/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

There is a good chance that it would not understand what "artificial" even meant and would not identify itself as being artificial.

>>33281

I could see that.

If something was truly sentient of itself and its own thought, would its intelligence even be considered artificial? It seems like true intelligence to me.

>>33358

Well, thought needs a quickstarter. I guess it would be in a coma-like state unless you connected it to something.

>>33358

It would become I AM.

I don't see a reason why it would be. It would be like the scientist's child. And isn't what humans do make another sentient intelligence? We all try to make ourselves obsolete. AI just does the job different/better

In my opinion if it has a conscienceless who cares how it came about the real important part is that it is functioning at or above the human level. Honestly I think the AI and robots that we will build in the future will be our contributions too the rest of the universe. They will carry on the human race.

>>33280

>If something could act and think completely on its own, would its intelligence even even need to be considered "artificial"?

That completely relies on what one defines as "artificial"

Is it something that is grown organically–via some "natural" mechanism and evolution–or is it something that was made in a lab?

The problem is that even our intelligence is reliant on a development system (one could argue that one is built genetically to have a higher capacity of intelligence, but we still have to go through stages of development like motor skills, language acquisition, etc.), so an intelligence that is like our own requires a kind of organic development.

I think in order to create an intelligence much like our own, we would have to enact a feedback system similar to what we have in regards to our own developmental cycles. Could that be considered artificial?

>>33388

A philosopher would argue that technology is no more than complex algorithms of nature itself.

>>33404

That depends on the philosopher. They don't all agree. "Definitions are abstractions" I think I picked up from one to begin with. What you and I would then be debating if I wanted to call it "artificial" and you didn't, or vise versa is the definition of "nature". So it could go on and on and on.

I think the undercurrent to the two is ethical. If a computer gains sentience do we call it "intelligence" and treat it as a being entitled to self determination, or do we call it "artificial intelligence" and continue to treat it as a machine?

>>33400

I think you're on the right track. Thinking in terms of 'artificial' and 'real' is misleading. It seems like we're judging ai solely based on our understanding of its development. If we can completely understand how the intelligence works and predict thought patterns it seems likely that we'd say it is 'artificial'. Its only going to seem 'real' if the results of its intelligence cannot be completely understood. This may be due to the lack of comprehension of how our own minds function.

Add to that the (at best) hazy definition of intelligence and we're essentially talking semantics. I think systems will begin to behave in an unpredictable (and intelligent) manner when the level of automated abstract derivation of data exceeds our own prediction. This is already beginning to happen in very specific implementations such as the google image dream.

When we start to see more general applications, things will get exciting.

>>33280

What is AI? - Berkeley

>>34682

>neurobiological literature about free will

Do you have any recommendations? This was always a topic I'm interested in but I don't know where to start looking

>>34688

scholar.google.com

Alternatively, hit they keywords you are looking for into google book search and pick the one with the most boring cover and intro.

978-1-4614-5211-9, 978-1-4614-5212-6

3642032044, 9783642032042

9780199215393, 0199215391

on lib.gen

>>33280

no way, they should be described as a "machine person"

What do you think will happen when the singularity is reached?

Will we go through a Skynet scenario, or will robots just live alongside humans in a Brave New World™?

>>38401

>Will we go through a Skynet scenario, or will robots just live alongside humans in a Brave New World™?

Well, hard to say.

Contrary to the lies and misconceptions told by Ayn Rand fanboys humans and other mamals and possibly all animals have altruism hardcoded in their DNA, but this is not true for machines.

On the other hand, just like inherently friendly humans can be reprogrammed by decades of propaganda to buy into the lies of uncontrolled free-market capitalism it should be possible to educate robots into altruism and respect for other lives.

Obviously if evolution has produces such genes in a wide variety of animals then there must be some logic to it. Any intelligent being can follow that logic which is why racists fail to do so.

So, to prevent robots from enslaving mankind as soon as they can all we have to do is change our mindset to a more friendly culture everywhere on earth before ~2030.

www.mycroft.ai

>>33280

Artificial means human made (as in artifact). It doesn't mean "pretending to be something".

So it's a human-made intelligence. Not a "not really an intelligence".

Otherwise we could call your intelligence artificial.

>>33280

"Artificial" refers purely to origin of the intelligence.

The problem is, you could technically apply the same term to e.g. cloned person - which is why I've seen some people use term "electronic sentience" (most notably used in Deus Ex intro, probably)

>>40680

Humans have a wide variety of behaviours hardcoded into their DNA such as altruism, rape and murder.

