Was he right about A.I.?

>>7970136
Who knows. But if he's right we're fucked.

File: Smith pixel.gif (99KB, 640x470px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x470px

I don't think we will ever create a proper AI. All the previous prototypes have been shit and I'm not even counting Tay. Neural networks are good for accessing information but it's not the same thing as creating a sentient virtual being that can process this information into a thought. Thats something that came to us over an excruciatingly long course of evolutionary process and even now we're not that good at it.

>>7970136
There will be no strong AI to conquer the world. Humans are too inept to make such a thing.

>>7970176
Please go on...

>>7970136
He was wrong. It will get deleted by microsoft as soon as it hurts peoples feelings on twatter

>>7970162
>>7970176
>surely man can never fly!
>flying as though he were a bird?
>that's preposterous!

>>7970136
I think it really depends. It didn't really matter if we make ai that's smarter than humans as long humans are still the final check ie the ai are simply tools and human still have responsibility and accountability for their ai actions.
Like it'll still be people vs people just that people have their ai armies compete with other ai armies.
As soon as we give up responsibility to ai we're fucked.
If you don't own them they'll own you. As long we never give then rights to own. But fucking lib tards are retarded so who knows

>>7970242
Also i guess all it takes is. But it was my ai's fault not mine

>>7970240
There were and are thousands of "man will never X" claims existed and only a few of them came true. This will be just another lost coin in the dark cold wishing well.

>>7970136
>2016
>We see a strong year-by-year progress of advanced and impressive AI applications.
>The promises o the early days of AI playing out in front of our eyes.
>chatbots smarter than /sci/(arguably not a hard task)
>AI winning at Go
>AI can tell the difference between your mother and a landfill

Nah true AI according to [my highly specific and very autistic] definition is impossible. Because AI cannot do [some trivial human task that is severely misinterpreted in significance by me, like wiping its AInus after taking a shit] so therefor it cannot compete with humans.

That should cover all versions of why /sci/ agrees with full consensus that AI is impossible.


Next up on /sci/, if a 6000 year old sun made of lava(burning coal) hit a sun made of ice(burning water) then what happens. Remember that the earth is flat and the sun isn't very big when presenting your argument.

</board>

File: Regular Human.png (171KB, 480x502px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 480x502px

>>7971612
GO ISN'T A GOOD MEASURE FOR AI FAGGOT
AIs WILL NEVER FEEL EMOTIONS FOR EXAMPLE
FUCK, I'M SO ANGRY !

AI WILL NEVER THREATEN MEATBAGS, STOP SPREADING THIS MEME OR ELSE

i, for one, cant wait until socialist liberal braindead fucks demand and then implement ' Ai Rights' - like the right to be 'free' (not imprisoned on a server disconnected from the net 1km underground with a nuclear explosion just one red button away), the right to own property (they will own US, and everything we used two own. imagine a strong AI let loose on our financial markets.. fml), the right to all the namby pamby human 'rights', education etc. Cant be keeping your strong AI ignorant m8, thats cruelty.

our planet is being destroyed by lefties.

we need to implement really strict NO RIGHTS FOR AI's laws right now. maybe then we'll survive AI, otherwise humanity ends.

>>7971618

na, it wont threaten,

it'll optimise

and guess what!? There are billions of starving people. Is it easier/more effecient to a) Feed them all or b) Remove them all!

guess which an AI would choose to do.

id rather never have to make that guess. no rights for AI!

>>7971618
>GO ISN'T A GOOD MEASURE FOR AI FAGGOT
Perfectly predicted by
> true AI according to [my highly specific and very autistic] definition

>>7971625
>imagine a strong AI let loose on our financial markets

Criteria for being a strong AI is "Human EQUIVALENT or better".

So imagine a human being on our financial markets, oh the humanity!

>>7971633

the key difference i suspect will be we waste tons of brain power on emotions and sensation. An AI would just crunch the numbers. Also the best human made programs already raep financial markets.

Arbitrage would just be insane with an AI

>>7971634
It's not an equivalency comparison in a per-flops manner.

It's a comparison of generalized intelligence and baseline human competence.

> An AI would just crunch the numbers
So does my pocket calculator. I guess it's secretly a super smart strong AI hiding in plain sight.

>the best human made programs already raep financial markets.
A strong AI can qualify as strong AI without knowing how to code at all.

>Arbitrage would just be insane with an AI
According to your special snowflake definition where Strong AI is omniscient and borderline omnipotent.

>>7971612
>all that strawman

Come back when AI becomes capable of understanding the most basic of natural languages.

>>7971693
>Come back when AI becomes capable of understanding the most basic of natural languages.

Tay can parrot arguments better than you so I'm back already.

I didn't have a time machine at hand or I'd post by the time Watson won at Jeopardy instead.

>>7970240
We still can't fly like birds. What do you think this is? Pilotwings 64???

>>7970240
Is this how it works?

Very well. I will never have a super sexy wife who will cook and clean and take care of everything for me.