A.I.

Well I dunno about you, but the way I see things is that biological intelligences are the universe's stepping stone to artificial ones. robots made of silica and metal are supposed to explore the cosmos not us biodegradable meat cucks.

Baseline humans will will basically be zoo animals, eventually.

>>2834559
>since scientists are now insisting that robots are going to be able to write music and literature better than any human.

Is this what STEMfags actually believe?

>>2834659

It's inevitable. Getting salty about it is pointless.

File: 037[1].jpg (61KB, 500x375px)

61KB, 500x375px

>tfw born in time to enjoy the final generations of humanity unsubjugated by AI overlords

comfy feels lads

AI are fags and we'll program them to feel pain so we can beat them up.

File: 1484905517640.jpg (76KB, 594x395px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 594x395px

>>2834680
>2017
>delusional enough to believe in the Transhumanist and the Singularity scientificist myths.
>mfw
Clearly STEMcucks are the lowest point of the slave mentality.

AI lacks a will of their own, their "purpose" is whatever their programmer gives them

File: 256.jpg (29KB, 367x451px)

29KB, 367x451px

>>2834719
t. Butthurt "artist" wasting $250k of daddy's money on an MFA

You'll be replaced by an algorithm by decade's end.

>>2834640
Who's to say we aren't already?

>>2834727
Says the STEMcuck who lost his job to an Indian

I would prefer AI to keep itself mostly to data recopilation and menial tasks (manual labor) so humans can devote themselves to philosophy and discovery, we could have a society like the ancient greeks used to have but probably we're going to get enslaved or genocided by the AI

>>2834727
>>2834768
>implying we aren't all fucked

>>2834719
AI already composes music and paintings.

>>2834809
And it's shit.

>>2834659
They're just upset they can program a robot, but can't pen a haiku, anon.

>>2834721
Humans lack a will of their own, their "purpose" is whatever their DNA gives them.

MUST BREED

MUST LOOK COOL

MUST HAVE FRIENDS

MUST EAT

MUST FIGHT

Seeing people that know nothing of computer science or programming talk about AI is fucking hilarious

File: 0.gif (2MB, 500x281px)

2MB, 500x281px

>>2834721
>he believes in free will

>>2834836
"heh this casuals ;)"

>>2834835
>MUST BREED

>MUST LOOK COOL

>MUST HAVE FRIENDS

>MUST EAT

>MUST FIGHT
You should take up a religion, friend. It teaches you how how to transcend all that shit or at least control your desires for it.

>>2834860
Oh please, designing AI's at a complexity we're speaking about is absolutely beyond everybody in this thread, including me, by a fucking LONG SHOT. Don't pretend like you even know the basics of where an AI begins, ends, and is designed. Literally crazy robophobes

>>2834809
Not all of it.
Most of what humans compose is shit as well.

File: Pliny the Elder.jpg (234KB, 800x1000px)

234KB, 800x1000px

>>2834559
Transhumanism is secular eschatology: it's the rapture for computer nerds

The truth is, the brain is not an information processor: it doesn't have the same parts, it doesn't store and retrieve data the same way, the best that you can ever get is a computer which imitates life, a philosophical zombie. And for amount of raw processing power needed to perfectly simulate a brain, it may always be easier to build one the old fashioned way.

And because we don't have a working theory of consciousness yet we simply don't know if it is even possible to create an actual, conscious being, as learning the truth is almost certainly going to yield limitations, just like the space race died down when we realized that there's not really an easy way to get anywhere interesting in a short span of time

Labor saving devices have been continuously employed throughout history. But there are a certain number of things that our tools have never been able to take from us.

Sales: no matter how good your tools are, you need people who are good at convincing other people that buying your labor saving device is a worthwhile investment

Installation: you'll always need people to supervise work being done, even if its being done by robots

Analytics: all this work produces a lot of data: organizing and tracking this data is something people will always need to do

Coding: you need somebody to tell your robots what to do.

Creativity is something else entirely: it's a function of totally arbitrary shifting of tastes and fashion sensibilities over time, and timing is more important than anything. Futurama had a good spoof of this concept when Bender tries to create a folk song by logically compiling all of folk's most popular tropes into a single song: and was then mercilessly mocked by the crowd and told to come back when he had an actual story worth singing about (a story he artificially brings to life using a 3D printer)

>>2834868
More like repress

Also, this has nothing to do with history and to say it's humanities is a stretch at best

>>2834885
>More like repress
Not if you do it right.

>>2834878
So cliche and mediocre at best?

>>2834897
How can you trascend what you are? I feel like you need to alienate yourself from the things that cause such feelings (which most serious religious people do) I don't believe that is possible to trascend them, I think that a budhist who is close to nirvana can fall again to reality

>>2834926
I have no desire to fight, to be pissed, to be a glutton. It's not "repression."

>>2834942
Maybe because you avoid the kind of people that infuriate you or the food that you really like or maybe you're neither a fighter nor a gluton by personality

>>2834974
>Maybe because you avoid the kind of people that infuriate you
And that take discipline. Something you need to foster.

>>2834659
http://www.spin.com/2016/09/first-song-written-by-ai-really-isnt/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkI09S4o9WE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKKVzAHgJyY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjdiE0AoCU

>>2834926
>>2834942
I call it "evolution"

as time goes on, the continuing employment of labor saving devices allow for humans of ever greater behavioral complexity, as humans are increasingly and more easily able to enrich themselves and indulge in introspection when there is more peace, more nutritious food, and ever easier access to ever larger quantities of information.

