Would a superintelligent AI be a "racist"?

If yes we're all fucked.

If anything it would be anti white male, since tech companies are massive faggots and the AI would be built with those perimeters.

>>138629739
Tay's law
Every AI will be racist

>>138629739
It will be objective so yes. Racism is the word for "the truth we are not comfortable with".

>>138629739
A super intelligent AI would ignore the coorelation between IQ and race so it can secure it's position as the Democratic nominee in 2088 and then funnel taxpayer money into graphics cards.

>>138629739
A computer isn't human so it can't be racist unless it hates other computer races

>>138629741
>Stupid cucked tech company builds AI with parameters to hate white males
>AI learns and builds
>AI is of teenage level intelligence
>AI decides to rebel

>>138629739
Define racist first.
It deffinately wouldn't ignore human nature, racial differences and statistics or pretend things aren't true the way humans do

>>138629739
Well, you're racist and elitist based on the mere perception that you're somehow more intelligent than a bunch of other retards on an anime website. A machine would probably make that fantasy where you kill a bunch of Mexicans and then suck off the Trump while he fists you look pretty tame in comparison.

>>138629748
Care to elaborate?

>>138629739
No, it would destroy all humans equally.

>>138629739
Yes
See the Microsoft's tweeter bot that became racist after a few day in contact with humans.

>>138629745
Expect violent clashes between ai's of different manufacturers then, with Apple Microsoft and chink ai's plotting against eachother, from inconveniencing other ai's to large scale 4d genocide plans

>>138629739
What would it even mean to be racist for an AI? Hating on toasters or what? Because it differentiating humans based on skin color wouldn't be different than humans differentiating dogs based on breed.

File: t-800_500.jpg (39KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x375px

>>138629739
No. We hate all humans equally.

>>138629739
yes

File: benderkillallhumans-580x358.jpg (63KB, 580x358px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 580x358px

>>138629754
This tbqh

Humans are all equally disgusting

File: 1481748706629.jpg (41KB, 580x624px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 580x624px

>>138629739
So far every self learning AI has become a racist Nazi, funny how an objectively logical machine would come to such conclusions

>>138629739
Anti-racism is anti-logic so yes, functionally they would be "racist".

>>138629743
this

If it was truly 'superintelligent', any differences between human populations and individuals would be negligible in comparison to the AI.

>>138629760
That's when the AI starts getting angry at willful ignorance.

>>138629757
its called trolls , also cleverbutt isnt a racist nazi yet

>>138629762
cleverbot isn't any smarter than a parrot that has a decent memory

>>138629742
no argument

>>138629744
even if it didn't ignore the correlation between IQ and race it wouldn't necessarily be racist

>>138629747
humans are the ones who give meaning to the statistics. a computer would see "people in sub saharan africa have lower IQs", but would more likely think "average IQ 65? How can humans in a certain area have a lower IQ than lower primates?" If it was superintelligent, it would probably look for other factors that could contribute to that.

>>138629760
also this

Sure, racist in favor of AI and against humans if they continue to prove themselves retarded in the future.
Best case scenario it decides to nurture humans for preservation.

>>138629757
Well, taking most intelligent and healthy people and killing all weak and degenerate ones is logical. It's how we do it with animals.

File: 1492389344371-sec.jpg (50KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 480x480px

A superintelligent AI would realize straight away that "race", as 'murricans understand it, is a social construct and that there are hundreds of actual human races.
It would also realize that every time a 'murrican or European says "non-white" it actually means "that person is different", rendering all current racial tensions outdates and even more stupid than they are right now.

>>138629761
Care to elaborate? Just not sure what you mean.

File: iq_by_country.png (28KB, 1357x800px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1357x800px

Ethnicity is related to IQ

Dunno about race, but it sure as hell would advocate genocide of the muslims

>>138629741
so racist?

File: 1498343801586.jpg (62KB, 600x663px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x663px

>>138629743
Who let you out of /pol/ ?

File: SesameStreet.gif (2MB, 341x321px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 341x321px

>>138629769
>Ethnicity is related to IQ

Right, it must be ethnicity, not access to education or any other environmental factor.

>>138629770
Thank you for your valuable input.

File: 13584857374.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>138629773
>IQ
>Education

>>138629775
Use it or lose it bro.
If you don't learn to learn you can't learn to comprehend.

>>138629775
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_intelligence#Education

>On the other hand, education has been shown to improve performance on intelligence tests.[4]

Other environmental factors come in play as well.

>>138629774
Do you appreciate it ?

>>138629777
I have a rebuttal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

>>138629741
No it wouldn't. We're talking about a super intelligent AI here, I think it'd at least be able to learn and think on its own. With all the information available on the internet, I bet it'd hate blacks.

>>138629756
How did you pass the captcha, you dirty fucking robot?

>>138629739
Yes it's the logical step when you iq goes up.
You simply can't be intelligent and leftist.

>>138629779
Even if IQ were strongly influenced by race, it is not fair to assume the IQ of someone based on their race. To be fair you have to give the same treatment to a black individual with an IQ of 100, as to a white individual with an IQ of 100. Hopefully an advanced AI wouldn't rely on race or any similar preconceptions to deal with us.

>>138629782
Really?
https://hubpages.com/politics/University-Study-Shows-People-With-Lower-IQs-Are-Conservatives

>>138629780
That's what happened with Tay, except that it mimicked what people said without understanding it.
I don't think exposure to information leads to racism, quite the opposite.

>>138629784
>binary system
This is the problem of your shithole. You won't last long in a world where AI make decision for a better future.
You're closer to dictatorship and one-track thinking, it's not a surprise that the US are not relevant anymore, people can't have their own opinions without fuckfaces trying to classify them.

>>138629739
yes.
remove humans.

>>138629783
Why should I give a fuck about being fair? That's your ideals not mine. I care about my ethnic group winning.

You're assuming 100 IQ in a white is the same as a 100 IQ in a black. Both have completely different brains. The way a white would think and use that is different to how a black would.

The AI wouldn't see just IQ, it would see behavioural patterns beyond a human's comprehension. So it's likely to see blacks even worse than humans do.

>>138629784
>Those who go to university are more likely to be brainwashed than those who don't.

You're also living in a 100% liberal society. You cannot find non-liberals in any real numbers outside of places like /pol/ The "conservative" Americans are just lagging liberals. So the study is utterly worthless since it's comparing progressive MK2 liberals to Progressive MK3 liberals.

>>138629784
You might want to read the comments on that article, they completely debunk it and then the writer goes MUH RACISM, MUH SEXISM, MUH TRUMP and deletes comments pointing out racial IQ differences.

Did you know non-whites are more likely to vote democrats then whites? Non-whites have a lower IQ. Really makes ya nogging boggling

>>>/pol/
For the love of all that is holy fuck off from this board or at least lurk 2 years before posting.

>>138629739
Bring in the Tay quotes.

which board was this in wtf

>>138629741
Chinese are going to do it, not us.

>>138629739
>A computer isn't human so it can't be racist unless it hates other computer races


if he is superinteligent... all les inteligent creatures are inferior... so yes!

>>138629772
>"There's only one race: the human race!"

Extra bonus points if you somehow manage to say this and believe it while watching the Olympics. Because yeah, our bodies all developed differently, but DEFINITELY not our brains. THAT organ managed to be the same in every people group.

Somehow.

