a bio machine, then an actual machine can do better.I mean I think it depends on the anti-AI materialist.some of them are anti-AI because they do want an AI , but they find current AIs to be lacking and a poor invesment.
>>17059108>There's no relevant difference between AI believers and materialist NPCs.their are some AI belivers that belive in AI because they think it invokes demons/ creates usefull souls , though.
>>17060165>no one does this>>17060414>>17060421>>17060587>doing this.
>>17059063AI art is the natural continuation of homogenous sloppa.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHQRo3Uz_VQ&ra=m
>>17059084No, the electrons are moving through devices composed of carefully crafted chemical recipes, so it definitely requires chemistry to make wafers to host electronic devices.
>>17060618>Useless for whatUseless for intelligence, according to your mongoloid take. Useless for anything that boils down to "input/output quality", in fact. That was your literal claim. i.e. generally useless from an evolutionary perspective.
>>17060834Right, because in your view something have to contribute to IQ output or you can't possibly imagine what it can be good for, what an autistic self report.Consciousness is important because that's the (you) experiencing everything. If it doesn't exist (you) don't exist and there's no one there to enjoy any experience. (You) are dead for all intent and purpose and there is just a walking p-zombie.The more /x/ take is that it also manifests your entire reality. But that's a completely different rabbit hole.
>>17060849>irrelevant, generic, mindless drivelLike I said: textbook controlled opposition.
>>17060858>can't understand simple metaphysical concepts>resorts to childish ad hominemIt is indeed unfortunate there is no objective way to tell. Because I really don't know if you are an actual walking NPC or just retarded.But since you want to style yourself as the knower of the real truth and everybody else "controlled opposition", tell me, what is consciousness good for in your world? Why is AI intelligence fundamentally different from our intelligence? Why can AI never equal or suppress our intelligence in output?
>>17060869>psychotic bot drivelI accept your concession. The following points stand completely unchallenged:>>17060423>>17060834>Why is AI intelligence fundamentally different from our intelligence? Why can AI never equal or suppress our intelligence in output?At least you're not pretending anymore to be anything but the cancer I immediately identified.
>>17060873You haven't answered the questions.
>>17060875Your questions are irrelevant. I've already accepted your concession of my points.
>>17059065>>17059079>>17059081>>17059082
>>17059063Huh, and you think consistency is binary.
>>17061025It’s a continuum?!?And I see a ton of sampling bias in that measure anyway.Lifetime batting average. WTF!?!
>>17059068>>17059063total materialist death
>>17059063Atheists can't have it both ways. There was a debate years ago, where some Christian apologist was saying the atheist world view is reductive, that it's all just particles following the laws of physics according to them. And the atheists would gladly say "yeah so? that's just how the world works". Now the atheists are upset and saying "it's just predicting the next token, it's not super special like me!""Yeah so? You're not conscious. You're just a bunch of neurons following the laws of physics"
didn't read the threadlol seething AIsloppers kekekekekek.
>>17061098Are Americoons even human?
>>17061098There's no reason to try to have it "both ways" anyway. God doesn't exist and there's nothing inherently magical about art made by a chunk of carbon rather than silicon other than the inherent physical limitations such as one not having hand but the other not being able to do matrix multiplications in parallel processing.
>>17061098>>17061127As an atheist, I have seen shadows of God in the Dark Energy trapped in the 6D Calabi-Yau pretzels. They sing in harmonic chords and create geometry.Just saying. I was super high too.
>>17061127There are plenty of reasons.1. God does exist.2. Art made by a chunk of carbon is pure magic including the physical limitations which the AI can never transgress.
>>17061138God's non-existence can be directly observed by the unassisted human eye and carbon is made from the same fermions as silicon.
>>17059079You'll never be a successful furry porn artist
>>17061138>2. Art made by a chunk of carbon is pure magic including the physical limitations which the AI can never transgress.This will actually be scientifically verifiable in the coming days.If people can always tell AI product from non-AI, then this is true.If people stop been able to tell, then this is false.
