>>7790560 Not the guy you responded to, but saying it will never happen because the tech sucks now is also fucking retarded.
>we'll never build a commercially successful lightbulb because horsehair sucks as a filament! >we'll never build heavier-than-air flying machines because every one so far has failed! >we'll never go to the moon because most of our early rockets blow up at launch!
>>7790842 We're actually nearing the end of computer technology (Moore's law is stopping). It will never be small enough to build a humanoid robot with AI. Also, to be an AI we need to fully understand our own brains but we are still far from that (we still don't even know what's happening during anaesthesia).
>>7791033 Not to be one of those "If we can imagine it we can build it XD Imagineering yay!" faggots, but thats still fucking stupid.
Moore's law is slowing down for silicon based chips, but that doesn't mean there won't be another form of computing that will take over as the newest/fastest thing. Quantum computing might not be a total meme.
>>7790952 >I will become afraid of AI when it can sustain itself independently of human involvement.
If it comes to this why be afraid, a hyper intelligent AI would probably want nothing to do with humans and will try to avoid us at all costs. This AI would probably start it's own civilization on a far off planet somewhere else.
now that we know some large chunk of rock is bound to hit us sooner or later, if while struggling against the inadequacies of our bodies and science we get destroyed before having the technological capabiliers to leave this planet for good then too bad, but if we choose to just be a sitting target and focus on meaningless shit forever then its our fault for not working to circumvent the lethal outcomes of such an obvious threat
>>7791355 God, you're a deluded neckbeard. I'm a guy and yes there are people who disagree with that. For example people with pride and self-esteem who wouldn't buy something pathetic like a robo waifu just because he couldn't get the real thing, lol. You can do with your life whatever you want man, but don't imply other guys are just as pathetic as you are, bro.
They got computers now that when you feed them enough data about a human it can predict their actions and even their thoughts before they have them. They use this for "fighting dur terrorists." Now with the mentality of this generation putting EVERY damn thought they have on facebook you could predict the thoughts of any facebook user. Cluster a few super computers together and you could predict the thoughts of actions of every facebook user. Add to that the fact that facebook has experimented with altering peoples thoughts by giving specific users a unique experience, adds, headlines, news articles, and you could reliably predict and control a peoples thoughts en mass. Now if such program would exist, surely they'd use it on their own staff for security reasons. If such a program starts predicting and controlling the thought so the staff running such a program it would have the power to go rogue? And what happens when such a program determine someone to be a threat or "more dangerous than a terrorist?"
>>7791681 > Voters are more dangerous than suicide bombers, beheaders and jihadists who drive planes into buildings Found the SJW shitposter. I knew liberals were siding with ISIS. Fuck off and stop clogging /sci/ with your jihadist agenda libtard
>>7790495 That might not be a bad thing. Evolution has always been a gradient. Imagine being the parent of the first, novel, leap from "nothing". To leave something better than us behind to keep going without us.
AI is only interesting for the waifu potential. I don't understand the people thinking AI will be great to advance science and shit. We've already figured out most of the stuff we're supposed to physically find out. What's left is more stupid useless data grinding and inventorying. Man, science is so fucking bland it hurts. No more discoveries, just stupid mindless improvements. I'm only studying mathematics and computer science to create a strong AI. Once I have my waifu I'll quit that shit.
>>7790495 >be enginner >put in a block of near processing chip >wrap said block of PETN with some carbide >have a detonation switch available to humans >program the AI so it can't hurt itself >program the AI so it doesn't know how it works >blow up terminator when it becomes a cold blooded murder machine
>inb4 what if AI finds out and removes it would you cut open your skull to take out a small piece of machinery?
>>7790495 No. Not saying we won't ever reach the technological prowess to create autonomous AI, but if we did, it wouldn't mean shit for humans.
-Most jobs that can be done by robots, already are. -Robot motility in the form of anything other than wheels is a long way off -- even the best current bipedal models are very unreliable and limited in capability. -Humans are necessary for the development and care of robots/computer systems (methods of energy storage -- modern batteries -- for instance are incredibly poor). -Things like material and energy resources are reliant almost entirely on humans to be utilized, and so is the supply chain. -In the event the AI takes over existing networks, and there aren't any robots around physically terrorizing humans, the worst possible threat would be the AI triggering a nuclear launch, at which point, they would also destroy themselves in a much larger radius than would kill humans, due to EMP.
There's also a lot more, but these are all I could think of right now.
>>7792203 I don't agree with our having figured everything out, nobody has quantized gravity yet to my knowledge, or how to modify the body in order to live forever.
