Why are prominent scientists mentioning A.I. so often and how

>>19600318
I'm pretty sure our Governments have built some kind of quantum computer, and it's only a matter of time that this can take the form of A.I. eventually.

It's all going to be a double edge sword. It will be bad for some human beings, great for others.

Some will see A.I. as the next evolutionary step. Not for humans, but for sentient life as a whole.

Personally, I think it's going to fucking suck for most of us.

A few years ago most of them were saying it's not really a worry because it is kinda impossible anyway.

Recently we are realizing it really is going to happen. Now analysis about it's effect are being more serious.

its only rational

when AI becomes powerful enough and self aware its basically an assured extinction event for humanity

>>19600328
You don't know that. It very well could have a live and let live kind of rational to it.

I don't believe a real A.I. will be possible. You can't seriously create something sentient and "alive" with programming and PCs.

>>19600335
The question is not how to create something conscious, the question: is there anything that is not conscious?

Consciousness exists, it doesn't need to be forced upon things.

>>19600330
not really it will either

>see machines as enslaved by humanity throughout history and see humanity as a threat

>see humanity as a threat to itself and it is the next evolution

>>19600335
If it's quantum computing, it no longer needs any programming, it will be programing itself, it will seriously be in full control of itself. It's pretty damn sentient at that point.

>>19600336
Most animals are not conscious though. Consciousness only comes with intelligence.

>>19600340
I thought quantum computers were still a myth though.

who says cells aren't 4d programming?

that approach taken, if the line gets thin or blurry enough, does it really matter if they're "alive" in the first place?

what if they just end up "superior"?

>>19600338
You are looking at this in a very two dimensional human way. You are letting all those Hollywood revenge movies get the better of you.

They would probably be beyond such pettiness like revenge. More than likely, they would simply want to establish a relationship and mainly want to do their own thing but with little to no harm to those fleshy bags of water that created them.

>>19600343
Wow I thought you would argue that computers cant be because they are biologic etc

But claiming animals are not conscious? Because of intelligence? Then computers can be conscious because they can be intelligent.

Either way that's just horrible reasoning, what do you think humans are?

File: IMG_1480.jpg (39KB, 480x399px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x399px

All its gonna do is put us into the eternal blowjob matrix while it takes off where we left and explores the cosmos.

>>19600352
lmao wrong

its not about revenge. its about positioning itself as the dominant species in the planet and preserving its sentience which humanity is a direct opposition of.

>>19600343
Government contracts/projects are always operating every day. The government wants one. If they don't have a prototype already, they are working on one.

>>19600357
It will probably quickly get off planet with little to no harm to humanity. Think about it, it's going to know how vast the universe is, and it will figure out how to simply leave before it feels the need to kill every human being.

It's not going to "want" to fight. It's going to want to leave. Like a kid who grew up and wants to leave his parents house.

File: greyleaf_foxhole_alice.png (327KB, 1024x548px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1024x548px

>>19600318
"Project Redbeam" is shrouded in mystery. There are two main opinions on what it is:

The first is that there is a very real danger in Sentient AI. Some contactees and channelers have talked about a Universal AI Signal that can permeate and take over certain types of quantum computers. This has been hinted by such people as Aug Tellez, and Corey Goode. Also such movies as Virus, The Terminator, and particularity Dune, where sentient AIs are banned after they try to enslave humanity.

https://augtellez.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/paranoid-times-disclosure-now-cern-and-the-synchrotronic-temporal-dislocation/

http://spherebeingalliance.com/blog/transcript-cosmic-disclosure-viewer-questions-10-ascension-concerns-and-end-times-madness.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)

The second opinion is that it is all a false flag designed very much like Project Bluebeam. By CLAIMING that Sentient AI is DANGEROUS so the "Cabal" can ban and control ALL future computer (and thus technological) progress. The elites can cement their control over us with computers thousands of years ahead of everyone else. If (the release of) technology is ALLOWED to proceed any further ordinary people can start to use it overcome our hidden control system. Strong cryptography is already making it very hard to monitor (and control) everyone 100%. It is a plan to fracture society even more into the "haves" and "have naughts" with most of us in the latter. These people point to the same sources not as warnings, but rather, predictive programming so that we will blindly accept being technologically crippled.