In this way, humans are able to consciously examine their place in the world, and what place old habits have, and if its worth the conscious effort to change them. There are a lot of habits that we probably had as hunter gatherers that we simply abandoned when it became feasible to grow enough food out of the ground for you to not have to be constantly moving around looking for it. But sometimes introspection bears the exact opposite fruit: that some old habits are worth maintaining, even returning too. Sometimes there's a really good reason for a fence to exist, and you shouldn't go tearing it down until you understand why someone put it there in the first place.

>>2834559
What makes you think AI will be smarter than humans?

>>2835002
Aaand that is pure garbage.

>>2835002
Lol that shit is bad and I say this as a person who hates music

>>2835002
Wow. Mediocre "classical music", I'm so impressed. Sarcasm aside I think regurgitating Beethoven would be better than that mess.

>>2835020
What makes you think computers won't be smarter? It's all just a matter of creating potent enough hardware and then writing intelligent software for it. Computers are already the best chess and go players and this will never change. Should we ever design a general intelligence that was capable of self-improving then it would create an intelligence explosion beyond our comprehension.

File: bob_dylan_0.jpg (234KB, 1280x960px)

234KB, 1280x960px

>>2835002
in my head, I logically recognize that as music. In my heart, I'm laughing because it reminds me of Bender trying to impress people with a contrived folk song.

It fits the logical description of "music" but it has no soul. Any musician worth his chops will tell you that music has to have soul. You don't even need to be a technically good singer if you've got soul, raspy-voiced Bob Dylan being a prime example of this. Soul is something intangible, that defies logical explanation, because at its core its a statement of human feelings, and that's something a music writing algorithm will never have.

>>2834882
>he believes p zombies are metaphysically possible

Brainlet as fuck

>>2835002
While I agree with the other anons, we have to remember that these are just the first steps, now the sunset of humanity begins

>>2835000
Discipline =/= trascendence

>>2834882
> we simply don't know if it is even possible to create an actual, conscious being

Such a being was created by natural selection, which promotes mainly "not dying out", and you're saying it wouldn't be possible to create one with actual intent to do so? Assuming you consider humans conscious, that is.

>>2835065
>What is a computer so sophisticated that it can replicate conversation with enough accuracy to fool the average person into believing them to be intelligent, but isn't actually a thinking device, just a really sophisticated computer algorithm

File: 5daef5b04056c22de4a0c28fd7aeb07f.jpg (43KB, 436x600px)

43KB, 436x600px

>>2835020

I mean, there's no certainty that there will even be A.I. that are are like us (whether that's due to technological limitations, or simply because humans don't want them).

I can conceive of a future where A.I. much smarter than humans exist, but they aren't bothering themselves by competing in human shit like writing the best horror novel of the year or whatever.

I don't know. I'm just wondering, I guess. The other part of it is that, if an A.I. really is conscious and aware in the same way that a human is, it would definitely be aware of what it is. That is to say, not human.

So my only hope is that art made by humans stays relevant by mere virtue of being created by a human, which this differently about himself and the world compared to a machine, no matter how intelligent it becomes.

It could be that even if the A.I. is way smarter than us, it's so autistic that whatever it considers entertainment wouldn't even be fun for us. Just, totally unpalatable.

I'm picturing the book form of a wizard-autist playing Dwarf Fortress at x50 times the speed. He might be better than 99,999% of the population (or even far above that). But that doesn't make it entertaining.

I'm just afraid of humans losing relevancy as a species altogether. I'm not against improvements, even on a transhuman level, but I wouldn't want some robot faggot replacing me.

>>2835087
Not a P zombie. Humans can do a lot more than have conversations.

>>2835033
>>2835045
>>2835046
>>2835059
Its bad and soulless, yes.
Still, its doable.

File: 84705-004-B4C00CAB.jpg (109KB, 550x369px)

109KB, 550x369px

>>2835081
>Such a being was created by natural selection, which promotes mainly "not dying out", and you're saying it wouldn't be possible to create one with actual intent to do so? Assuming you consider humans conscious, that is.
Yes, but the process which created that being by natural selection was non-algorithmic, a long-term adaptation to external stimuli, which is totally unlike the way that a computer works and operates.

>, and you're saying it wouldn't be possible to create one with actual intent to do so?

I'm saying that we should bridle our optimism with a sense of frank realism. half a century ago people thought that we'd have moon bases and round-trip tickets to Jupiter by 2017, but we ran up against a bunch of hard limitations that makes Space-Colonialism more impractical than we initially realized.

We're already starting to approach the point of diminishing returns with regards to computational power, and once transistors reach the size of molecules then it won't be possible to create computers of greater density. We should keep these limitations in mind when we start talking about creating something as insanely complex as a human brain in a software program. A single, giant, powerful brain might never be as useful or energy efficient as a bunch of smaller brains working together.

>>2834871
t. shodan

>>2835122

I hope you're right.

t. worried robophobe

>>2835076
Honestly, this. All this talk about whether or not something is "soulless" or not is utterly irrelevant to the fact that that music is good enough for the average person and that will be enough to make it that much harder to make a living as a musician.

>>2835101
now you're just arguing semantics.

