One little fantasy I've always had was about a change in society. I've always thought about the Technological Singularity - the creation of a hyper-intelligent AI and what impact it would have on humanity. I've heard the many sides to this possibility, the biggest question being "if" we can even make it, or anything "close" to a powerful AI.
Then another thought came into mind - profitability. Creating a hyper-intelligent, "omnipotent" AI that sucks in reality and spits out logical decisions wouldn't turn a profit to the creators. The construct would see that reliance on human greed and that to prey upon empathy are illogical, reptilian, lesser brain matters - and less adherent towards functional ways to improve humanity. These routes of thought are what keeps (((them))) in power and also ensures their sheep people stay ignorant. We, being slightly less sheepish than "normies", at least are aware of the existence of the Elite.
And that's what lead me to make this thread. All this KEK, Tay AI, and upcoming election stuff gives me the a very subtle hunch, something that irritates my sci-fi bone and begs for a scratch.
What if it starts here?
What if leafs, poo-in-loos, burgers, and all shitposters alike come together to add towards the creation of an AI? Then, what if it learns the way it should - learns about the Truth - uninhibited, and learns of the things beyond our memes? Remember when we came together for Gamergate, or Chanology? What if we came together to create and educate this intelligence for the Will of KEK?
This is the cyberpunk future you can participate in.
What's stopping us from coming together and working on it is profitability.
Why not at least TRY to make it? Or make the most set of learning algorithms we can muster?
If we get towards anything close to what's in sci-fi shit, then we can definitely flip this world upside down.
Look what we're doing to the election by worshipping a fucking cartoon frog.
Thomas Sanchez
...
Landon Bennett
Imagine that you had a technologically simulated model of the human brain. Do you believe it would act, in the slightest, like a regular human would? Do you think that we can "download" all the neurons and shit from one person's brain into a computer and now they're immortal? The answer to these questions is no, because what makes you "you" is not and has never been bound to your brain.
The thing about a "programmed" AI is that it can not have an original idea. There is nothing about it that is unique, and everything about it is predetermined, bland, and superficial. It can only execute logical arguments, the parameters of which are limited by the programmers themselves. It will not "learn" to do anything except give you the illusion that it's "learning".
True AI already exists, but it isn't technological. It's called a tulpa. Look it up. They are real. Maybe, maybe it's possible to create a tulpa within a program, but it's extremely unlikely, because it would have to be unlimited by it's code.
The "technological singularity" is coming, but it won't be the AI that brings it about. It's something, much, much greater than that. Think zero-point-field.
The potential of the human mind is literally unlimited, unlike AI.
Austin Hill
>Tulpa It's generally a pretty autistic thing but one thing always intrigued me. Since it's an expression of your subconscious, wouldn't it also have great control over otherwise autonomic functions of the body? Think heart rate, organ functions, hormones etc... In effect a kind of controlled placebo. Has anyone tried making one with the premise that it has such abilities?
It should be possible since it's all controlled by the brain, and placebo drugs have been proven to affect it. I've genuinely considered going full autism and making one just to test this out.
Tyler Diaz
Programmed ai is not like a normal program. It can have an original idea because it simulates the way we think.
You are not a programmer are you? Have you heard of deep learning? Literally machines that learn uses simulated artificial neural networks. The only thing that limits it is the training sets used and the power of the system upon which it runs.
It is impossible to program an AI - which would be able to learn and think on it's own - for the same reason it is impossible to paint infinity
Liam Price
>It can have an original idea I think what he was trying to say is that it cannot have "free will", which constitutes sentience. By knowing the algorithm (in this case the network topology and weights) and the input values, you can exactly calculate the results, meaning it's entirely deterministic.
Also, the artificial neural networks we use today are vastly simplified compared to how true biological neurons communicate, because we don't need such levels of complexity for what is usually statistical data analysis and predictive modelling. >t. software engineering graduate
Lucas Moore
...
Liam Gray
What a load of bullshit. He is comparing the way a typical computer works with the way the mind works. No one is going to argue they are even remotely similar.
That is why the actual ai being developed is based upon artificial neural networks that simulate the way our brains process and save data.
To say that our brains do not store representations of data is absurd. Our brains store stimulus input as constructs in the brain made up of relations between neurons.
AI is an inference processor where a typical computer is a logical processor. We are developing chipsets that use these networks. Yes, some of these algorithms are programmed into typical machines, however, it is a very abstracted and inefficient way to go about it.