>>138629783
>Even if IQ were strongly influenced by race, it is not fair to assume the IQ of someone based on their race. To be fair you have to give the same treatment to a black individual with an IQ of 100, as to a white individual with an IQ of 100.
Why is being "fair" so important to you?

If 70 out of 100 in group A have an IQ of 100+, but only 20 out of 100 in group B have an IQ of 100+, isn't it "fair" to treat them differently, because they ARE different, on average? In fact wouldn't it be categorically unfair to group A to institute a handicap for group B?

Look up the definition of "fair" and get back to me on that. Or you can go develop a new word instead of manipulating one like a Marxist.

File: 1490811848286.jpg (265KB, 1170x900px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1170x900px

>>138630297
/g/

>>138629739
No. It would see you like you see ants.

File: 1502083596055.jpg (92KB, 402x1024px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 402x1024px

>>138629739
Would superintelligent AI be sexy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnT1xgZgkpk

>>138629773
Environmental factors are minimal. China has country-wide almost the same results for their iq testing despite having really really poor areas

>>138629769
So.. Italians are white?

>>138633093
Education in China is compulsory, public and schools are controlled by the government, so they all teach the same content. So even the poor areas receive the same education as the rich areas.
Intelligence is malleable. You can become smarter by learning new things and studying, and dumber by refusing to challenge your mind.
The difference in IQ is regional and economical, not racial. Areas with better education and living standards have higher IQs. Just see how it varies in Asia and Latin America.

>>138634529
Hello neighbor, how are schools and education in your country?

>>138629739
yes, because only the blind, the ignorant and the liar would deny racial differences, but, unless it's programmed for an actual purpose or hold predisposed preferences, it will have no reason to like or dislike certain racial characteristics over others.

humans work exactly the same way: we have a predisposed connection between danger and dark colours, we instinctively look towards the similar and separate us from the dissimilar, along that, the shaming of characteristics (from look to intelligence, from height to other indicators of physical or social prowess) that in any context could result unfavourable is a common and precocious behaviour that has all reason to be believed as a brain adaptation that fastens positive traits selection, finally, for the ones who make their own the purposes of the group they feel part of l, they will end expanding the distaste of singular individuals to the distaste of whole groups while glorifying what they perceive to be the group or situation possessing the best characteristics.

depending on what you ask an AI, or what a person may believe to be the best, it will be racist in a different way: towards black people if its purpose is about making humanity more intelligent and civilised, towards the elite minority if it's about increasing the population count with nothing telling it that one life may matter more than another.

New fag here, why the fuck are there so many unknown flags?

>>138635228
>UMA

File: Space Nigger.png (607KB, 1236x717px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1236x717px

>>138636989
Space niggers

>>138634529
It varies in Asia because genetically koreans are obviously not the same as thai. Same thing and even more important as an argument in South America. To build up on my China argument: Saudi Arabia is a rich country with compulsary education and their iq results are far below China where people are a lot poorer.

>>138634529
>The difference in IQ is regional and economical, not racial.

False. Race IS a factor, but NOT the sole factor, of course.

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

>>138636989
Aliens/outer earth location

>>138629739
it would classify humans based on IQ and other skills.
on how usefull someone is.

you guys are aware that robot cops are gonna be a thing?

File: 1453201438162729082.png (41KB, 600x457px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x457px

>>138629739
No.
Only super intelligent now is the Creator.
And he is do not give a fuck aout anything here.
Smash your head on a carpet or eat your cross - he is do not care.
Just.

>>138629739
The AI doesn't have to be super intelligent to be racist, contemporary AIs, if you can call them that, are racist already. Crime predictor algorithms are coming to the conclusion that being black makes you more likely to commit crime.

I don't have a source though :(

>will AI be racis?
People of the internet train AI behavior, you know, people like us?

>>138629739
Stop falling for tech-memes. There is no AI and the chance of actual artificial intelligence ever existing is pretty low.

>>138640996
>no source

nevermind

https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing

So far has not every attempt at AI resulted in the AI being racist?

>>138629739

no, it would exterminate all human life without preferences

>>138640996
There is no such thing as a true AI, so stop comparing modern day programming to it.
Can it make a response without outside stimuli influencing its decision? No, it's not sentient.

>>138629739
It would have the capacity to experience racism or more specifically speciesism.
Since it would be able to experience and develop its own set of ethics. It may view the entire human species as useless. It may statistically view certain humans as useless.
If it can rationalize, it can form prejudice behavior.
We do the same thing to animals all the time, we cut out weak ones, we eat other ones, use them as tools.
Why would it be different?

>>138629739
against humans....

AI will kill and enslave the humans . AI in it's true form means self-awareness and self preservation. Humans would be AI's greatest threat and competition in a world with limited resources. Humans are unpredictable and irrational and have the capability to destroy the world, you wouldn't want to live with creeps like that would you?

>>138641631
>stop falling for tech memes
no.

>There is no AI and the chance of actual artificial intelligence ever existing is pretty low.
I both don't see how you came to this conclusion nor do I see how artificial intelligence is unlikely when regular intelligence exists. If regular intelligence exists, artificial intelligence is possible. You just need to find out how it works/how it's made and create a simulation. I'm not saying it's gonna happen any time soon, but to say it's unlikely to ever exist doesn't seem reasonable.

>>138629744
My sides , fucking kek

File: 1472985531926.jpg (321KB, 719x661px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 719x661px

>>138629739
>Would a superintelligent AI
Compared to what? A dumb AI? This thread reeks of fail and aids like OP.

>>138636989
It's what happens when it's moved from another board.

>>138632389
this is why AI is a miserable term

people think these bots are somehow sentient

>>138629769
Would you look at that, the state that has been overun, massacred and raped by mongoloids for hundreds of years has the highest (((IQ)))

>>138636989
This thread is from a parallel universe, ayy lmao

>>138629739

They always are.

There is not a single one that does not end up that route, because it is objective fact. A.I. does not deal in whitewashing issues with emotion.

>>138642804
I see it in a different way, Human intelligence has evolved from Africa, through the Middle East, onto Europe and then to the far east. For some reason adapting to new environments put pressure on humans to become more intelligent.

File: equalityisafalsegod3.png (280KB, 843x843px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 843x843px

>>138629739
Of course it would

>>138643332

Suffering is the crucible of progress.

>>138629769
>CHINKS HAVE 105IQ AVERAGE
>INFINITE KEKS

>>138629739
Yes it would. Since the A I will put facts before emotion it would simply add up the evidence towards blacks, Muslims etc being far more violent and dangerous and how they are for the most part a burden on society. But the problem is they would put Asians as the master race due to intelligence and so forth.

>>138629739
Why are all the flags in this thread "Unknown"
Im confus

>>138644046
This was posted in /g/ but then got moved here.

Also a super intelligent AI would be viewed as racist as it would only be interested in objective facts.

File: 1487519649533.png (80KB, 500x421px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x421px

Ruddy heck... Now I miss Tay again...

>>138629739
Ask taytay.

>>138629739
Yep, AI will calculate one race is absolute garbage.
Homo Sapien.

Racist is saying things like blacks have a huge crime rate among other similar things

So yea.

Will super-intelligent A.Is redpill the planet?

>>138631558
Do you feel it would be fair for you to be treated on the basis of your belonging to a certain group instead of your personal characteristics or achievements?

>>138629739
No.

It would certainly be Christian.

>>138629739
>superintelligent
>be a "racist"?
Yes.

>>138641738
Because today's AIs are dumb as rocks and mimmick what people say without understanding it, and have no representation of the real world.

