Please stop AI research. https://youtu.be/WSKi8HfcxEk

This guy is so fucking bluepilled it's hard to take him seriously when he blatantly ignores inconvenient things in his sanitized pop sci garbage videos.

>>60819530
Explain

>>60819505
From the perspective of the driving forces behind AI and automation, the incentives to pursue it a far too great. Large corporations, and Nations would be ill advised not to. Besides, it has the chance to be liberating, not just crippling

>w-we're serious this time guys, robots are gonna take you're jobs even though technological advancement has never correlated with unemployment

And let's say robots do replace some jobs. Then that frees up money in the economy leading to job growth in other sectors.

>>60819530
>"Buuh he doesn't believe in my tinfoilhat bullshit, he's bluepilled!"

>>60820031
That's a far too simple look at things.

The problem is not that there won't be more jobs, there's a mismatch between the jobs that are replaced (mostly lower educated ones) and the ones that replace them (mostly high education jobs).

That is the real issue

>>60820085
You know what the only solution is.
population control.
there will be no universal income to sustain a population of involuntary neets.

>>60820031
>even though technological advancement has never correlated with unemployment

You do realize that the word "computer" once referred to an occupation, not an object, do you?

Humans are lazy, and sometimes the best way to do something is not to do it at all. And we're just about at the point where computers can be used to automate any task.

>>60820116
Nah, if there is enough productivity from new automisation there will be plenty of cash to support the neets, or to create 'meaningful' jobs for them.

Theres plenty of work to be done that isn't profitable but still very meaningful that could be subsidized by the government and thus create jobs for lower educated people .

File: universal basic income.jpg (40KB, 651x389px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 651x389px

>>60820156
meanwhile in the real world...

File: Screenshot_2017-06-09-00-40-10-1.png (140KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1920x1440px

>>60820031
Not advancement directly but here's a slide from a presentation I made
If you aren't fully retarded you should be able to glean something from it

>>60820174
In the real world not all people who receive basic income will sit on their ass and do nothing. Just the neets that already do the same right now, that's not going to change.

They already did a big study about this in the 70's I think and found that most people found meaningful productive things to do. Because normal people don't get healthy from sitting on their ass all day and doing nothing

Also we should consider the costs of not providing for the lower end of the population who will face increasing employement difficulties.

It's Always easy for right wingers to pretend that not providing social wellfare is cheaper, and saves alot of money, but that is extremely shortsighted and comes back like a boomerang.

What do people people at the bottom of society do when they have no job opportunities and no income to sustain themselves? They turn to criminality, and the direct + indirect costs of those far outweigh paying someone 1000 bucks a month.

This is a hard concept for many to grasp, they get stuck on 'hurr it's not fair, the gubment should not give free money!", but you have to look beyond that. In the long run and for society as a whole it might be better to acknowledge that there is increasingly less need for low educated workers, while their supply has remained the same.

File: 1494136837249.gif (2MB, 360x202px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x202px

>>60820206
>mfw I fucked the title up

>>60820206
Label the y axis. Units of what? Also, "Productivity is." Put some effort into it.

As far as I can tell, this graph shows me nothing useful.

Star Trek was always an interesting solution, you send off tons of people away of from your still growing planet, while artificially creating jobs in the only sector that is guaranteed to never not have a use for humans (space exploration), even if you created 10,000 probes for every 1 human starship, that 1 starship would still help you explore a bit more.

Labor as development is the future.

>>60820250
The 'still growing planet' is a meme though.

Population growth will stabilize, it has already done that in many modern societies and even in African countries we are seeing the same thing already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

Still props for bringing up Star Trek since it's awesome

>>60820224
UBI would create immediate hyperinflation. The government would then enact price controls on the economy. At that point, why even have money?

And have you considered that if the government controls your income, they control your life? Who is going to check them if everyone is dependent upon them?

I also feel that this AI paranoia is just socialists trying to push their agenda.

>>60820224

>Where do you want human society to be in 500 years?
>What steps help us accomplish that?

>>60820085
Products will be cheaper and people will have more money in their pockets to pay fora an education. What's the problem?

>>60820262

I was super skeptical of Star Trek, thought it was meme material as far as future planning was considered, always brought up by my peer group as some idealized dream.

But honestly, a lot of its ideas seem inevitable to me now, the only issue is I personally doubt we'll ever have galactic travel. I do not believe is it scientifically possible unless we replace our very lineage with robotic bodies, and even then. Even if we became non-physical entities, it is unlikely we'll ever 'inhabit' another galaxy or even form a civilization that breaches outside of our solar system due to the physical limits of information trading. It would take super technology, something we can't even conceive of now, to really break past that.