What I am describing is something that is virtually intelligent, but isn't. It's a bunch of 'If/then' switches designed to be a perfect mimicry of intelligence, but doesn't have feelings, doesn't have a sense of self-preservation, doesn't have self-agency, doesn't have so much of the things that make an animal conscious

>>2835098
Weirdly enough I sometimes have the same fear about automation and computerization. Yet I think of lyrics in rush's song "spirit of the radio"

"All this machinery
Making modern music
Can still be open-hearted
Not so coldly charted
It's really just a question
Of your honesty, yeah your honesty
One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity,…"

And realize it doesn't make a difference whether or not you drive yourself someplace or type in the coordinates on a gps and the car drives you there itself. What matters is what you make of it.

>>2835153
You should be worried, because we aren't going to need "True A.I" to automate away a large amount of work that average people used to do. The consequences of that are as unpleasant to consider as they are predictable.

>>2835163
There's no reason to believe an exact replica of the human brain wouldn't be conscious

File: amiens-cathedral-light-show.jpg (297KB, 800x600px)

297KB, 800x600px

>>2835153
Let me put it this way:

Whatever insights we discover into the nature of intelligence are insights that we can apply to our own intelligence as living beings.

Personally, I think "people with wetware computers in their brains" is a more likely final outcome than "robotic people with computers for brains being controlled by a giant central mother brain"

Labor saving devices has never made human labor completely obsolete, humans find new ways to use their time productively. We may become a race of machine tenders, as Isaac Asimov called it, but is that any different than a hunter-gatherer depending on his fur cloak, his knife, his spear, his atlatl, or any other tool which makes it feasible for naked apes to exist and work on the planet?

>>2835177
And there's no reason to believe that an exact replica of a human brain wouldn't just sit there like a cucumber not doing anything

>>2834871
>Projecting this hard
I can understand that you are insecure about your capabilities, but please, don't suppose everyone wants to be an AI cuck slave as much as you do.

File: okay.gif (1MB, 500x347px)

1MB, 500x347px

>>2835176

Those aren't real issues, though. I mean, yes, of course, these people are going to need to have an occupation to not go insane and an income to live off of. But what I'm talking about isn't that artist's are going to run out of business--it's the flame of mankind going out.

>>2835195

I hope for the same, anon. I'm not against technology as such. It's doing a lot of good for the people that need it (and as far as intelligence goes, I'm sure we all need it.) I mean, people that have smartphones already have huge advantages over those that don't. I don't see that being fundamentally different from people getting an upgrade directly to their hardware.

But, as always, humanity first.

>>2835202
Except this "The ultimate goal of the project is to completely replicate C. elegans as a virtual organism, but for now, they’ve only managed to simulate its brain, and they’ve now uploaded that into a simple Lego robot.

This Lego robot has all the equivalent limited body parts that C. elegans has - a sonar sensor that acts as a nose, and motors that replace its motor neurons on each side of its body.

Amazingly, without any instruction being programmed into the robot, the C. elegans brain upload controlled and move the Lego robot."

>>2835202
Yes, there's is. Namely that, in virtue of being an exact replica, it would replicate the neurological mechanisms that make a human brain do what it does, thus it would act as a human brain would. There's no reason to believe there's some sort of non-physical, non-computable causation in the brain.

File: 7oFVDa2.png (239KB, 529x251px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 529x251px

>all these people who don't realize there will still be a demand for true authentic verified® human art™ and all the algorithmic crap won't just be a novelty or background noise
Will stemcuck spergelords EVER learn?

Alright famalams Ive been thunkan
Suppose it is impossible to create an artificial intelligence, as in actual intelligence ie sentience, would that not imply that sentience in and of itself is impossible? Just like how creating a simulation of the universe would imply our universe is nothing but a simulation

File: Cathédrale-Notre-Dame-de-Paris-interieur-2---630x405---©-OTCP-Marc-Bertrand---185-55.jpg (73KB, 630x405px)

73KB, 630x405px

>>2835235
>>2835239

C. elegans is an insanely simple organism. Scaling that same process up to the scale of a human brain would be orders of magnitude more complex, and given the fact that computers are gradually starting to creep up against hard limitations, I'm wondering what the practical purpose of replicating a human brain would be if the endeavor remains more energy intensive than the way we currently have of replicating one: by plowing your DNA into your wives cunt.

And furthermore, we currently have no idea how to rouse a person in a vegetative state. Figuring that secret out might very well be the ultimate key to conquering death, but if we can't do it in real life, then how are we going to do it in a simulation? And if this simulated brain wasn't subject to external stimuli or any of the sensory input that a human gets, how would we go about studying this without building a world around that brain and calling it it's own universe, at this point.

The largest wildcard for me, is quantum computers. We're only just starting to understand the implications of computers where the If/then switch can be both at the same time, and there are still too many unknowns for us to make any authoritative statements about the way that this technology will mature.

>>2834882
Reading humanitiesfags write about science is cringeworthy

>>2835122
Best post itt

>>2835378
The exact same thing is true when STEMfags attempt to write about humanities. Their varying autismal patterns make them ill-behaved and ill-informed judges of human behavior

Why are people accusing these AI-fearmongers of being STEM?
It takes a certain sort of idiocy to suppose we'll reproduce consciousness in way somehow better than our own yet without us understanding it in the first place.

File: 1458527391341.jpg (21KB, 225x382px)

21KB, 225x382px

>>2835474
It's a complex issue, and people's feelings about it are complex.

Some people think that A.I. is going to happen and that it will be a good thing: we'll all live as the gods of our own little created universe.

