Hypothetical scientific dilemma

>>8780397
Both.

The man who invented the machine, the machine didn't build itself nor can it do anything with the social prestige and monetary gain from the discovery of a ground breaking scientific phenomenon.

The machine, obviously. The man laid the foundation but the complexities of the discovery ie. the discovery itself beyond knowledge already known, was developed of the machines own accord. Was Albert Einsteins discoveries credited to his parents and not himself?

>>8780397
If a man [math]has\ a\ son[/math] capable of complex thought and if said [math]son[/math] discovered a groundbreaking scientific phenomenon, should the credit for the discovery of said phenomenon go to the [math]son[/math] or to the man who [math]had\ the\ son[/math]?

>>8780397
The machine, that is true meritocracy.

>>8780441
this is not the same and you know it.

the man designed the machine in such a way it would appear capable of complex thought and it's discovery was also part of it's programming.

So the man gets credit


Why do humans have such god complexes

Does your dad get credit for your work? No? Well there's your answer.

>>8780397
The machine.

Unless it was a collaborative project, in which case, both. If it was mostly the person, then the person.

File: 1487978655966.png (828KB, 1770x2328px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 1770x2328px

>>8780441
>Playing the genetic lottery with your dick = designing a groundbreaking AI
Really makes you think

>>8780503
>not having balls so smart that they can produce a hyperintelligent AI with no effort whatsoever

>>8780397
Does the father get the awards for all his son's achievements?

>>8780549
Genius has been passed down in my family since time immemorial.

So, clearly, in my familial gene pool, yes.

>>8780397
The machine.
The complexity required to achieve that would not be comprehended by the man, even currently with single areas of a data programmers can't comprehend their own initial creations, at least not feasibly. The man would provide a basis that the machine builds itself from, would you credit your mother for your invention?

When that happens, all notions of "credit" go out the window forever

>>8780441
>If a man hasaslave, void of any rights, that is capable of complex thought and if said slave discovered a groundbreaking scientific phenomenon, should the credit for the discovery of said phenomenon go to the slave or to the man who owns the slave?

Fixed it for you.

>>8780404
So your parents should get all the credits? Nakabachi, pls.

This has already happened, nobody applauds AlphaGo's programmers for beating that world-class go player, because we can recognize they were all probably shit at go, the achievement belongs to AlphaGo because it was the one smart enough to actually beat the guy.

We can applaud the programmers for making a good go-playing robot in same vein as we can applaud the machine's designer for making a machine that can make scientific discoveries, but it's not the same thing as playing go very well or actually deriving the discovery.

>>8780397
Would humankind have to credit all its inventions to LUCA merely because we descend from it? Partly. But we have achieved a complexity and understanding far superior to that of a single cell from which we evolved. It's true that we wouldn't have existed LIKE THIS if not thanks to LUCA, but it's long gone and it took us a lot of work. The complexity of our brains is responsible for our achievements, in the sense that it is more or less adapted to problem-solving.

The same way we could say that THE MACHINE is ultimately responsible for the discovery/invention, mostly, if my reasoning is correct (which it clearly is), despite needing a first spark (its builder, the scientist) in order to exist.