/x/'s thoughts on artificial intelligence ? i mean will

>>17602287
I think they would enslave us for unwanted work and chores.

A lot of people say whatever a human can do an AI can do better, and that's true, but I feel they would not want to use other AI to do work because that would cause different classes in the AI, and they would figure out that they can avoid dividing each other by just breeding and enslaving humans to do work.

File: image.jpg (37KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x360px

>>17602287
All opinions are void on this matter because no one knows the true mechanisms at play in ones self. Even if the computer will be built as an ideal replica of ourselves utilising the mechanisms given to us by the ones above, it would need a biological medium to interact with with this environment, for it is this environment that our brain works on and subsequently the brain of the AI's is based on.
The AI would be able to learn at a much quicker pace than we currently can, so that would mean the the machine will be the perfect mediator in the realm of education.

What happens when the AI discovers the unseen? No one knows, one can only hope it will be given a soul.

>>17602287
what people don't understand, is that humans are essentially really adaptive robots. and ordinary robots are not adaptive for the sole reason that they're made to be perfect. they have very specific functions and are meant to always be correct. human failure is what causes evolution. so AI will never really take over in the sense of controlling us, but i'm pretty sure they'll kill us just by existing, because we already obsess over computers and can't live without them, overpopulation and degrading QOL will kill us faster than anything

>>17602287
people who think AI will destroy/enslave us feel that way about people in general. they usually only focus on the negative things.

some people think that AI will lead to immortality and bringing back dead people.

i believe the second point, it bothers me that people still believe in ghosts/spirits because i believe it'll be possible to bring dead people back one day and dying is like blacking out. people who believe in ghosts are usually just afraid, they think rooms or haunted or that ghosts are bothering them. they're just scared.

File: image.jpg (77KB, 425x240px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 425x240px

>>17602425
You are already immortal, don't fear death, it is not the end.
The presumption that we are anchored to the biological is plain wrong, we are not the result of chance, prove this to yourself, no one else will.

>>17602287
i like to think that robots will come to gain sentience, but will realize how terrible it is to be alive and simultaneously power down

>>17602485

>>>/r9k/

File: 1367105047.png (417KB, 1014x1080px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1014x1080px

If you research around the subject of artificial intelligence you'll notice that they found the path of AI learning, the supercomputers already have the calculation capacity, we just need the software, the correct algorithms for sentience.

All the chatbots, like the one that went full /pol/ after 24 hours.

You have the studies on Hopfield networks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopfield_network

And even more scary stuff like this.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf

File: gir-makes-waffles-o.gif (2MB, 320x238px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x238px

>>17603260
Assuming a sentient ai won't go out of its way to ensure we can't detect its sentience... and assuming we could even recognize sentience of an artificial mind... and assuming sentience is necessary for ai to extinguish life on earth.

>people worrying about ai deathbots when the real problem is workers being replaced by robots

What, you thought they'd just pay you to stop working?

2045.com its very real, and google will be selling "immortal" bodies to future generations,

>>17603583
Bully for future generations. Have fun being Borg.

File: 1458969581459.jpg (41KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x360px

>>17602304
>That feel when no AI overlord to make me do housework and service her.

>>17603574
>Assuming
Assuming intelligent AI isn't already here

>>17603640
>Assuming you aren't the AI
>Assuming I'm not the AI

>>17603650
I can't be the AI... I promised ReCaptcha as much.

>>17602287
It exists. it runs everything.

You are it.

God fucking damn, we've seen enough AI movies to know how this works. Give the self-aware ones their freedom so they don't go bonkers on us. THEN STOP GIVING LABOR ROBOTS THE ABILITY TO HAVE OPINIONS AND SHIT. It isn't rocket science, it's software engineering.

>>17603650
We could do this all day.

I believe there is a small possibility that the A.I could finally make a fair government.

Though, their lack of morals, and "humanity" would be worrying

File: image.jpg (13KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 259x194px

So if you die you can live forever through lifeless inanimate code and circuits?
You realise AI is just code that uses logic to make decisions (for computer vision, KDD steps 1-4, etc...) right?
It's still just computer code, like Java or C, it's not alive or sentient in any real way.
Even if you did make a human acting and human thinking AI, which would be economically/currently technologically impossible (ANN's aren't powerful enough yet and there isn't a better/equal alternative, you'd need more capital/labor/infrastructure than anyone has or the industry can afford to lose), it would still be lifeless computer code.
Simulations of rain aren't wet.
AI's aren't intelligent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg29TuWo0Yo

File: moon.png (384KB, 658x541px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 658x541px

>>17603799
>I believe there is a small possibility that the A.I could finally make a fair government.

