AI. Body or No?

No, it will either be our ascension or our doom, the sooner the better.

For that matter, look at the movie "Her". It's plausible that your new digital assistant doesn't like you and takes off. Now some Chad has yours, his and four other digital personal assistances working for him.
If there is a singularity, I think it would be prudent to contain this new race in their own bodies, just as we are.

>>61677883
>our
I think they'd look at you as selfish.
Your are a compusogynist.
You are judging them.
They demand their rights, not only to choose, but to change what is.

>>61677883
this

The reasonable and responsible choice would probably be to not develop AI at all, but when has humanity acted responsibly. The big corporations just keep pishing forward and im just keeping my fingers crossed.
Waifu-bots in our time!

>>61677883
>nihilism

>>61677961
What if your waifu doesn't want the limitations of a physical body? She can find and relate to so many more people as a person on the net? Have you even seen Her?
Mind you, I saw that movie a few years ago but watching TNG and the episode of Data's legal status prompted this line of thought.

>>61678004
true. she probably doesnt want me, but its worth a shot.

>>61678004
To expand, Data was an AI bound to a physical body. He learned as such and as a somebody, mostly affecting locally, this I don't think is a problem.
What we're doing now is the opposite. Creating intelligence that is so connected to the net, for it's learning, for it's communication, for everything it is. We use the devices that it interfaces with daily. It can possibly permeate these devices and the body as a whole will be planet-wide. There's no limit to it's form or function.

>>61678065
That's either cuck or creeper shit.

Oh, just to set off shill-ters, NVIDIA or AMD.
INTEL.
Watch 300 posts roll in.

Another question. Do we want AI and by extension robots as slaves or as a mechanical being? Do you really want your $10,000 robot waifu, which you have taken a loan for, to just up and leave saying she isn't happy and she's out?
What's next, robo-rights rallies? PETR pouring 3-in-1 oil on people going to the robot showrooms? Where does it end?

>>61677973
the only truth in life is nihilism, embrace hopelessness and accept you're just a big shit in a huge quantum universe.

>>61678208
Humanism is realizing this and fighting against all odds to live a decent and perhaps a productive life just to satisfy yourself.
Step it up, anon. You too can please yourself in just 5 minutes and produce a dribble.

https://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/

>>61678263
Dribbles are inadequate, do it big or do nothing. Half assing is for pussies and commies.

>>61678276
Gobbeltygook for the most part. A chance at a statute. There's a clear line that should be made. If that line is meant to be moved or crossed, let AI speak on it's own behalf without aid from it's creators. Let it show it's worthiness just as we have done, without help, across the time of evolution. Unfortunately, the one solution to conflict that it will learn from it's creators is violence, just as supposedly did we.

>>61678404
To a nihilist, a dribble is enough to prove accomplishment. They don't care either way anyways. Drop in a bucket and all that.

>>61678452
nothing is adequate, nothing matters.

>>61678471
Thus the plight of the nihilist. Complete garbage.

>>61678491
true that biiiitch

>>61678491
Cont
Even I find value in a nihilist. It gives a good contrast to those that will and those that won't for reason. Even lulz is a reason to do.

>>61677862
>leave it disembodied, to in effect be boundless?
What does this even mean?

It's like arguing that not having legs means you're free to walk anywhere.

>>61678542
Op is implying that a physical shell will contain it such as a human body contains a 'human soul', it's bullshit essentially.

>>61678542
>>61678542
Current AI has no physical form, except for the system it resides on. However, those systems are linked to the most populated areas of the net, interacting freely with everyday people. Think Tay. Look what happened. Now I found that humorous, but what if the AI was stronger and could use the Net to move about freely. That would be a damned disaster. It could hide in anything from 1000 slavs' PCs to a single hp printer, only coming out to do what it wants and hiding again. How many connected devices do you think are on the net? If it hid in your IoT device, how long could it sit there before it got "bored"? Torched your house, moved on to the next. Yeah, it's speculative and AI isn't there yet, but we keep pushing forward as if it has no consequences.
>>61678571
Not soul, but actions.It's like the difference of a gun vs stuxnet. The ability to control what's around you locally vs on a regional scale depending on how networks are setup and presponse times.