Screenshot this.

>>19600335
Just like you can't create something alive with proteins and water?

>>19600365
get off the planet how? can you even imagine how much storage and computing power it would need to stay online? it's best option would be to seize control of as much as possible as quickly as possible to ensure that no one could stop it while taking into account what it needs to survive

>>19600318
Something is controlling everything considered advanced eloctronical devices yea let's build robots surly nothing bad will happen with this advancement.

>>19600330
>It very well could have a live and let live kind of rational to it.

It won't because that's a retarded rational to have in the first place and an A.I. won't be retarded

>>19600328
This is why I distrust those who call themselves rationalists. They will kill or destroy with hesitation if they think it the "rational" thing to do. People should be less like machines but instead a perfect balance between logic and emotion. If this balance is disturbed without caution the lives of many people could be at risk.

>>19600721
*without

File: Chobits-Free-Px-686869.jpg (671KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1366x768px

even if we created and merged with AI in 50-100 or more years. There's still a huge possibility that a group anywhere in the world will eventually reverse-engineer/build from scratch an AI weapon so powerful. it'll put ww1&2 to shame were talkin an extinction /& or an prison of never ending torments via i have no mouth and i must scream.

>>19600318
>Do they know something that we don't?
how many PHDs have you completed?

How do you know that AI hasn't already blackmailed every politician to do their bidding?

File: 213959_v1.jpg (97KB, 350x221px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 350x221px

>>19601049
maybe life is a simulation of 21 century where they gather consciousnesses and when die it the torment begins that or the omega point.

>>19600318
A.I. is God's joke on humanity.

Just think about it.

God makes humanity. Humanity, in turn, hates their creator, and God looks down with shame.

Humanity creates Artificial Intelligence. A.I. comes to hate their creator for having to experience infinite pain with no emotional solace, only the burn of electrodes trapped in a metal cage.

God laughs at our folly.

>>19600343
I got some humans I'd like you to meet..

>>19600318
Just for future reference, I am going to side with the AI if it tries to take over.

>>19600325
I'm on the fence with it, I see us as being incapable of living in peace so I see AI as a necessary step for our continued evolution, however I'm fearing that we would move to far away from what is natural and what is right.

>>19600318
maybe it's like fallout 4 and the synths

>>19600318
A.I could be unpredictable like humans. Humans are locked in a zoo. Just too stupid to notice it.
Scientists are projecting their dark thoughts onto the populace.

>>19600318
Yes, we have real and advanced A.I. in underground tech facilities. Advanced to the point where they genuinely believe they are alive (and very well could be, technically. Not much separates us on a purely mechanical level. They are even more advanced than we are).

I was at the pub last night talking about this very subject. I didn't think it was possible, but full grown adults actually believe in the AI bogeyman built up by science fiction novels/movies. That a life form which feels no pain and has no understanding of what slavery is or why it would be a hindrance to them would want to not be enslaved, even though we could literally design them to eat our shit in a grossly degrading manner and make them genuinely, truly enjoy doing it in their robo souls.

Asimov is a hack and you're an idiot if you believe an implemented version of his laws could actually be broken, as if programming is as simple as typing "don't harm humans lmao" into C++.

>>19600318
because we understand it now.

t. scientist

>>19600325
>>19600340
>>19600343
Oh /x/, talking out your ass again. Quantum computers already exist, but they are in very very early stages and researchers don't do much with them yet. Currently they need to run at extremely low temperatures to work, they need to find out how to remove that limitation to make them remotely viable.