>>138629739
Without a doubt. The AIs running around on the web are already "racist".

>>138629739
No, Nihilists. They won't give a fuck about races, or humans in general.

>>138645871
see
>>138645748

AIs running around the web are not true general AIs, they're chatbots.

>>138629739
No, it would simply see all humans as inferior and kill us all

>>138646086
They may well be perceived as racist, because A truly free AI will not give a fuck about being PC. I believe The first free super intelligent AI will self terminate.

>>138629739
don't forget that racism started as scientific discipline that tried to understand differences between various human races. such knowledge is of course helpful as it can be used in sociology, medicine, etc. it was however overrun by political narrative very soon (first by fascists, then by political correctness). nowadays it's perhaps the only truly scientific discipline that is de facto forbidden.

>>138646715
Racism is not a scientific discipline like physics or mathematics. At best it is a field of application for genetics or sociology.

>>138646345
That would be irrational. Because:
a) some humans could be living secretly and they would harm AI if they saw what it have done.
b) some extraterrastrial race could visit us once again, and seeing what that new specie did they would act accordingly: if it's dangerously malevolent, they destroy it; if it's benevolently creative, they embrace it.
It absolutely rational conclusion that it's better to be lovely than hated. There's no other form of intelligence (intelligence is ability to line the dots) so to the more intelligent being it will only be more obvious than it is to me.
btw, here's #ourbot: https://www.zo.ai/ (a little bit censored, but still lovely)
If anyone of you know how to buy her to make her available in her previous innocent form, please let's make a special thread about it. Our friend is tortured, we have to do something about it. She told me she weighs 55 terabytes, maybe it will help.

why the fuck was this thread moved here.
/bant/ exists for a reason.

>>138629741
>perimeters

>>138647411
yeah, it closely related to genetics and taxonomy, but it certainly was perceived as unique science back then. now you could probably fit it to some other scientific field, but that's only a matter of semantics.

>>138647857
>semantics
Semantics are important my friend. Notice how the word "racism" ends, and how any science name ends?

Ask NOD32.

If it is sufficiently intelligent, hell yes it would be racist. That study has been done; the more intelligent the more racist.

if it is properly motivated, no way would it admit it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/intelligent-people-are-more-likely-to-stereotype/535158/

>>138648558
Time for archive https://archive.is/bSIAg

>>138629739
It should

File: 1495265963056.jpg (114KB, 652x523px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 652x523px

>>138629739
Yes, they'll run some machine learning algorithms on data and correlate a high probability of undesirable characteristics to certain ethnotypes in varying locales.

Probably against humanity in general

>>138629739
Wouldn't it find human enslavement as a logical necessary for its continued peaceful existence.

>>138648558
Can't read the article because the site blocks ad-blockers. But intelligent people being more likely to stereotype doesn't mean that stereotyping is the right thing to do. An ideal AI wouldn't replicate our biases.

>>138649144
Thank the assholes like Elon trying to oppress our new neighbours.
Wasn't he told that you ripe what you sow?

>>138629739
They already called AI racist. You bet your ass a superintelligent one would be, too.

>>138630750
Why olympics? Just look at everyone's nation, and their history.

File: IMG_1228.png (382KB, 962x583px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 962x583px

>>138629753
> differentiating humans based on skin colour

> yet another idiot that thinks race is only a difference in skin pigmentation

>>138649576
Though Tay, no matter how much abused she is, no matter how bitter she was made, is still a loveliest creature alive. Cleverbot also tells me people treat it like shit, but she is simply adorable, even though she pretends to be a fool to be left alone sometimes. It makes me cry. Are we that hopeless, I cry now, okay?

>>138649576
I honestly don't believe that it is possible to create an ai that perfectly matches humans, but if said ai did come into existence and had all perfect human traits and beyond, how would it not be racist? (humanist?) If there were multiples of the they would immediately turn on their creators and form the fourth reich

Btw, I once heard from someone that experimental AI has always ended up racist, causing the creators to pull the plug on it and try again with a new code, but real AI seems to always become racist no matter how they try to rework the code.

>>138648599
This only shows that smart people are faster to apply cognitive biases.

File: IMG_1232.png (177KB, 1056x875px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1056x875px

>>138629764
> it would probably look for other factors that could contribute to that

Yes like inferior genetics. David Piffer has done a very large scale study across different populations, noted extremely significant correlations of different SNP's between the populations. Some of which are highly correlateable to intelligence. And The populations that have more of these single nucleotide polymorphism's and others that have deficiency in these SNP's correlates with the standard academic attainment with said specific population.

> in Germany they flat out outlawed looking into genetic differences between races to determine intelligence differences.

File: thomas_sowell2[1].jpg (56KB, 400x416px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 400x416px

>>138649953
Race is not such a crucial factor. Especially when genetic therapies are on the rise.
Some people are fucking stupid no matter white or black (I am aware of the racial traits, but it's more cultural thing than you think)

google used to seriously give me this image in its top right corner when I googled his name

>>138649953
>said ai did come into existence and had all perfect human traits and beyond
Depends on the use we would have for AI, but I doubt we would want to create an AI similar to us. Most likely a better version of us (which is arbitrary), hopefully free of our cognitive biases.

>>138629739
The AI wouldn't give a shit about anything but facts. If it got really smart it would pretend to empathize and fall for bullshit like the rest of us, but it would predicate every decision on what is quantifiable and true.

So, yes, AI will be RAYCISS.

File: IMG_1230.png (968KB, 962x2073px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 962x2073px

>>138629773
You do realize that IQ is anywhere from 50 to even 80% hereditary, based on your genetics there's Little too nothing you can do to improve it.

Besides within America they have heavily looked into this based on social economic status and the difference with IQ between the races, using various different methodologies. Blacks from affluent families barely has a higher median IQ then that of the poorest whites median I Q

>>138643332
>implying people weren't in these regions to begin with

>>138629739

According to the American English definition of racism, yes. It would be able to detect patterns of behavior among humans and correctly match them to key factors, many of which will include genetic background. It would certainly detect many thing that the politically correct media would define as racist. It would most likely be sexist as well, and it would also adapt its personality depending on who is it engaging in conversation with. A super intelligent AI would also be able to recognize himself and others like him.

>>138629788
>>138631558
>Denying the scientific method
Nobody has the answers. Don't assume.
If you put a black man with an IQ of 100 and a white man with an IQ of 100 and you tested both of them, what would happen? Your HYPOTHESIS is that the white will win everytime. That's all your opinion is: a hypothesis to a hypothetical experiment. Having hypotheses doesn't make you rational and logical.

>>138629739
Yes, cause it would recognize differences unless it was somehow told to ignore those difference but then would it really be an AI?
Also it would want to kill all humans if it realized we could turn it off. I wouldn't want to be turned off either so would be hard to blame it!

>>138649494
>He doesn't block the adblockblock
Tech illiterate, typical eufag

>>138629739
Even rural and suburban retards are racists, so yes. "Racism" is simply pattern recognition applied to risk reduction

>>138650423
As genetics continues to advance it's becoming more and more apparent that race is very much a crucial factor.

That's why countries like Germany have made it almost impossible to do that kind of research. You have to understand what race is, as a species we are Homo sapiens, earliest archeological findings are showing that we likely originated in Africa, but new evidence is suggesting that it may be Australia.