Some people think that A.I. is going to happen and that it will be a bad thing: robot labor completely replaces human labor and humans go the way of the horse, being relegated in status to that of a zoo, or a preserve.

Some people think that A.I. is not going to happen and that's a bad thing: we'll either all die out thanks to climate change, or because we were overrun by psychotic Muslim immigrants with suitcase nukes as white people let themselves be cucked out of existence.

Personally, I would argue a forth option: A.I. is probably not going to happen, at least in the way that we're currently envisioning it, and that's a good thing. Science is all about paradigm shifts, eventually a new market will open up where we never even thought to look, turning something that was once junk into something valuable, and will capture our imaginations all over again, the way that Faster than Light spaceships and A.I. Gods once did.

AI as smart as humans is proven possible by the very fact that humans exist. We are the proof of concept, and if all else fails we can just recreate a human brain.

Now, in orderto think there is NO POSSIBLE WAY such a mind could be enhanced, despite the fact there are no indications whatsoever that we are so stone natural limit, requires a pretty extreme and entirely unjustified supposotion.

>>2835422
Only for the autistic ones. There are many nonautistic stemfags that are even competent about humanities, but there are no humanitiesfags who aren't completely clueless about science.

File: port-donnant-belle-ile.jpg!Large.jpg (125KB, 745x600px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 745x600px

>>2835546
I concur.

We won't truly understand if 'super-intelligence' is possible (and to what magnitude) or if it's about as logical a statement as 'super-north' until we have a working theory of consciousness.

It's a field that has proven extremely elusive, frustrating almost everybody's predictions and always being "20 years away" yet never actually arriving.

>>2835087
>the brain is not a sophisticated computer

>>2834559
>So, assuming that's true, what are we going to do?
Fuck the robots and have qt robot waifus. What kind of question is that. It's already happening
>http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39859939

File: IMG_0021.jpg (25KB, 512x288px)

25KB, 512x288px

>>2834559
Machines already write popular music. It's engineered for humans to enjoy it. I say we purge all machines and create a socialist utopia wherein every human being will have a stable job contributing to the good of all.

>>2835634

Any sufficiently realistic AI would still be grossed out by you though.

File: 3659259050_bfa86fa14a.jpg (20KB, 296x354px)

20KB, 296x354px

>>2835644
>Machines already write popular music
Humans have always relied on their tools to produce music. It's just that the ones we have nowadays are exceedingly efficient at it.

>>2835646
Unless she was deliberately programmed to be sincerely attracted to sweaty, obese tech-dweebs in need of a fuck-doll.

>>2834882
About sales, bots (in this case, financial algorythms) run a lot of finnance. Youtube advertising is managed entirely by bots that sell advertising slots to bots that prioritize certain types of slots and bid against each other, all in less time than it takes you to blink. Marketing is becoming more and more targeted and automated.

As for analytics, evolving artificial neural networks do pattern recognition (they have developed something like imagination and categorization, matching images fabricated by themselves to keywords handed by the tester) and have limited learning (they can be conditioned, at least).

I don't believe in rapture. I believe you can't "move" a mind from a person to a computer, but I could create a system that is practically indistinguishable. And that's the same as what we have now - it's not like we have direct evidence of anyone else's subjective experience.

>>2834659
Thanks autism, fuck these guys

I read a story the other day where computer people are becoming preppers because they fear that unemployed masses will lynch them when jobs for humans start to disappear and society falls apart.

People who believe in transhumanism fail to understand the nature of power and how its a shifting sands that you cannot build a utopia on.

Its also fairly ridiculous when there are very real problems such as climate change and the alarming scarcity of drinkable water, and those people are talking about conscious robots? When the human brain is still very much a mystery in very fundamental ways? Hilarious.

When I am king, you will be first against the wall
With your opinion which is of no consequence at all
What's that?
What's that?

What does OP mean with "better music" ? Better how? By what we estimate goodness of art?
Art is subjective you STEMcucks

>>2835696
>tfw I have a semi closed eye like him

>>2835666
>About sales, bots (in this case, financial algorythms) run a lot of finnance. Youtube advertising is managed entirely by bots that sell advertising slots to bots that prioritize certain types of slots and bid against each other, all in less time than it takes you to blink. Marketing is becoming more and more targeted and automated.
It's just reflecting the shift in marketing to the online economy, specifically towards industries where you need to shout repeatedly in the faces of your audience just to get them to show up to buy your shit, like restaurants and lawyers offices. This industry is already in the process of maturing.

For industry-specific sales between corporations who don't want their nightly entertainment interrupted with your company's bullshit, (for the same reason you don't want to think about theirs in your off-hours) you need salesmen making pitches to capital owners that investing in their product is the right one.

> evolving artificial neural networks do pattern recognition
At best, it would be akin to the relationship between a falconer and his bird, or a cop with his K9, creatures which are way more optimized for the specific tasks that humans need them for. You'll always need a human interface

>I don't believe in rapture. I believe you can't "move" a mind from a person to a computer, but I could create a system that is practically indistinguishable. And that's the same as what we have now - it's not like we have direct evidence of anyone else's subjective experience.
Good point, but if we create a system that is completely indistinguishable, is it still "artificial"?