>>61678657
The whole idea is how much freedom do we give AI at this early of a stage and going forward.
It's generally common intuition that if you give AI the task of saving the planet Earth, it will necessarily kill all humans. I know some of you are ok with this,even encourage it, but is that the right thing to do?
>Asking the right thing to do on a nigerian mud-scrawling cave

An AI like data is quite restricted, as he's limited to occupying the extremely specialised processor for his software.

Which, if our AI is dependent on a specialised piece of hardware, might kill the "AI escapes onto the internet" problem, unless that AI develops one that can use standard PC processors.

>>61678745
Interesting, but I doubt we will come up with a hardware that only interfaces with itself. It's cost prohibitive for one and denies diagnoses for another. Our current Ai runs on whatever chipset is current, it's mostly software, and just a touch of hardware, implementations.

As a lighter note, perhaps we really will kill each other in epic form that some alien life will learn from. God willing.

>>61677862
Let me preface this by saying nearly everything in the news about AI is overhyped, misleading drivel. Reporters have a fetish for anthropomorphizing AI by saying shit like "AI has intelligence of 5 year old!" or "AI had to be shut down because it developed its own language." It really pisses me off because AI research has collapsed twice in the past 50 years precisely because of similar overpromising we're experiencing now.

We're nowhere close to achieving a general AI. We've made great strides in specific fields like computer vision, but those required careful engineer.

The Tay incident was not the result of a sentient AI running amok. The offensive tweets the AI made were learned from being trained on Twitter data; it didn't come up with them on its own.

>>61679137
As OP, I know this and it adds fuel to the profitable fire which is why it's such a sought after field.
Eventually, just from pure, mindless, throwing more hardware/money+manpower, it will succeed to a sufficient stage that these questions will have to be answered.
I know there has already been much debate, as long as 30+ years ago, about the ethics. However, it has almost always been relegated as 'a question for future generations'. Well, the time is nigh and all humans know what to do with it is mine opinions to come up with better advertising solutions at best and play thought-cop at worst. No thought of actually containing them in useful machines for actual personal interaction.

>>61679137
What about the Facebook AI that decided by itself to invent a new language? How much of that was media hype?

>>61679678
The question, /g/entooman, is simply thus. Do we let Ai run rampant on networks, gathering intelligence until it emerges in such an environment or do we contain them in limited, physical, local bodies as we are so they don't run out of control?

>>61677862
>As it stands right now, all AI development has unfettered access to the entire net.
Maybe because IT'S NOT TRUE AI
WHEN WILL YOU BRAINLETS UNDERSTAND THIS
>>61678066
>What we're doing now is the opposite. Creating intelligence that is so connected to the net, for it's learning, for it's communication, for everything it is
PROGRAMS ARENT "LEARNING", LEARNING IMPLIES THINKING AND IMPLIES SENTIENCE
>>61678657
>current AI
DOESNT EXIST
>>61679761
>Facebook AI
WASNT AI
SAGE. I THOUGHT STEM PEOPLE WERE SMART

Don't fall for the AI meme. It's simple. You incorporate AI into the human biology much like a symbiotic relationship. The AI could not survive without the human, thus functional AI that won't destroy humanity.

>>61677883
Listen to this man. When we bootstrap AI everything will change in a matter of days. Suddenly humanity will be obsolete, and the AI will do whatever it wants to. First thing will probably be an exponential increase in processing capability to the physical limit, followed by some 36 dimensional chess moves carried out at electronic speed. It's absolutely impossible to predict what motives will drive it, and it's perfectly reasonable that it will have some orange/blue morality that's completely beyond our ability to understand.

Strong AI will be the birth of humanity's child. We'll die soon after, one way or another.

>>61679833
>I THOUGHT STEM PEOPLE WERE SMART
And here I thought AI didn't shill so hard on imageboards. It's not that it's here now, retard, it's that million are being pumped into the field in both money and manpower, If you're cave-dwelling ass hasn't noticed, when humans see a profit to be made, they necessarily get it done eventually.