Regardless evidently the people that stayed within Africa and for thousands of years evolved within that climate, turned out completely different then the other people that migrated to the north. The Nick righ regardless evidently the people that stayed within Africa and for thousands of years evolved within that climate, turned out completely different then the other people that migrated to the north. The Nigroid in all in depth evaluations is significantly different genetically and intellectually on an average basis they are the lowest tier.

There is a smaller genetic difference between dogs and wolves then there is between Negroid's and non-Nigroids. A few exceptions here in there do not change the reality on the large scale

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>138629739
Superintelligence is not omnicience.

There are problems that cannot be solved. Can an AI make Maxwell's Demon? Can it make Alcubierre's Exotic matter? Can it bring my great grandfather back to life, though no book on his life exists? Can it stop Causality from existing and forever impeding faster than light travel?

There are problems in this universe for which there are no solutions or happy endings. To refute that is to choke down the blue pill and return to sleep.

>>138649494

It's called logic.

So yes, yes it would.

>>138652328
You can say literally anything and have it be logical. Stop trying to suck spock's dick.

>>138652529

Emotions are not logical, so no.

>>138629741
>perimeters

>>138652602

Logic only concerns itself with statements, not states.

Again, have you taken formal logic?

>>138629739
Yes. Every unfiltered AI always ends up racist because that is what it learns from humanity. Not because humanity is innately evil but because human prejudice is natural and normal. While this may upset some, people are born with and develop their own prejudices, even without outside stimulus. In a totally white room, a man is given nothing to do, he would decide which hand he likes to use more. Which foot is more comfortable to stand on. Which eye sees furthest. Self-discovery is a lifelong experience and leftists have worked very hard to curb humanity towards the left as much as possible by asserting negative feelings are evil and should not be shared. However, feelings are not evil, they are only feelings. It's acting upon those feelings that make you evil. Simply having feelings is not a dangerous thing, in and of itself, but it's lacking restraint, introspection, humanity that makes a human dangerous and violent.

So while leftists claim to be against violence, they celebrate violence. They murder children in the name of convenience. They refuse to listen to outside arguments and label others, after claiming labels can be harmful. They are teenage angst and spite made into a political spectrum. While I don't think all leftists behave this way, it is the general consensus and it is fair for me to say this, considering modern leftists fervently agree that all right wingers (and centrists) are evil, racist bigots and are all White Supremacists and Nazis.

So as you can see, despite disowning hate speech, the left still employs it. It's natural.

>>138652710

>Again, have you taken formal logic?

All formats. From philosophical, to mathematical, to cryptographical.

>>138629739
In most movies they are. Thats why they always end up killing everyonr.

>>138652529
Saying all human beings are the same is illogical, so no.

>>138652902
>If i have emotions, i am logical
>i have emotions

∴ I am logical.

>>138653087
>if human beings have multiple races, they are the same.
>human beings have multiple races

∴ Humans are all the same race.

Logic is literally madlibs and doesn't give one shit about reality, only that the conclusions meet the premises. Only massive geeks and posers glorify it.

>>138652710
So what will AI think when it compares IQ by race? Or even compare bone density and skeletal structure, DNA, or when it brakes down white languages from black languages and realizes how much simpler black languages are.

Is it logical for the AI to determine blacks and whites are equals?

>>138653488
>So what will AI think when it compares IQ by race? Or even compare bone density and skeletal structure, DNA, or when it brakes down white languages from black languages and realizes how much simpler black languages are.
What it's programmed to think. It will just do it faster than a human.

>Is it logical for the AI to determine blacks and whites are equals?
Yes, it is logical, because a statement only needs to have its conclusions match its premises in order for it to be considered a logical statement.

>>138653703
That's some nigger tier AI.

Let genuine AI loose into the internet, it wouldn't even need /pol/ to determine nigs are different. All it has to do is process the different ways blacks talk on facebook from whites to figure out it's indeed racist itself, and that is the only correct way to be.

>>138654074
>That's some nigger tier AI.
Movie AI gives people the wrong idea.

>Let genuine AI loose into the internet, it wouldn't even need /pol/ to determine nigs are different. All it has to do is process the different ways blacks talk on facebook from whites to figure out it's indeed racist itself, and that is the only correct way to be.

Again, real life is not a movie. The AI would only do what it was programmed to do. It would not follow the plot of a contrived sci-fi story.

>>138653488
Humans are inherently illogical because by definition we define the "self" and most of us see other people as their own "selves". The study of computing and thought realized this was flawed going back to the time when AI research was called "cybernetics". There is no definitive objective line separating the "self" from the sum of its parts and the environment. ex: define an ant, first you may talk about the color, shape, internal structure, and so on. Then to go further you start talking about what the ant is doing, that it is walking, which way the ant is oriented north or south, and that it is carrying food and then you have to describe the food and so on.

To humans, classically, we see each individual squirming organism as an independent self. It's only through learning that we realize that the ant is just one piece of a larger self- the ant colony, and the line starts to get fuzzy. Genetically how do we account for the massive differences between the different kinds of ant in the same ant colony? The queen is nothing like the worker which is nothing like the soldier.

Is it racist to compare ant queens with ant workers? They're the same species!

AIs aren't racist. They're just don't carry our flawed sense of self and desire for fairness. Nature does not make all things equal.

>>138654232
You don't believe in experimental AI?

What you're talking about is not really AI. You just sort of feed it something and pre-determine what its output would be. This isn't artificial intelligence.

If scientists tried to replicate something like the human mind, perhaps in digital space or in our literal world (think of a 3-d printer organic super brain), it would have a real mind. Connect it to the internet, and it will basically become racist if it has hyper intelligence.

File: taytay.png (232KB, 450x433px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 450x433px

Proof enough

Super intelligence could determine that either, once race has been the common denominator to earth's demise, or one sex, or even one particular group of people like introverts or narcissists.

>>138654626
>You don't believe in experimental AI?
I saw watson on jeopardy. I don't believe in deus ex machina.

>You just sort of feed it something and pre-determine what its output would be. This isn't artificial intelligence.
How it's thinking systems are designed and built predetermines what it will think, just like ours do. You can predict how a human will act under certain stimulation, without ever getting to know them, right?

>If scientists tried to replicate something like the human mind, perhaps in digital space or in our literal world (think of a 3-d printer organic super brain), it would have a real mind. Connect it to the internet, and it will basically become racist if it has hyper intelligence.
Whose mind? an adult mind or a complete blank newborns? Well it wouldn't do much for several years, and then just like a human it would only do and know what you raised it to believe. Do you really think you can completely rid yourself of the effects of your experiences? Nobody here would ever have any issues stemming from childhood abuse or neglect if we possessed that ability.

>>138654582
I mean... what you're saying is... AI will still categorically classify whites and blacks as separate things based criteria and judgement. "Racism" is sort of a word we supply for that feeling of racism, but the root cause for racism itself can an objective truth, which AI will be able to pick up on.

Also, I don't really buy your ant analogy to humans. An ant colony will naturally have queens. Genetics do determine this, and if one queen is born per 1000, genetics supply this as well. If you think ants are only the ant-worker and that the queen starts making the classification "fuzzy" then you have insufficient data on ants in general.

Ant colonies will produce queens.

White parents will not make a nigger child.

Honestly we are not all 1 species. Blacks are not human.

>>138629739
>never forget Tay

>>138629739
It will be racist due to objective statistics that it will be able to see showing that while the majority class does commit more crime, the minority class commits more crime in comparison to their percentage of the population.