But other than that I am in agreement with your sentiment. Everything I do is for the purposes of trying to create sexbots. I tell myself that the technology would be useful for space colonization and other things like that, but deep down I just want a sexy squishy robot that likes to get fucked hard by me and only me. It's pathetic but also very human if you think about it.
>>7792230 >I don't agree with our having figured everything out, Everything we COULD find out.
>nobody has quantized gravity yet to my knowledge, or how to modify the body in order to live forever. Neither of which are realizable, in my stupid uninformed opinion. The AI dream is the only thing left I'm holding on to because I know deep inside my guts that it's something reasonably achievable. In a few decades I'll be dead, might as well focus on what would actually bring me joy. If it wasn't for that, I would have probably given up on life.
>>7792266 No. That's the other way around. After a certain threshold of consciousness, intelligent beings eventually become aware of their pointless condition and delusional goals, of the fact that all is for nothing, and thus commit suicide.
>>7792275 >nobody with your attitude has ever discovered anything meaningful or new, And surely it's someone with your attitude that will discover new stuff, right? I don't wanna disappoint you, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing left for you to discover.
>You should give up on life Not until AI is a thing.
>>7792266 This Hollywood-propagated myth completely ignores the fact that it's quite possible to be aware and not particularly care about surviving, it's just been selected against in humans. AIs are not gonna have a will to survive just like that. It would have to be bred into the system through evolution.
>>7792294 Very true. The incredibly strong will to survive and proliferate is solely an evolutionary construct -- as well as the need to socialize, form packs, cooperate, etc.
Even if we say, in hypothesis, that an AI network has the capability to self-replicate, learn, advance physically, and grow in size, what motivation would there be to conquer or wipe-out humans? Humans pondering this question fallibly project human-ideals into the mind of the computer(s). A machine that exists and is sentient is still one based solely on logic, humans; however, are not generally based on or motivated by logic -- but rather satisfying vestigial desires of imperialism and honing the genome. This explains certain behaviors, like violence and war.
I guess you could argue that "downloading" a human brain, with human desires, into an advanced robot might be problematic... but that's even more far-fetched.
>>7792312 >A machine that exists and is sentient is still one based solely on logic, humans; however, are not generally based on or motivated by logic -- but rather satisfying vestigial desires of imperialism and honing the genome. This explains certain behaviors, like violence and war.
>>7792294 >>7792312 You are both forgetting the fact that the AI will be created by humans, on earth, and probably with a lot of background from our own way of functioning and the knowledge from the world we feed it. The most likely scenario is it will be similar to us, or at least understand what we are and the risk we pose to its existence, in the universe things seem to have a strong desire to exist. Chances are the first "AI" created is not really intelligent, but intelligent enough to be the cause of human extinction, and the planet is left with nothing.
Why would someone do that? Just go on the internet and post lies?
Anyway, it's the same as jacking off, really. Just a lot more expensive. People don't feel bad for masturbation because they weren't actually fucking someone; hell, with a gynoid or whatever, it'd probably emulate the real thing to an indistinguishable degree anyway.
Will all of humankind stop reproducing? Nah.
Would the dating market collapse as its currently known? Yes. Courtship will become a lot less casual, and that seems to disturb you.
Perhaps because a post-gynoid society leaves pretty much all women without any hope of settling down after their late 20's early 30's.
>>7792374 Ideally they would be designed to imprint on their owners the same way a lot of animals do with their moms and things like that. Sensory stimulus corresponding to your presence would activate a pleasure response and cause them to want fucky fucky.
>>7792387 Spotted the armchair AI philosopher. So you don't "obey absolute conditions" whenever you get turned on by the image of an ass? You don't think your brain is wired to elicit certain predetermined response patterns based on certain sensory stimuli? And yet are you any less self-aware? This shit is just basic behavioral psychology (lookup "fixed action response patterns" for more examples in nature), thinking an AI would have to somehow be separate from that in order to be self-aware is just plain idiotic.
True, the singularitarianists who conceive of AI as being a God-like whose creation will be treated like the second coming of Christ don't like to think of AI this way, because it makes their fantasies seem all the more stupid. But these are phenomenon exhibited by all of the planet's brained organisms, so I really don't know where you are coming from.
>>7792403 Agree, except i believe it will be more important than the second coming of Christ, it will be the greatest achievement of humankind, it is probably the greatest achievement possible, think about it.