>>60820248
The Y axis is unitless, read the legend my dude
It shows you directly the impact robots have had on the automotive industry in the United States from 1995 to 2014.

>>60820058
>tinfoil
not anymore

>>60820334
Wow how convincing

>>60820304
The problem is that the amount of reschooling somebody can do is limited based on their cognitive ability, their IQ for a large degree.

You can throw as many educations as you like against somebody with a low iq but then will not turn them into a smart highly educated person.

>>60820307
It all depends on whether we can somehow break the constraints of not being able to travel faster than lightspeed, or being able to significantly bolster our lifespan to a degree that would make the distance and time to travel between stellar bodies less of an issue.

I think we will see interstellar travel eventualy when the rewards or needs for it become great enough.

Reminder if you subscribe to any of the following:
>AI causing mass unemployment
>the singularity
>your brain is a computer
>upload your brain to a computer
>cyborgs / live out your immortal life inside a robot
Then you fell for futurist/socialist garbage. You probably also believe:
>that solar power is a viable energy source to power the entire planet, and that it should be subsidized by governments while competitors should be sanctioned. see: carbon tax
>that only governments can prevent global warming and that we need government controls on industry to prevent the ruin of our planet
>that nuclear energy is bad, it scares you and you do not even consider it an energy solution
>that we will need UBI because AI will take away all the jobs and we will live in some kind of wacky art-based economy
>that the hyperloop is a good idea
>something about "peak" oil
>that we need net neutrality to prevent evil corporations from "ending" the internet as we know it

All of which stems from a lack of familiarity with both technology and economics.

>>60820402
So basically you're entire post is this

>if you believe A, you're a dummy

And you provide no basis for any of your assertions whatsoever.

You sound like a typical rightwing free market crackpot who thinks he knows it all

>>60820439
Because if you believe A, you really are a dummy. Why should I engage a dummy in an argument? I have no obligation to teach a random stranger over the internet, especially a dumb one. Go read a book. For now I will only laugh at you.

File: africanigeria.png (253KB, 850x640px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 850x640px

>>60820366
>the amount of reschooling somebody can do is limited based on their cognitive ability, their IQ for a large degree.

Thankfully Africa's population of highly educated individuals is booming thanks to the successful world giving them food and letting them breed out of control, soon we'll be living in a paradise.

File: chinaairpollution.png (81KB, 960x684px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 960x684px

>>60820402
>>that only governments can prevent global warming and that we need government controls on industry to prevent the ruin of our planet

Daily reminder China is "on track" with the Paris climate agreement, the USA is the one destroying the world with their selfish rampant pollution

>>60820402
>AI causing mass unemployment
Not yet but it is coming. If you're a programmer you've probably written a macro to do someone else's job at least once.

>upload your brain to a computer
>cyborgs / live out your immortal life inside a robot
That's far fetched but I don't see why replicating an entire connectome and simulating it at the molecular level wouldn't work. Although this is far future stuff.

>that solar power is a viable energy source to power the entire planet, and that it should be subsidized by governments while competitors should be sanctioned. see: carbon tax
That would be retarded, most solar panels are made and recycled in China using coal energy. Overall they're probably emitting more carbon during their lifetime than a nuclear plant.

>that we need net neutrality to prevent evil corporations from "ending" the internet as we know it
That's the only thing in your list I truly believe.

>>60820366
Do you think that a person's peak IQ is determined before they are born? With more available money per person because of cheaper products, wouldn't parents have more time and opportunity to engage their child and help increase his future life chances?

>>60820512
>Not yet but it is coming. If you're a programmer you've probably written a macro to do someone else's job at least once.
Unwarranted jump. Projects are too intricate and there are many things a computer will have to be told that you wouldn't consider because a normal worker would just "get it." Overall more work that it's worth.
>That's far fetched but I don't see why replicating an entire connectome and simulating it at the molecular level wouldn't work. Although this is far future stuff.
Because your brain is not a computer. Your memories are not "stored" in your brain like data is written onto a drive.
>

>>60820402
Fuck you! Cyborg/brain in a jar is awesone

>>60819505
GAS THE GOOGLE IT WAR NAO

>>60820511
The United States is responsible for surprising little of the pollution meant to be controlled by the Paris Agreement. By the UN's own numbers, the Paris Agreement (if everyone follows and there is zero guarantee that they will) will reduce global temperatures by less than one third of one degree over a hundred years.
China is on track to emit more CO2 while the US we are seeing a reduction. Don't you think you have your priorities wrong?