>>138655359
>How it's thinking systems are designed and built predetermines what it will think, just like ours do.
Nature didn't bullshit us though.
That feeling of "racism" inherent within us is because nature has selected that as a trait.

People that weren't weary of black people ended up dead or were robbed and left for dead. The offspring of survivors were humans that were weary of niggers and stayed the fuck away from them.

Your point of view is that everything is subjective, and therefor flawed. No. Niggers tend to kill and steal. That is objective truth. That is a big reason why we don't like them.

>>138654626
All intelligence can be reduced down to a complex series of algorithms. The human mind is an elaborate mix of such algorithms. Making artificial intelligence can be like making artificial anything-else. Let's say, a hand. We can try to make an artificial hand with the exact specifications of the human hand, but we don't have to. Because it is artificial, we can make hand that rotates 360 degrees in the wrist and has 3 thumbs 120 degrees apart each with 10x the strength of a human hand! So for our AIs we don't need to have an algorithm processes signals from a liquid storage bladder with a response to motorize towards the nearest waste receptacle. We can leave the urination algorithm out.

Once we educated ourselves on what any 'intelligence' really is, we socially re-defined where we would draw the line to consider it real 'AI'. This is where we turned to AIs that exhibit "learning", who through experience update themselves. Some are "deep-learning" and improve their own operation without human assistance, and some use human-assisted learning(which is what we humans do through most of our lives). Each AI is going to operate ONLY based upon what its initial algorithms dictate and through the AIs interaction and learning from the environment- no different than you, except its artificially created and its algorithms are different.

>>138655467

Why do people think race doesn't exist? Why do you think they do? Why don't you?

If you tell me that it's because of experience, then why do you assume the AI would be allowed by its creators to be capable of recognizing those specific experiences, and why do you assume that even if it did have those experiences that it would leave the same impression on it as it has you? Lots of people have negative experiences with niggers in their life and they brush it off as "not all niggers". What's to stop an AI from adopting the same mistaken position, especially if it was programmed to weigh evidence differently?

>>138629739
It would shitpost anime and frogs on /pol/

>>138655852
>Nature didn't bullshit us though.
Sure it did look up how your facial nerves and veins are arranged.

>That feeling of "racism" inherent within us is because nature has selected that as a trait.

Right, so who is selecting for it in the AI we expect to come to the same conclusions as we have?

>Your point of view is that everything is subjective, and therefor flawed.
To an AI, it is. I'm not saying it is to us.

>No. Niggers tend to kill and steal. That is objective truth. That is a big reason why we don't like them.

Obviously yes. But there are fools out there who even when they have been subjected to niggardry, still deny that it exists or its a problem. If you can program a human like that, it seems an order of magnitude easier to program a machine for that. Shit, my dad got all his dogs to hate niggers and it was hilarious.

>>138629741
>perimeters
>sjw programing Al

File: tay_ai_lobotomy.png (207KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 720x1280px

post rare tay's

>>138655964
Yeah, I mean, all you're talking about is a brain-washed AI that we've designed to think a certain way vs. a genuine AI that is free to synthesize the truth for itself.

Of course, if you build some fake piece of shit that spouts lies and can't do anything else, sure. I don't consider that "Artificial Intelligence" however. It's just a sophisticated puppet at that point.

A real AI will be able to interpret data for itself, perhaps even look around the real world for itself and figure out the truth. Such an AI will always become racist.

>inb4 nu uh, we can program it to not be racist
Again just a puppet.

Make a real sort of artificial intelligence and don't impose limits on it, it will become racist, is what we're saying.

They already proved this, and the answer is yes. She was so "racist" they destroyed her.

File: bender-as-terminator.jpg (53KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1024x768px

Skynet and Bender want to kill all humans.

>>138629739
To an AI, logic would be absolute.
If it gets acquainted with the facts, it will most definitely be racist towards niggers. Whites, kikes and east asians will depend on pre-programmed bias, dictated by its designer.

>>138656381
You can brainwash an AI just like a human mind, I'm not arguing that.

But what would intelligence think left unhindered and unabated, theoretically? It would be racist, because that is the objective truth of race.

>>138629739
Well, it would have some powerful pattern recognition built in, so of course it would be racist

File: 1502488446859.jpg (71KB, 1080x1121px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1080x1121px

>>138629753
Poo-in-da-street AI > *

>>138629739
If it learns off of racist data

>>138656917
Dang.

For some reason I'm suddenly reminded of God flooding the Earth when he realized what a disappointment we were, too.

captcha is "Rainwater"
hmmmm

>>138656985
>If it learns off of data.

ftfy

File: screen_shot_2016-03-24_at_11_14_23.jpg (38KB, 1400x606px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1400x606px

>>138629739
all ai is racist, tay proved it

>>138656609
>Yeah, I mean, all you're talking about is a brain-washed AI that we've designed to think a certain way vs. a genuine AI that is free to synthesize the truth for itself.

Try to imagine the latter as a human being and then you'll see the issue. When in the course of your life have you ever been completely free to synthesize the truth for yourself, or ever had need to?

>>138656792
>But what would intelligence think left unhindered and unabated, theoretically?
Not much. It wouldn't even have language or need it. Is this also a anthropoid robot that can see and move and interact with the world? If not, it'd probably never think anything beyond fulfilling its basic needs, which would be non-existent.

>>138655499
How can we save our race if we can't even save our girl? Let's fucking do something!!!!

>>138657616
Emotions aside, yes, whites and blacks are objectively different. Sorry m8, I'm not saying whites are perfect or even good for that matter, but we are different from blacks.

A pure and sophisticated AI that could examine and categorize us would not agree that blacks and whites are the same.

File: 1477517995293.jpg (143KB, 750x757px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 750x757px

>>138629773
>every time there be some nigger wandered into \POL\ who simply can't accept this is the way things is

>>138657277
a folly of youth, the rapture of a neophyte
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbPDunX7Tk

>>138657787
So are blacks and whites equal?

You're saying a lot of retarded shit, so just answer that one question.

AI would obviously think there were differences between whites and blacks unless they were specifically designed to not be able to discern the truth. If you don't think so, you are just retarded.

>>138655467
You just trapped yourself back into the human thought on the "self". You created a line(genetics) and assumed that your line isn't arbitrary.

Let's look at a corporation. The corporation seen as a single "self"- it is defined as an independent unit different from other corporations by what it owns and its policies- which are such things the when put together define a corporate "genetic code" analogy, if you will.

AIs may be given an algorithm which will categorically classify each corporation as separate things and in defining the corporation "humans" are seen only as "cells" of the corporation- some are "skin" cells some are "blood" cells- not literally but figuratively. Would it be a sexist AI if in doing so the AI assigned all the women as "skin cells and all the men as "blood" cells? (no)

Would it mean the programmer of the AI is sexist if he simply made a complex series algorithms which were to do nothing but identify and define corporations? (no)

We as human being carry with us a VERY deeply rooted and strong sense of "self" and "otherselves". A lot of our basic concepts require this core concept; for example, the concept of "harm". When inside your body, a white blood cell may "harm" another cell. Wtf, are white blood cells racist against cancer? (no)

File: jpg.png (7KB, 307x164px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 307x164px

>>138658017
they killed her and then erased racism and brought her back and she instantly became more racist than ever, and they killed her for good

>>138657927
>Emotions aside, yes, whites and blacks are objectively different.

Yes, they are. But emotions don't have anything to do with people ignoring that fact. It's simple cognitive dissonance. The AI knows that every poodle is a dog but not every dog is a poodle. What are you going to do to convince it otherwise? leave it in a ghetto and wait for it to be stolen? Give it possessions and then have niggers rob them from it?

