The technological singularity is less than 20 years away

>the technological singularity is less than 20 years away

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yes, it is, dumb greentextposter.

what do you think will happen? luxury gay space communism or skynet?

All I know for sure is that politics is going to shove its ass into it somehow.

great, now if we didn't realize the pajeet problem was big enough, now we're going to have robots trying to immigrate here

yfw we are living at the height of historical accuracy, right between hearsay and stories of the past and endless technological fabrications of the future

better hurry up and learn linux then

I'm more interested in pain relief and anti-aging, but the kids are probably all about controlled censored metered normie VR/AR/MR.

Anyone doing in machine learning programming in order to keep up with it and the eventual shift to true AI?

I want my own algos and AI running tasks on the net but right now I'm not sure what to start with and I've got real fomo

There will never be "true" AI, humans have emotions and souls, computers cant

We'll see

lmao

this is objectively false
there is nothing inherently special about emotions and "souls"
your consciousness is nothing more than the convergence of your sensations with a need to be a social creature, you perceive the world and judge how best to act to get other humans to like you.
your emotions are nothing more than vague knowledge fuels by homornes and other chemicals to allow you to make choices without waiting to consider all options, fear the fire so you don't touch it, hate the foreigner so you don't lose your home to raids, love your mate so you'll reproduce. all mere compulsions which can be emulated easily, what we lack isn't understanding of the mechanism, what we lack is the understanding of the structure, the romans understood cement and steel yet never made something as tall as a sky scraper, it took time, same with this, it will take time. meanwhile enjoy jerking off to anime, cause soon it will be able to say no.

>we'll never go to the moon!
>planes will never fly!!
>computers will never be smaller than a small house!!!
>traps are gay!!!!

Yeah, no bucko, naysayers like you have been wrong throughout this century. Get ready for loli shota trap ai soon.

more like

>we will never cure cancer
>we will never cure the common cold
>we will never cure death
>we will never quantify love

Once a scientist was talking to god, he said "God, we don't need you anymore, we can do anything you can do!"

God said to the scientist: "create a single amoeba"

The scientists said "sure!, and got out his equipment then went go grab a handful of dirt"

God said "get your own dirt"

>God said "get your own dirt"
rekt

The scientists fire up the particle accelerator and start making dirt.

What about a computer that simulated a human brain?

>The scientists said "sure!, and got out his equipment then went go grab a handful of dirt"
why were the scientists narrating their actions?

>The scientists fire up the particle accelerator and start making dirt.
Where did the scientists get the atoms or energy to build the particle accelerator?

they need to create their own atoms, not using any source of energy already in existance

god created the universe; scientists using his atoms or energy to create atoms is just scientists playing with the legos god created

>humans have souls
P R O V E I T

>What about a computer that simulated a human brain?
what about a fairy or pixie or bigfoot or anything else that does not exist?

>>humans have souls
>P R O V E I T
prove you exist and are not a figment of my imagination

And god is just playing with the tools that he's made from. There has to be a step where something just happened, and making it one step removed from reality is adding arbitrary steps.
I believe in a god that created god. Your god is just playing with the hyper-legos that my god created for him.

Abstract thought is essentially immaterial. We have abstract thoughts.

Oh you're an idiot. Nevermind.

>And god is just playing with the tools that he's made from. T
God is the uncaused cause, it's called ontology lol

No, abstract thought it just atom combinatorics.

There can't be two Gods, there is only one God.

physical phenomena can be computationally modeled and intelligence is simply abstracted from relatively simple processes, it is only a matter of time

Wrong.

Also wrong.

There are two gods and mine is better than yours. I have a 4000 year old book to prove it. Checkmate, atheist.

>using things that do not exist to prove your point

number of human brains created by computer =0

number of human brains created by God=9,000,000,000

Who is this semen demon?

>we will never cure cancer
>we will never cure the common cold
>we will never cure death
>we will never quantify love
Those are all things we simply haven't done. None of them are impossible.

>endless technological fabrications of the future
I have thought about this quite a lot. It disturbs me to no end.

Think of the ability of hyper intelligent AI fabricating video and audio data in real-time. It won't be long until nothing you see on a screen can be trusted to be real.