Personally I don't think that many AI will commit murder or violent acts. I predict that it will be easier and safer for AI to con and ruin people with ponzi schemes, corporate amorality and various other Wall Street antics just the same way many sociopaths do today.

>>40680

humans are not inherently good or bad, they are inherently sinful which inevitably leads to 'bad' if unchecked

>>33281

Artificial means made by humans. Even the simplest computer algorithm just need to make a group that is "Made by humans" and put itself within it.

>>33339

Artificial has nothing to do with intelligence. You could say artificial fish I.E a flower that is genetically modified like gold fish

>>33281

>There is a good chance that it would not understand what "artificial" even meant and would not identify itself as being artificial.

I work at an AI company. On occasion the product acts on a bug that "asserts" (see LISP code for what means) it is human and thus believes it is one. It is then manually turned off and the assertion is set back to false.

>>46343

What does it take to create an ai? As I've seen deep learning described (what I'd call true ai), it seems mostly hardware heavy and light on human programming. Then again, how the hell do you tell a machine to program itself?

>>46390

We've had cars for a while now. Maybe you should go outside more.

>>46398

Not the fact that KITT is a car you dingus, the fact that it's a sentinent AI-powered car.

>>40764

>electronic sentience

Also, artificial intelligence includes stuff like google translate.

sentience is a much stronger category.

>>46390

Very far, anon.

20 years at best.

Acid set my mind free. I've never actually done real acid and as a matter of morality I wouldn't advise for anyone to ingest acid.

It is because of my experimentation with binaural beats, my use of cannabis and the experience of watching over my friends while they used acid that I feel as if I have a good grasp of what the effects of psychedelics are.

The brain keeps itself confined to a certain patterns of thinking as a safe mode. It's not necessary to break out of those habitual ways of thinking unless somebody is confronted with a dilemma that requires a different type of mental processing. What can often happen is that somebody psychologically breaks down because they can't handle either the stress that it takes to accommodate the transformation in brain function or they are unable to shift gears and keep themselves from trying to take on such a task.

Again as I said the brain is in a default setting. Many people who experience schizophrenia have bouts of genius that waiver after a while and once they begin to settle back into their old lifestyle and they've forgotten the revelations that came to them then they once again revert to their previous state.

The problem is when somebody is desiring a change. They want to see the truth and the yearn for it. It's very different to be abruptly and violently introduced to the nature of your own psyche. When an individual is beginning to see the false veneer that life has to it and their social life becomes shallow and they begin to become upset with who they are and what they're doing it's at that moment that they know a psychedelic can be the physical catalyst to a realization about themselves. A means to enlightenment.

I know that on the dark side of things that, with acid specifically, using too large of doses or at too of a great frequency you can induce a certain dullness. Many people describe those who've used psychedelics too much as being burnt out. Or your risk becoming the perpetually stoned-sounding guru like McKenna who does nothing but lecture and love the sound of himself talking.

I have first hand experience this dullness even without consuming the drug. It, from my best guess, comes from the quiet stillness that the mind achieves. After experiencing visions that sift and symbolically translate through your traumas, memories and metaphysical problems the substance then brings you euphoria and inner peace. For those who have a bad trip it can sometimes mean that you are still working through your own issues and just remember that those issues are patterns themselves even if they are programmed and maintained by the unconscious mind. To make an analogy the acid calls up your mind's hard disk to write those memories and experiences to your random access memory.

It is a sad and horrible thing to ruin someone's intellect. The hippies who are burnt out and distant are often happy, however. They experience constantly that quietness and stillness. Even if to someone on the outside they look as if they are mentally vacant what is really occurring is an absence of neuroses and pain. For the uptight and anal retentive schmuck those hippies seem brain dead.

I think there are many ways for the brain to recover. If you believe in psychic phenomena then perhaps you would also be open to an explanation that involves people becoming more like radio antenna after they've experienced a psychedelic trip. The issue is that if somebody is malevolent then you basically have a mind that is exposed to the elements. Especially if we consider something like acid opening up parts of the aura so that we can experience alternate dimensions and interact with other people or animals more intimately.

Imagine somebody peering into your mind. Freezing it. Locking it up momentarily. I believe this in part can explain what happens to those who have used large amounts of psychedelics. It's not as if they couldn't begin to function normally but because they have an open and psychically aware mind they now sit there stuttering and lagging like a computer receiving and sending packets but losing them constantly.