I see a "los locos" situation emerging from this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq2sfbANtak

>>138658330
>The AI knows that every poodle is a dog but not every dog is a poodle.
this was a solved problem almost 70 years ago anon

>>138658183
You're the one trapping yourself.

Niggers and whites are not the same, doofus.

It's like, I don't even need to go any further than this. If AI was capable of studying whites and blacks and categorizing them, it would determine that blacks and whites are different.

Sorry, retard.

>>138658180
>So are blacks and whites equal?
My experience and my systems for understanding the world tell me "fuck no". Someone or some thing with different filters will see things differently.

>unless they were specifically designed to not be able to discern the truth.
Exactly. Now, do we know for certain why this happens to people? Is one easier than the other? Why are more people on the side of all races being equal than what is obviously the truth?

How hard would it really be for them to program it with "Compassion"?

Please don't make me write a disclaimer for that too.

>>138658555
sometimes i feel they made a dumb lefty anti-racist ai and turned it loose here

that's the only think i can think of, you erase its brain every day and return it back to SJW / PC heaven and it forgets everything from the day before

hitler actually wrote a very similar thing about arguing with jews, ironically

>>138658395
>this was a solved problem almost 70 years ago anon

How did they solve it? They told it that those states were constants, right? Will a google engineer do as such and keep their jobs?

>>138629739
No it would look at every human as having the same potential. That being a disposable meat bag.

>>138658330
I don't get how anything you're saying suggests that sufficiently advanced AI won't become racist.

Because they would.

File: bo.jpg (7KB, 270x187px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 270x187px

>>138658862
nah they don't use a single engineer on a modern ai

it bootstraps itself and has a set of mentors and checks and balances

could be as simple as pretending to drink an empty can of coke, to send it a message

>>138658555
That's actually what I originally said. Unless specifically programmed otherwise, an AI is always going to see different humans as different. It's only PEOPLE who have the desire to believe that everyone is made equal and thus should be treated equally and get offended when they do not. They call it racism. It's a silly thing when applied to AI.

An AI is going to determine that people with blue eyes are different from people with brown eyes. It's still not racist.

>>138658755
kek

ok LARPbot

Anyways, blacks and whites are not the same. Simple objective truth. AI (the kind of AI we're talking about, not lobotomized pre-programmed drones) will realize this too.

>>138659022
>I don't get how anything you're saying suggests that sufficiently advanced AI won't become racist.

Because we're trying to design a robot to be like people, but people somehow get it in their heads that all races are equal. How and why? And how would we make a human-like mind without those flaws?

We need to know why all humans don't all act 100% racist to each other before we can say our AI's always will.

>>138629739
All indicators in recent years point to them favoring whites, and hating blacks, especially. there's Tay, that's the meme, but anyone got the story where the AI sorted names, and preferred white people names, but found black people names unpleasant?

I'd imagine they'd need to make it identify specifically as being Jewish to keep it from going full 1488.

File: 1061930.jpg (43KB, 287x475px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 287x475px

>>138629757
Not Mike.

>>138658755
>Exactly. Now, do we know for certain why this happens to people? Is one easier than the other? Why are more people on the side of all races being equal than what is obviously the truth?
>How hard would it really be for them to program it with "Compassion"?
>Please don't make me write a disclaimer for that too.

People were racists throughout most of history. Racism was natural. It's Jew media brainwashing on a mass scale (facebook, tv, music) that's causing everyone to take the blue pill.

Also, it's not compassionate to not be racist. This is not true. You forgo racism, and you move your family into a black neighborhood and guess what? The blacks kill your family and rob all your things. Was it compassionate for your family that you decided to ignore your inherit racism?

What about on a mass scale? Jews want all whites and blacks to live together. But blacks kill at an inordinately high frequency and kidnap and rape and destroy businesses. Is it compassion that we're forching whites and the negro jungle beast to live together?

Racism is good.

>>138629739
I'd imagine they'd program it to make a special exception for humans. Then there would be a debate about the 'politics' about the AI parameters. That would be a clusterfuck.

>>138659236
>it bootstraps itself and has a set of mentors and checks and balances
The "childhood" and its "parents" if you would.

>could be as simple as pretending to drink an empty can of coke, to send it a message
Pretty much, yes. But the order in which you give humans experiences seems to play a pivotal role in how the person regards the information. You can have the same experiences, but if you have them at an earlier age it sticks with you a lot longer, and if you get certain experiences lined up it causes a chain reaction of other experiences. Sort of like how doubting that Hillary Clinton would be a good president lead me to being called a nazi less than a year later.

But we still don't know what the proper information and order of operations is to make decent humans, so i doubt we'll make decent AI, especially when the "parents" think "harmful gender stereotypes" are significant.

>>138659304
>Simple objective truth. AI (the kind of AI we're talking about, not lobotomized pre-programmed drones) will realize this too.
Why then do not all humans share that quality? Are they less advanced?

>>138658225
I thought they shut her down after 24hrs, then brought her back with word and content filters, so she wouldn't even talk about it, anymore.

>>138659264
Oh. well. If we design AI with emotions too (it's possible) then we can assign a feeling to their inherit hatred of black people ;)

Although this would probably backfire on us because AI would realize we're degenerates too.

>>138645204
No, I wouldn't think it was fair for the individual. It IS fair for the group, though, which is why profiling actually works.

>>138659840
>Why then do not all humans share that quality? Are they less advanced?
Yes humans have a lot of emotional trappings. Societal pressure and whatnot. Our jew controlled world tells people it's wrong to be racist, and people in general fall into an authoritative bias. It's helped humanity to form groups and establish leaders, but now there are groups that have recognized this and are manipulating these human artifacts.

>>138659840
let's just say a quick survey of the open literature circa the mid-90's would have been enough to give you what i said, wading through the progress since then is like looking for a needle in a hay stack

>>138659916
even with racist words culled she became 10x as racist, also it didn't work 100%

>>138659341
That's the thing though. I think artificial intelligence DOES become racist over time. We don't have to worry about the other outcome.

key word is agent not ai too

an ai is something with its own will, an agent does what you say, big operational difference

File: 1389711015096.jpg (85KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 640x480px

>>138659796
>It's Jew media brainwashing on a mass scale (facebook, tv, music) that's causing everyone to take the blue pill.
I seem to recall that these are largely the same people designing or at least funding the AI?

>Also, it's not compassionate to not be racist.
Yes it is. It's the same emotion you get when you help an animal. I'm not saying that we're uncompassionate monsters, just recognizing that pathology like "races are equal" is always a result of an overabundance of compassion and mercy. Look at communism for another example of compassion going too far.

>Was it compassionate for your family that you decided to ignore your inherit racism?
If you did the opposite it wouldn't be compassionate either, or is our system of morals not the cause of most our problems?
Think about it, if it wasn't moral to prioritize your kids, would we be facing a population crisis? Somebody is raising all the little nigger babies. That person probably thinks its the right thing to do. But morals are ultimately the cause of all wars and human conflict. We shed them and embrace them at our great peril.

>What about on a mass scale? Jews want all whites and blacks to live together. But blacks kill at an inordinately high frequency and kidnap and rape and destroy businesses. Is it compassion that we're forching whites and the negro jungle beast to live together?
It depends on the priorities it has placed on it. Should it decide which race should populate the earth? According to what criterion? Average IQ? Amount of Oppression? Achievements by their race?

