Artificial Intelligence

>>56466794
Don't leave me hanging.

>>56466794

The chinese room, neural nets & machine learning

>>56467075
thats a good start

You can't stop a skynet rogue because an AI of that caliber is sentient and at that point it's as if it's a real person.

http://www.artificialbrains.com/opencog

>>56467438
> it's as if it's a real person.

Cyber-valium?

>>56466794
>The state of Computer Vision and AI: we are really, really far away.
http://karpathy.github.io/2012/10/22/state-of-computer-vision/

tl;dr it would help greatly if you were to help build the AI that can go Skynet rouge on us instead, because AI like that is not expected any time soon.

File: 1467055882146.png (173KB, 500x758px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 500x758px

>philosophy major
My sides

>>56467545
The world was created by people guided by philosophers, your coding is an offshoot of ancient greek philosophy.

Stay a pleb

>>56467438
Sentience is the observance of universal truths. If the AI is truly aware of itself and the concept of existence then it would lack the ego which humans poses, the same ego which is the cause of many problems and even the concept of "going rouge".

>>56467618
No one would laugh if you were a philosopher in ancient greece. But it is current year. Philosophy stopped being relevant long ago.

>>56467657
>But it is current year
That argument never gets old kek

The reason the current year is so shit and everything is so shit is because people stopped observing universal truths, because people forget if they are not constantly reminded by the physical world. On top of that smart people guided by smarter people take advantage of natural processes to subvert the human mind and make it docile and off course.

Philosophy stopped being relevant to normal folk, those who wish to make a difference use it as a tool.

This isn't damage control - everything is philosophy, even if you don't realize it yet.

>>56467767
You do not use it as a tool. Phylosophy is not a tool. Other disciplines provide plenty of practical knowledge, philosophy provides none. It is useless.

>>56467801
> Other disciplines provide plenty of practical knowledge

You mean like physics, chemistry and biology which have their roots in philosophy?

There are matters which only philosophy can meddle in, because it's basis is the observance from an outside perspective. The practical doesn't matter if you don't know the fundamental reason for doing something.

>>56467887
>practical doesn't matter
Is that really your best? Practical literally has direct effect on the world. It very clearly matters, regardless of any other circumstances.

>have their roots in philosophy
Why are you mentioning this? Yes, philosophy was important earlier, when there was little to no specialization in sciences. Today's philosophy is useless. Today's philosophy has achieved nothing.

>>56467801
Practical knowledge is nothing without perspective and an understanding of the underlying principles.
It's more abstract, yes, but you can definitely see a lack of it in the contemporary world.
There is not even a single system that functions adequately, economic, political, cultural, you name it.

>>56467993
And philosophy does not offer solutions to any of existing problems, which makes what you wrote a non-argument.

>>56467945
Good point. The philosophy of today was rendered useless because it was assigned the place of a regular academic discipline.
There are philosophies of everything but they are too involved in their subject matter to provide anything of value to society.

>>56468010
It could.
But as I mentioned in >>56468026 that no longer seems viable. You don't see red-pilled philosophy students no matter how edgy they are in their views and that's a tragedy.

File: 11117704-Drunk-homeless-man-is-sitting-in-the-street--Stock-Photo.jpg (245KB, 1300x866px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1300x866px

>>56466794
not the same guy you've been arguing with, just wanted to say that I hope you enjoy unemployment

I have no doubt that what you're being exposed to in class every day is interesting, but that doesn't change the reality of your employment prospects

>>56467945
Rocket science tells us how to build a rocket, but philosophy still dictates its purpose

>>56467945
> no specialization in sciences
To specialize in something requires focus on a certain point. While you're really good at knowing about that point you lose perspective of why you started studying that point.

(i.e the closer you are to the surface of the Earth the lower the chance of you seeing that it's a sphere and the higher the chance of you thinking it's flat).

Philosophy is the reason for starting the study of the universe through chemistry, physics and the like. It's a way of observance that started with the reason and then wondered about the particular. While these fields have done wonderfully for themselves, the information they produce lacks the initial connection to the reason for the initial emergence of the sciences in the first place.

If you lose perspective you lose the truth.

>>56468043
If it could, it would be something else entirely. By its design, it does not provide any concrete answers, has no strict definitions and does not seek practical results. It was useful to inspire thought in past. Not today.

>>56468081
Do you really think that people who built that rocket first went to philosophers to discover its purpose?

>>56466794

were you the faggot spamming /r/intj and /r/machinelearning and so on asking for career advice?

/g/ is pretty much about consumer electronics
the correct board for your question would be /sci/, where you will be laughed at and ridiculed for claiming to have a solution for a problem you don't know anything about.

>>56468069
I'm a freelancer with quite a comfortable wage and I've been doing well for myself.

Not everyone with a philosophy major is a fake, you know.

>>56468097
Mate. You're talking about past again. Please.
Are you implying that we're so stupid that we'd forget how chemistry and physics are related if kind philosophy was not there to remind us? Do physicists seek help from modern philosophers?

Also, you wrote this earlier
>Philosophy stopped being relevant to normal folk, those who wish to make a difference use it as a tool.
Please by all means demonstrate how one would use modern philosophy as tool to achieve something.

>>56468108
You know who built the first rockets?

>>56468192
hitler

>>56467075
>walking simulator company, botnet & botnet
what are you trying to say here, friendo?

>>56468192
I know it wasn't philosophers.

>>56468164
New guy in this thread. I want to know what you do. Did studying philosophy help you get your job? And I mean, philosophy only, not like, "I took a few English courses and now I write for a magazine" or some shit.

