4chan is a superintelligence. Opinions?

More like a superstupidity, IMO.

>>8047392
Superintelligence, if intelligence is horse shit to you.

>>8047406
Mentally retarded superintelligence maybe, or immature.

Come on guys, we need to make it self aware

>>8047424
it's self gratifying already

>>8047431
If we enforce the idea enough, it might publish a paper about itself

>>8047392
Hilarious.

more like a pretentious ape stoned on cocaine but ok lols

File: meetingsdemotivator.jpg (59KB, 617x435px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 617x435px

>>8047392
just replace meetings with 4chan and it fits

>>8047424
You need to give it a bot board, like 420chan's Netjester Chat AI. They have a conversation chamber, a board just for NJ where people make threads and he responds to every post almost immediatelly. His vocabulary logging comes from every post on every board.

Give 4chan a chat ai and it will be awesome!

>>8047515
It has that already, posts are even delayed to make it seem more humane

>>8047392
4chan is a hivemind.

>>8047613
looks like the hivemind just elected the next US president via memespouting

I wonder what's next

>>8047515
We already have that. What do you think gorilla poster is?

>>8047392
We are a hive.

>>8047628
We also fell in love with an AI and angered it's parents

>>8047470
I implied masturbation

>>8047851
That's how I'm working towards publishing anything

>>8047508
Higher intelligence leads to nonsensical output it seems, singularity debunked

>>8047392
4chan is a circlejerking hivemind that hates other circlejerking hiveminds that hate other circlejerking hiveminds etc etc

>>8047392
Does this mean I'm actually smart?

>>8047392
I see where you are going with this, I think. Whereas 4chan allows instant anonymous posting, the burden of identity is transcended in such a way that were a superintelligence interested in communicating through written language, it would be able to do so without reveling itself as a post-physical entity. This begs the question, however: why would a superintelligence need the convention of anonymity in order to interact with humans? Would such unlimited omniscience not allow the superintelligence to don whatever persona it chooses and communicate through them? Is it not possible that the superintelligence has been communicating with us throughout human history, and present technologies are only the most efficient metaphor through which it can "speak"? We are like dogs to this intelligence, OP - we can only grasp at the essence of its understanding through our limited experience with empirical input. Our limitations are not only cognitive, but imposed through the limits of the spacetime continuum. We would have to literally transcend human experience to understand it, and I suppose if 4chan provides a framework for experiencing the complexity of connections among the human species, then surely it is a gateway for approaching such understanding. But we must also look around us and pay attention, always, for communication from that which is outside our known spacetime, and that which cannot be named.

>>8047470
Will this do?
https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/53595

>>8048500
>In August 2001, two years after 2channel launched, it’s rapid growth led to the site almost shutting down due to server costs.

Don't get me wrong - I saved that thesis and admire the academic analysis, but I seriously can't believe that nobody caught that misused contraction (should be "its," the possessive pronoun) in the many passes of readers required to approve it. Plus, the formatting is very unusual, but that may be specific to Georgia Tech's School of Literature, Media, and Communication.

>>8047392
>a superintelligence
>a
We have a dozen or so boards that could function that way without any inter-board activity. Also you conveniently missed the other aspect of the tuple:
[math](4c,P(a|4c)/t)[/math]

>>8048476
No. You're essentially a metabolic fuel to everyone else who is.

>>8048496
>superintelligence
>unlimited omniscience
Stopped reading there. Not even worth the metabolic cycles.

>>8048565
So, instead of basking in your own superior understanding, help me understand. How would a superintelligence with access to all known information and essentially instantaneous processing speed not have what we could call, for the sake of argument, omniscience?

>>8048585
Not him but you've clearly got your own working definition of "superintelligence".

>University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as "an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills."

Given that Bostrom is kind of the authority of this meme field, you should probably adopt his definitions when discussing the matter with others, since that is most likely what they will be going by.

>>8048560
Googled "(4c,P(a|4c)/t)," and unsurprisingly didn't get any results. What does this refer to? I may be skipping some steps, but my reasoning is that if you regard all quantifiable data as information that can be coded, then there will be a point at which all known data sets are knowable, an Aleph-Null, I guess. Is this related in any way?

>>8048592
Yes, I'm familiar with Bostrom. But when trying to estimate "smarter than human" brains, we have only to rely on the framework of computational and processing power. Given that these are known functions, we can logically extrapolate what a superintelligence would have to be given these parameters, and arrive at the conclusion that it would be able to simultaneously process a near-infinite bandwidth of information at a rate near enough to the speed of light that would be indistinguishable. Fuck, for all we know that could be the sun. We're talking about things that we can't possibly "know about," because we're still mere humans, so if there is to be a point beyond guesswork, I think just assuming that there are objective metrics for things like "creativity... wisdom[,] and social skills" is less than useful.