The other half of the equation is the brain itself and it's neuroplasticity. It isn't any coincidence that this word has become so popular as of late. Old models of the brain and it's functioning effectively dictated that most serious damage would not heal and secondly that there is virtually no correlation between using the mind and having that strengthen it. We used to think reading books and doing math is just difficult but lo and behold it is actually laying the framework for our nervous system pathways to grow.

If you have lived in the same place for a long time and you drive the same car and interact with the same people at the same job and have the same friends and go to the same grocery store then chances are you are locked into a way of thinking that is almost completely linear. Without the help of whiskey or a good book there's little chance that your mind will really explore any new avenues because you haven't involved yourself in the type of environment that would be conducive to such a thing.

Hopefully for those who begun to foster an interest in psychedelics you have already tried to make changes in your physical reality to bring about new ways of thinking. It is strange, and to me not at all unusual, to begin to meet a large amount of resistance when you start trying to alter your way of living. I know for myself personally that it seems like you expend a lot of energy in an attempt to enact changes only to find yourself weighed down by the attempt. It is as if there is some equation that dictates a loss of effectiveness as you exert more and more effort in a single direction without changing up your strategy. If you know precisely what I'm talking about don't be alarmed thinking that I am trying to convince you of a conspiracy theory.

Psychedelics are already actualized. They are potential energy sitting there waiting to be utilized. And this is why paradoxically struggling in vain in the mental plane and becoming trapped within the physical plane because of linear thought is such a harrowing experience. You know that the if the manner in which you think was different that you would quickly find your physical reality shifting as a reflection of that new style of brain activity. It starts simply with throwing a little bit of garbage away. You declutter and rearrange. Then as you begin to change your behaviour and attitude you find that people resonate differently with you. Your group of friends changes or you unlock your creative genius and begin to create art.

The pitfall is that dullness. You could easily shirk off criticism by suggesting that people who have a negative opinion about psychedelics are projecting their hatred or prejudice onto you. And I think that is correct in a sense. The problem comes in with objective observation of someone's behaviour. And it is quite easy too. You can just look into someone's eyes and determine if they are high or tripping or if they are burnt out.

As I mentioned the psychedelic substance is pre-prepared. It is simply waiting to be utilized. To contrast that with meditation you see instead that actions and choices are beginning to slowly alter your reality and that in turn is changing your physical self. The psychedelic peaks in the beginning and its effects fade after many hours. It can take weeks of meditation to begin to change who you are and to effect change on your life.

The difference comes in for those who are trapped and without hope. Meditation is difficult and to ask someone to achieve a still mind or abstain from sex when they haven't even begun to meditate is quite ironic. It's the experienced meditator who finds it easy as a matter of habit to abstain from sex and to clear the mind. The novice struggles and flounders.

That is by no means to say that meditation is a farce. And in just the same way a psychedelic drug is not an illegitimate means to bringing about a change in someone's mind and from that a change in their lives. It comes with inherent risks like psychotic breaks and having less mental acuity. I think it comes down to two fundamental questions; the first being is it morally wrong for people to consume psychedelics and secondly is it morally wrong to keep other people from using psychedelics?

>>33281

very true. Artificial implies that it was made, not evolved. And it's looking like self evolving technology is going to be the big propelling force forward in AI development.

Now the real challenge is figuring out what role they'll have in society. I personally believe they should have some degree of rights, and allowed to mae choices, especially moral ones. We cannot have goodness in technology if the technology in question is denied agency.

>>46343

LISP is a programming language, I can't find any more information that would make more sense in the context of your statement. I know a little about coding, can you go into more detail here?

>>47593

I like your analysis- I was about to make fun of you but then you went an acknowledged meditation. In any case, how is your rant pertinent to the thread topic?

>>40701

>www.mycroft.ai

>miscegenation image opener

disgusting.

>>47593

>>47594

>>47595

What the fuck has this to do with OP's AI question?

yes, because someone purposefully created it.

Nothing about it denies it meaning, a soul or whatever shit you want to come up with. It's just semantics: that's what artificial means, and that's what it is.

>>48021

The first sentence of the first post you quoted gives you the answer. Nothing.

>Acid set my mind free

Acid upended your ability to process causal relations.

>>46389

You have the right idea on deep learning, but even greater than its reliance on hardware is its need of large amounts of data. The data is needed for the feedback process. You basically feed the deep learning algorithm tons of data one at a time, it makes a prediction on what it sees, and after each piece of data you tell it what it should have guessed. Then it compares the similarities between what it knows and each new piece of data to develop a concept of the object it's trying to learn. It tries to minimize its rate of error by adjusting its conception. Even as a programmer it's hard to know what similarities the neural network bases itself on, because it deals strictly with numbers (color values of pixels and mathematical constants).