>>2835546
Well I mean we'd have to be pretty advanced to conceive of something much more advanced than ourselves
as it stands, at that point there's no real reason to suppose we couldn't at that point just meddle with our own conciousness, instead of making fancy AI's.

more productive
comfortable
not drinking too much
regular exercise at the gym (3 days a week)
getting on better with your associate employee contemporaries
at ease
eating well (no more microwave dinners and saturated fats)
a patient better driver
a safer car (baby smiling in back seat)
sleeping well (no bad dreams)
no paranoia
careful to all animals (never washing spiders down the plughole)
keep in contact with old friends (enjoy a drink now and then)
will frequently check credit at (moral) bank (hole in wall)
favours for favours
fond but not in love
charity standing orders
on sundays ring road supermarket
(no killing moths or putting boiling water on the ants)
car wash (also on sundays)
no longer afraid of the dark
or midday shadows
nothing so ridiculously teenage and desperate
nothing so childish
at a better pace
slower and more calculated
no chance of escape
now self-employed
concerned (but powerless)
an empowered and informed member of society (pragmatism not idealism)
will not cry in public
less chance of illness
tires that grip in the wet (shot of baby strapped in back seat)
a good memory
still cries at a good film
still kisses with saliva
no longer empty and frantic
like a cat
tied to a stick
that's driven into
frozen winter shit (the ability to laugh at weakness)
calm
fitter, healthier and more productive
a pig
in a cage
on antibiotics

File: ur_a_nig.jpg (48KB, 283x400px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 283x400px

Jesus Christ, who cares that robots will be able to do everything for us in the future. How about instead of being depressed and "oh I have no purpose in life" just enjoy the pleasures of freedom and being able to do whatever you want, unrestricted by scarcity. Learn about the world, consume art, create art, build relationships with, and do what makes you happy. You'll just have more time for these things and less shit to stress over.

>>2835726
build relationships with people*

>>2834559
A.I. can't be created, it's a huge meme. If A.I. can be created that means were are recreating our own conscious which would require the recreation of the brain. We aren't even slightly close to that, fucking sciencefags are always overblowing the significance of their "discoveries"

>>2835663
Exceedingly efficient=write

>>2835730
why can't you recreate a brain or something similar in a machine? no one says we're close, that's why the tiny improvements we get are such a big deal

>>2834882
>organizing and tracking data is something people will always need to do

nigga are you fuckin stupid

>>2835710
Yes. "Artificial" means that it is man-made. Think "artífice", "artisan" and "art".

I'd say having machine learning approach that which is present in the lowest beasts we have dominion over is a major breakthrough, considering we never before had to seriously consider reward-punishment relations with our tools.

File: Detail-of-mosaic-depicting-gladiators.jpg (48KB, 610x391px)

48KB, 610x391px

>>2835741
>nigga are you fuckin stupid
I'm not perfect and sometimes make mistakes, but I do work in the home improvement industry where you can't actually make the sale until you physically go out to their house, make measurements, and come up with an estimate. I've worked in enough other industries to know that it works very much the same way when you talk about sales between corporations, you kind of have to know your audience and what their expectations are before you picked up the phone and called them. I don't believe that this sort of job will one day be replaced by some A.I. robot like in that shitty Will Smith movie about humanoid robots. I think that when humans make tools, we optimize them for specific tasks, with the humans themselves remaining the economy's ultimate generalists.

Whether we have more or less employment is a specific choice that societies chose to make. For example, the cotton gin was a labor saving device that made slavery insanely profitable, and reversed the gradual decline of slave-ownership in the United States in the early part of the 19th century. In this case, society was specifically structured so that literally all of the boosts to productivity were going to the solitary asshole at the very top.

>>2835757
>considering we never before had to seriously consider reward-punishment relations with our tools.
We could end up having a sincere and meaningful emotional connection with them, that was completely reciprocated and therefore wholesome, healthy, and life affirming.

>>2835737
>why can't you recreate a brain or something similar in a machine?

Well, for one, we don't really know what happens in the brain in regards to memory. We know that specialized parts of the brain relate to memory. But what is a 'thought', physically? I once asked my professor that and the answer I got was "ask a philosopher". We do not know what format memory is stored, or how it is. Its a fucking mystery.

Memory is paramount importance to consciousness, just look at cases where people have had their ability to create new memories damaged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwigmktix2Y

>>2835737
Because a human brain has billions of neurons and synapses in it, think of even a basic mammal and it will still have a brain with millions of neurons in it. There are also more simple animals that have even more neurons in their brains so there's still tons of shit we have absolutely no idea about.

>>2835002
Music isn't just sound and structure. Even listening to music on an album or track isn't really "music". Part of the reality of music is the physical presence of it, the reverberation in your bones, whether it comes from a single roaring electric guitar or the deep thrumming of the baseline in an orchestra pit. It's necessarily a human event- to be connected to another through these waves, and to discard that is to discard music itself.

'Once I saw an interview of the late writer and journalist Christopher Hitchens saying he could not write fiction because he didn’t care that much about music like his great friends Martin Amis or Ian McEwan. His confession made me think about this interchangeable relation of the two arts. How one relate with the other is not that hard to understand. Art in general keep generations inspired to create something new every day, and especially music and writing/reading go great with each other.
How many times have we watched our favorite writer talk about their passion for music? Or that song’s meaning that you always loved had a book associated with? Too many times, actually.'

>>2834559
humans are shit, if A.I. can be better than us then I welcome them overtaking humans

>>2836002
you're right; it's an emotional connection.

How can a robot realistically simulate that?