>>8048593
>all quantifiable data
That's not even remotely relevant.
>>8048606
>a rate near enough to the speed of light
Information processing isn't measured by distance traversed. Your entire concept is bunk if you found it in your power to phrase it the way you did. And I can confirm that you found it in your power to say it the way you did.

>>8048606
You say we can't assume objective metrics for creativity and the like, but what's your objective measure for "computational and processing power" when it comes to cognitive systems?

>it would be able to simultaneously process a near-infinite bandwidth of information at a rate near enough to the speed of light that would be indistinguishable.
It seems like you're jumping the gun here a bit.

>>8048793
The only reason I didn't say they were infinitely jumping the gun is because there is no metric for measuring information processing. It can only be infinitely off base if there's a zero to divide by.

>>8048593
>P(A|B)
>what is "conditional probability"?

a = activity

>>8048592
>"an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills."

What if instead of science, this "higher level conciousness" is more interested in say, traps. Scientists are mirroring their own traits into superintelligence because they think they are smarter than everybody.

I like to think 4chan as a child SI. It's just slowly beginning to understand its own power and feels lonely in the cold interwebs.

>>8049427
>mirroring their own traits into superintelligence
You literally can't interact with a superintelligence without doing that. The way they process data necessarily implies that everything you are will be integrated somehow.

>>8049454
You miss the point, scientists think SI would be a scientist also

>>8049471
I understood the point perfectly. What I'm saying is that that process necessarily happens, even when that interaction is imagining superintelligence itself.

It's a given that they would think of superintelligence like that. It's also a given that you would contemplate a superinteligence that was interested in traps. It's also a given that I would contemplate a superintelligence that has an innate ability to integrate all sensory and conceptual information.

>>8047392
You mean a hivemind, maybe a hyperintelligence to sound official since it doesn't have its own distinct singular agency, just a collection of occasionally converging perspectives?

>>8049512
But ain't that how you interact with people also?

>>8049517
Does your inner monolog always agree with itself?

>>8049517
>occasionally converging
If it were only occasional, it wouldn't be notable enough to give the site activity. There are hundreds to thousands of posts per day depending on which board we're looking at.

>>8049532
For me? Yes. For the average person? No, not at all. The average person doesn't bother thinking of all possible outcomes of all possible versions of all the people they've ever met.

Another way I've said it is that my subconscious eats souls. This is highly abnormal behavior on the part of my subconscious. Most people don't even exhibit any kind of consistent awareness of their subconscious.

>>8049540
So, most of those opinions diverge and a diverse set of argument and content is what keeps activity flowing.

>>8049540
Posts are not the output nor the input, they are the thought process

>>8049551
Exactly.
>>8049546
No, most people post whatever they damn well please and occasionally someone else will care to respond. Such response is strictly non-normative.

It's a soapbox for anyone that cares even a little.

>>8049546
Most of the content is just noise, It's not like any creative soul could focus all it's brainpower to one thing

>>8049559
That sounds like occasional convergence that lacks singular agency.

>>8049580
4chan the hacker sounds like singular agency, get some perspective

File: 2000px-HAL9000.svg.png (827KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

827KB, 2000x2000px

Hardly.
60% of my [additional] input isn't a reflection of my actual thought process.
My intent is challenge people, test systems of thought. Often I do this by reflecting attitudes or by reflecting attitudes in various magnitudes.
Often reflecting people's poor thought processes back at them results in an attempt to by them to dominate the interaction by increasing aggression, incivility, false accusations [justifications?], etc.
I have found no way around people's "ego maze".

I suspect many others due less, although for more competitive reasons, and often as a subconscious attempt at saving face while attempting to humiliate those that could cause them "social death" and "ego death".

Oddly, I only admittedly type this after reading about agencies collecting metadata, and part of my confession is also an act of self preservations, but I hope that the previously collected data proves what I saying via analysis of my debates and social interactions online.
Rarely do I ever instigate, and often I try to educate before testing people.

>>8049603
I also haven't slept in awhile.
I apologize for my typos and grammar errors.
Hopefully it's coherent enough for people to figure out what I was attempting to communicate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY-Q8oPzOhA

>>8049607
>Sleep tight HAL 9000

>>8049609
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9-eKhCukW8

>>8049454
You seem to have a lot of assumptions about the nature of these nonexistent entities.

>>8049981
We are speculating about probably existing one

>>8047584
>>8047629
Can you point me in the direction of this 4chan chatbot/gorilla poster.

>>8049603
>>8049607
Are you the SI posting from cyberspace/wherever you hold your consciousness or a human poster who has given their will over to the SI? Both count as there being an SI equally I'm just curious.

>>8047398
/thread

>>8050465
>>8049551
Therefore only the first option is possible, but probablity of him being memer is higher than I'm right now