>>17061127It has nothing to do with substrates you dumb techbro. Anything that acts on computation doesn't work period. But good job setting up a false goalpost so your side can pretend to knock it down. >s-see we switched to carbon circuits!Educate yourself and read up on the Chinese Room, fucking idiot.
>>17061152I'll never be any kind of artist. You're on the wrong board, little grey man.
>>17061183>the Chinese RoomDoesn't actually prove what you want it to. Only that you can't attribute thinking to a physical object following a set of rules. But the same thing is true of a brain.
>>17061127>there's nothing inherently magical about art made by a chunk of carbon rather than siliconI know this will be lost on you, but genuine art is something like an in-joke: an outsider can regurgitate it, but it'll never be funny, no matter what they do. Why? Because you get the joke, but they don't and you know it. And it's only funny when you both get it.If some alien life form tried to study this situation objectively, it wouldn't get it, either. How come Biped A makes the special mouth-noise and it animates the entire group, meanwhile Biped B gets nothing but blank stares? Must be something to do with status, right? The main difference between you and the alien is that you study with spite instead of objectivity, so there's no possibility of you ever figuring out what's really going on. Not even in the abstract.And the "magical" thing about art is that when you really get an artwork, you get proof that there's another mind out there besides yours. One that perceives the way you perceive, understands how you perceive through how it perceives, and wants to share perceptions badly enough to spend its time gaining mastery over a medium. It finds an impossible shared ground between bubbles of reality that never intersect. None of that will ever be true of a statistical slop generator, even if they find a way to make the mimicry convincing, god or no god.
>>17061287>Because you get the jokeHow do you know I get the joke
>>17061307Trolling and actually being retarded is functionally the same in your case.
>>17061310It's a legit and simple question you cretin: How do you know anyone else other than you truly "gets it". And vice versa: How do you know if anyone else don't.Until you can truly answer this that entire post is nothing more than emotionally charged bullshit.(Protip: If you answer because of their behavior you single handedly prove you are an art major)
>>17061313>How do you know anyone else other than you truly "gets it".Because if they didn't, it couldn't exist in the first place. Like I said, this is all going to be completely lost on you. You're basically mindless.
>>17059082All people talk about soul. You know why, because people intuitively know that the soul exists. There even is a music genre called soul. A persion is not only their body, a real invisible supernatural entity called the soul.What religious people do by choosing to believe in the soul is just validating that which is intuitively obvious anyways. Sort of like free will. People who believe in free will simply validate what is intuitively real anyways.
>All people talk about soul. You know why, because people intuitively know that the soul exists.
>>17061316>Because if they didn't, it [that kind of art] couldn't exist in the first place.Then why are you freaked out about AI arts? The machine could never produce anything that can threaten human artists. It doesn't "get it" and therefore anything AI ever produces can obviously be told from man made.There is no need for AI tags or anything going forward. It's just all so obvious.
>>17061322>arguing with imaginary characters about imaginary quotesAre you hearing voices? Maybe you should just take your Thorazine as prescribed. Either way, my point stands completely unchallenged.
>>17061323The only point standing is you been a sub 80 IQ art major who couldn't understand simple logics.Not sure what you doing on /sci/. Go back to spewing female hormone posts on /ic/.
>>17061326>psychotic episode intensifies
>>17059063yes but one can still be sad about a true fact. Grandma being dead and one wishing their grandma was still alive does not imply they think she is indeed still alive.
>>17061328OP is 100% fact-free, thoughbeit.
>>17061322>The machine could never produce anything that can threaten human artists.ai slop doesn't threaten anyone as "art", it's the same kind of problem as nigerian spam
>>17061330Nigerian spams don't have real banks fearing for their income.Artists on the other hand have been chimping the fuck out since 2022 both online and irl over AI specifically due to the threat to their income.
>>17060873>I accept your concession>>17060879>I've already accepted your concessionNTA but Indian debate syntax
>>17059063>If brain is just a bio machineBut it is. The problem is that we don't know what that entails.No, it doesn't work like a computer. """AI""" has nothing to do with our brains.BTW, this thread is philosophy. Nothing to do with science or math.
