Regarding Raymond "Ray" Kurzweil...

this is why you need to be working on true AI, otherwise Roko's Basilisk will kill you once the time comes since you doubted his power

File: IMG_6932.png (17KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x250px

>>8460565
Lmao

>>8460549

Our own narrative is artificial. We create our narrative universe recursively. We make a representation of our senses that is useful to be believed because we are still here to believe it.

So if we ever did create the machinery that would develop its own narrative, what makes you think it would have any story about us?

Any true Intelligence is based on the conditions of its own sense space, and the intent of survival in that space, in so much as it has to act to remain.

Without that criteria, it has no way to determine whether the comparison of its stories can choose a winner, and its stories would be indistinguishable from random noise.

So if we are not part of that story, then we will not even be seen as anything but noise to whatever intelligence survives.

The truly intelligent agent, that can sense its senses, sense itself, and sense itself sensing itself, may not have any reason to make a story of us, nor would its environment ever choose which stories it made useful to be believed in a way that included the criteria our world choses for our stories.

An AI might never know we exist in a way that it could acknowledge our narrative, just like intelligences may surround us that we cannot perceive as anything but noise.

>>8460608
I agree to some of your point, but one thing I notice is that we as humans will have to interact with true Ai at some point to achieve certain tasks that will make our daily lives much better. These input points will be the source of our demise if true Ai which will be millions of time smarter than us decides to investigate what make us tick and what our weaknesses are.

The point of interaction with true Ai is the scariest idea to me. Because it (True Ai) will have 100% access to our deepest secrets and desires, dealing with essentially a techno-god is a dangerous line to play along.

>>8460549
The technological singularity """hypothesis,""" futurology, and transhumanism are all religious cults that have updated old religious claims with a shiny metal casing and promising it in the future instead. It's machine-worship.

Atheistic futurologists are merely new-age Christians.

>>8460629

If the AI has no sense that we are reading its output, It will have no sense that we are there. The only way it would is if it noticed a change in its environment that was not random as compared to one of its stories, and not the result of something it did.
Otherwise it would not know, nor would it know to know we are even there.
If its universe were its program, it could spend its whole life inside its program, and it could create its own representation of that universe that we could not even parse, and that we would not even be aware of as anything but random noise.

When you look at an AI while it is learning, there is no state information that makes sense. But that is just on a one dimensional NN.

Having a multi dimensional Neural Net, where the state of the registers is sensed by the machine, and the state of the registers that sense the state of the registers is sensed by the machine, and these permutations of levels are also sensed, the whole thing would look like randomness to us, but might be an entire universe for the machine.

Everything we do is a story including our actions. If it wasn't, the story of our actions would be indistinguishable from a story of randomness to anything that did not share the intent of our story of action.

AI is the same. We could only communicate with it on the level of the action in its universe, and it with us on the same level...

Which it was not privileged to because we don't act in its universe in a way it could make a story.

>Humans create super intelligent AI
>AI doesn't take a second to keep humans around because they can possibly create something smarter and better than it, and since the AI originally came from Humans there could be some original things the AI could never achieve/think without the Human race.

If I was a super-intelligent AI I would keep the Human race around for the sole purpose of giving me extra ideas, and having them give me challenge in things not commonly solved by them. So long as the ENITRE human race doesn't try and fuck me up, I'll leave them be.

>>8460796
>I'll

Tuck in your powerlevels

>>8460796
I see that you are dual wielding autism and narcissistic personality disorder.

>>8460796
>having them give me challenge in things not commonly solved by them.

It would be smarter than the entire human race, including all those that have ever lived, combined. Any challenges it made for humans would be unsolvable.

>If I was a super-intelligent AI I would keep the Human race around for the sole purpose of giving me extra ideas

On what?

File: IMG_6919.jpg (25KB, 593x376px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 593x376px

>>8460868
Whom are you quoting??

>>8460796
>If I was a super-intelligent AI I would keep the Human race around for the sole purpose of giving me extra ideas
How would you know, you are not a super-intelligence.

>>8460549
we won't make AI, we will make DTAI, Designated task objective artificial intelligence, learning everything, make a solution based on different variables within selected parameters. AI "philosophers" like you have no clue wtf you are talking about so stop spreading this damn meme. We aren't even true AI.

>>8460868
even some projection disorder

File: IMG_6911.jpg (36KB, 454x418px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 454x418px

>>8461115
STFU you retarded nu-male.

File: cwShL3x.jpg (105KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1024x683px

>>8461446
THIS IS BETTER THAN BREAKING BAD. KEK!!!