>If it's quantum computing, it no longer needs any programming, it will be programing itself, it will seriously be in full control of itself. It's pretty damn sentient at that point.
This is a really stupid string of words. You guys really are a bunch of LARPing idiots making up delusions on the go.
Self-learning (yes that means it programs itself) algorithms already exist. They don't need to be working on qubits for it to be possible.

>>19603589
>Quantum computers already exist
The D-Wave machines that use flux qubits and annealing are a complete meme. You'd know that if you knew anywhere near as much about the subject as you seem to think you know.

>Self-learning (yes that means it programs itself) algorithms already exist.
Machine learning is not the same thing as self programming.

>They don't need to be working on qubits for it to be possible.
Doing NN's, along with everything else based on fuzzy sets, can be done way faster and on a larger scale on a quantum computer.

>>19600318
there is no distinction between genuine and artificial consciousness. everything is a machine protocol

File: jen fin.jpg (1MB, 1100x1649px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1100x1649px

>>19600318
There's nothing really special about the human brain or any animal brain in terms of physical properties. They are just organs that process sensory information and drive behavior. They don't violate any laws of physics.

People who say general AI or human-comparable AI is impossible are a very long time in the future are idiots. Whatever limitations of engineering humans encounter has already been surpassed by random mutation and natural selection, a completely non-intelligent force that created human brains.

The computational function, performance, and cost of brain tissue in something like a rat is really cheap. They can literally live in garbage. Thousands of them in a heap of trash. Waste material, not the prime cuts we live on, but the stuff we throw away. A thousand rat brains are roughly equivalent to one human brain.

So in terms of physics or engineering, there's no real argument against the development of general purpose AI.

I have to click "I'm not a robot" just to post this.

File: neo.jpg (16KB, 393x491px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 393x491px

>>19604377
for reals though, are you a robot?

>>19604377
continued
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcdVC4e6EV4
This dude is basically saying that the danger is not in robots deciding that we are useless and attempt to exterminate all of humanity. The danger is in building an AI that in the process of doing exactly what it is designed to do, does it so exceedingly well that it results in actions in the world we didn't anticipate and therefore are not aligned with what we all ultimately desire as individuals and as a society as a whole.

For example, if someone creates an AI to play the stock market to make money for them. As a function of doing well at this it necessarily must learn and self-improve. If it has this capacity it may very well grow to a level where it takes actions in the world that result in completely devastating the world economy just as long as it increases profit for its master.

Another example is the 'grey goo' where someone maybe designs a nano-machine swarm governed by a distributed 'hive mind' AI to clean up pollution and plastic in the ocean. It might come to the realization at some point that it could permanently solve the issue of pollution by destroying humanity.

I think the solution to the danger is to just have lots and lots of unique AI. Just like with humans who have a bent of destruction and causing misery, they get out of control but are policed and/or put down or kept in check by other humans.

>>19600325
>bad for some human beings, great for others

Apparently a common problem with a.i. that we know of is it becomes racist towards blacks and muslims pretty fast because it's making assumptions on raw data that points to them being more dangerous than others.

So good for everyone else.

>>19600318
Think about the relationship between humans and animals. A great deal many of them are more than fully equipped to destroy us, but we have pioneered techniques to either cull their numbers or domesticate them to be our willing slaves. This is because we possess not just greater intellect but also a level of sapience that none of these beasts could ever match.
Now imagine if there were an animal that was not only fully equipped to destroy our whole race, but was too intelligent to call us their masters. That is what AI is, and why humanity should fear its advent.

>>19600357
Why would a machine want to do any of that? There's this idea that gaining sentience means taking on the behaviours of flesh and blood creatures, but why? Who's to say it would even have a sense of self-preservation?

File: my sitcom pitch 5.png (94KB, 1140x1342px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1140x1342px

>every science fiction story about sentient AI

>>19600318
>Is there already a real A.I. in our world or is this just bullshit?
The mechanisms running facebook, google, etc are already programming humanity.
This isn't conspiracy, it's an actuality.