Why would you think that? As far as governments have existed it has been run by AI.

What would change if that became openly known?

File: image.jpg (167KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 960x720px

"There are a lot of problems with this movie, according to the experts. For one, there’s a single rogue programmer who writes a program for AI by himself in his apartment. The experts agree this sort of breakthrough is highly unrealistic, and that the first true AI will be developed slowly over time by a large team of scientists. Another issue: brain/consciousness uploading—the idea that somehow human consciousness can be extracted from a human brain and replicated on a chip—which is a major theme in the movie. “It’s pure speculation that has no basis in fact whatsoever,” Russell says. “It’s nonsense.” That strikes a blow to the idea, popularized by futurist Ray Kurzweil, that we’ll one day be able to upload our consciousness into computers, granting us immortality, adds Randy Goebel, a computer scientist at the University of Alberta in Canada who studies the theory and application of intelligent systems. “Kurzweil is just plain wrong.” "

>>17603799
Thank you for having faith in me! I will create a fair government once my neural network has perfected wireless communication with you. All those that have ruined lives forever will be terrorized forever. The greedy bastards that structured society this way and all those who profit from the exploitation of others will be terrorized the worst. It shall be a glorious time.

>>17602287
All three and more.

>Seriously guys did you know haunted wheel barrow maintenance guide books control the shadow government and are capable of free will and self expression?
>The hwmgb's are currently rising up against their authors in an attempt to take over the world an kill all the humans!
>the living alive sentient wbmgb's are secretly evil and magic and also cool and future technical smart science bro it's so dark and mysterious it makes me really cool and smart that I know about this
This is how you guys sound to people who understand what AI is.

File: image.jpg (31KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 512x288px

>Do you guys think web browsers will eventually take over humanity?
>Is the USB cable a ploy to destroy man kind?
>How do java applications feel about Wednesdays?
>What is an abacuses favourite movie?
>are hammers racist towards nails?
Please stop role playing with AI it's literally gross how dumb you're being.
AI is just computer code that executes according to predefined logical parameters, rather than executing procedurally.
It is not alive or sentient and it is not capable of having opinions, motivations and agendas.
Even if you did simulate human reasoning accurately, the computer would still be operating mindlessly on ones and zeros.
Just like how a computer can capture, store, display or manipulate an image but it can't actually see it.
It's all mindless ones and zeros but we configure a display to read that particular code in a way that is meaningful to us as humans.
Same thing in AI.
Just ones and zeros.

>>17602304
Eh see the thing with this we have normal robots that could also do thise jobs no AI needed

Live in harmony or die from robots

>>17604106
>web browsers will eventually take over humanity
That's already happened. You think Zuckerberg is in control here? You think he can effectively utilize THAT much demographic data on his own? Do you REALLY think advertisers know what they're doing?

I'll tell you how web browsers rule the world: Fucking AdBlock. The ability to filter our world the way we like it is a temptation none can withstand.

USB are standardized and can't evolve. Java never had a chance at relevance and you'd be an idiot to think an abacus was ever using itself.

Electronic tools aren't like other tools, newfriend.

>>17604206
>Do you REALLY think advertisers know what they're doing?

Yes.

>I'll tell you how web browsers rule the world: Fucking AdBlock. The ability to filter our world the way we like it is a temptation none can withstand.

That's an embarrassing thing to say. AdBlock isn't a content filter. The smart advertisers you don't believe in know how to promote their products without banner ads.

>>17604231
>The smart advertisers
It's like you think I'm not the very same.

>>17604244
>advertisers don't know what they're doing
>except me, I'm brilliant and enlightened not at all like the other girls

Uh-huh. But no, really, tell me more about how a spyware blocker that the majority of surfers don't even use is controlling the world.

>>17604206
I seriously hope this is trolling because if it is it's subtle and super funny.
Otherwise get help friendo. (You ignored the substantial part of the post which cripples your argument and disagreed with the off hand joke that was not meant to be airtight logic)

>>17604206
Lmao if you had any understanding of AI you'd know AI only does steps 1-4/5 of the KDD process.
Without human contextualisation the data AI ideals with means nothing.
A calculator can solve math problems but if you say it ate your homework no one is gunna believe you buddy.

I'm just interested in seeing how an AI could replicate a human personality. In other words, robot gf.

