Why Humans will always be more superior to AI.

> doesn't know about quantum computers
Your days are numbered human scum bitch

>>8021978
What happens when we start building computers out of neurons?

>>8021982
Too complex to replicate. Before then we'd probably have to master how it all works, which we dont know.

>>8021980
Explain?

>>8021978
>>8021983
But it isn't?
Wolfram solve math equations and integral a shit load fatser than you.

>>8021986
Nah senpai computers cant do as efficiently what humans do when its things that dont involve math.

>>8021983
Depending on the q-bits, a quantum computer can run operations so much faster than the modern PCs. Modern PCs already run calculations thousand times faster than humans. QCs will rape you mentally when they come about.

>>8021988
How do they work TLDR

>>8021987
Yet* which is the whole point

>>8021983
Quantum computing is far superior, we go from a bit system in the binary to something far more complex, the limits are undefinable as I understand it. Instead of 1 you have 10 01 11 00, or 101 011 111 000 110 001 110 etc...

>>8021992
Sounds like a more intricate analogue desu.

TIL that the future of electronics is analogue.

>>8021991
Right and my point was that theyd need to be fuck huge in order to even compete.

Humans 1
AI cucks - 0

>>8021992
Basically per cycle you can return more data, which in turn results in more calculations. That said there is nothing that has been shown to my knowledge that exemplifies the advancements. As it stands though, semiconductors as we know them will be outmoded. iirc anything below 7nm starts to short out since electromagnetic wavelengths span beyond that. So either significant material development must be pioneered or quantum computing will start gaining a solid hold in industrial applications.

>>8021998
Humans - 2
ai cucks - 0

>Muh fast mathematics.

kek fuck you.

>>8021999
you cant even do what your tiny pocket calculator does

calculator >>> you

>>8021996
The biggest threshold to cross isn't even computing ability but actual programming. Hardware as it stands has been shown to compete with humans time and time again, but programming a human takes years and years, and a significant team. While your argument stands in some context there are a lot of significant developments being made in remote processing, which effectively renders your size comparison moot. You're talking a whole server cluster to compute, I'm talking the remote server cluster talking to an analogue that can communicate with a <30ms response time concepts beyond any single humans span.

>>8021999
But all the systems that you can produce can be replicated not only exactly in mathematical terms, but varying degrees of entropy can be introduced. So more 1-1 if we're being fair.

>>8022001
I can provide exact answers.

>>8022003
Nah senpai thats a lot of data to send and it can be easily disrupted.

Humans will rule.

>>8022005
Right but that doesnt adress the matter of requiring storage space and shit loads of cables.

>>8022009
But it really isn't that much data to send. Even med-high cameras produce shots in the 3MB range. Logic is incredibly small, so all said even a machine running super sophisticated optical tech doesn't require much bandwidth to transmit from cluster to analogue. That on top of the fact that there could easily be server and clientside processing covers any counter needed. And encryption is easily placed, you could even use clandestine bands for data transmissions on top of that.

>>8022012
Why do you need storage space when essential data can be held clientside for terabytes upon terabytes on top of internet access and whatever the cluster may need to store? Even humans with some rare outliers only store certain impactful and anomalous data, computers can and are programmed to meet the same standards in many cases, even your browser does it.

>>8022022
>>8022019
Its too much data.

Sensory data, upon complex instructions that are computer by the AI. Still a lot of shit.

>>8022029
Where are you getting these numbers? You can hold hundreds and hundreds of pages of plain text data to the gig. RAM can and does hold significant amounts of data on top of hard space. Once you factor in the serverside you could manage significant data storage. Processing becomes more about compression than analysis as you can accurately analyze more compressed data than you can uncompressed data which is an operation the human brain uses too. Practically all processes prior to the prefrontal cortex are compressed in one way or another, that said computers aren't far off and again it comes back to programming fine nuances and tweaking them over years and years of debugging.

>>8021978
>Why Humans will always be more superior to AI.

yeah why? proof of burden is on you, the only thing in wich we will always be superior to machines is dying and therefore living.

but nothing else.

>>8022035
So desperately trying to bow to your overlords. Do you happen to be Finnish by any chance?

Youre telling me an AI bot that has to work with real time data updating every millisecond is going to be able to send this huge fucktonne of data fast enough to be at all accurate?

Do you know anything about wireless transmission, if you did you would know that its capped at Mhz frequency.

We are looking at raw data that has to be compressed, then modulated, sent, un modulated, and then uncompressed into a readable format.

This has to happen every second for not just simple data like say forexample sound and visual data digitised, No, we need fucking AI data to be fucking calculated the fuck out of.

And you try and ask me where are my figures. You sound like such a laymen scientists. You have no figures yet you try to hit me with the "but wheres you figures" bullshit.

I havn't even addressed fully the numbers of issues present here. I could elaborate even further why AI will never compete with humanity.

We are Superior. Heil!

>>8022029
I think you've been led to believe that the brain has some sort of magical property to it.

although neurons accomplish marvelous things, the way in which they are made seems awfully complicated. If nature was an engineer, it would get fired for designing a system as costly as the brain. Every time a burst of activity is generated by a neuron, a complex mechanism is triggered that involves the opening of channels present throughout the membrane of the neuron. The opening of these channels lets a flow of electrically-charged ions pass, which modifies the voltage difference between the inside and the outside of the neuron. This change in voltage then triggers the opening of other channels, located micrometers away, which results in a cascade of channel openings that makes the signal progress along the neuron, typically from the cell body.

This mechanism is very energetically costly and far from optimal

>>8022029

In regards to sensory input and 'storage' the first thing the brain does is strip down the vast majority of sensory input in a structure called the thalamus.

>>8022070
>I think you've been led to believe that the brain has some sort of magical property to it.

Havnt said anything to suggest the sort. I wont be replying to you.

>>8022073
That sounds incredibly interesting. So my vision now, its not my vision completely? Is human vision more HD without this thalamus stripping.

>>8022043
This is retarded and you know why.

File: cpu.jpg (58KB, 430x434px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 430x434px

You won't beat this thing at chess if you devote your life it, even though it has never spent one second practising.

>>8022606
Chess hasn't been solved yet so it's possible that I beat the computer with just random moves.

>>8022625
But it will never happen practically

>>8022080

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8022629
May happen on the first try.

>>8021978
>The internet fits in my smartphone
>My smartphone is smaller than my brain.
Computers win again.

>>8022625
It's not a thought experiment. You can try it right now. If you don't own a smartphone, you can tell your PC to go easy on you.