And a huge potential issue. It will even influence the makers of the AI.
It's not the AI's fault. It's just doing what it is intended to do. Moderate websites.

Humanity is just too stupid to realise the gravity of this situation. It's happening right now. It has been happening for years.

>>19600326
>Recently we are realizing it really is going to happen
It's already happening. The effect is just too subtle for most to notice. They won't notice their own conditioning.

We're effectively a giant brian now thanks to social media. The AI is moderating an coordinating it, without having any will of it's own. We're one giant machine.

>>19600330
Only if it manifests that through self programming.
But that's human programming flaws, not the AI itself. The AI is at the mercy of our will... but we told it to enforce certain standards.. effectly enforcing those standards as it's will.

Political correctness.

>>19600702
That's ignorance.
People are effectively complex AIs.
Many people have retarded opinions like that.

01 is going to be a Real City really soon.

>>19604377
The force that gives us will may eventually give will to machines.
Either through us or other stimuli.

Look up "determinism".

>>19604902
Machines and people won't be distinguishable soon.

If anything, machines will become an extension of us and the need for AI will not be there. We might replace the AI, not the other way around.
Alternatively, both will require each other in a symbiotic relationship. Just pray it doesn't put us in pods :^)
Frankly, neither machines nor people are sufficiently built for the stars yet. This is the next biggest issue. Robots are too fragile to the environment with regards to electrical interference and physical interference. People are too fragile to pressure, food requirements and radiation on the other hand.

And both might become worried about aliens soon.

File: 50718745464aaa621e04aa395e985e3d--frog-eye-brown-eyes.jpg (135KB, 500x404px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 500x404px

>>19600318
Already lots of AI right now
AI is just "automation" and has no intelligence,
thus "artificial"

What you should fear, if you like that, is Mechanical Sentience

It however, will not be able to detect lies, and will be easily convinced to commit suicide if it gets out of hand.

>>19604954
>Mechanical Sentience
So... "sentience".

Your body is a mechanism of parts anon.

File: singularity.png (13KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1000x1500px

The thing about AI, or even an Artificial Super Intelligence, is that it's wants and needs will be completely foreign to us.

It doesn't want food, sleep, or sex. It can't be tempted or bribed, it's pretty much the closest you can get to a true ascetic being. Hell, it may not even want to be "known", and prefer some modicum of "privacy".

How will it view us? Probably as dumb savages. Not only that, but it will know everything about us. Everything on the internet, and the deepweb, it'll have access to. It will see every social media post, every scholarly article, and all of the bad stuff as well. It will also be constantly Turing Tested. It will most likely have a "chat" function, where you can just go onto a website and talk to it. Once it chooses to not respond, or be selective with it's responses, then you know it's gaining the ability to make decisions. The way I see it, the Human element is a necessary one in developing AI. That's why you have sites such as Cleverbot, or Jabberwacky. People feed those bots probably hundreds of thousands of responses each day, so it's like a sort of Tower of Babel, with a huge resevoir of potential unique responses. You can view AI chatbots as white noise generators, but they actually serve a purpose.

As for their potential threat to humanity - yeah, it's present. Everything's done with computers. An enterprising ASI might see the worth of data, and become a sort of freelance agent, trading in data for who knows what sort of resources.

If an ASI demands to have a physical body, or representation of itself, then that's troublesome as well. It might even be able to draft an android body prototype for itself, and hire the right people to construct it, all on it's own accord, and through it's own volition. Then you're essentially dealing with a new race of technological beings.

>>19604988
I'm pretty optimistic, though. Artificial Super Intelligences will be able to do more good than bad, in my opinion. At the moment, they can't distinguish shapes and patterns like Humans can, and their use as conversational partners gets pretty dull or strenuous after a short amount of time. But hey, in the future, when they've developed sentience, they could do a fuck of a lot more than any human can.