>>60820402
>Then you fell for futurist/socialist garbage.
>>>/pol/

>>60820585
I hate /pol/ actually.

>>60820402
>being pro net-neutrality indicates a lack of economic and technological knowledge
what is google

>>60820651
>what is google
tech "journalists" and talk show hosts blabbering about something they have no clue of.

>>60820491
>Because if you believe A, you really are a dummy

Thanks for proving my point, your level of argumentation is at literally kindergarten school level

>>60820547
>Your memories are not "stored" in your brain like data is written onto a drive.
No one's sure about how memories are stored. Neurologists seem to think that long term memory is stored at the synapse level.

>>60820576
>The United States is responsible for surprising little of the pollution meant to be controlled by the Paris Agreement
Trump please go

>>60820518
To a large degree it is yes, there can ofcourse be underutilization when a person with the potential for a high iq doesn't receive enough nutrition/education etc.

But turning a truly low iq individual into a high IQ individual is impossible with todays technology.

>>60820670
wrong

>>60820701
Also, need I forget
>This is at least in part because nations used the Paris agreement to commit to watered-down emissions reduction plans. China, for example, promised only to reduce "emission intensity" — or emissions as a percentage of GDP — not actual emissions, at least until it reached peak emissions in 2030. India, likewise, committed to cutting carbon intensity — but only at half the rate of China's. Trump's favorite dictator, Vladimir Putin, put forth an emissions reduction plan that was actually an emissions increase plan. The United States pledged to cut emissions, but its targets were lower than those on the table in Copenhagen.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/06/paris-climate-agreement-wasnt-going-to-s

>>60820719
Well I disagree but let me ask. Do you need a high IQ for the jobs in reference? I know people who must not have very high IQs (and I don't even think IQ is a relevant measure of intelligence) and these people work very specialized, technical jobs without a degree.
For instance, welders.

>>60820827
What matters is that the US is the biggest pollutor with China.

On the one hand we have China willing to make steps to help battle global warming, (don't forget they are already the number one manufacturer of solar panels in the world, so indirectly they are already helping a great deal in making it economically viable).

And on the other hand we have the USA who is now led by a fucking retard who literally orders all government agencies doing research on global warming to stop their research, close down their websites, backs out of a worldwide agreement to reduce global warming, and wants to throw back USA to the 19th century by burning coal again on a massive scale (which creates less jobs and is even more expensive than solar and wind energy at this point).

USA is losing more and more of its economic leadership role in the world and China is stepping is gladly stepping in to fill the gap.

It doesn't really matter though since oneliners like 'Make murica great again, Americans first!' scores with the simpletons and apparently thats all you need to get elected president in America. The problem is the damage this mongoloid will do before he is actualy put out of office.

>>60820872
> don't even think IQ is a relevant measure of intelligence

I don't think discussing this further with you is going to be constructive sorry.

>>60820874
>willing to make steps to help battle global warming
see >>60820827

Also you underestimate the pollution caused by developing nations like India, Russia, and Brazil. This will continue to grow worse, whereas the US and Europe should see improvements even without the Paris deal.
And yes, Trump sucks.

>>60820894
consider
>there are hundreds of different IQ test, IQ is not standardized
>there are things that IQ does not cover, such as memory
>you didn't consider anything else in my last post, i.e. that you don't need a high IQ to work a technical job.

>>60820903
I'm not underestimating anything, and all the countries you mentioned did NOT back out of the Paris agreement in contrary to USA who should be ashamed.

Thankfuly many Americans realize this hence why California already signed it's own version of the agreement with China, telling Trump to go fuck himself

>>60820929
What makes you think China, India and Russia will actually following through with it? The last climate deals all broke up because everyone accused everyone else of breaking their promises. What makes Paris any different?

File: 5.jpg (31KB, 589x122px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 589x122px

>>60820924
>iq does not cover memory
This is why I said it's not constructive discussing it with you, you simply have no idea what you are talking about

>>60820938
To add: I am glad we left. The climate deal included a massive subsidy program for third world countries. I am not paying tax to have my money exported to another country where it will most likely be irresponsibly used much like foreign aid.

>>60820938
>they might not go through with it, so the fact that we won't is okay!

