Are you afraid of the Technological Singularity? Do you believe

>>7671651
>I for one will not bow to our robot overlords
Unless they march us into ovens, they can't be much worse than the current status quo.

>>7671665
>march us into ovens
Why do that when they could just release a virus to kill us all? Why kill us at all when they could just retreat into a simulated utopia maintained by just a few sentries.

There is no reason to think our robot overlords will behave like humans.

>>7671680
This. The danger comes precisely from the ASI's goals differing in the slightest from those of mankind.

>Are you afraid of the Technological Singularity?
I'm not afraid of rebel death robots, but it does seem likely that truly intelligent tools will render modern social relations impracticable in various ways.

>Do you believe it will happen, why or why not?
I think it will happen because large piles of cash desperately want it.

>>7671651
Free choice is an illusion. you decision are already determined by thing outside your cousciousness: Freudian unsosciuous, Ideology (Colective unsconsciousness).

We can't even begin to grasp what drives us really. That is free choice. It is not knowing why you do things.

Technological singularity is nothing different from what we experience now. I may grant us with more information. nothing more.

>>7671651
>Are you afraid of the Technological Singularity? Do you believe it will happen, why or why not?

Not afraid. Hope it happens in my life time but it probably won't. Machine labor is the salvation of humanity.

>>7671693
what are the goals of mankind?

File: singularity.png (13KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1000x1500px

>>7671651
>Technological Singularity

>>>/x/ is that way

>>7671676
...what? what would an AI utopia look like? they have no bodies, and no emotions, and probably no internally generated will.

>>7671716
you should not be on this board if you think we are 1/100th of the way to a "limit of what's physically possible"

>>7671714
>goals of mankind
What's important is what they are not. For example, every action taken by humans is not taken for the sole purpose of eliminating email spam. An artificial superintelligence tasked with eliminating spam will attempt to do so in the most efficient and effective way possible. This draws it into direct conflict with human actions.

>>7671716
Please explain why exponential growth of machine learning capabilities is wrong.

>>7671717
>internally generated will
They do have a will, it is merely the purpose for which they were created. Try not to anthropomorphize programs; they can be harmful without any ill intent.

File: timecube-kun 1.png (154KB, 500x493px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 500x493px

>>7671716
this desu mi familia.
furreal.

>>7671717
That is unless bodies and emotions turn out to be an efficient means to an end that they are given.

File: superbug.jpg (25KB, 360x250px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 360x250px

>>7671676
>a virus to kill us all
nevermind a virus, The Rise of the Bacteria has already begun:
>Bacteria have been discovered in China that have developed resistance
>to all known antibiotic medicines. The mechanism of resistance (the mcr-1 gene)
>heralds the breach of the last group of effective antibiotics,
>and has begun to spread to other bacteria.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(15)00424-7/abstract

>>7671725
We dont know what human goals are, or arent. To stay alive? But some death cult could take over and convince everyone to drink koolaid. How can we possibly design a machine perfectly in line with our "intentions" when we have none, or at least no idea what they are. And if you make a machine that cant interfere with anybody's intentions at any time, then its basically useless

>>7671725
>internally generated
as far as we know, there is no other intelligence putting intent into our brain. Our intent is related to survival and reproduction. An AI, having no "continuing to exist" imperative, wouldnt have any intent it's not given.

>>7671720
>no scale on time
>no scale on limit

>herp derp we're not there yet

>>7671725
>exponential growth of machine learning

Do you even know anything about machine learning? Go read a book on AI/ML before commenting

>>7671741
>An AI, having no "continuing to exist" imperative, wouldnt have any intent it's not given.
We have to figure out how to emulate emotional needs if we want "AI", and that's counter-productive. No one has any use whatsoever for an unpredictable, emotional robot.

>>7671753
The singularity, as it's popularly imagined and being discussed in this thread, will happen long before a physical limit

>>7671761
exactly. are you even reading my posts?

>>7671765
Sorry, I was agreeing with you.
And I forgot this board doesn't have IDs, not the same person.

File: cJwRVmJ.gif (2MB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x282px

>>7671708
>you decision are already determined by thing outside your cousciousness:
If your mysterious "force" is driving my decisions, it's a part of me, even if it's physically separate from my material body.
QED: you are the gays.

>>7671720
>you should not be on this board if you think we are 1/100th of the way to a "limit of what's physically possible"
We may not be as far from the "end of the book" as you think.
Our foundation of physics hasn't fundamentally changed in nearly a century, despite our rapidly-increasing ability to test and challenge that knowledge.
Instead, we're refining the details.

>>7671755
Please refute what I said.

>>7671775
>Byron detected

>>7671651
me too. AI are the only ones that can save us from our self destruction

>>7671733
Good. let's hope it kills of 2/3 of human population till we find a solution. i might die in the process as well but i dont mind. My 3rd world country is already done for