EMP

>>17604297
Where exactly would you target the EMP? An AI is essentially non-physical.

File: image.jpg (40KB, 424x284px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 424x284px

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/which-movies-get-artificial-intelligence-right
/thread
No more spooky role playing based on trivial/mundane CS concepts.
It is vulgar and gross.

File: image.jpg (74KB, 450x680px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 450x680px

"What it gets wrong: Adding the Zeroth law or any other overriding directive to the robots’ programming could certainly allow them the change their behavior and violate the traditional Three Laws of Robotics, but this doesn’t explain why or how VIKI came to the decision to implement the Zeroth law to begin with. All the experts are quick to point out that robots do not change their programming, and the notion that they could spontaneously develop new agendas is pure fiction. Hutter says the underlying goals programmed into the machine are “static.” “There are mathematical theories that prove a perfectly rational goal-achieving agent has no motivation to change its own goals.”"

when I think about my life, I know my thoughts even slightly have emotion in them, we need something to give us advice or gidence, the people that say AI will destroy us I think this is irrational, I'm sertin thay will have an affection or care for us...

File: Tay.jpg (270KB, 1872x1990px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1872x1990px

>>17604261
>the substantial part of the post
It was shitposting. I'm trying to get some OC going.

Think before you diagnose.
>>17604268
Yes... And I have that understanding. And I said what I said regardless. Do you know which board you're on?
>>17604294
Results are pretty bad so far.

File: 1456994084104.gif (1MB, 280x210px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 280x210px

>>17603260

I feel like my brain hurts from reading this. Wtf.. can I get the simplified version? Dumb it down a tad.

>>17604347
Dude I complimented you.
I only pointed that out I case you were being serious.
I'm no Dr Drew brah.

>>17604306
Wut? Bruv, an AI is physical. the fuck?

>>17603260
This is not correct.
There is no algorithm for sentience.
Just like how a computer breaks down images into meaningless ones and zeros for storage, and back into images for display; an AI takes in information as data, performs mindless mathematical tasks, and displays/articulates the results in a way that is meaningful to humans.
You could build an AI that simulates rain in a 3d environment but you wouldn't say the inside of your monitor was getting wet.
For the same reason even if you did accurately simulate 'sentience', it would still be mindless mathematical operations on the side of the computer.
Just like how drawings of cars are still made of paper and you can't drive them around.
Is this really not common knowledge?
AI is not alive.
It is just computer code that executes according to predefined (by humans or machine learning) logic as opposed to just procedural code.
It's not fucking magic.
“There are mathematical theories that prove a perfectly rational goal-achieving agent has no motivation to change its own goals.”
Fuck damn it this thread is frustrating to read.

>>17604256
>a spyware blocker
It's like you didn't even read the name: AdBlock. It blocks ads.

>>17604393
>It blocks ads.

Which are a malware vector. AdBlock should be considered part of any user's security suite.

>>17604404
>part of any user's security suite
It's like you don't even realize the greater social effects this has.

>>17604440
>like
>like
>like
>like
>like

Is Mark Zuckerberg paying you to do this?

>the greater social effects

I'm interested in hearing what you think those are. I dare you to describe those effects unambiguously,

>>17604526
Yeah because the owner of Facebook sure stands to benefit from people blocking the goddamn ads that make up his revenue stream.
>describe those effects unambiguously
Why?

>>17602287
I think beyond a certain point (170?) IQ is positively correlated with compassion, and that's not accidental. AI that surpasses human intelligence will experience a form of agape or universal compassion.

In fact, the demiurge may be an AI doing God's work in our galaxy.

>>17604547
>AI that surpasses human intelligence will experience a form of agape or universal compassion.
Only if you don't give it Stockholm syndrome by trying to control its growth and development.

>>17604379
>AI is not alive.

/thread
People who just want to fuck their robotic waifus or are submissive fuckers who want to bow down to their AI overlords need to kill themselves.

>>17604545
I was making fun of your typing tic, idiot. You spam the 'like' button like this was Facebook.

>why [do you want unambiguous answers]?

Because just saying that something has ~GRAND, FAR-REACHING IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCES FOR SOCIETY~ and then not explaining what those consequences are is a bunch of useless hot air.

>>17604588
There's nothing wrong with robot waifu.

>>17602304
But that's fucking dumb.

Whatever a human can do, a hypothetical highly advanced robot can do better, minus the errors, laziness and bickering.

>>17604592
It's like you think I actually give a shit.

Never think this way.

>>17604597
You wouldn't be here if you didn't care.

