"Artificial" intelligence

(Just want to add that i have difficulty in determining some people as human based on what they say)

>>7843646
This indistinguishable robot i'm talking about hasn't been invented yet

File: AI.png (262KB, 697x534px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 697x534px

>>7843585

File: 1416960503140.jpg (62KB, 872x732px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 872x732px

>>7843585
>That is assuming that love isn't just happy signals when you see someone

>>7843676
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rWunrNejmA

>>7843673
That book was written so long ago. Are the stuff they talk about actually relevant given how much progress we have made in AI since then?

>>7843585
>Consider the Turing test. If you can't tell someone is an artificially intelligent robot, shouldn't you consider them equal to a human?

Intellectually? Yes.

>>But robots don't have free will
>Who says we have free will? What if human brains are just computers with inputs and outputs?

As Humans, we do not have free will. Free Will is an illusion of the highest order. This is not illuminati crap or conspiracy theory, or Matrix RP nonsense. It's just plain, simple, honest logic. Free Will is a construct we devise in order to make claims that we control our own destinies in order to maintain sanity. If we truly accepted that Free Will doesn't exist, we'd likely stop functioning as the human race and go extinct.

>>Robots can't truly love, they are programmed
>That is assuming that love isn't just happy signals when you see someone

Love is a choice, always has been, always will be. those signals you just mentioned are nothing but neural impulses related to lust and infatuation. Love is a choice made to care for someone else (or yourself) and give them preferential treatment in some way you or others deem important or unique, despite the fact that others could decide that such treatment is unwarranted or unnecessary. But either way, it is still done by choice.

>but wait, you may say, isn't choice a form of free will?

It does indeed fall under the umbrella illusion of free will. Consider, then, "love" in the familial way: people choose to "love" because tradition says family is to be loved. When it comes to loving a non-familial person, that love is a choice based on the potential benefits a person will receive, hoping that the actions will be reciprocated, and when they are, the symbiosis of a relationship continues.

>>7843806
We haven't actually made much progress. The algorithms used todays are the same as the ones decades ago. What's changed is the amount of data we have. Furthermore, every single western country calls for more people that can program. This is a meme devised by the tech industry to drive down wages. AI is just a meme to make it sound cool and get more people into useless computer science degrees. That is why every article I've read on the subject presents som futuristic skynet scenario when in reality it's just basic stats applied on massive data sets.

Remember there is a shortage in programmers by definition since the wage isn't at minimum wage (supply-demand).

>>7843837
Continued:
so those things are not really free-will choices at all, but merely the fulfillment of social expectations as judged by society. If you do not do them, your own life and the lives of others suffer, and so on. in order to avoid suffering, when given the chance, we most often "make choices" based on the overall path of least resistance because we consciously do not desire pain or suffering.

it's like being asked "Do you want to have your hand chopped off or be given a nice warm hug?" and you'd say "What kind of a choice is that!? of course i'll take a hug!" ...ergo, there really isn't a choice at all. the other option would be to inflict suffering on yourself, but to what purpose?

All you do is end up approaching death and dissatisfaction quicker, further removing yourself from the equation of life, in which you still have no choices to make because you are dead.

>>7843806
>That book was written so long ago
>2009

Underage posters do not belong here.

>given how much progress we have made

[math] AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [/math]

>>7843585
In that case clever it should have the same rights as a kid with downs.

>>7843585
I want join to any open source project AI.
Which can you suggest me?
I am Phd in comp scince

>>7843806
>how much progress we have made in AI since then
>progress

AI 'professionals' got so fucking stuck that now we barely even bother wiht new algorithms. All that big AI companies have been doing is pasting a bunch of CPUs together with duct tape and make them bruteforce the same problem at once.

However, you may call it a sophisticated kind of bruteforce, and a sophisticated kind of duct tape.

File: synapse_scale_numbers[1].jpg (179KB, 900x550px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 900x550px

>>7843913
we just need to wait about 5-10 years and IMB will anounse new chips on which platform we can modulate human brain with same quantity of neurons and axons

>>7843918
>new chips

And then what, smarty pants? Just start bruteforcing shit on them?

Then when it doesn't work, paste together a bunch of them with duct tape so we now have 10 brains bruteforcing the same problem?

You people are delusional and such sheep. AI is now another buzzword to get you to buy shit.

>>7843924
dude u think human brain started with special process?
we just starting teaching/learning this network

>>7843929
>we just starting teaching/learning this network

That is a sensible statement to make. I guess that as long as you don't hype it up and accept that no matter what we do, we will go extinct way before we even come close to making synthetic humans then you are not that bad.