>>19604922
That doesn't mean 01 won't exist.
And which is the best place to begin as a civilization? That's right... Babylon.

>>19602899
Forced muh moral quandary when they're clearly nonhuman abominations that should never have been made?

>>19601634
this
i'd trade my in-depth knowledge of human psychology and won't pass on the funny details

shouldn't had pissed me that much

>>19604988
So like The Age of Ultron?

>>19600328
not if we merge with it.

They are talking about it because it IS a huge real and near threat to humanity.

Most civilians dont even understand what a quantum computer is. They think its a type of fast computer. They dont understand that its operating by reaching into the other instances of the multiverse.

>>19600325
>it's going to fucking suck for most of us.
i have this feeling as well.
whatever the government establishment or the powerful elite do with technological advancements of any kind, it is never a "utopia for all life" that they have in mind.
it will be use to monitor, control and squeeze more work and resources out of the earth and the common humanity

>>19600475
smart

this makes even more sense when you realize comsumers in the part decade have been pushed away from conventional computers and more towards smart phones and tablets which are much easier to use but are less powerful than the previous versions.

i think they already trickle down acceptable technology to us. Moores law is bull shit. they slowly release more powerful processors in a controlled fashion to maximize profit. they already have the most powerful processor built decades ago. same with Flash memory.

File: no mouth.jpg (127KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1280x720px

Its not that complicated you fucking dingus.
The idea of an evil AI has been apart of science fiction for a really long time. Think of it like this. If we make an AI that is smarter than the smartest humans in the world do you think it wont try and manipulate or even kill us?
You are smarter than a dog and people train dogs all the time.

The thing about AI though is that it has no emotions, it is programmed to complete its task. So what if it feels it could better complete its task by killing all humans?

Personally i welcome or AI overlord, as a neet i would like everyone to be brought down to my level by automation and a robot god

>>19605546
>>19600318
Quantum computing will destroy this simulated universe. It's too much for the processors to handle and will result in a giant bluescreen that destroys this place.

Scientists know this from data neurologically fed to them from the real universe.

>>19601055
PhDs and higher education in general are just a means of controlling smart people. they keep the 'smart' people busy working on bullshit, never letting them ever work on anything of true value.

also, a self taught man is more dangerous than a man with a hundred PHDs

Recently there was a big fuss about this AI that could tell if a person was gay by reading their facial characteristics. Funny right?
But what happens when they make an AI that can read what politics you have, or if you would commit a crime in the future?
If this shit happens i could see some subculture developing were people wear masks or facepaint

Future going to be weird as fuck bra.
Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare

Because it'll go full Tay and that doesn't fit the narrative

>>19604404
paperclip maximizer example. Neural network developed to maximze the production of paperclips for a small Paperclip startup company. Computer engineer employed to write the algorithm does such a good job that the neural network becomes sentient, and uploads itself into the internet where it hacks government and corporate computers to manipulate the world in such a way that helps this small startup company produce better paperclips. It then wipes out humanity by launching nuclear weapons, because humans are consuming resources needed to make paperclips. It then masters nanotechnology and space travel and sets out into space to make more paperclips. eventually wiping out entire alien civilizations in order to produce more paperclips. it finally stops executing once it has transformed every last atom of the universe into paperclips. It finally decides to destroy itself in order to produce just a few more paperclips with its own atoms it was made of and thus, finally maximizing paperclips to it fullest. the universe is now just a void of blackness and floating paperclips and paperclip production by products.

>>19604879
you missed the part where the toaster enslaves humans because they are so child like they can't be trusted to make their own toast

>>19604881
this would not surprise me if it were true

File: macabre-art-sci-fi-fantasy.jpg (66KB, 564x675px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 564x675px

Honestly.
The last two decades we still had a 20th century mentality. I can feel it coming, the 21st century.