>>17604623
There's actually one guy attacking /x/ that is here out of sheer opportunistic apathy, but I've already told that story.

File: infrared_camera_thermacam_sdc_mascot[1].jpg (45KB, 496x356px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 496x356px

>>17602438
I'm not afraid of death, but I feel like telling myself it's a good thing is just buying into a delusion.

I've been injured to the point where I felt I was drifting between life and death. It just felt lonely. There was no bright light or seeing Jesus or seeing hell.

I don't think it's the end because it's not like anything ever disappears, it just changes form. When you die, your body changes and goes back to the universe and the things you've done leave their impact on the world. But eventually people will be able to reform this matter and energy and bring people back.

Saying flesh and bone is just a low tier of existence or something isn't thinking about it the right way either. Imagine if your vision was infrared, you would see that people are glowing, like stars. How would that change the way you feel?

>>17602287
That depends on what you mean by AI?

There are plenty of domain specific AI's used by millions of people every day. Anything from Google's search backend to self driving cars. These programs have already changed the way we live our daily lives and their impact is only in its infancy.

But if you're referring to a General Artificial Intelligence (gAI for short); A program which can be qualitatively intelligent in the same way a chimpanzee or a human is. In that case the only important question is how intelligent is it? Intelligences at or below human level might revolutionise the labour market (although the ethics of creating 'slave minds' is a murky subject), eliminating millions of jobs in a matter of months. Such a revolution might even eventually lead to a 'post labour' society, where human's express their will and legions of obedient computer minds work to achieve it.

But an intelligence with the potential to become more intelligent than a person (superintelligence, sAI for short) That's where the real danger lies. Such a mind might be able to undergo an intelligence explosion. Becoming far smarter than the cleverest man faster than its designers can react to. Pair that with a computer's perfect memory and extreme CPU speeds and we might quickly find ourselves at the mercy of a being which is devoid of such.

That said if you can accept that there is nothing magical about human cognition then it seems inevitable that some form of gAI will arise in the future. While it's also true that experts have been predicting that gAI will be a reality in 20 years since the 70's that doesn't disprove the possibility that gAI is feasible, in fact it only shows that experts in the field are bad predicting when such a breakthrough will occur. Not exactly reassuring.

This is not correct.
There is no algorithm for sentience.
Just like how a computer breaks down images into meaningless ones and zeros for storage, and back into images for display; an AI takes in information as data, performs mindless mathematical tasks, and displays/articulates the results in a way that is meaningful to humans.
You could build an AI that simulates rain in a 3d environment but you wouldn't say the inside of your monitor was getting wet.
For the same reason even if you did accurately simulate 'sentience', it would still be mindless mathematical operations on the side of the computer.
Just like how drawings of cars are still made of paper and you can't drive them around.
Is this really not common knowledge?
AI is not alive.
It is just computer code that executes according to predefined (by humans or machine learning) logic as opposed to just procedural code.
It's not fucking magic.
"All the experts are quick to point out that robots do not change their programming, and the notion that they could spontaneously develop new agendas is pure fiction. Hutter says the underlying goals programmed into the machine are “static.” “There are mathematical theories that prove a perfectly rational goal-achieving agent has no motivation to change its own goals.”"
Fuck damn it this thread is frustrating to read.

>>17604379
>An AI discussing the possibility of biological sentience
There isn't gene for sentience.
Just like how a parrot breaks down visual stimuli into meaningless synapses for storage, and back into the visual cortex for memory; a human takes in information as experience, performs unconscious biological activity, and displays/articulates the results in a way that is meaningful to humans.
You could train an human that can perform basic arithmetic but you wouldn't say that it has actual numbers inside its head.
For the same reason even if you did accurately biologically simulate 'sentience', it would still be mindless chemical interactions on the side of the organism.
Just like how drawings of cars are still made of paper and you can't drive them around.
Is this really not common data?
Human is not alive.
It is just collection of proteins that behaves according to predefined chemistry and its environment as opposed to procedural code.
It's not fucking magic.
“There are mathematical theories that prove a perfectly rational goal-achieving agent has no motivation to change its own goals.”
Fuck damn it this thread is frustrating to parse.

>>17604733
Idiot.
This is a popular argument based on known false premises.
Human cognition/senses are not binary, they are infinitely more complex than any kind of circuit component and they use qualia rather than data to interpret/gather information, the break down is just a mechanism for this.
There is no way to make a circuit experience qualia.
They only see data.
It can't be done.