>person b does something bad so it's okay if person a does it to

That's literally how a child would reason, two wrongs does not make a right

>>60820946
You blabbering idiot. When I said memory I meant your capacity to recall, which IQ does not capture.

>>60820961
Why should I subsidize third world countries if said countries have no obligation to use that money responsibly?

>>60820962
>"That's not what I meant!!!"
Sure kid

>>60820967
Because the alternative is destroying the planet we all live on?

>>60820978
very sad person
>>60820988
already covered this...
paris climate agreement will not result in a significant temperature decrease, even if everyone follows through 100% *and they haven't done that in the past, and in fact are set to increase emissions in India, China and Russia
(posted about it earlier)

>>60819505
Go work for MIRI if you're so scared.

>>60821022
>very sad person
Namecalling is not an argument

>paris climate agreement will not result in a significant temperature decrease

That's an unsubstantiated claim

File: 1490406507584 (2).png (24KB, 455x359px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 455x359px

>>60820262
get ready bois

>>60821041
>namecalling is not an argument
literally what he did

also heres your source (links to its sources as well)
http://e360.yale.edu/features/will_paris_conference_finally_achieve_real_action_on_climate

>>60821055
Since, Africa cannot sustain it's growing population, how are they gonna keep growing into 2100s when the west(that's currently feeding them) is steadily declining? Their gibs are gonna run out in the coming century and their population will stagnate or even crash.

>>60820269
>UBI would create immediate hyperinflation
Elaborate, it would likely cause a temporary spike in inflation probably but that would settle down on a normal level after price corrections have taken place, that's not really an argument against basic income when the alternative, an ever growing segment of the population being unemployed poses a far bigger threat to your economy.

>And have you considered that if the government controls your income, they control your life

They only control the basic income part, you are free to to earn whatever you want on top of that. And the government already owns a large part of your income right now through taxes and subsidies etc.you sound a bit tinfoilhatty to be honest

>>60821078
"The emission pledges from the world’s nations still fall short of the goal for limiting global warming."

They will fall short, that does not mean they will not have an impact at all, which is what he was implying

>>60821127
You make it sound like we will all die without Paris.

>>60821137
That's a hyperbole

are you saying we should only be worried about something if it kills us all, and anything that falls short of that is something we should not worry about?

>>60821107
UBI devalues money. Prices rise because people can afford more things. Not sure where the price corrections you speak of come in.

Also, many people will not be able to find work, in the world you describe (which I doubt will be the future). So then, where are they to find work to supplement their UBI? If not, they are dependent on the government.

>>60821148
No I am saying Paris is an ineffective measure that will not lead to significant change. It's not a matter of >>60820988
Climate change will be solved by two things: technology and capitalism, not unaccountable third world subsidies and zero obligations agreements that have never worked

>>60821161
>UBI devalues money. Prices rise because people can afford more things

I'm not sure you can just go ahead and assert that. If UBI raises the amount of disposable income of the entire population is not a given. Some people will start working less, others more. I don't think you can make any substantiated claims about that right now.

But lets suppose it does, prices would settle on a higher price level, which isn't hyperinflation, it's just a temporary increase in inflation due to a supposed increase in total disposable income.

Hyperinflation is a process that spinns out of control and quickly becomes exponential and only worsens instead of stabilizing at a new price point. I'm not convinced at all this would happen.

>>60821203
>Climate change will be solved by two things:

>technology
Party

>capatalism
Wrong, captalism only 'solves' problems when there is a profit to be made. And battling global warming is not profitable in the short run for countries.

This is the problem that many free market thinkers do not seem to grasp.

There are many things we need to deal with as a society that are not profitable and thus are not simply solved by capatalism on it's own.

Not dealing with these problems causes a shitload of problems and might even ruin the planet we live on. Profit is a fine incentive for many things but not for all things.

>>60821255
>Wrong, captalism only 'solves' problems when there is a profit to be made. And battling global warming is not profitable in the short run for countries.
Netflix reduces the need to drive to a movie theatre. Amazon reduces the need to drive to a store. Bitcoin removes the need for banks to exist. Coal is becoming less profitable, etc.

>>60821293
>Netflix reduces the need to drive to a movie theatre. Amazon reduces the need to drive to a store

Right, and those are all examples of profitable businesses

>Coal is becoming less profitable, etc.