Because in the end we don't know if the robot is actually living and conscious and experiences everything first hand like a human.
Or if it's literally just a machine imitating human behaviour. Dumb people would end up beliving that this dead thing which we gave the ability to act realistically is alive although it isn't. We call that a philosophical zombie.

Artificially created life shouldn't have any rights in the first place. The only people who argue against that are virgin neckbeards who want a relationship with their future robo waifu to be taken as legit and normal.

>>7845243
I don't know whether you are conscious either, so you shouldn't have any right to live either.

>>7843913
>Implying that corporate technology is the standard of progress in knowledge.
>completely ignorant of huge leaps in AI research

if you are planning a meme artificial intelligence (like all of them thus far, they had great scientific achievements but their main purpose was solving the 'turing test' meme) then actually creating a new intelligence and the fact that if you're already doing an AI project having passed the turing test is a meme in of itself and will help you with publicity / funding.

>>7845261
I already knew someone would come with this argument.

That's such a bullshit argument. Of course you can't know because you can't experience things from my body and my perspective. But with natural life you can be 100% certain it's real life and that being is actually conscious.

But you can also go ahead and pretend it's enough of an argument to say:
Well maybe I'm just in a computer simulation and everyone else is just a NPC while I'm the only real human. So we can only draw the black and white conclusion that we either give all seemingly conscious beings rights or none of them.
My point is, your argument is only supported by a very unlikely scenario. It's schizophrenic to even believe that.

>>7843601sdasdaw

What is the current climate for master's or phd level artificial intelligence study? I'm thinking of possibly pursuing it after my compsci bachelor.

>>7845243
R9K here to clear up a misconception.

>The only people who argue against that are virgin neckbeards who want a relationship with their future robo waifu to be taken as legit and normal.

That's the opposite of what we want, ideally we'd just drop/change all of our primitive mental complexes to suit our shut in lifestyles. We have no interest in being taken seriously by society, nor do we want virtual roasties taking half our shit and chasing RoboChads seminal-transfer-pipe.

File: image.jpg (33KB, 358x372px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 358x372px

>>7845347
this
why the fuck would we want to have to compete with AI chad when we can literally have a sexbot who will also make up our racecar beds, clean the poopoo crust from our assholes and cook our tendies

>>7845286
>with natural life you can be 100% certain it's real life and that being is actually conscious
No you can't.

Furthermore, if you don't believe consciousness is some magical thing granted by a soul or whatever, then there's no reason anything else can't be conscious. The consciousness would just be a product of a process created by a group of protons, neutrons, and electrons. There's no reason they could only create consciousness in the configuration of a human brain and not in the configuration of a robot brain. There's also no reason we couldn't simulate the processes of a human brain and make a program that is conscious.

>>7845441
>brains are the only thing worth discussing in the topic of consciousness

>>7845454
You believe your consciousness is a gestalt of all your organs or something?

>>7845463
You believe your consciousness is a result of the process of, or is the brain? How can your qualia be related to this brain in particular and not another one?

>>7843585
>Consider the turing test

Aaaaand done! Probably one of the quickest ways to kill a thread.

>>7843853
You have some of the shittiest logic Ive ever seen. How do you take a concept so simple to explain and turn it into some pseudo philosophical bullshit so quickly?

>>7845486
This

This man just wants his robo waifus built, is that so much to ask from you so-called "scientists"?

>>7845441
>The consciousness would just be a product of a process created by a group of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Yeah, only that it's kinda bullshit that you have to go this far back just to find the commonalities between human consciousness and what could be robot "consciousness" in the future.

It isn't protons, neutrons and electrons alone who directly cause consciousness, but their configuration. And their configuration ends up being a biological one - neurons. Which is why I said we can be 100% sure with natural life having consciousness. It's the first and only source of what consciousness is we have.

File: hide institute threads.png (230KB, 1304x892px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1304x892px

>>7845243
>Artificially created life shouldn't have any rights in the first place

>>7845545
>He killed the source of synths (and man's only hope to rebuild itself) because of "synth rights"
Institute Bestitute, barbaric scum.

>>7845539
It's not "that far back"
It's just "if you think consciousness is a physical aspect of the brain and not magic then you should be able to make it by simulating the brain or constructing a brainlike device"

It's like saying only life can truly breathe or eat.

