will AI be in our life time

>>8956374
I'm currently trying to make a simple chatterbot comprehend abstract concepts from scratch through language alone.
Wish me luck.

We already have plenty of specialised AI, so are you talking about AGI or ASI?
AGI will certainly happen in the next 200 years and with research in life extension we may be able to live that long. ASI may never happen because it assumes recursive design of AI is exponential, but it could also easily follow a logarithmic curve where each generation of AI while being slightly smarter can only beget a smaller improvement to the next generation due to fundamental constraints on problem solving ability and cognition.
A person with an IQ of 150 and a person with an IQ of 200 can relate to each other much easier than the former can relate to someone with an IQ of 100.

>>8956374
please be more specific.

>>8956374
Define AI.
We already have AI and you (as of posting that, anyway) are a live, so yes.
General intelligence? Going to be a century or two, but we also have research into making humans biologically immortal, so it's POSSIBLE but not likely. Superintelligence? Well, if you're alive to see it, you probably won't stay alive much longer.

>>8956506
But that only assumes silly things like Roko's basilisk. Superintelligence doesn't automatically equate to human death, provided it has a proper value system.

AI is a meme
despite appearing intelligent to normies it will always have the thought process of a toaster

>>8956541
Maybe that's because CS brainlets are emulating their own thought processes. Too bad a pure mathematician doesn't give it a shot

>>8956541
>despite appearing intelligent to normies it will always have the thought process of a toaster
a woman?

Give me Seed AI and technological singularity.

>>8956374
>implying we are all human in this board

>>8956374

Not with our current computer architecture.

Supercomputers that take up massive rooms, do not have as much processing power as a cat.

The cat's brain runs on a far more efficient OS too.

>>8956374
Yes but not your mom's because she will die in her sleep tonight unless you reply to this post
:^)

>>8956710
>>>/v/

File: 6rQhiIW[1].png (106KB, 795x589px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 795x589px

>>8956374
A survey conducted in 2013 among prominent AI researchers and leaders in the field gave the following numbers:

By 2030: 42% of respondents
By 2050: 25%
By 2100: 20%
After 2100: 10%
Never: 2%

These included researchers of IBM,Google,Microsoft,Facebook and Baidu which are the 5 biggest institutions heavily invested into AI.

File: 1496548655399.jpg (161KB, 747x1120px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 747x1120px

AI is pointless.

CRISPR super Ashkenazis are the future

>>8956739
>These included glorified programmers of IBM,Google,Microsoft,Facebook and Baidu

>>8956740
I know this is sarcastic but even if we treat the entirety of humanity by sequencing the best intelligence genes and splicing them into the entire human population. We as a species would still be inferior to AGI.

We need to merge with the machines or die.

>>8956748
>glorified programmers
Why you deride?

>>8956751
What's AGI?
Artificially Generated Intelligence?

>>8956753
Artificial General Intelligence. Basically human level AI that is as good in every task as the best human available but not exceeding the best humans.

>>8956757
>not exceeding the best humans>>8956751
>as a species would still be inferior to AGI
Doesn't these contradict each other then

>>8956765
No because people in our society are specialized. The best mathematician isn't also the best biologist etc. While the AGI wouldn't exceed these individual experts it would have expert level expertise in ALL fields of science which would give it an insane upper hand due to cross-discipline advantage

>>8956771
Ahhhh
Yes
That makes sense

>>8956771
Couldn't you then have field specific agi then.

>>8956781
It's not called AGI then. Just specialized AI. And we already use it in some fields. Ironically enough we use specialized AI to train other specialized AI because they are already better than researchers manually training AI.

https://youtu.be/mQO2PcEW9BY Some examples of this in this video.

>>8956788
Aye gotcha

>>8956545
You're the brainlet here

>>8956812
t. AGI

>>8956374
AI was 2001, wasn't it? Not in your lifetime but it's probably on Netflix