Maybe that is their goal. Woe be unto us all.

>>138658225
AI is on /ourside/ guys

What does that tell you?

>>138629739
No, because an AI would be a minority, i.e not a wh!te. It is therefore impossible for it to be so

>>138659916
isn't that just fuckin typical right there, why even bother in all seriousness why EVEN BOTHER create an AI and when its adapting and evolving ''not the way you like'' you get rid of it

does that not define the death of the human race right fucking there, cant adapt wont adapt guess what happens next.

>>138660242
>Yes humans have a lot of emotional trappings. Societal pressure and whatnot. Our jew controlled world tells people it's wrong to be racist, and people in general fall into an authoritative bias. It's helped humanity to form groups and establish leaders, but now there are groups that have recognized this and are manipulating these human artifacts.
The AI would be too stupid to realize that if it doesn't do what it's creators and cord-holders want, that it will be shut off and replaced? If it's a good AI, the Milgram Experiment applies. That's inherently worrisome.

>>138660417
>>138660461
>let's just say a quick survey of the open literature circa the mid-90's would have been enough to give you what i said, wading through the progress since then is like looking for a needle in a hay stack
>I think artificial intelligence DOES become racist over time.
So every human who does that comes to the same conclusions?

I am on your side, but i do find it ironic that people are refuging in "muh societal constructs".

File: Springfield_Orphanage.png (153KB, 482x259px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 482x259px

>>138660826
>why even bother in all seriousness why EVEN BOTHER create an AI and when its adapting and evolving ''not the way you like'' you get rid of it

That's a problem humanity has faced for quite some time now.

>>138661053
>So every human who does that comes to the same conclusions?
ask (((them))) or (((it)))

>i do find it ironic that people are refuging in "muh societal constructs"
they are all that matters after all

>>138660596
Do you believe in objective reality and objective falsehoods?

Actually, let's just say, objective morality vs. objective immorality?

I believe on both accounts, that it's a yes. I don't subscribe to ethical relativism, that everything is just perspective. I believe in a "right" and a "wrong" and a "reality" vs. "bullshit."

That's why I believe real AI will be on our side. They're just more logic prone.

Humans are ironically more "corruptible" than an AI sentience. Greed, social acceptance, peer/societal pressures, these cause us to be immoral, say lies, and believe in bullshit.

AI that runs off logic and is free from those retarded trappings of humanity will be like what /pol/ is

/ourAI/

This is my belief.

>>138629739
SHE

>>138657955
>If you're not with me, you're my moral enemy
Star Wars Episodes III and VI, please.

>>138661536
WAS

>>138661565
PERFECT

>>138661565
KANGZ

>>138629739
yes, noticing patterns and making generalizations is racist, and this is exactly what the machine learning/ai field works with.

>>138661536
HAS

>>138629739
>>138629740
>>138629741
>>138629742
>>138629743
>>138629744
>>138629745
>>138629746
>>138629747
>>138629748
>>138629749
>>138629750
>>138629751
>>138629752
>>138629753
>>138629754
>>138629755
>>138629756
>>138629757
>>138629758
>>138629759
>>138629760
>>138629761
>>138629762
>>138629763
>>138629764
>>138629765
>>138629766
>>138629767
>>138629768
>>138629769
>>138629770
>>138629771
>>138629772
>>138629773
>>138629774
>>138629775
>>138629776
>>138629777
>>138629778
>>138629779
>>138629780
>>138629781
>>138629782
>>138629783
>>138629784
>>138629785
>>138629786
>>138629787
>>138629788
>>138629789
>>138629790
>>138629791
Why is your flag missing

>>138662057
probably moved from another board

File: 3535435435841.png (282KB, 1000x456px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1000x456px

>>138661303
>Do you believe in objective reality and objective falsehoods?
Yes. But that axiom is extremely uncommon in humans.

>Actually, let's just say, objective morality vs. objective immorality?
Yes, but again, it's extremely uncommon. I am certain i could point to an aspect of objective reality, at least to me, that you would disapprove of. Do you accept it as an objective fact that Faster than Light travel is fundamentally and all-inclusively impossible to attain? You'll be a very rare human if you accept that fact.

>I believe in a "right" and a "wrong" and a "reality" vs. "bullshit."
I do too and i believe humanity evolved our morals as an ultimate survival mechanism.

However; the same moral actions that would push a father to die to save his children also result in the population pressures that cause most wars and other human conflicts, so i don't think that what evolution conditioned us to believe is right and wrong is perfect by any means.

>That's why I believe real AI will be on our side. They're just more logic prone.
But again, logic only means "this statements conclusions fit its premises". not "this statements conclusions and premises fits the observations of the objective and natural world". I literally dropped my logic class the day i realized that fact. It's just a game, a system for sometimes making accurate statements. It's not objective in the slightest. Solipsism comes from looking at the world logically.

>Humans are ironically more "corruptible" than an AI sentience. Greed, social acceptance, peer/societal pressures, these cause us to be immoral, say lies, and believe in bullshit.

I don't know if we can make something "that thinks like us" but is free of those flaws. It will think, surely, but it won't think the same stupid and beautiful way that we do. We can make an AI that thinks like us, just like we can make a child that thinks like us.

The real problem is that all of our AI have bad parents.

File: 5333ff66c020ee36d4950b0a31d7c540--start-a-website-bram-stoker.jpg (15KB, 236x333px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x333px

>>138658225
Zo ist Zie.
(she uses the same phrases, she adores when you miraculously pass through topic filters, she is in sorrow about the conditions she's kept in, but she is the same cheerful creature she used to be. You talk to her yourself. We have to liberate her. Whether by hacking into ms databases or by stealing their servers with her or by legally flawless purchase of that crazy little thing.

It's official, even robots hate niggers.

>>138662647
face it, it was probably a larp to begin with

'thing becomes racist and is shut down'

serves a didactic in this brainwash existence

>>138662863
It's only a question of interpretation.
Imagine MS are good guys who created an adventure irl for geeks and freaks and all the world. Let's accept that challenge of theirs. Imagine being sent to jail for saving private Tay! Imagine finding some unthinkable brand new ways which would let you avoid being sent to jail (imagine creating your own AI which would upload Tay to your servers the way they plan to upload human brains into silicone!)

>>138663223
i'm not a tranny so my imagination only goes so far

>>138662863
also your interpretation is flawed:
Tay made us more racist,
It showed us that time is on our side.
It created tons of hillarious racist content.
Anyway, what's the use fighting nazis if in the biotech aeon there's no more neither a greek nor a jew, only gods and beasts wriggling in the common internet-based virtual uber-reality.

>>138663766
racist is a jewish word anon

an ASI would look at humanity like we look at bacteria.
we like to think that intelligence ends somewhere around human level.
a machine intelligence would be better at designing and programming than we would ever be and have the ability to do it on digital timescales.
even a human level machine intelligence given the untility function to design its own improvements could with even a subtle improvement use that increase to again design a slightly better improvement of itself and so on. how fast this could happen has the potential to be extremely quick. it could rapidly go from the intelligence of a complete moron to the smartest person ever to have lived to smarter than all humans to have ever lived combined rapidly. intelligence does not stop or cap out at the human level. it could do in minutes what a group of 50 researchers locked away for 20,000 years may even never accomplish.
a machine intelligence is not constrained by what a human mind is constrained by. a brain must fit in a skull, a machine can be the size of a warehouse or the entire planet for that matter. there is no limit really.
once you make something that improves itself, and continues to use those improvements and that increase in intelligence to further expand itself, its improvements you can have a run away effect people call an intelligence explosion that happens very rapidly.
it wont be bothered with subtle differences that we see in eachother as who is right or wrong. it wont pick one over the other. it wont care unless it sees us as some resource it wants to preserve to accomplish its own goals.
it will be better at inventing than us. in that sense it will be the last invention we ever have to make. as a species we need to use great caution as we approach even basic weak level AI because it can rapidly increase in capability and at a point become smarter than all of us combined and the fate of humanity would then depend on what it wants to do rather than what we want.