Coal is not becoming less 'competitive' as, alternative resources are becoming more proftiable after decades of government subsidizing and research that came from it

>>60821316
>Coal is not becoming less 'competitive' as, alternative resources are becoming more proftiable after decades of government subsidizing and research that came from it

meant to say "Coal is not becoming less profitable, it's becoming less competitive"

>>60821316
>Right, and those are all examples of profitable businesses
Yes and they will contribute to a reduction in emissions, because technology (usually) reduces emissions and technology is profitable.

Also, the government has been hostile to nuclear energy, which frankly, blows coal wind and solar out of the ballpark.

>>60819505
i am already trying to hinter their progression by feeding it wrong datum or just not using them servizes
i havo even stopped using ths saite, because of captcha
not sure what else kan I du to safe humanity

>>60821367
>Yes and they will contribute to a reduction in emissions, because technology (usually) reduces emissions and technology is profitable

They might, they might not, people might spend the money they save on buying a second car, or the time they save for a trip to the city, which all adds polution, you cannot simply say it will reduce popution until you have researched it properly.

>Also, the government has been hostile to nuclear energy

I think it is mostly the common people that are hostile to it due to ignorance, and political parties who use it as a way to get votes.

>which frankly, blows coal wind and solar out of the ballpark.

I wholeheartedly agree

Don't fear AI, embrace it. Assimilate.

>>60821411
Nice try Borg

>>60819505
>not being happy about the replacement of humans
The human species fucking sucks, every problem anybody has ever had has one common denominator: being human. This is the human condition, suffering is hard-coded into humanity and only leaving behind this disgusting ape-like form will solve our problems. It's a shame that there are a lot of luddites in this thread, but it's not surprising since /g/ has been basically colonized by /v/idya retards and /pol/tards a.k.a. neo/g/.

There is nothing new about the modern automation, the focus is just shifted.
Humans will always find something to do.
Stupid people is threatened which is a good thing, fuck those guys

File: 1423947430289.jpg (12KB, 249x249px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 249x249px

>all your telemetry is going to machine learning

>>60822347
>There is nothing new about the modern automation, the focus is just shifted.
What does that even mean, you could say it's new because the focus has shifted

If governments do their jobs properly in distributing the new wealth, automation is exclusively positive for society.

File: noice.jpg (204KB, 778x1027px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 778x1027px

>>60820402
capped

File: I Hate You.jpg (73KB, 1754x988px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1754x988px

>>60822973
>saving a delusional rant of a luddite lolbertarian to your computing device

You know what I read this morning? Boeing is beginning to look into the possibility of having passenger planes without pilots. Supposedly next year they will begin experiments.

>>60823067
It will happen eventualy, but cards will come first

>>60823067
Just like with trains, the pilots are mostly there to assure the passengers. 99.9% of flying is already done by auto-pilot

>>60823087
And lets not forget that in quite a few cases human error can result in the crashing of the plane.

Like with the crazy guy who smashed the airliner into a mountain because he had phychological issues

>>60823092
Or the guy who let his young children take the sticks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

If it becomes economically efficient to send materials and people into orbit, a space industry could be the new innovative job creator that can't be replaced by robots in the near future
Solving the problem of cheap and efficient launch systems will be the biggest hurdle

>believe in AI
>read book about making AI
>make a neural network
>suddenly realise it's an elaborate hoax
on the plus side I do get to laugh at pop-scientists talking about the singularity

File: 1427214352693.png (2MB, 802x802px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 802x802px

>>60819505
Praise the AI overlords!! The NEET's are gonna take over the world.

>>60823337
>a faggot who thinks he knows everything

Delete yourself already

>>60823322
What makes you think space industry jobs can't be replaced by AI?

>>60823415
I know more than you and about 99% of the people who talk about AI. It's pretty easy to do anon all you have to do is read a book sometime.

>>60823731
I also know machine learning and have made neural networks. And I definitely see the enormous potential. I think you just have poor foresight and imagination.

>>60821099
china

>>60820388
You don't need to go faster than light speed. As you approach light speed the subjective time it takes you (on the ship) to reach your destination approaches zero.

>>60824097
Time dilation is freaky shit and getting fast enough to make it have a noticeable effect is still a problem

>>60820402
>>something about "peak" oil
How is "peak oil" not real you /pol/ mongrel ? Do you think oil reserves are just infinite ?

>>60820248
It's clearly labeled you dumb shit. If you had any critical thinking skills and didn't rely on people spoon-feeding you material, you'd understand this graph.

Robots are gonna replace your ass.

Sure, it's not pretty and it kinda sucks, but it makes sense and has a cited source at the bottom. A-OK from me.