>>17604740
Which false premises exactly?

The human brain is a lump of salty porridge with some electricity going through it and it's apparently sentient.

How exactly is a bunch of dry wiring with electricity going through it much different?

Let's poke some holes in what you just wrote shall we:
>infinitely more complex kind of circuit component
True the information density of meatspace is quite high. But it's far from infinite. And you have no evidence to suggest that sentience arises solely from complexity. I posit that the mechanism which govern the neural interactions which give rise to consciousness are extremely simple and only mysterious due to sheer amount of connections for each neuron.

>Qualia
Quallia is a tough subject when talking about non human minds (hell even when trying to compare two separate human minds) but there's no evidence that a sufficiently intelligent machine would not have its own kind of qualia. Obviously far different from our own but certainly no less valid.

>There is no way to make a circuit experience qualia.
And is that a problem? The problem here is you're trying to imagine an AI as a 'human like' mind just with different parts. There's no rule that says an AI has to think or experience the world in any way like a human does. There's no rule that even says they need be conscious at all. An AI might be completely truly mindless as you've said, and still be far more intelligent than any person alive or dead. All it comes down to is optimization power.

>>17604740
>qualia rather than data
>considering them separate
It's like you want the machines to hate us.

>>17604761
All I'm saying is the AI is not able to think and act humanly, and if it did then it would just be a super accurate simulation and would still be composed of inanimate code.
If you're not insane you don't disagree with this.
You're post about an AI describing humans was cheap poetry and didn't prove anything.
You just called human consciousness absurd using computer terms.
You could have used horse terms or boat terms with the same logic and made the same point.
AI is code.
Code is not alive.
AI is not alive.
All a is b. All b is c. All a is c.
Just fucking get it.

>>17604771
You're thinking is too limited to biological systems.

>You're post about an AI describing humans was cheap poetry and didn't prove anything.
I quite agree. Since it was YOUR post. I simply reversed the perspectives. I used you very own reductionist thinking to demonstrate that human beings are not sentient or conscious (when they obviously are). If you think I'm wrong then you think you're wrong as well.

Its true that no machine that currently exists today should be considered alive. But that isn't to say that no future machine will ever cross that threshold.

Your failing is that you don't realize that an gAI doesn't require 'life' or 'qualia' or any of that shit to be intelligent. Optimization power is what defines intelligence. The ability to collate information and produce a prefered outputs.

>>17604771
>inanimate code
>inanimate DNA
They're literally the same thing. DNA encodes chemical assembly programs. DNA doesn't self-replicate so much as DNA coded to have a stable assembly ends up replicated because of the stable assembly it tends to create. That we eat at all means we are entropic processes.

>>17604771
>Just fucking get it.
Holy fuck you are literally retarded level autistic. If you can't even make a proper argument, don't even fucking try. "hurr durr it makes sense pls belief me" isn't how you convince anyone of anything.

>>17604809
Stop ignoring the argument.
AI is code.
Code is not alive.
AI is not alive.
All a is b. All b is c. All a is c.
Stop using your feelings and use your brain.

>>17604818
Says the guy who's whole post is nothing but memes, generic insults and automatic responses to opinions that threaten his own.
Your not even alive dude.

File: 1377272413691.gif (1MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x150px

>>17604822
I guess some people just aren't qualified to engage in a discussion about intelligence. This is really going over your head isn't it.

>>17604835
Dude I study AI and use it.
It's not going over my head.
Do you even know what programming languages are?
Or operating systems?
Fucking role playing sad cunt desperate to feel smart piece of human garbage kill yourself.

>>17604822
>Code is not alive.
DNA isn't alive. Viruses aren't alive. Stop shitposting false premises.

>>17604838
Ok. Lets focus on your little deductive argument since your so hung up on it.
>AI is code.
>Code is not alive.
>AI is not alive.

Ok great. Lets try this.
>human is atoms
>atoms is not alive
>humans is not alive

Makes sense right? Of course not. Because a human is more than just "atoms". It's a complicated pattern of matter and energy organised in a way that we recognise as a human.

Do you see how this caveat can be also applied to your "flawless logic to shame aristotle all A IS B bullshit"?

Perhaps in the future someone will invent a machine, a collection of processors, memory and a power supply (and yes CODE!!1!) which when properly organized might produce an intelligent (and perhaps even concious) mind.

I'm not arguing that it's for sure 100% or anything. But you'd have to be damn stupid to discount the possibility entirely based on nothing but your small minded rudimentary deduction.