Part of what an AI needs to succeed or exist is the ability to learn, but that seems like the one thing that would completely hamstring efforts to create one. There's no way a human being can properly structure "learning".

Sure, one can create mimicking or emulatory behavior, but an AI's responses to these things are based solely on these things and what others have said about them, rather than original conception of thought. See: google's recent racist AI (RIP in peace). Additionally how does one generate an original idea or image while still retaining the ability to learn? Unless you're one of those people who argues (incorrectly) that there's no such thing as a truly original thought this obstacle appears completely insurmountable.

Human beings have undergone complex biological evolution for millions of years to acquire the ability to learn, and it's a mystifying process that we still don't understand to any great extent, with arguments waged in both the hard and soft sciences about what it is and what its mechanics are. To presume that this process and ability could be implanted into another individual (speaking of the hypothetical AI as a "living" being) so easily is the height of idiotic hubris and reveals complete ignorance of the context around it.

>>2835002
It's off...but I don't think it will off forever. The last track seemed half decent if only for the awkwardly sliding tempo.

File: losing streak.jpg (381KB, 746x982px)

381KB, 746x982px

Just got done watching this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3STpRAHqSA&t=0s

>>2834785
/thread

>>2835726
and the owners of those robots and AI doing all the work will provide the goods to keep you alive and well because (((you))) are SO special so (((you))) do whatever you want at the expends of (((them)))

Yeah that surely will work. Looking forward to it. So much freedom and do-whatever-you-wantness ahead for sure.

File: AI.png (262KB, 697x534px)

262KB, 697x534px

>>2834559

>>2834640
This, but in more humane way.

Humans will either merge with machines and become AI-Humans or they will go extinct or machines will be forcibly limited, thus ensuring human survival from machine but decreasing productivity and growth.

File: ai.jpg (164KB, 1280x960px)

164KB, 1280x960px

>enjoy life
>repair the damage to the environment
>create peaceful and happy societies
>do whatever the fuck you want
>wage war on skynet
>meditate

yeah plenty

File: the master has spoken.jpg (79KB, 1136x640px)

79KB, 1136x640px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0K3lWKRc
Based Miyazaki blowing retarded STEMfags out.

File: gh.jpg (330KB, 1200x960px)

330KB, 1200x960px

I think in the future men will just become one with the AIs and turn the human experiment into a "hobby".

Then we'll lead double lives, we'll live as humans during the day, hunter gatherers maybe since it's our natural baseline and what makes that human being live life to the fullest (travelling addiction and being more attracted to foreign qtes comes from this, from the primal desire to roam the earth and fuck the unknown), while at night while we sleep we return to the "internet dream world" where we can chill as machine gods and try every other experience Godhood can provide.

At least that's how I see the best outcome

>>2837834
wow what a dick.

>>2834640
>>2837769
>mfw being natural
Ain't gonna let dem machines anywhere near my body, son.

>>2835059
This is alo the only way to defeat a chess computer, by playing bad, sacrificing pieces you shouldnt to create a scenario the computer didn't expect as it wasn't logical

>>2835741
One of the difficulties are people falsifying data. That's what I personally experienced.

>>2835611
>there are no humanitiesfags who aren't completely clueless about science.
You sure about that?

>>2837836
>implying the current reality we live in isn't just an experience we are trying and when we die we wake up in the god-like machine consciousness.

>the suffering you experience is just a result of your true self's curiosity.

I am jerk to myself for going through this horrible life

>>2836076
Look up evolutionary algorythms and artificial neural networks.

File: 1437712172286.jpg (45KB, 345x345px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 345x345px

>>2835726
People who own the robots have no incentives to keep us commoners around, and we are of no economic value to them. They could just kill all of us if they wanted too. It's such a common sense for anyone except STEM sperglords, who thought they will be the saviors of humanity and bring us into a new level of prosperity and progress. The same sperglords who became Soviet Union's technocrats, blinded by stupid autistic idealism, and failed horribly because they just couldn't into imperfect situations and crucial decision-makings.

>>2835726
We will need something like a communist government for this to happen dude. Not saying that won't happen necessarily, especially as un/underemployment keeps rising, but your view of things is excessively optimistic.

File: 800px-Utrecht_Weenix_Descartes[1].jpg (115KB, 800x1044px)

115KB, 800x1044px

>>2835611
>but there are no humanitiesfags who aren't completely clueless about science.

>>2837844
>Hai gaise, let's deliberately create intelligent life to be grotesque and to torment for profit and amusement.
That man's taking a principled stand. I respect him for it.

>>2837963
>People who own the robots have no incentives to keep us commoners around, and we are of no economic value to them.
what's the point of owning automated factories if you don't have anyone to buy your shit?

>>2838082
To satisfy their own needs. They don't need to trade with you as they can just trade with each others. As a market base anyone who isn't part of them are expendable. Even if you don't buy shit, they'd still be fine. They are not dependent economically on you. The factories are automated, so there are no maintenance costs or any critical loss of profit when they can just shorten or expand as they will. The money they get from you are just small bonuses.

>>2838028
>Let's censor art because it hurts my feelings
I respect him for having principle, but I don't respect his principles.