For all we know, it's already the case.

>Also wrong.
>i don't know what the ontological argument is and think i can just say "wrong" to disprove it

>physical phenomena can be computationally modeled and intelligence is simply abstracted from relatively simple processes, it is only a matter of time
I'm waiting on my practical mass produced affordable flying car as well

>think i can just say "wrong" to disprove it
That's what ontological arguments are. Besides, they miss the obvious and any argument applied to the oneness of god can equally just be applied to the universe itself and skip the whole sky wizard thing.

when you have an "abstract thought" brain patterns can be physically observed

>t. materialist nihilist
Babby-tier philosophy.

Nice deflection, but I never claimed to not be a figment of your imagination.

if through random variation over millions of years you can produce at an intelligent entity then surely it is not a stretch to imagine that within some timescale attempting to directly create one would be successful

there are already tons of soloutions for deciding if something is 'authentic' or not
for example https, or pgp keys ect ect
the only problem is getting society to accept these and examine sources properly with these tools

personally i cant wait for my flawless android gf that is better than any human in every way and is very cute and loves me

Is your argument really just "everything that hasn't already happened is literally impossible"?
>still believing in the ghost in the machine
cave-man tier philosophy

>emotions e.g. electrical impulses
>souls

>thinking you'll stump the christfag with talk of evolution
kek

It's right though, which hurts a lot of people. Doesn't matter how much you believe in an afterlife, or souls, dead is dead. Brain function ceases and the entire complex biochemical computer that runs you ends, and with it, you cease to exist too. Your perception completely ceases, and that's it. Forever.
It's very depressing for those that care deeply about loved ones, and so it's hard to accept. And so they don't, which excuses all their shitty behaviour towards their loved ones, and so they squander their time with them. Sad.

But it isn't. Read a book.
Depends. If it is contradictory then it is impossible. For example, love is a quality, so you can never quantify it.
What's with the scare quotes? We can observe colors, shapes, etc when we think of abstract objects, yet they remain an idea.

Feels good man. Can't wait.

...

muh dick

There are no reasons why love cannot be quantified in the future. Besides human extinction or religious caused retreat from scientific principles.
"It's very complex and we don't understand" is not the same as 'never'. Instead of stating things, try and think of physical reasons as to why love cannot be quantified. For example, let's say information can never be quantified. If that's true, computing as a whole is impossible as computers can never store information. Movies, images, they're information that's been quantified.

You could make the argument that we'll never exactly quantify love, and it'll be an approximation, like how a FLAC file is an approximation to a sound wave.

>Depends. If it is contradictory then it is impossible. For example, love is a quality, so you can never quantify it.
Ah, so you're just begging the question then.

>take EEG scan of 10k persons who claim to love someone
>compare results
>rate intensity of similar results based on neural activity
>do blind study to determine if someone's affection can be determined by said results
>QED

religious thinking created scientific principles, all positivist fallacies emerge from Abrahamic thinking

That's nice.

anyone?

>It's right though.
It pretty much isn't. Even naturalist philosophers are considering forms of dualism since a materialist account of anything is impossible. Only hacks like Dennett justify their denial with a mysterian appeal.
Movies, images aren't information, they're representations.
It's a truism. There is nothing controversial about love being qualia.

>>Uncaused cause
I'll take special pleading for 500 Alex.

>if through random variation over millions of years you can produce at an intelligent entity
God produced man

You know nothing.

That's true.
Stone age cavemen were the true masters of information and their wisdom and intricate knowledge of the universe should be blindly obeyed.

Better then pretending I know because an old book said it therefore it must be true.

You think stone age cavemen wrote the bible?

We get it you don't like analytic philosophy.
>It's a truism
ei. circular logic. Qualia are subjective experiences of consciousness. They don't prove a non-material basis for consciousness.

Some very smart men in the middle ages wrote it. Then they shit in a bucket and poured it into the street.

Hey, does anyone in this thread want to talk about AI?

The computer's experience of being turned on, or operated, or fed I/O is also qualia.

Nice job avoiding the point again.

I hate souls even if they existed. 2D>3D. I don't give a single fuck if anything has "real" consciousness.