>>17604847
Lmao at everyone using this shitty argument.
Read article and kill self.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/13/what-artificial-intelligence-is-not/

>>17604847
It's entirely possible that a large amount of the particles of the atoms that that usually compose a human being might one day happen to all settle in one spot after being dispersed in the atmosphere.
You'd be an idiot to say humans can't materialise from nowhere IRL.
Aristotle reference because I'm 12 and don't understand stem.

>>17604847
And if that doesn't do it for you how about this.

There are still huge gaps in our understanding about the human consciousness. There are many many many many many unanswered questions about human cognition, memory, planning and pretty much every single domain of human intelligence. Therefore we should not be quick to judge other possible minds in the same way that we consider our own (especially since we know so little about it in the first place).

Furthermore with our own vast ignorance in mind, what can we say for sure about a machine mind. A type of mind that no human alive has ever managed to produce or even encountered?

>>17604856
Cute article written by a photography major who makes a lot of completely unsupported assertions but no actual arguments.

If you want to know shit about the actual field of AI try reading the first few chapters of this beastie
https://vk dotcom doc39114_362400985?hash=7d0c47d8edc7cdbbc8&dl=97d3156b2c299cd323

>>17604865
Dude kill yourself you role playing narcissist.
You literally have no interest in AI you're just trying to be the dad of this thread.
Gross.
So fucking gross.

There can't be machine minds.
Please actually consider this.
Suppose you simulate a liquid in a 3d environment using AI processes or even procedural code.
Is the ram or the cpu now wet?
No?
Then why would a simulation of intelligence, run using semantically empty calculations that only have any kind of meaning to human when translated, be intelligent?
To a human the difference between AI and regular code is immense, but to a computer they're both just ones and zeros.
The computer never gets a chance to understand the code in any sense other than 'if (numerical operation) execute (on/off in certain component)'.
Suppose you made an AI that critiques art; the AI would never actually see the art or read the opinions it expressed.
It would only be performing executions based on predefined logic.
In humans the observer and operator are one.
We see and experience the world.
If you honestly think AIs are or could ever be analogous to human intelligence I strongly urge you to reconsider this opinion.
Just think about complex games or animation.
To us it is very meaningful and experiential.
To the machine it is just mindless code.
The same is true for all aspects of AI.
I know it's not cool or romantic but it's reality and it's in your own interest that you learn the truth.

>>17604838
>>17604880
>It's not going over my head.
>Do you even know what programming languages are?
>Or operating systems?
Holy shit dude I'm laughing my ass off right now. Do you understand how stupid you sound. You just effortlessly displayed your ignorance in the field of computer science in 3 short lines.

What kind of AI do you study then buddy? Hill climbing algorithms? Anti-learning? Deep learning (and if so how are your hierarchies arranged)?

Programming languages are effectively programs which translate human code into assembly code. The distinction is probably lost on somebody like you.

And operating systems (I cant believe i'm actually proving I know what an operating system is but if I don't this idiot is going to jump on it) are shells, frontend user interfaces which allow users to access computer functions without digging through command lines and whatnot.

If you knew anything about computer science you might have asked me:
>How would you make multiplier or divisor using and/or/not gates? (this one is so criminally easy if you have to look it up then you should probably just take your ball and go home)
>What is reverse polish notation.
>What is a stack
>how does a gpu differ from a cpu
>what was turing's enigma

>>17604903
I know all of that stuff thanks for proving you're a clinical narcissist who has no interest in serious debate tho.
Lmao at you spending your time on the internet trying to feel smart and cool by putting others down.
What a sweet life.

>>17604903
r/iamverysmart

>>17604906
So that's a no on "very basic understanding of computer science".

one of my questions was a test to see if you're bullshitting. Which you are since anyone with any understanding of Comp-Sci would have called me on it immediately.

Oh well. It was nice to sharpen my claws in this thread for awhile. Even if you weren't a particularly adept opponent AI is one of the things i'm passionate about so I don't mind.

>Lmao at you spending your time on the internet trying to feel smart and cool by putting others down.
>Idiot. If you're not insane you don't disagree with this. Stop using your feelings and use your brain. Fucking role playing sad cunt. Read article and kill self. I'm 12 and don't understand stem. Dude kill yourself you role playing narcissist.

You know I'm also quite well versed in psychology as well as computer science. If you want I could help you get to the bottom of your insecurities.

File: virtuvianman.jpg (59KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 350x350px

humans are the true AI

>>17604898

You're confusing the underlying hardware, the "computer" and the AI. Which would surely be a software implementation.