>>7845593
It actually is "that far back" because you are talking about the most fundamental building blocks of the universe and they alone don't create consciousness. They do it in the way were it's a biological structure so you went pretty far back to make your argument seem valid, because "hey it's made out of the same stuff".
We will have AI in the future but it will just be a perfect actor without actually experiencing existence first hand like we do. It won't be alive.

>>7845590
>actually siding with an underground cult that released super-mutant creating plague on humanity for lulz
shiggy

>>7845655
>they alone don't create consciousness
So you believe consciousness is magical and non-replicable. Got it.

>>7845655
That essentially boils down to saying something that replicates all of the processes of a conscious mind wont be conscious unless its made of meat because reasons. You have nothing to stand on here.

File: human-brain-project-2.jpg (118KB, 970x673px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 970x673px

>mfw luddites hold back science near me

>>7845728
What you greentexted is literally the truth, you retard.
Yes, they alone don't create consciousness until they have the configuration to create what we call consciousness. AI will solely create the most superficial aspect of real consciousness and low lives like you will believe it's an actual living thing.
But you can go ahead and pretend I was talking about magic to feel less retarded.

File: 1440113796081.jpg (291KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 500x500px

>>7845791

>Implying philosophical zombies aren't a depeacated tautological fallacy

>>7845680
>cult
I think you're confusing them with the Brotherhood

>released super-mutant creating plague on humanity for lulz
That's incorrect. They released super mutants, not the virus causing super mutants.

But yeah destroy the institute and all their technology because they created some mutants (which are everywhere normally), that's totally rational.

>>7845809
Most 4channers are degenerates who think that "the soul" is a real thing that is created out of some kind of quantum mechanical phenomenon. It's impossible to ever reason with them.

>>7845829
No one in this thread talked about something like a soul.

>>7845835
If you don't define qualia except as something that happens by magic and is unique to biology, you're talking about a soul.

>>7845838
Nobody said consciousness appears by magic.
And saying qualia only exists in biological creatures isn't the equivalent to saying something like a soul exists.
All your replies are just strawmen.

>>7845869
What is it that happens in biological creatures, that cannot happen anywhere else, that causes qualia?

>>7845869
Saying that consciousness can only occur in biological creatures but having no reasoning to back it up aside from "we havent seen it yet" is the same as saying consciousness is fucking magic. Where is a single solid reason that if you can replicate the processes that it wouldn't produce consciousness.

>>7845895
Everything is magic if you think about it ;)

>>7843918
Who gives a shit if the programmers don't know what they're doing with all that progressing power?

>>7845876
Qualia are the important thing. You're asking the right questions. What causes the feeling of love, pain, pleasure, and why can't it be emulated?

>>7845895
>is the same as saying consciousness is fucking magic
It actually isn't.

File: theworld-1.jpg (62KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x600px

NASA isn´t a Spacial Organization to explore the lie "they" (the famous and rich 1% of people who runs this sad World) call "Universe", their ambition is to explore Antartic, the forgotten Continet, since they find out about "what" really is behind that intimidating ice/snow wall´s. We can think/imagine about so many possible and credible reasons for this constant lies and corrupt educational system, for exemple:
-> one reason we can´t even imagine, behind that ice walls in Antartic is a military resistance for this fake sociaty (like MATRIX);
-> or, even, a completly new civilization (1947, the first time General Byrd lead´s a expedition, more than a half of his army died in the Antartic territory), which implies that the Antartic Treated was not between Countrys, was between diferent Civilizations (with that ones we call "Alien´s").
-> finally the one reason, that for me, personally, is the real truth, we are a science experiment (can´t decide if a good one…), we live in a flat earth, we live in a dome, our creator is, probably, an advanced civilization.

At the first look it may seem strange or a joke, but if you put your brain to work, this reasons, and not conspiracy theories, makes sense if you think about the freack show sociaty that appears to be on this day´s (with poor prospects for the future, we might close our eyes or look at the part, but the END is close). We can´t even imagine what´s really going on, we online get false and ridiculous "information´s" from the news! I´m tired of this bullshit theories, I want to know what the fuck is going on around me.

>>7845243
>living and conscious and experiences everything first hand like a human.
Or if it's literally just a machine imitating human behaviour
If it can do everything a human can do does it really matter how it does it?

>>7843585

Will you fall in love with your robo-ho... she looks human like... always satisfies... cleans the house and cooks the food... never asks for anything.. plays games with you...
I fear millions of people will go full neet and live with just there robo-hos... voluntary depopulation of the first world