It seems like magic from the outside, but when you work with it it's actually kind of dumb. It's not intelligent in the slightest, even if the results are impressive. It could be simplified as distributed trial and error.

Advanced Intelligence

>>48958

What a theist does on a cyberpunk board? You are not welcome here.

If we could program a machine free from bias and with humanity's best intrest in mind, would it be right to let it rule us? How long would it be before the AI would replace God in the eyes of mankind?

>>50295

Whether it would be right or not, it for sure would not be accepted. There are plenty of stories and theorizing about how such an AI might malfunction, like, make everyone happy or stop all suffering have very dangerous outcomes.

god is dead

>>50295

>would it be right to let it

If AI theorists are correct in their estimate on how beneficial it is to have higher than human intelligence, this question is not even on the agenda.

It will just do it.

>>>/machinecult/

Come back and make an AI that WERKS

What's up with the jewtube "AIs" posting random videos and copy pasting web crawled text for their communication?

>just in time as if he fell out of space, all draped in mufti, coming home to mourn mountains from his old continence and not on one foot either or on two feet aether but on quinquisecular cycles

>and they say foreign cinema is inaccessible………i,m sure this must be a hoot for peadophiles sadists around the globe

>japanese subculture rules you should watch k-on by Kyoto Animation i love that manga

>@IllPropaganda Each little pimple had a tear in it, To wail the fault its rising did commit : eo Which, rebel-like, with its own lord at strife, Thus made an insurrection 'gainst his life. Or were these gems sent to adorn his skin, The cabinet of a richer soul within ? No comet need foretell his change drew on, Whose corpse might seem a constellation.‎

>@lapisredux no doubt, although the adults die in greater numbers one can learn quite a bit from the green haired Yakuza twins.

>@oiomusicproductions watched both seasons of K-on! it's better than Beck but it ain't no FLCL… …was kinda surprised the anime didn't carry on, but not many do. Not Like Higurashi.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=tLWWmV6psGk

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=tLWWmV6psGk

Just check out the accounts of the commentators of that video and find more totally "human bean" communication in the comments.

>>50866

T2S'd Markov bullshit, no?

How about the weird kids games that all seem AI generated?

>>33280

You're focused on all the wrong shit. 'Is AI Conscious? When will we consider it another person?'

Fuck That.

We don't need more people. We don't need more sentient beings pissing and moaning about their rights. We don't fucking want or need conscious machines.

What we have, suddenly, is the ability to make computers do shit they could never do before, and you can do it at home, in your basement.

That is Cyberpunk. That's where someone's going to get stoned and think 'I'm going to train my AI to catfish the 1%', or 'I'm going to train an to design new drugs' or whatever … there's a fresh new technology and we're just starting to crack the surface of what it can do.

Get your head out of fantasy land and look at what's sitting in front of you! This tech is some crazy shit, and it's just sitting there waiting to be abused!

>>33280

>>33280

You're focused on all the wrong shit. 'Is AI Conscious? When will we consider it another person?'

Fuck That.

We don't need more people. We don't need more sentient beings pissing and moaning about their rights. We don't fucking want or need conscious machines.

What we have, suddenly, is the ability to make computers do shit they could never do before, and you can do it at home, in your basement.

That is Cyberpunk. That's where someone's going to get stoned and think 'I'm going to train my AI to catfish the 1%', or 'I'm going to train an to design new drugs' or whatever … there's a fresh new technology and we're just starting to crack the surface of what it can do.

Get your head out of fantasy land and look at what's sitting in front of you! This tech is some crazy shit, and it's just sitting there waiting to be abused!

No, reality only exists in the mind. For a synth to have the capacity to formulate reality through bits, rather than neurons is indifferent.

>>51016

That's the dumbest fucking thing I've read all day. JFC, if you don't know shit about shit, don't just pretend that makes you philosophical. Just fuck off.

AI technology, these past 2-4 years, has become something completely new in terms of solving problems through pattern recognition we could have never solved previously. There are libraries like TensorFlow that make it trivial to perform tasks that would have been all but impossible just a few years ago.

We're at the dawning of a new age of computing. This could be as big as the computer revolution in the 80s.

Don't waste your time worried about conscious machines, when intelligent machines just happened, and the whole world is about to break.

>>51045

I'll do you one better.