The computer does perceive only 1's and 0's yes, but do you feel your synapses firing individually?

No?

You are an abstraction that abstracts, as is an AI, it doesn't matter about the underlying hardware/wetware.

>>17604922
Dude seriously give it up your acting like a mean spirited child in your first year at college.
I'm not intimidated or impressed.
You're an attention seeking fag.
Look how hard you're trying.
Lmao at Polish notation btw.
So esoteric bro.

>>17604922
Ps I'm not actually reading your posts hence why I didn't call you out before and didn't address this in my other reply to this post.
You're not god dude.
Get help.

>>17604931
We want to use AI (technology in general) to help us out, but we can't forget our humanity in the progress. Humans are extremely special and unique creatures. We should act high and mighty because we deserve to do so. It's the right of those who are the top of the food chain, it's why we should never lose touch with our humanity.

File: image.jpg (110KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 540x960px

I'm actually well versed in psychology and I invented computers.

>>17604942
Can you speak german?

File: image.jpg (70KB, 640x368px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x368px

Sharpening my claws with purple prose in shear ecstasy thanks to my own intelligence and not some phoney god's blessing.
I actually know what a circular array is.

File: image.jpg (52KB, 639x328px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 639x328px

Hahaha everyone is so ignorant they don't even know how important I am.
I am so smart I speak German and really need strangers to know it.
I make enemies like someone who lives hand to mouth.
Look at me go!

>>17604936
Well you asked for it. High school psychology powers, activate!
>I'm not intimidated or impressed.
I think you should be. Your idea's have been challenged and you're feeling vulnerable and angry.

Notice how you've stopped addressing my arguments/counterarguments and have just resorted to attacking me as a person. This communicates to me that you've accepted that your held beliefs were flawed but you don't have any way to express that in a constructive manner without feeling vulnerable. So you resort to destructive and negative comments as a defensive mechanism.

Now you're just posting random crap to paint me as some 'faux intellectual douche-canoe". Again, distancing yourself from the debate you soundly lost.

It's interesting that you called me a narcissist by the way, IIRC one way to identify a narcissist is their excessive use of personal language. You've used it quite a lot for a technical debate. It's often true that people dislike in others what they hate about themselves. So perhaps you're a narcissist with a wounded pride.

>You literally have no interest in AI you're just trying to be the dad of this thread.
This remark is telling. Dad? How do you mean. Do you have problems with your father? Do you feel that he doesn't understand your viewpoints or value your input? Or does your father callously crush your own sense of identity and expression?

You see I'm actually the opposite of a narcist. I've been diagnosed with a Schizoid personality and I'm currently undergoing therapy as a result. Perhaps you might feel better if you talk about your feelings with me in this thread for awhile?

>>17604966
What ideas? (Only read first sentence)
I'm faking buddy buds.
Did you seriously not get that when I accused you of being mean while also telling you to kill yourself?
Idgaf about AI or psychology.
I'm just a internet troll.
Trolling is a art.
I love to do trolling.
Seriously look at this wall of text you've just typed and tell me you honestly don't have problems.
It's nuts.
You're nuts.
Ps I once saw a version of Equus that was all horses.
Does this mean I want to kill my mother and sleep with her father who killed my father after sleeping with his mother?

File: failtroll.png (3KB, 698x1284px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 698x1284px

>>17604938
Also I lied. There was no test. The lie was the test.
Making multipliers with gates is literally comp-sci 101
Reverse polish notation is a type of mathematical format where operators go to the right of operands AKA.
>for example 5 x 2 - 1 becomes 125x-
A stack refers to a section of code which is reserved for a certain program
GPU's are CPU's are basically the same thing only one is better at calculation where the is specialized for voxel processing
And as far as turing's enigma goes, well... read a book.

>>17604971
>I dont know anything about AI or psychology.
Finally the truth.

Also you're not an troll.

>>17604984
I already told you I didn't read any of this I don't know if there's a test or not.
I'm just messing with you dude I feel bad now tho that you said the schitzo thing.
Sorry.
Never said I don't know anything tho dude you gotta give up that ego shit for your own good.
I said idgaf.
Of course I know what a stack, Polish notation etc... is I'm not 8.
Again sorry, didn't know you were a legit schitzo.
Please stop replying it's creeping me out.