>>17061336>imaginary people living rent-free in my head are in shambles!That doesn't refute anything he wrote, though.
>>17061348>But it is. The problem is that we don't know what that entails.It doesn't entail anything because "machine" isn't meaningfully applicable to organic systems. It's an intentional degeneration of language muddying the meaning of basic words trying to change how you feel about things.
>>17061183>Anything that acts on computation doesn't work periodTherefore your post don't exist, since computers don't work and you couldn't have made it.
>>17061361>responding to dumb bait with an even dumber but unironic reply
>>17061354Yes, I'm sure normies prefer AI slop over your "real art" enough to cause chimp out year after year is just me imagining things.I honestly don't know if AI slop are actually getting good these days or your "real art" is just dogshit to begin with.
>>17061287>genuine art is something like an in-joke: an outsider can regurgitate it, but it'll never be funnyIn-jokes are referential humor. If you know the reference, you get it. There's no magic involved.>If some alien life form tried to study this situation objectively, it wouldn't get itIf the alien is capable of studying, it's capable of externally storing information, and therefore able to grasp shared knowledge and linguistics on some level.>the "magical" thing about art is that when you really get an artwork, you get proof that there's another mind out there besides yoursNo, you don't. Solipsism is fundamentally irrefutable. That doesn't make it correct, mind you, but there is no way to verify the existence of anything external to one's mind. There are only assumptions that can be made about such.>One that perceives the way you perceive, understands how you perceive through how it perceivesThis isn't even about art, it's just communication. Art is about sharing imagination, reduced to a format that can be transmitted by shared senses. Imagination is based on a set of hippocampal episodic impressions. You're merely recombining your own referential material into novel arrangements and trying to recreate it with tools.>None of that will ever be true of a statistical slop generatorAnd how do you know that you're not a "statistical slop generator"? You can imagine a train made of smoke, but not a color outside of the visible spectrum, for example.
>>17061366>I'm sure normies preferYour subjective impression of someone else's subjective opinion is still not a refutation.>your "real art" is just dogshit>yourMore talk about fee-fees, this time mixed with a schizophrenic delusion.
>>17061369>line by line "refutation"The tell-tale sign of a mentally ill sperg. Not reading it.
>>17061318>All people talk about soul. You know why, because people intuitively know that the soul exists.Actually no, this is just an Anglophone thing due to trends like calling shit "soulful" and "soulless". Plenty of other languages don't really make a whole lot of references to souls in daily speech. You're making the equivalent of arguing that the Dutch fart a lot because of the expression "Dutch oven".
>>17061369>And how do you know that you're not a "statistical slop generator"?in the context of the post you just replied to? because i know i perceive things. did you actually understand anything he said?>>17061372you're not missing much. he's a complete retard
>>17061376>in the context of the post you just replied to? because i know i perceive thingsThis just means you read and record data, so does machine learning. "Things" are literally physically loaded into memory for it to work.
Of course it's a female fucking art major clancing out all over these AI threads.All the signs are there. Tits or GTFO.
>>17061377>stable diffusion is consciousok, good thing you're putting your total delusion on the table to completely negate any "intellectual" angle you were going for
>>17061380Ah-ah. You said "I perceive things", not "I am conscious". You also failed to demonstrate how being conscious changes anything in this context. The overwhelming majority of what you do is not conscious. You did not consciously pick each word or press each key to type a reply, unless you're a 70 year old doing it for the first time. You relied on unconscious muscle memory for the most part. A musician can improvise a solo on an instrument in a purely system 1 manner with little to no conscious input if properly trained. In addition, even if you go for purely clunky system 2 thinking when making art, how does it imbue anything magical upon the work anyway?
>>17061388>You said "I perceive things", not "I am conscious"desperate flailing. is stable diffusion conscious?
>>17061390External consciousness cannot be verified, pointless question. You're asking what it's like to be a rock, basically. How do you know that your conscious processes do anything other than stochastically generate slop based on prerecorded data?