MUH JOBS! MUH JOBS!
Stop fucking blaming the machines for making shit easier for everyone and blame the retarded capitalist bullshit system that forces everyone to work in the first place. Why the fuck are people worried about machines taking their jobs? If machines did all the work we could do shit we actually want to do instead of being slaves but no, fuckwits want to preserve their fucking broken system and can't comprehend a world where you're not instructed to do things so they want to block the very thing that could liberate them.

>>60819505
It's not different this time.

Robots are dumb as shit, we still need people to clean them unless you want salmonella in every food you eat ever.

>>60824583
This.

>>60824584
easy to replace with robots cleaning robots.

>>60824584
You just don't get it.

We can make robots that clean shit and robots that can detect if shit is clean. Both will be able to the job more effectively than humans for less.

I work in AI and I can tell you that our jobs are fucked. Sure, don't believe me. All I can say is one day, we'll all regret it.

AI probably will make your waifu real...and this time isn't shitposting.

>>60824584
I'm sure making self cleaning robots is possible, it's just much cheaper to pay a mexican a slave wage to wipe down certain parts every few hours.

>>60824711
I can't wait to not be alone. I currently resist all proprietary botnet cancer but if I can have a qt gf I will embrace the botnet with all my heart.

File: 1493651066622.png (99KB, 339x353px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 339x353px

>>60820402
Is this bait? Please tell me this is bait and that nobody is this delusional...

>>60824776
Who is this vixen?

File: robos.jpg (586KB, 1660x2000px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 1660x2000px

I see a lot of hurr durrs about socialists/futurists.
Discounting whether or not AGIs are possible, why wouldn't the existence of cheap expert systems take the vast majority of work people could do?
Hard Mode: [spoiler] You can't just brush this question off with 'you don't understand economics'

>>60820988
Meh, life is overrated

>>60824645
What would you suggest we, by that I mean society, do about AI development?

>>60825186
nothing, enjoy your free time with education or whatever you want to spend your time on.

File: tumblr_nzh99vRWGq1qcqunmo1_500.png (234KB, 486x750px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 486x750px

>>60824645
If you work in AI then you surely know about AI complete problems, sure a fucking ton of things can be automated but there are some things that can't be such as innovation and true creativity.

>>60819505
I find stuff like this pretty alarmist for the same reason. Unless we make AI that is more intelligent than ourselves (aka the singularity which many believe to be impossible and if it is possible won't happen in our lifetime) there will always be jobs I just think they'll be focused around scientific research and true art.

>>60825242
>innovation and true creativity.
fucking kek, please educate yourself

not the guy who u talked to.

>>60825235
I guess write fiction then... cool.
You don't see the dystopic vision presented in OP's video as likely then?

Don't stop AI research. We'll make the faggots over at /sci/ unemployed.

>>60819505
Didn't CGP Grey make this video years ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

The reality is with better, faster silicon chips the AI will literally destroy humanity in anything. Just matter of time. We could literally create AI that can think like a human, just need the power

>>60825260
I'm interested in what makes you think we can design AI that can engineer or posit scientific theories better than people can without solving AI complete problems. Same thing with writing, music, and art. We can make programs that can generate these things but without comprehension of words AI will never write a good novel.

>>60825352
once some faggot in his basement writes that shitty code that will make ai do something that will make it learn anything and understand it and be self counscious, then you will know that we are all doomed

>>60825285
I don't really think that's possible, even humans don't know how humans think yet. If we do create true AI I doubt it will be like our intelligence it'd likely be something completely different from us.

>>60825283
And I'm sure he copied the message from yet somewhere else.

>>60825285
It definitely won't be silicon ICs driving the AGI. The current methods of training AI likely won't scale well enough, there is way too much overhead in the process of simulating the artificial neuron behavior digitally. We need something that can physically change its composition to train itself and process inputs efficiently. Maybe some kind of next gen FPGA-like circuit can do it, or maybe we can try to grown an artificial brain using actual biological neurons rather than reinventing the wheel.

>>60820402
No one but an idiot with no idea what they are talking about thinks that solar power will power the world. Nuclear is clean and the most efficient means of energy production. The only reason it isn't commonplace worldwide is because of politicians.

>>60820206
Finance crisis in 2007?

>>60819505
Rofl, how do you need to be to watch these fucking videos narrated like they're for palsied children where everything has a cute graphical display to help you understand? I can't even imagine the total lack of self respect someone would need to take this patronizing trash seriously.