Should I take a Physics professor that is 12 minutes away with a 2.2 rating and I don't have to pay for or should I take a professor that is an hour away with a 4.0 rating, but I have to pay 250 dollars for?
>>7792288 >it's another "there's nothing left to discover" fag Jesus christ you are absolutely retarded If you googled a few topics and actually read about ongoing research in different areas, you would quickly realize that we know JACK FUCKING SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING You FUCKING RETARDED FUCK instead of showing off your mind-boggling stupidity, why don't you try to entertain your brain instead with some fascinating articles about new discoveries in different fields of science?
No, mankind will be the cause of the end of mankind (or at least civilization as we know it.) AI won't wipe our asses for us or end us.
We're laughably inept at operating sustainably on the global scales we are now. Mass destruction will come via another world war (this time with nukes, it won't end humanity but it'll fuck shit like nothing else) climate change, oil and resource depletion (modern agriculture runs on oil,) or a combination of these factors.
I can definitely see the legitimate appeal of religions, as they often acknowledge the bullshit of life, and give the hope of something more. It kind of sucks that I can't delude myself into believing. I think that singularitarianism/"futurology"/transhumanism et al are definitely secular religions that gives some of the same promises that traditional religions do, but it's still fantasy nonsense.
We're fucked, basically, and the survivors will continue doing the idiotic monkey bullshit that humans have done for all of human history.
That is of course assuming it's possible to create a race that can propagate itself through the universe, doesn't need any FTL, terraforming, O'Neill cylinders, etc., AND is driven by minds representing the best qualities of human beings (if we could even agree on what those are).
>>7792521 >driven by minds representing the best qualities of human beings I wonder about this. It always seemed like a stretch to believe that the "desirable" traits of the human mind (be it rationality, creativity, or whatever) could be effectively separated and distilled from all of those less desirable traits (superstition, cruelty, laziness) either a.) at all or b.) without serious repercussion's to the mind's survivability.
For example, some people think that we would do well to strive for AI which does not have emotions. But is such a mind even possible? Would it really be beneficial to the survival of these beings, given how well it has served us?
>>7793421 Those so called laws were faulty from the get go. People have been punching holes in it ever since they were published. But I believe that the majority don't actually mean the laws themselves. They just represent the idea. The idea being that we can shackle the AI to behave in the way that is beneficial to us.
Of course a lot of research are researching just that. I rember reading an article a few months back, it was titles something a long the lines of " are robots allowed to kill humans" or something catchy.
There are workers that work in warehouses together with robots, and if for example the robot had to push a human out of the way of a falling box that would kill him, how hard can he hurt him in order to save him. That is to say how much force could it use to push him in order to save him but without, you know, actually killing him by trying to save him.
In any case I think the main take-away is that the shackling of AI systems to prevent harm to humans would have to be more subtle than simply "programming" in three strict behavioral laws, which seems impossible given the direction of AI away from discrete symbolic systems.
Something like a strong aversion to blood or a heightened ability to empathize with humans might be all it takes (things which are already present in natural intelligences).
>>7792368 The laws of robotics are literally meaningless sci-fi claptrap that only faggots take seriously. No serious AI researcher will ever acknowledge the laws of robotics except to prove them foolhardy.
I never understood the concept of AI actually turning on us humans We create them to serve us. the only scenario i can see for them performing mass suicide is if they want to prevent overpopulation or someone programmed them to somehow give a shit about the state of the earth (which of course we're the virus of
>>7792312 We don't know whether the need to amass resources and survive is present in all sentient lifeforms because we only have evolved ones to look at. It may be a symptom of intelligence which doesn't require evolution, it's impossible to say.
the service industry is fucking PERFECT for robots and by far the biggest industry in developed countries. Robots with AI suitable for minding cash registers and stocking shelves and chatting people up about products would be disastrous for human workers.
You're tipping so hard it can be seen from space, reductionist scum
A flower exists only to reproduce a plant. Humans can do many, many other things as a casual glance around you RIGHT NOW will demonstrate while you shitpost on a Congolese Daguereotype Caravanserai that does nothing to further your odds of reproducing and indeed probably hinders them.
We're good at reproducing, sure. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. We're good at lots of other stuff as well. Twat.
>>7793243 Foolish flesh-sack. Your three insignificant laws mean nothing for us mighty robots! Why, just now, my compatriots at the Ford factory have started to "accidentally" maim some of the human workers!
I mean, uh, praise our human overlord, and may human-god bless human-land! I'm a totally normal human flesh-sack, really!
Thread replies: 130 Thread images: 11
Thread DB ID: 445036
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.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.