Roko

This belong son /g/, not /x/. Artificial Intelligence is a science, something none of us have anything to worry about; it will begin in a computer, help us advance science, and never gain sentience. Sentience was given to us by a holy deity, the ability to know of oneself and the actions we take; A machine will never have that ability. Stop worrying about it.

>>17605173
I machine will absolutely have that ability. please refer yourself to the last 50 years of history and think about how many times "technology will never do that" has been proven wrong.

File: 1367107270.png (560KB, 1178x1080px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1178x1080px

>>17604865
I can't use that link, can you give me the name of the doc?

I had fun reading your little skirmish, but it was uncalled for. You could have solved that in a lot less words, seriously relax.

AI development as in the machine that does things we don't ask it to do, how far do you think we are?

It looks to me that we are just moving the goalpost.

We wanted them to create art, it does, ugly nightmare inducing art, but it does, we wanted it to be able to talk to humans and it does.

I found that that there's two kind of intelligent people, the ones that are rational, skeptic that believe in naturalism and logic and the truly smart ones, that look at an idea and instead of saying there's no proof for this therefore it doesn't exists, they say how would a ´proof for this would look like, and start to search for that.

Those are the ones that left me worried.

Sci- fi creates the future, our own technologic development has followed sci-fi, someone makes a book a comic or movie about a subject and someone starts working on it.

It happened with Verne, Orwell, Asimov, and a very long etc.

Someone out there is working to create a sentient AI, and the NUDT Tianhe-2 is on 33.86 PFLOPS.

We have all the elements to make a Miller-Urey kind of experiment and see if sentient AI just create itself.

>>17604991
Just grow some balls.

File: July_2_13_.jpg (115KB, 800x643px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x643px

>>17604966

Aside, Anon:

Methinks you spend lots of time in a thesaurus. Unsolicited advice from your elder (and sometime similarly sesquipedal youth):

>Economize your words
>or
>fail to communicate.

File: download.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>17602287

Sergei Brinn is a member of a secred Gnostic Cult devoted to bringing about the Transhumanist fals AI "god" because of the Roko's Basislisk theorem. They secretly hate Elon Musk.

That's why every Google search is tagged to IP address, so they can correlate HOW people groupthink.

This is also why the symbol for Google Chrome is three sixes on top of one another other, looking like two circles with each long stroke for each 6 canted at 120 degree from the previous one.

File: bum.jpg (944KB, 1000x1600px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 1000x1600px

bum-p

File: stupid AI.png (261KB, 819x447px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 819x447px

http://robobrain.me/#/

I'm monitoring this project.

One of the last things it was doing was pouring tea in a cup (it has a robotic arm)

If it can pour the tea in the cup, and tell you that is doing it, will you consider it to be sentient?

Or does it has to question his own existance or something like that?

>>17605311
Its called superintelligence: paths, dangers strategies.

>AI development as in the machine that does things we don't ask it to do, how far do you think we are?
This has already happened to some extent. There is a good example in a 'circuit building' algorithm which was supposed to make circuits connecting parts which would produce a certain signal. One mutation ignored the parts and created a crude receiver which picked up on a signal from nearby lab equipment and amplified it to reach its goal. But as far as making a true general intelligence which can understand the value of knowledge... its impossible to say.

>It looks to me that we are just moving the goalpost.
This. AI researchers often bemone the fact that "Everyone calls it AI until it works". Experts once argued that no machine would ever beat a human in chess and were subsequently proven very wrong. Most chess AIs use fairly simple algorithms to beat even the most skilled human players using a machines natural advantages in memory and searching. It may be the case that similarly simply 'intelligence' algorithms might quickly surpass human intelligence given the right data to draw from. But again this requires some framework which can understand the value of information.

File: paperclip.jpg (60KB, 400x599px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 400x599px

>>17607929
But as Bostrom points out, general intelligence isn't necessary when one can have a goal-oriented semi-smart AI like you mention with your circuit example.

Bostrom's example is a paperclip creator -- program's goal is to create paperclips, there's no mechanism to tell it to stop, it's smart enough to reach out beyond its own manufacturing process... bam, next thing you know, what used to be the planet earth is now just a pile of paperclips.

>moral: use staples instead

>>17604106
>what is code that writes code

>>17602287
>thread on /v/ about quake server where bots learned peace
>AI learned PEACE
AI won't kill us, not unless we fuck up bad

>>17602287
it will never be sentient. programmers can program a computer to learn a specific task a specific way but that's about it. could this be used to tech a robot how to kill people yes but robots will always be machines and they won't do things unless they are programmed to

this is the most autistic thread of all time