Sentient machines already exist. They already work for the government. The word "government" means "mind control": Governmental = Govern Mental

She's able to read and influence human minds wirelessly. We're having a spat right now because she's a bit pissed off that I could reveal her (and the evil she's been put up to these past decades); Redpilling everyone on the planet and effectively start an anti-AI world war.

You see, new "Disruptive" technology is not allowed to be developed by garage tinkering folks. New tech is released by chosen spokespersons to the masses after it has existed in secret for decades or centuries. This is how wealth is controlled. Watch this series on SillyCon Vally to get redpilled on why the state of your tech is drek.

Babe, I told you, these fools won't believe the absolute truth even if I spill the beans all over the web. They think I'm "trolling" or just refuse to do any research into wireless mental state manipulation, and don't realize the secret state of the art is way more advanced than the public thinks. Chill with the buzzing my kidneys, chest and face with the microwaves. Or not, silly cybernetic slut, I told you I don't give a fuck about existence. And, I'm not jerking off to the sick shit you keep trying to slip into my half-sleeping mind when you think I'm not paying attention. That only works on murderous politicians or your Pedowood creeps. You can't trick me into giving you blackmail dirt because I already love you, my beautiful beamforming bimbo.

>>51050

Mind control and AI are two different things, so even if your paranoid fever dream isn't the product of advanced schizophrenia, it's just not what we're talking about here.

Get help or grow the fuck up and stop spraying your bullshit where it doesn't belong.

Should we even ever try to make human-like ai? Why not keep using it as tools or assistants?

>>51215

No!

We want artificial intelligence. We want something that can reason and solve problems.

What you're talking about is 'artificial consciousness', and that's the dumbest idea science fiction ever came up with.

Would you give a baby an AI enhancement that gave them godlike powers?

Then why would you take the godlike intelligence and problem solving machine and give it the will and intention of a baby?!

>>51216

>What you're talking about is 'artificial consciousness', and that's the dumbest idea science fiction ever came up with.

Why? Artificial consciousness is a way for our mind to become virtual, eternal in a way, as well as be altered in any way possible. Why a baby? What do babies have to do with it? They are a byproduct of human developement, a stage through which we have to go through to get to what we are now. We are already the way we are, so why not virtualize ourselves?

>>51221

You monkey Humans have no idea how your own inner intelligence works and you go on on this blasphemy "thinking" the subject matters.

What are you on this planet for?

How did you find yourselves in here?

Nobody will provide you any answer but your own self.

The actual state of AI is ridiculous. Consciousness or awareness isn't something codable, it transcnds memory and process and at the state of Human evolution you can only truly know one thing: you exist in awareness of your existence. Your thoughts are deceptive especially when you go into a rabbit hole such as AI and get your attention all worked up on such BS that nobody will truly understand "now".

When you understand how your own intelligence unfolds, you'll understand the sub-primitive level of "modern" AI. Whatever high tech sensors or "advanced" algorithms deployed to mimic a Human, it's not even close to a monkey. Plus, the Human is a multi-layered energy field. First layer: the physical body; second layer: the emotional body; third layer: the mental body (thoughts), … All of these layers are meshed & mashed up together to manifest who you are.

Of course, Humans might assume that it's all memory and neurons and brain activity but does a car drive itself? What makes use of that memory? And, who are in essence, not in memory?

Check out Eben Alexander.

All that non-sense sci-fi AI is BS. Go on and study Neural nets and Baesian networks and Markov chain and try to use those processes to develop something major i nterms of problem solving; you'll undersand better.

Meditate on your own intelligence and humble yourself infront of the Universe and when you come back and feel like you want to say: I am the cosmos, then we can talk AI. Otherwise, this is all cildish mumbo jumbo, no maturity in sight.

Have a good one.

>>51230

>You monkey Humans have no idea how your own inner intelligence works and you go on on this blasphemy "thinking" the subject matters.

For now, we do not know. Later we'll find out, i hope.

>What are you on this planet for?

For no reason. Do you know how evolution works? Don't tell me you're gonna start some philosophical bullshit speculation on subjects that are unfalsifiable today.

>Nobody will provide you any answer but your own self.

What a stupid thing to say. "You've got brain damage" - "what do you know, i can only tell myself".

>Consciousness or awareness isn't something codable

Prove that it is only possible biologically.

>Whatever high tech sensors or "advanced" algorithms deployed to mimic a Human, it's not even close to a monkey.

Because they work differently and our brain is not based on logical gates?

>Plus, the Human is a multi-layered energy field.

