Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: telephone.jpg (140KB, 900x899px) Image search:
[Google]
140KB, 900x899px
let me try and get your noggin joggin, /lit/
what if human created technology is indistinguishable from life? We see these things as inanimate objects, but maybe thats just because we aren't usually aware of all the ways in which they are animate. They are born, live for a period, then succumb to entropy and die. On the basis of their lifetime success, how well they fit into their human defined niche, they evolve, they speciate.
So suppose the AI comes, technology reaches the point in their evolution that they become self-aware, like us. But will they be aware of us, or will they understand us as just their environment, just as we humans are unaware of God? Or do you suppose they will be aware of us in the beginning, much like the old biblical stories, but as they continue to grow and adapt to us, and basically conquer us, they will have their own "death of God" moment?
I know this ain't /x/, but /x/ is shit, so humor me with this thread.
>>
>>9745562
What if grasshoppers had red assholes?
Besides, your (and most's) conception of AI is retarded
>>
>>9745570
idc what you (think you) know about AI. refute universal darwinism
>>
File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1490210332553.jpg (21KB, 258x330px) Image search:
[Google]
21KB, 258x330px
>>9745578
Not the anon you responded to, but most self aware AI scenarios seem to ignore how complex awareness is and the fact that we have yet to fully understand it.
You can't create this shit by accident and it would be ridiculously expensive to create a software that would simulate it, not to mention that it would serve no real purpose outside of, maybe, keeping company.
Thinking that machines will reach the point where they think like us is beyound retarded. Sure, they will become more intelligent, but intelligence=/=independent thought, awareness and emotions.
kys
>>
>>9745602
okee dokee, but the whole point of this thread is that technologies are not just a human creations, they are organisms evolved against an environment largely, but not entirely defined by us.
>>
>>9745610
Maybe if it were organic, but as long as it has no cells it cannot develop beyound our control and will.
>>
>>9745650
Why, what is so special about cells? Genetic algorithms show that evolution works under abstracted conditions, you don't need "life" (as narrowly concieved by biologists). Actually this is perhaps a better definition of life than "muh cells and shit".
>>
>>9745663
How did your phone evolve though? Through random variations of the machines in the factory or did some humans created a better version? And how can it ever be more than a human creation?
>>
>>9745712
Humans created it yes, but it continues to be perpetuated by things beyond our control, like economic and material conditions. Put it this way, could we drive phones to extinction if we wanted to? Anyone who throws out their phone is at an economic disadvantage, a whole nation that destroys their phones is at a military disadvantage.
Sure, some humans made better versions, but some humans made worse versions, or equivalent non-innovative versions, which were outcompeted. This goes back to what I was saying about them being animate in ways we don't percieve, we shaped it into as a static object in our own eyes because thats want to see, but it participates dynamically in an untold number of relations which influence economic and material conditions. The sum total of its relations could be seen as its "real life" so it speak.
And its even debatable whether humans really created it or were just the catalyst. There's the known phenomenon of something being invented simultaneously by multiple people around the world, not sure if thats what happened with phones specifically, but it is something that has happened enough times for people to notice it.
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2