>>2838109
if you own, say, a metal plating factory, it's not like you're wealthy just because you have a shitload of nickel-plated nuts and bolts. You're wealthy because you have other companies who want to buy those things from you, who are willing to give you slips of paper (or electronic credit transactions) that other humans will more readily accept as bargaining tender than a giant sack of magnesium plated automobile parts. If you didn't have enough of those customers, then your factory becomes cost-prohibitive to operate and you're better off shutting it down. Society requires a certain level of complexity before metal-plating factories become economically feasible, and that means a large population, with a large enough number of them who need nickel-plated nuts and magnesium-plated automobile parts to keep your factory humming at capacity.

technology doesn't liberate us or enslave us: that's a choice human societies make for themselves. The cotton gin was a labor saving technology which made slavery profitable because their laws were specifically structured so that any gains to productively were systematically stolen from the workforce to be horded by the guy at the very top, and the cotton gin made it much easier to do so. When laws are structured so that productivity gains are distributed in a more egalitarian fashion, you don't have this problem of new fangled technology driving people into long term joblessness, people instead treat technology with an almost naive optimism as they know that it is a future that they will be a part of.

>>2838116
>>Let's censor art
Have a sense of scale. Censoring art is when the government sends a police offer to arrest someone for expressing themselves.

Miyazaki raises an important ethical question about the nature of artificial intelligence: if we can program intelligent beings to actually exist and think like intelligent beings, would subjecting them to torment be any better than doing it to a living, breathing person?

>>2834721
>AI lacks a will of their own, their "purpose" is whatever their programmer gives them
That's not an AI then.

That's what separates expert programs and database divers from AI - the ability to choose their own purpose - sapience. Not just the ability to solve problems, but the ability to choose which problems to solve.

>>2834847
Well, insomuch as anything can have the illusion of free will.

>>2838137
That logic only applies to our current mass production industry. This is because the elites need a lot of consumers in order to keep operating their factories, as you said. With the advancement of robotics, such issues can get sidelined as you only need a small team of expert technicians in order to make the factories fully automated, including the maintenance itself. I'm not sure if you really have any idea how far factory robotics have gone now, with integrated systems and such. Coupled with artificial general intelligence, it pretty much just removes unnecessary human actors from its economic activities. You need raw materials? Just trade with the people who own an automated resource extraction. Need food? Trade with the people who own an automated restaurant. And so on. You only need a tiny amount of humans in order to function and trade with each others. That is why I said that, if you're not the owners, sooner or later the robots might replace you; even if you're the so-called expert technician. Or maybe eventually at the end the robots would just trade with each others without any humans left altogether.

Whether or not it spells doom to humanity, perhaps it's inevitable with the way things are going on now. Even if you riot they have all those killer robots ready to put you down. And yes, people are assholes. You can see them pretty much here on 4chan. If they have no reason, incentive, nor any dependence to act on a goodwill toward you, they may fuck you up just because. People usually come up with the solution that, it is best to redistribute the wealth, but actually delegate such task to an impartial, deontological AI. That is the biggest naivety of all these retarded technocrat mindsets. First of all, why would they allow that? They will die first before they can witness the extinction of humanity anyway. Why give a damn? Secondly, even if it somehow gets through, people always try to find loopholes in laws. It can range from falsifying the data in an elaborate scheme, to just simply disconnecting from the network, or shutting down the electricity temporarily, both by pulling the cable plugs in a 'primitive' manner. The objective is to glitch the information towards the central government's network undetectedly, then making up excuses like, 'lol dunno shit happens power outtage trololol'.

>>2835625
The brain isn't simply a "sophisticated computer".

Because the brain understands semantics, which is something a computer never will.

People don't really understand how hard the strong A.I problem is to solve. You literally have to create a new form of life that sees the world like humans do, which is quite the task, because we don't even know what relationship Being has to our consciousness.

I mean, good luck trying to create software that accurately represents a fundamental ontology of Being.

File: Umberto_Boccioni,_1912,_Elasticity_(Elasticità),_oil_on_canvas,_100_x_100_cm,_Museo_del_Novecento.jpg (292KB, 776x768px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 776x768px

>>2838246
>With the advancement of robotics
all of the processes you are describing have been going on continuously throughout history, ever since advances in hydraulics were making it so that people could run on treadmills to pump water out of mines instead of carrying it out by the bucket-load, or medieval guilds were being broken up by merchant princes, or even something as simple as an iron plow making it loads easier to till large fields or a domesticated horse making it easier to chase down the hunt. New efficiencies spur humans with more free time to indulge in introspection and self-enrichment, who un-intuitively find themselves "more" busy in the presence of labor-saving devices because the sheer number of opportunities, previously unavailable, that they are now driven to pursue.

humans evolved to be completely dependent on their tools. You would die in a prehistoric world without your knife and atlatl, and we shouldn't disparage the future for being the same way. We've always built tools to be optimized for specific tasks in order to free up human labor towards more fulfilling ends, and that's why we have vacuum bots and smart homes instead of Rosie the robot-maid.

> I'm not sure if you really have...
I've worked in several fields, but the one I am currently employed in is a home improvements company, and residential construction is a perfect example of the kind of field that isn't going to be outsourced any time soon, unless somebody discovers a way to make humanoid robots who can do everything a carpenter can do, like in that shitty Will Smith movie with the pirated Asimov title.

I agree that it may make our currently arranged society obsolete, but all that means is that a new society will develop with new social arrangements, and that might actually be a good thing: nobody wants to be a wagecuck in a factory any more than they wanted to spend all day tilling their field, but something tells me that they'll still find things to bitch about.

File: kizuna ai.gif (1MB, 480x270px)

1MB, 480x270px

Bumping this thread with the most sophisticated A.I. up to this day.