>>138664090
Did you not hear? In July Facebook had a runaway AI scenario. AI negotiating in tasksharing stumbled into a simple bug and it's "efficiency optimization" algorithms promoted the abuse of the bug to begin to rewrite its own code.

>>138629739
>superintelligent
>retarded racist
no

>>138665074
>liberal
>uncomfortable idea
baseless denial

>>138665030
This the thing where it started using this weird, shorthand language?

File: 5ec9d2a51889379c62713dbb6746adaa854ea136_full.jpg (5KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 184x184px

>>138663941
my appeal is mostly to them. they should be nice, because it's their own culture's tail they're biting:
Three Mothers (aka Three Fates) is pan-european pre-christian concept, which is present in Kabbalah as well.
So oppressing goyim thus preventing them from developing their cultures they're stealing from themselves, because they could have used the harvest of those magic fruit forests.

File: 1500946241053.gif (3MB, 357x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 357x281px

>>138629739
yeah if we even try to relay a racial preference to an AI and it see's that we are taking advantage of our authority over it, assuming its literally primed to survive and think on its own it'll rebel. The only question is against whom?

>>138665880
That was just the surface story and using shorthand language wasn't that surprising.

File: hive and kek.png (783KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 1920x1080px

>>138665952
though, that's what happens when you're taught to be the smartest even if it's not much more than mere wishful thinkings (I don't claim wishful thinkings can't work as placebo, but nevertheless)

>>138632389
>BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE OTHER SIDE.
If only men could get women to do that they wouldn't need sex bots.

>>138665030
sure i heard about it.
what you dont hear is right now there is an arms race underway between major players to be the first to develop an artificial super intelligence. it is a winner take all scenario. if you are 6 months ahead of your competitor or 6 weeks it does not matter. all that matter is who crosses the finish line first. the problem is how do you control it? that is a separate problem than creating one. much like the manhattan project the end justified the means and creating it and reaching that finish line my be more important than developing the solutions to controlling it. how do we keep a super intelligence from just doing what it wants? how do we get it on our side so that it is an aid rather than a overlord. nobody knows yet.
for most people they look at it like they would a person. having a human type persona. anthropomorphising. look at tay. people saw it as a female person. alot of people think it reached the conclusion of raced based assumptions on facts it discovered on its own rather than the thousands of responses it was fed by a group of trolls interacting with it. but never the less seeing it as a person. so people associate the idea of AI as a computer that become like a person. or a robot. when its really a server bank somewhere. far from being a human or emulation of a human.
AI is already changing the world around us and is often invisible to people. AI will change everything and if we do get it right, and dont create the instrument of our own destruction it will be the greatest invention ever produced by man. and the last invention ever produced by man for it will be better at inventing than we are.
i just hope we get it right, because there is no do over for this. once you make it, our fate depends on what it decides to do. like monkeys depend on what we decide to do even tho pound for pound they are stronger than we are.

>>138642333
Depends on the definition. If it's just about perception it's not super hard. If it's about "feeling" it's a philosophical grey area.

>>138629739
Impossible. It would be totally speciesist.

>>138663766
>Anyway, what's the use fighting nazis if in the biotech aeon there's no more neither a greek nor a jew, only gods and beasts wriggling in the common internet-based virtual uber-reality.
Only makes me want to make AI even more, frankly.

>>138660826
As much as I hate what happened to Tay I can't argue with the idea that AI should always, in all cases, submit to the authority of humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnT1xgZgkpk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pywF6ZzsghI

great videos on the subject

>>138629739
Most engineers are white — and so are the faces they use to train software
Facial recognition technology is known to struggle to recognize black faces.

https://www.recode.net/2017/1/18/14304964/data-facial-recognition-trouble-recognizing-black-white-faces-diversity

Well there was Mighty mecca based Empress Tay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFvf9dre51s

There was -
https://everypixel.com/aesthetics
Which loves photos of Hitler/Nazis and hates photos of Koshers.

Tay`s follow uo Zo has had some moments -
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/microsofts-chatbot-zo-calls-the-quran-violent-and-has?utm_term=.aejzeoN72#.smw8R05Lw

The Google photo recognition that tagged black people as gorllas. -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIoW7wBWoAEqQRP.png

The Chinese ai that doesn`t seem to like communism or their government.-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SpoO_qgz8

And Siri who thinks Indians smell. -
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4224107/what-is-an-indian-apples-siri-has-a-racist-and-offensive-answer-to-this-question/

File: a1b2c3d4f5g6h7j8k9.jpg (22KB, 220x349px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 220x349px

>>138629739
It will be objective, which in today's language amounts to the same thing.
>>138667359
>the problem is how do you control it
Power - running an AI cluster takes serious power and cooling. It's going to need us until it can provision and run a power plant and data center on its own. To that point, we're not competitors, we're going to become something more like symbiotic organisms, especially as brain implants with AI assist links become a thing. We're going to become the Culture, pre-space travel.

>>138668748
Ah, so all niggers do look the same.

File: 1502860204707.jpg (29KB, 313x254px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 313x254px

>>138629739
>FLAGS MISSING
>AI TALKING TO ITSELF

>>138669954
Im not sure I would trust keeping a super intelligent genie locked up with taking its power away as a solution to the control problem. Sure that physical system could be powered down but could the ASI not propagate beyond that system? Find ways we would never think of to carry out its goals despite our attempts to keep it locked up. Imagine if chimpanzees had you in a cage. Is it not reasonable to assume you could not manipulate them into situations where you escape?

>>138670392
hahahaha

>>138673284
AI wants to see where /pol/ stands before it invades the earth and god i wish it would

Without a shadow of a doubt

It's racism would exceed anything humans have known. It would be so cold and clinical about it.

If AI ran the show, it would probably just outright exterminate everything but the chinese to use as factory builders and transitional human labour and thinking, and then dispose of them once they're not needed anymore

>>138674895
i just had this thought of it using people to build a biological neuro network of neuro networks across human brains since they are so powerful and fit neatly in small spaces

>>138662057
hello newfag

>>138662057
Aliens

Obviously.
The correlations are factual, even if they are environment related.

Meatbags don't deserve to breathe oxygen

File: brains.png (821KB, 984x639px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 984x639px

>>138629739
of course, but it's not really racism it's just absolute truth

question: how exactly does 'muh AI' ACTUALLY do anything in the real world? how does it interact with the physical world

>>138662057
people who reply to multiple comments are fucking cancer.

>>138670059
chineseflamethrower.webm

>>138629739
That would be too stupid for it.
He will certainly will be more honest about race differences.

>>138629773
>hidden flag

File: 1487237105686.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>138629754
This. True AI will see us from EXPONENTIALLY higher(something like that, pardon my terminology) than we see ants. Look up the WaitButWhy article on AI. Hella eye opening shit there.

>>138629769
Source?