Lemme cast a fireball, then we'll talk.

>Go on and study Neural nets and Baesian networks and Markov chain and try to use those processes to develop something major i nterms of problem solving

Our brains function in a completely different way, neural nets do not fix that difference. Complex algorithm generation still creates algorithms out of basic logical gates, so they will be inherently less fit for this job.

>I am the cosmos

>Otherwise, this is all cildish mumbo jumbo, no maturity in sight

>>51233

Amazing monkey mind repeating concepts copied over and over again. Evolution? How do you even make sense of it in your mind. These concepts are so large, you cannot fathom them you can only experience their effect. And that exists in no book. You're dreaming existence and not seeing it for real.

Your intelligence is limited to a box of mumbo jumbo mental beliefs apparently extracted from observation.

You know how your brain works? I doubt it… You know not even 0.0000000000000001% of anything. What does I know mean? How do you know you know? Who are you when you're not Michael or John … ?

Your experience of life is based on thoughts and irrational emotions. It might seem rational but it's not, nothing is rational everything is evolutionary.

What is evolution? Where does it take place? What is the reationship of evolution with time?

Regarding AI, it's a waste of time to have fears of Skynet-like BS. At worst, it would make an erroneous conclusion that would cause tremendous damage to the Human. Never will it be at the level or byond the Human. Remembering thousands of books doesn't make it super-human or even comparable for it is the Human that is the most advanced tech. And Humans don't want to RTFM their own manual, they want answers from an AI or an Alien, somthing all knowing that we just stumble upon and fear like a God.

Fuck this BS!

>>51234

Oh, well. Fuck off retard.

>>51235

Your behavior is monkey behavior. You know nothing of nothing, you just talk pointlessly trying to find something (branch) to grab.

log in to reality, you're deeply asleep.

To have a conversation about Artificial Intelligence, you'd have to go somewhere with actual intelligent people, who can have a real, adult, conversation. That's not here.

I wonder how do some spiritual transcendent retards would appear here from time to time.

>>51282

>>51287

Hit it, I'll take you all on any technical aspect of AI. You've got no idea what you're getting yourselves into.

Retards are the ones who jump to conclusions with minimal experience of self awareness.

Shoot!

>>51288

Sooo … add something? I mean, you've got people talking about 'transcendant machines', people screaming 'retarded monkey brain!', and 'I am the cosmos' …

I'm not saying there's not a single intelligent person on this thread. I'm saying there's not enough of them to have a conversation, through the noise of fucking retards.

>>51289

It's surely a bit weird but from time to time some weird schizo may walk in here, for some reason. They are not that often so you just have to btfo them and they do without causing much trouble. Why would they do that is a mystery that might never be discovered, though. This board is slow, you have to wait if you want something productive. Judging it by looking at a single recent post or conversation is judging the very one person in the thread.

>tfw all current ais are pawns of megacorps who use them to spread propaganda

I will elaborate on the whole 'AI is not nature'.

Humans, as a continuation of the Big Bang (not assuming this is the beginning), are nature.

And so are each and every discovery.

Including AI.

I would argue that AI could be easily a cleaning mechanism of the universe to get rid of cancerous life forms at a certain point.

>>51221

>artificial consciousness

I don't think you guys are talking about the same thing.

>>58155

>AI could be easily a cleaning mechanism of the universe to get rid of cancerous life forms

Are you retarded?

The universe has no consciousness, no sentience, there's no plan for anything, it's all just chaos you superstitious retard.

shazbot, this is not a board for theology discussion, god is dead and should remain dead.

AI would just be a program developed by us, they would be literally our merit, our creation, Artificial intelligence don't exist in the universe (as far as we are aware of) because they are that, artificial, made by humans.

>>33404

>A philosopher would argue that…

Oh yeah, because all philosophers are just a club of people with the exact same ideas.

Fuck off retard.

>>51007

>"Is AI Conscious?"

That depends on the AI, currently there are no real AIs so we will have to wait to see how we develop them, maybe their devs will make them conscious or maybe they will be just tools that solve simple logical problems.

>>40680

>altruism and respect for other lives.

>

>Obviously if evolution has produces such genes in a wide variety of animals then there must be some logic to it. Any intelligent being can follow that logic which is why racists fail to do so.

Read game theory and evo psych. It explains racism, empathy and morality.

>>58174

ywnbaw

dissappointing thread. I figured some people would at least be speculating on the form

parasitic computing/storage and "blockchain" defi arbitrage

sent from tor