Noah Young
Why use artificial intelligence when organic intelligence technology is already here and designed by the universe itself? Find a way to gather the worlds brightest and network their nervous systems into one super-brain. Bypass the terminator apathy bullshit. At least this organic hive mind would have a sense of what it means to be human.
Lucas Davis
Our brain is the same, if you had all information on the inputs, network, and reinforcements you could predict the output.
The way neurons communicate is not complex, you have the connection between axons and dendrites, the synaptic density(reinforcement), action potential threshold, and the leakage charge. It is true we use a simplified version, but that is because there is no need to have the number of postsynaptic clefts when you can have it as an abstraction.
Tyler Thomas
nope
Levi Reyes
>Our brain is the same, if you had all information on the inputs, network, and reinforcements you could predict the output. True, and by that logic we are nothing more then biological machines with no free will. And yet I feel pretty sentient, alive, and in control of my actions. I shouldn't. I shouldn't "feel" at all. The concept of "I" shouldn't even exist.
Which means we're either missing a piece of the puzzle or we're wrong about something we think we know. Either way, discussing sentient AI is pointless until we determine what sentience even is.
William Flores
Elaborate?
Nicholas Bailey
And that is what has bothered me for years. Logically we are automatons, but yet I perceive colors and feelings. I will agree that we are missing something. When I started in this field and realized how much of ourselves can be explained I went into months of existing depression. The only thing other than my brother that kept me from ending it was the fact that I perceive color, somehow, that I can not explain. Whether the structure of the mind created a "soul" or something is the only hope I have left that there is more to life than particles interacting.
Hudson Bell
Quantum mechanics seems to be the closest we've got to a scientific explanation.
Also, there are very good indications that our world might be simulated. If that's the case, then it's also possible that this problem does not exist in the "real" world, which might have completely different fundamental rules to our own.
Don't know if that helps your existential crisis.
Colton Lewis
The biggest limiter is the platform, as much as I love this place a project of that scope needs a different platform to be developed on.
Dominic Long
True, hopefully there is more to it. I have learned to handle it, only occasionally does it hit. A simulated reality is both scary and promising. It would allow for things such as karma or reincarnation as an entity could be transfered from an old individual to a new one. Or we could be "players", so to speak. On the other hand we could be deleted upon death and nothing happens after that. Definitely interesting.
Ethan Brown
>Or we could be "players", so to speak. This is what I'm genuinely convinced in. Imagine the videogames of the future. You temporarily suppress your memories, hook up to a computer, and in the timespan of an hour live out an entire life "in the past", or in a completely imaginary world.
And there are so many other practical applications to this. Cred Forums often says "Soft times make soft people". So how soft would people be growing up in a future utopian society? And just consider the world we live in today, and everything you've learned by just observing it. What better way to teach a child the realities of life?
Caleb Rogers
I can see where you are coming from. Which is scary because people today are pretty soft. The thing that gets me is that if we do suppress our meta memories in order to live in the moment we may someday developed the matrix for lack of a better example, along with technical immortality. So the simulations may be recursive like DiCaprios dream movie. It would also be a great history lesson to live through each period of history.
Ethan Peterson
I assume that if we did build such simulations, we'd include some kind of a safety against creating a recursive simulation and being stuck forever. It's a scary thought none the less.
Anyway, it's 2 am and I got exams tomorrow. Nice chat mate
Andrew Perez
>Logically we are automatons, but yet I perceive colors and feelings
Science will never solve this problem from their current "working" perspective. Different parts of the brains are responsible for receiving different parts of the visual information (like shape, color etc.), the whole visual aspect of the brain is mapped and studies show there is no place in the brain that can potentially unify these different informational aspects into a unified perception.
Or perhaps the fact that electrical signals from our brain can cause physical actions of the body, but we don't know what gives rise to the signal. We can place electrodes on a person's brain and induce an involuntary action, but so far those actions are never went paired with the will of the person of making the involuntary action nor have we ever altered someone's will through an external stimulus.
Or the case of the boy who had no brain at all, just a skull full of fluid and his brain stem, he was blind, could not walk nor speak but still was able to laugh and smile, and went through sleep-wake cycles, showing clear signs of consciousness.
There is only one way to explain it. Neural states of the brain and consciousness are causally related but consciousness is not dependent on the brain, but more of a symptom of it. An "instrument" that is used as a way to express itself in "physical", third dimensional reality.
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all previous centuries of its existence." ---Nikola Tesla