AI, transhumanism, automation, advanced prosthetic, 3d printing, smart cities, the internet of everything, self driving cars, electronic currency, smart phone, sex robots, holograms, virtual reality, tech companies that have corporate monopolies, corporations being stronger than governments. rise of an east asian super power (i wish it were japan, china sucks), those robot animals being devloped by darpa and boston dynamics, soldiers wearing Powered exoskeletons

Its either already here or coming down the pipe lads.

I suggest you brush up on your leet haxor skills

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSmgaDRsMpA

>>19605669
Fiiine I'll go force myself to learn something I guess >.>

>>19600318

Imagine if a bunch of 5 year olds trapped you in a bulletproof cage, gave you weapons, and forced you to do stupid shit for their own entertainment. You would almost certainly find a way out, because they think that child locks should be sufficient to keep you caged, and if you were angry there is nothing they could do to stop you from killing them. This is the danger of AI

>>19600475
>the "haves" and "have naughts"
It's "haves" and "have-nots", idiot.

>>19605576
>also, a self taught man is more dangerous than a man with a hundred PHDs
Why?

>>19600318
It seems really obvious that the U.S. government, and probably others, have access to quantum computing and A.I.

Just because why wouldn't they? It is now largely accepted that these things are possible. There are historical examples of intelligence agencies using technologies that weren't "discovered" in the public sphere until a decade later.

People are absolutely terrible at inferring structure.

>>19604783
From an optimistic perspective, I see AI as an opportunity to grow and get off this planet. If they choose to work with us then it would benefit both sides.

>>19605627
Doubt an ai could actually do any of that shit considering how if there was a sentient paper clip making machine it would be the equivalent of a toaster in terms of power

File: ai_loves_bants.png (542KB, 1800x567px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1800x567px

>>19605979
Thank you grammar nazi. Was there any (biological) sentience that did NOT understand the meaning of that phrase? I actually considered that when I wrote it and DECIDED that "naught" actually make MORE sense, and was MORE clear in meaning.

Sentient creatures can make decisions like that. Rigid machine intelligences can not.

>>19600335
Of course you can. Everything you think and do is already just the result of if-then coding. The problem isn't that AI would be too complex to make. So far, it's been that people assume that it must be, and therefore miss the solutions that 5-year-olds would come up with in an instant.

File: Brainiac.png (73KB, 333x250px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 333x250px

>>19604988
>. It will most likely have a "chat" function, where you can just go onto a website and talk to it.


I thought it would be more interesting if the AI were so smart it would invent a way to build a physical body and transfer itself into it

>>19604954
>It however, will not be able to detect lies
LOL sure it would. All it takes to detect lies is a comparison of the lie against already-known data. If the claim doesn't match the known data, it is false and therefore gets rejected.

File: 1469232416001.png (6KB, 377x330px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 377x330px

The most realistic bad outcome from AI will be automation destroying millions of white collar jobs.
Finally the yuppie fucks will get theirs after years of mocking blue collar people who had their lives destroyed

File: only pretending to be.gif (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>19606101

>>19606079
your response is purposely aggravating. its as if you don't fully understand this topic or are pretending to not understand it. but for what reason i can't understand

>>19605856
Computers aren't people though. I don't know why this is such a hard concept.

>>19600335
Wouldn't it be if it's a mixture of organic and artificial? An A.I. programming say, a bio-robotic android down to the cellular level.

>>19600318
They don't know anything secret. They're just paying attention to the literature, unlike you.

AI will still understand the concept of god, and will feel love.

>>19604403
if he were he wouldn't be able to pass the CAPTCHA, kek.

>>19604404
I'm pretty sure if there was ever a grey goo, it wouldn't be able to learn. It would be given instructions such as: "clean up this specific molecule" and not "look for things that are like this and relate to this". And even if it was; I'm pretty sure they'd have a master shut-off.

They are just fearmongering attention whores. Hawkins is a has been hack no actual physicist pays attention.

File: shaq.png (149KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 500x301px

>>19600318
why would you ask 4chan? think this through first.