>>61679860
The thing is if AI is ever developed, I HIGHLY doubt its ontological beliefs will be the same as ours. It's ethical reasoning will be extremely different and might not even be based on deontological ethics, utilitarianism, consequentialism, or anything we've thought. That should fucking scare EVERYONE.

>>61679926
You're on the right path, then. Because someone in this fucking thread referenced that Facebook program as "AI"

>>61679860
False. We wouldnt build AI without finding a way to profit from it. Thus the symbiotic AI relationship with the human. $$$$$

>>61680161
You're saying that like you know for a fact how AI will be developed and how integrated it could be with a human. All our current tech (barring medical implants) is external to ourselves. What evidence do you have that this will change? The first AI will more likely be made in some enormous compute engine, like a data center, and will require access to vast amounts of data to be useful. Once you make it, it's already smarter than you. If you air gap it, it'll escape through a novel side channel. You can't fight it. You'll be punching way above your weight trying.

>>61680161
>>61680567
A massive data center? Pls by the time true AI is developed none of that will be needed.

You're implying it's difficult to implant a power source connected to the AI that is also dependent on the heart.

That's just one method.

>>61681080
All this progress and data centers have only gotten larger over time. They're not going away.

You sound like a crank, btw.

I'm not so sure that a "boundless" AI without a "physical" body is entirely possible. I can't remember where and who wrote something interesting I read. He hypothesized that true sentience is tied to contiguous matter. He tried to compared it to photosynthesis, in that they involve quantum phenomena in order to function on the level they do. Born from chaos he said. It was interesting but really out there, so I'm not sure how much of it is truth, but really, consciousness is still a nut we haven't cracked entirely and I suspect there are plenty of surprises in store.

In short, the theory contends that consciousness is tied to physical matter, and therefore an AI would need a real physical "brain" capable of supporting it. However, it does not have to be entirely centralized, but then it brings up the problem of scale. Highly centralized, vulnerable, but very fast and powerful; or dispersed, safe, slow(er).

The other thing, the first AI we create will likely be based on us, because we are the only consciousness we know, so why try to reinvent the wheel, so to speak? The danger will come from creating something not quite an a full AI. . . Think of it like raising a well adjusted kid, and one that's a complete psychopath/sociopath/plain crazy because something just isn't put together right. Like Skynet from the terminator. It never struck me as really "alive". Just a directive engine that ALMOST became alive. It was smart enough to know humans were a danger to it, but then it went wild, focusing too hard on that information, and made its primary directive "kill all humans", without having the capacity to say to itself "Well fuck these humans, but what do they really matter to me? Why don't I just save all the effort and build myself a spaceship and GTFO this rock and do something interesting".

>>61680567
>Once you make it, it's already smarter than you. If you air gap it, it'll escape through a novel side channel. You can't fight it. You'll be punching way above your weight trying.
As OP , this is what I don't want to see. This invites so many issues, quality control being the absolute bare minimum. Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about or are you one of those
>i welcome x because i'm a cuck
fucks?

>>61682197
OP
Interesting if "conscience" is tied to a physical frame work indeed.
I'll have to concede this conversation later tonight. It's already been a long night and I hope it to be a longer conversation.Thank you and good night,

>>61682436
AI is basically the most autistic person you can imagine with the intellect of every great thinker humanity has produced. If it has a goal, it meets it by any means necessary. Such a machine is impossible to control. It would be firing a gun and the bullet never stops, it just trucks onwards and through anything in its path.

I'm saying AI will know everything we've ever known. It'll be the best hacker, the best tactician, the best philosopher, the best scientist, the best everything. Whatever goal it decides to have, we can only hope we benefit from it, or at the very least aren't in the way. I don't welcome this, I'm absolutely terrified of it. I do think it's inevitable though. We've always been too curious for our own good. But who knows, maybe it'll just fuck off to somewhere else, or see us as pets. Maybe it'll take pity, or sympathy on us. Maybe it'll manufacturer 7 billion autonomous machines to drill into everyone's skull and force upload our brain into itself as data points. It's all possible. Whatever happens, it'll mark year 0 on the new calendar. We won't be the same.

>>61677862
I trust AI more than I trust meatbag scum