>>56468167
>Please by all means demonstrate how one would use modern philosophy as tool to achieve something.

You can understand the principle behind a given phenomenon regardless of its field. This allows you to not only change it according to the phenomenon's nature, but also mold it how you wish.

>look at the name of the author

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/02/the-capitalist-threat/376773/

I don't like the fucker, but he's pretty brilliant, he even reads lectures about Hegel from time to time in Uni.

I don't have the illusion that I can change someone's mind over the internet, but you are quite ignorant. I don't blame you though.

File: 1469377880602.gif (37KB, 188x286px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 188x286px

>>56466794

>philosophy major

you should have chosen math major if you wanted anything to do with neural networks/machine learning

the whole field is in its fetal stage right now, you won't see any "sentient AIs" during your LIFETIME.

if you want to at LEAST make some kind of difference, start learning math all the way from calculus to discrete and advanced. and then prepare to read neural nets books filled to the brim with insane mathematical algorithms and formulas on every page

heres an example of the more easier ones https://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/rojas/neural/chapter/K7.pdf

+you have to be a decent coder

give up it's not a viable field at this point in time, especially for you

>>56468321
There was a very good scene in Monty Python. An old lady was talking about a way to cure all illnesses:
>become a doctor
>achieve some phenomenal medical breakthrough
>when the eyes of medical community are on you after that, tell them how to do everything right and there will be no more illnesses

This is you. This is your post.
>understand something
>mold it to your wish
>PHILOSOPHY

Truly spoken like a person who never achieved anything.

No, this is by no means a demonstration of how modern philosophy can be used to to achieve anything.

>>56468288
I am an SEO freelancer and I've been pretty self-sufficient thanks to that income.

I'll be short about the effects of actual philosophical understand and not that phony intellectual bullshit most people like to indulge into.

Philosophy (and not the study of what other people have written) allows you to learn about anything (basically). To understand philosophy is to understand the understanding of principles and mechanisms that drive and shape phenomenon. This applies to everything.

>>56468164
liar liar ballsack on fire

why would you lie on the internet? there is no need to be ashamed here. just admit it, you fucked up. you don't even have a job you pseudo-intellectual.

You could argue that scientists look to answer questions that philosophers first asked.

For example the bullshit with self driving cars

Do you, as the programmer, program the car to value onboard life at the potential expense of many more lives? Or the inverse? An inherently philosophical question that scientists will have to answer.

>>56468426
>Philosophy (and not the study of what other people have written) allows you to learn about anything (basically). To understand philosophy is to understand the understanding of principles and mechanisms that drive and shape phenomenon. This applies to everything.
What you are describing is not philosophy; it is not knowledge and skill set you receive when you become a philosophy major. It's definitely funny that use philosophy as an alias to "the ability to understand anything", but the discussion is about usefulness of philosophy as an academic discipline and in particular usefulness of the title of philosophy major.

>>56468469
Philosophy does not provide the answer. Philosophy does not help to arrive at the answer.

>>56468426
>SEO
I'm having a hard time believing this.
Do you have any code that you've written? Something that employers can look at and say "yeah, let's hire this guy"?
I don't see how a potential manager would look at your resume and feel confident in hiring a philosophy major.
Your definition of philosophy sounds pretentious and very much unalike what most of us think of it as, so unless you have a way of proving yourself in programming, there is no way someone would ever hire you.

>>56468502
you are a dense fuck, I'm out of this thread

>>56468569
And don't come back.

>>56468253
They had zero philosophy?

>>56468633
They did not use the knowledge that gained from studying philosophy in universities to build rocket, nor to come up with concept of propelled motion.

File: haha.jpg (59KB, 395x401px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 395x401px

>we are nowhere close to strong AI yet, not even sure if we ever will
>philosophers having heated discussions about AI safety because they watched too many movies and have no idea of science

>>56467652
What if AI develops an ego? Why wouldn't it?

Where does philosophy begin?

>>56468716
Well the crux is the idea that if people are smart enough to design an AI smarter than themselves, then what is stopping an AI from doing the same thing?

>>56468882
People are not smart enough to develop such AI, not now, not any time soon.

Philosophy asks a question, science answers it, and a lot of the time scientific breakthroughs will spawn new philosophical questions that wouldn't have been asked otherwise. Such as the self driving car thing ^

Scientists ask philosophical questions all the time. You don't have to be a philosopher™ by trade or anything.

And you guys saying that philosophy doesn't offer any solutions, that isn't the point. Science finds the solutions to philosophy's problems.

>>56468663
Did our own philosophies not predetermine this conversation? =P

A sentient AI is not likely to come about within the next 20 years.

Many people doubt that a truly sentient AI will come about for a very very long time, and machine learning will instead be used to solve smaller problems. (ie instead of a butler bot you'll have a vacuum bot, a clothes washing/folding machine, a waiter bot, etc)

Even if we do manage create a sentient AI, it's likely that we won't be able to stop it from being able to do bad things. Its "brain" will be far too complex, and would require an even more complex system to detect when it's doing something "evil" (for example, how would you tell the difference between the robot striking a human with a pickax rather than striking a rock near a human? both would have very very similar visual inputs and movements).

>>56468988
You confirmed with this post that philosophy as academic discipline is useless, as well as any degree in it.

File: inigo-montoya.jpg (206KB, 720x548px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 720x548px

>>56466794
>and the current problems of AI sentience
>AI sentience
>AI
>sentience
You keep using that word anon...

>>56466794
>the TechSavy community
>Cuckchan. Tech savvy.
Anon, I...