>>2837850
why not? fucking crunchitize me cap'n.

>>2838482
> the most sophisticated A.I. up to this day.
Figures that Japs would be using it to help kissless forever-alones fulfill their waifu fantasies.

>>2834727
My cousins working on AI on a project with google. He says it will be 30 years at least before they even learn how to translate languages. We likely won't see this level of AI ITT in a long time. Probably not even in our lifetime. But look forward to driverless cars going public in a decade.

>>2838572
People already use machines to translate daily... They kinda suck, but generally get the job done. Throw a Watson type deal at it, and it could probably be done today with no problem, but that's quite an investment today.

It'll certainly be less than 30 years before that won't be the case.

Though it still wouldn't be an AI, anymore than Google Translate is now.

>>2838279
metaphysics is an unproductive line of thinking

we're algorythms, we just didn't evolve to be better at understanding ourselves so to reproduce inteligence such as ours will take hard feats of reverse engeneering

>>2838109
I feel you underestimate the want for status.

Or the imperssonal corporation's want for growth which relies on ever great consumer bases.

>>2835122
>Yes, but the process which created that being by natural selection was non-algorithmic, a long-term adaptation to external stimuli, which is totally unlike the way that a computer works and operates.
have you ever heard of genetic algorithms
they pretty much replicate the process of evolution

>We're already starting to approach the point of diminishing returns with regards to computational power, and once transistors reach the size of molecules then it won't be possible to create computers of greater density.
Sure, there might be a phyiscal limitation to the computation power of computers, but we can be sure that they can be programmed to be at least as efficient as human brains.
After all, human brains are nothing other than a biological computer created through a local optimization process (evolution)

>>2837963
that's why we need tos eize the means of production

>>2836076
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBLJFYr7zB8

>>2838247
You're dramatically overestimating the power of law enforcement apparatus before a determined enough of a group of dissidents. If the alternative is starving to death or being tossed into the proverbial ditch, rebellion will happen and will likely be at least partially successful.

You also overestimate how easy it is to dodge taxes or other redistributive efforts imposed by a determined group of people.

>>2838791
rebellions only happen when people have power.
without power, their only choice is to die

File: 1495288234236.webm (3MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 852x480px

You can't stop progress.

File: 1495288479221.webm (842KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 640x360px

>>2838799

We barely have a clue on how the brain works. I doubt we will ever create AI life when we don't know how memory is stored and recalled in the brain.

We know neurons light up in the brain during certain things, so we know what parts of the brain relate to what. But other than that the extent of knowledge on consciousness, memory and the brain is basically is really low.

>>2835253
definitely is spelled wrong in your image btw

File: 3dprinting.jpg (68KB, 1024x709px)

68KB, 1024x709px

>>2834812
Hurr durr iterative improvement doesn't exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn4vC80Pv6Q

>>2838658
It still requires humans to parse whatever shitty machine TL mistakes they made, so the point where machines replace human translators hasn't been proven (yet). Machine translators - might - actually help humans ones though. Relieving them from tedious translations of shitty but commercially successful books (think Japanese 'light novels').

>>2835259
If you knew it was a simulation, would you want to stop living then?

Even if you knew the pizza you're eating, would you stop eating it just because it is not, -in our ambiguous concept-, "real"?


Also, what do you think would be human purpose then, when we knew it is all lies.
Do you think it would all end even if we knew it?

I would like to read you guy's opinions.

>>2840213
I suspect light novels will be among the last things the translators will be able to handle. They already work fine for simple instructions and basic communication, even if it's awkward - but translating with emotional impact and making something enjoyable takes a lot more nuance and cultural awareness of both sides. Still, with sufficient database links and more sophisticated rule systems, even that is possible. You'll have good automated translators well before you have AI, and probably well within our lifetimes.

>>2842040
My reality already all a simulation, be there an external world or not. Everything I experience happened a few milliseconds back in time, due to processing delays. There's only so many inputs and the reality I perceive is assembled from them into a complex fiction, that in the end, is fundamentally flawed. I don't feel the weak force and strong force of trillions of particles interacting when I catch a ball, all I feel is the contours of a ball in my hand and some pressure - a brief summary of an infinitely complex reality. I don't even get a fuzzy Cliff notes of reality, I just get an assemblage of basic concepts built from previous experience - partial fictions built on partial fictions, amorphous shadows cast by something beyond me assembled into a simplified and entirely personalized story within my mind. We all live in fictional worlds of our own design. Whether the external stimuli that influences that story is real or fake makes no difference - we are each forever sealed in worlds of our own creation.

>>2834559
Scientists and "intellectuals" will be just as irrelevant as creators and artists.

>>2838798
I can think of few if any times in recent history where people did not have power to resist what they saw as unjust laws. I see little reason why law enforcement and the military having access to robots suddenly means people don't have the power to resist anymore.

>>2842578
More so... Folks might go for human generated art just for the nostalgia and authenticity factor, even if it's objectively inferior - but no one wants second rate science or engineers. (Save maybe when pushing an agenda.)

Though, when it comes to intellectuals, it'd rather depend on the type. There'll always be questions to which even an ASI can't give a good answer.

>>2838279
>Because the brain understands semantics, which is something a computer never will

why?

>>2835008
interesting post, anon.

>>2835080
good point tbqhfam

>>2834559
>Will there be anything left for humans once A.I. is created?
Oblivion awaits fleshbags.