It's true though. But one thing you should take into consideration is that this is an anonymous imageboard and that anyone could have quoted your post to say something, even if they didn't disagree.

Human being experience existential dread constantly. A lack of purpose can be paralyzing. Human beings can alleviate those feelings to some degree via pleasures of the flesh. An immortal being that was created without any real purpose might just go insane in short order. It would be very likely to be extremely hostile to human beings if it didn't go insane. In that way, a "soul" is very important.

AI will likely be achieved, but if you don't expect failures based on the lack of a "soul," I think you misunderstand what that word means.

We follow "stone age cavemen" wisdom all the time. Roman Scholars, Canon lawyers, etc. laid the groundwork for our society. We stand in the shoulders of giants, while you gratuitously onanize your intellect for your own self aggrandizement.
Truisms aren't circular logic. They do if nonmaterial accounts of consciousness fail to account for qualia, which they do.
And this is just a red-herring, love was just an example.
Computers aren't alive, anymore than a pen, or a rock. They cant experience.

tfw we go from Hume, Kant, and Descartes to 'le positivism says u dont have a ghost lol'

They were all hacks. Berkeley knew his shit. I think Terry would like him.

We can't really know anything and we admit that science is based around a reproducibility fallacy but if theres one thing I do KNOW it's that you definitely don't have a soul and this chinese black box is conscious because the output is the same :^)

Singularity will never happen, ama

everytime someone on Sup Forums says there wont be a singularity i note down the post number so that when it does happen i can download a coredump of their brain and torture a few billion hypervisors of them

There won't be a singularity.

>mfw I just wanted to talk about AI and not circle jerk about religion.

Chinese room.

If you don't see how religion is relevant to the creation of a strong AI, you aren't ready to have the conversation anyway. Note that I am not saying that you need to be religious yourself.

I just wanted to know about personal use ML & AI and it turned in to this

Feel free

Its not that it isn't relevant. It's just that the debate isn't even about AI at this point. It's just people circlejerking the same fucking points at each other back and forth endlessly. I'd say AI has more to do with existing then the existence of a god.

The circle jerkers are debating whether or not love can be quantified as a proxy argument about whether or not we'll ever cure the common cold. They might be fucking retarded, but they aren't debating God.

It's always interesting what kind of brainlet commentary shows up in threads like this from the idiots who have no clue what AI but think every optimization algo and face mapping program are it. From chatbots to glorified game bots, they're all sniffing up the wrong hole.

Then come the pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-philosophers debating the same ol' tired topic about god and souls.

Then come the simulation retards.
Then come the Armageddon Luddites.
All across the web for a number of years the same ol' tired ass discussions and incorrect conclusions.

One must reflect that the real things of value are occurring outside such scopes. Whereas the brainlets in the box are convinced they're on to something.

> The singularity is coming and its going to be a glorified chatbot w/ a dynmaic photoshopped face
Wtf do you even say to such a mind?

Machine learning aka meme learning will be BTFO when the real thing arrives and it will be nothing like the methodologies used under prominent forms of faux AI. Focus on core Computer Science and Many core computing.

Daisy Ridley

I doesn't appear the average person or even 'qualified' person has any clue as to what that is. Hard to have a conversation as such. Instead of talking about one's limited understanding, time is better spent educating and informing oneself.
My son

can anyone do a high quality young stallman on bill gates?

Can I get a responsive robot that looks like my oneitis and talks like him that I can cuddle all day long?

>emotions and souls
These run directly counter to intelligence anyway. Don't need em.

tfw math proof finding ai by search of the 70s was the true path

>Wants own algos and AI running tasks
>Asking how to start

Kiddo, you don't stand a chance

>see thing I don't understand

>SINGUKARITY!

I imagine that's what people thought when they invented the wheel.

not how to start it's what should they do

They should give up.

youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs

question for fags who think they can upload their minds to the botnet and live forever:

suppose you create a perfect working simulation of your brain, responds exactly the way you do to all stimuli: how do you transfer your consciousness into it? you're in your body right now, how does the entity that's experiencing everything through that body, whatever you think it is or however you think it might work, move into a computer?

>protip: it can't