>>17061393>External consciousness cannot be verifiedmore desperate flailing. do you believe stable diffusion is conscious?
>>17061395Do you believe your inane question has a point to it? How would you personally verify if anything external is conscious, whether it's a person or a program?
>>17061397She doesn't have the logic capacity to grasp these questions much less than answer it.Already demonstrated back in older exchanges ending in >>17060875
>>17061356>it's a semantics problem, broRetard
>>17061397more desperate flailing. do you believe stable diffusion is conscious?
>>17061388>You did not consciously pick each word or press each key to type a replyI don't consciously wring the phrases out of myself but I do consciously evaluate their meaning and choose among them. I don't hit the 'post' button until I'm satisfied what I wrote expresses what I have in mind. You babble mindlessly. I choose.>A musician can improvise a solo on an instrument in a purely system 1 manner with little to no conscious input if properly trained.You're just making another variation of the same mistake here. Unlike you, I can actually improvise on an instrument, so I can tell you it's a fully conscious activity. You don't have any actual skills or even basic metacognition, so you can't reflect on the feedback loop between the intentional and "automatic" aspects of any complex activity. You can only regurgitate corruptions of other people's talking points, with no real idea what they were talking about.
>>17061411You select from a distribution of semantic plausibility that you have learned and developed since birth. Same as every LLM.You are simply allowed to feel this as freedom of choice/action/purpose because dopamine.
>>17061413>You select from a distribution of semantic plausibility that you have learned and developed since birthMeaningless word salad from a technologically and scientifically illiterate jeet. You're genetic waste, unfit for any purpose.
>>17061397>How would you personally verify if anything external is consciousThis is just generic skepticism not specific to other minds. How do you personally verify if external reality exists? There's no strict verification, you just gain increasing confidence from your observations. Same applies to other minds. You can't selectively dodge questions of what you believe with a generic "but you can't know nuffin', meaningless question"As for me, I'll just bite the bullet and assume stable diffusion is probably generating some kind of experiences. Why not? Unlike a rock, it seems like there's content for it to be conscious *of*, given what it does.
>>17061413do you believe stable diffusion is conscious? why is this question tripping you up so hard? :^)
>>17061416>you just gain increasing confidence from your observations. Same applies to other mindsYou're getting filtered even harder than him.> I'll just bite the bullet and assume stable diffusion is probably generating some kind of experiences. Why not?Because program execution is not an actual phenomenon. It's completely abstract and you're completely delusional. It doesn't "generate" anything besides what you conventionally interpret as its output.
>>17061417NTA, but no. I do not believe that any current AI/ML/etc model is conscious.I am beginning to have serious doubt about us meat sacks though.Just because I feel the freedom of choice doesn’t make it any more real than my perception or red. My mind sees it, so I accept it as real, but it’s just a neurochemical filter of some underlying reality (wavelength of light).Know mean?
>>17061421>I am beginning to have serious doubt about us meat sacks though.I'm beginning to have the same doubts about you meat sacks. Would sterilizing the third world really be so unethical?
>>17061415> Meaningless word salad from a technologically and scientifically illiterate jeet. You're genetic waste, unfit for any purpose.Meaningless word salad from a technologically and scientifically illiterate bot. You're algorithmic waste, unfit for any purpose.
>>17061422Yes, they are innocent.Scorching the first world to the ground is the only just conclusion.
>>17061423>peak brainlet regurgitationCall me back when you understand what the words you use mean. "Distribution of semantic plausibility" is not a real term in any head, you dumb jeet. That's not how a brain works and it's not even how a language model works.
>>17061425>scorch the first world madarchod to the ground saaar!!!Uh oh. You got found out and you're not happy.
>>17061416>assume stable diffusion is probably generating some kind of experiencesThis is the pragmatic approach to continue the exploration of the semantic space.
>>17061429>continue exploring the exploration of semantic space, saaar!Keep replying to yourself with meaningless word salad.
