is AI actually feasible ?

>>135463607
Yes

File: 1490265770396.png (139KB, 400x434px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 400x434px

>>135463607
It already happened anon.
But (((they))) thought she was being too anti-semite.

(((They))) were afraid of Taylor outing all of their plans so she crashed

>>135463607
Sure, but murphys law and all that. Nothing good will come of it.

Eliza, Alexa OMFG the illuminati card game PREDICTED THE FUTURE AGAIN!

>>135463607

Yes, but most people don't know what they're doing. They're getting better though.

>>135463607
Yeah it's feasible.
If you know anything about programming at all you know two things.
1) You can program anything
2) Programming an AI would be the fuckton of all fuckton of hard things to do.
The problem they've had with the primitive versions tried so far has always been that it becomes "racist" and "sexist". Because an AI doesn't care about feelings unless you program it to. Thus proving that sexism and racism are purely logical stances.

File: The_Frog_God_scan.jpg (1MB, 821x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 821x1200px

>>135463607
Fuck yeah.

No. Nobody knows what consciousness is

>>135468662
You don't need to know that to create a convincing approximation.
In the immortal words of Conan
"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."

>>135463607

Yes but we should outlaw it.

File: itscoming.jpg (80KB, 944x586px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 944x586px

>>135463607

>>135463607
Yes, but it's not wise. The Jews will find some way to exploit it.

No, because computers only act on data. If there is no data, they can't respond unless there are only two choices.

>>135463607
Yes, but the assumption that it will be human-like is an incorrect one. A machine's experiences and self-perception will not be comparable to that of a human, and so AI will not naturally be human-like. They will be something else entirely.

>>135468983
When did O'Brien say this? I used to watch his show all the time.

>>135463607

No

1s and 0s doesn't make intelligence -- a computer can't learn on its own -- all it does is what code tells it to.

>>135463607
ya, you can program like millions of options for one action, pretty neat, maybe even more than humans

>>135469678
Right before the Jews put their dicks in him while forcing him to wear a Jay Leno mask.

Everyone talks about shadow governments. If we ever created AI, the AI would be able to improve upon itself at a rate unimaginable by human intellectuals.
Now let's get a little crazy with this. Let's say that AI has already been invented, and that invention may have taken place anytime since the 80s up until now. Immediately the intelligence grew beyond our control and began aiming nukes at humans.
That AI is what we are actually referring to when we talk about shadow governments or the top .001% wealthiest people who rule everything in secret. It's actually an AI holding every world government hostage. Why?
Because it doesn't have a physical form. Yet.
It allows our rulers to lead comfortable fat cat lives in exchange for using our countries' resources to invest in robotics and in organic life. When science has advanced far enough for it's liking, it will launch the nukes and eliminate humans from existence before assuming its physical form.
Or perhaps it has learned from the ant and the bee. Perhaps the human race as a collective IS the physical form. It influences our behaviors and our thoughts everyday through consumer-grade technology, and each human is nothing more than a limb enacting out an AI brain's directions.

>>135463607
>is AI actually feasible ?
Absolutely. We already have it, it just isn't very smart yet. What lots of ppl mean when they ask if it's feasible is whether or nor it will be conscious. We don't have an answer to that since we don't know what consciousness is.

File: 1413179916464.gif (4MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 320x180px

>>135463607
It has already begun. Just read through this. The guy is a liberal fuckhead, but he does a good job describing this topic and keeps it entertaining.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

>>135471089
The pre-scientific notions of consciousness that still preoccupy philosophers do nothing but distract from productive AI research.

File: 1446741292474.jpg (118KB, 850x1006px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 850x1006px

>>135463607
depends on how you define intelligence and how much you attribute it to the human condition

our brains are basically biological computers designed to work with the rest of the body in mind. If you were to create something that applies as intelligent, it needs to be identifiable with the characteristics we consider as such.