/lit/ - Literature

>>20567264
>Will such a thing actually exist?
Almost certainly

>>20000760
The Four Horsemen never even began to address this "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God. A sufficiently advanced superintelligent AI would be indistinguishable from a God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>19988915
The technological singularity implies that Deism is true. We live in a simulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

God is a superintelligence. The technological singularity will lead to the genesis of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>19114117
Prove it

>>17262038
>but rather why would one appear
A technological singularity
>and what would it exactly do
Turn everything into paperclips

>>16093732
You are a fucking idiot. Here is the exact moment we should worry. The moment that we realize that it can understand meaning and start doing these bad or even sometimes funny writing is exactly the moment we should start worrying big time. It means it has understood meaning. And the difference between a bad trite writer of airport fiction and a writing-genius James Joyce often takes a lifetime, but the same improvement for a computer of a bad writer to what we call a genius is often just one single computational generational improvement. You're retarded. Unironically kill yourself. You're dumber even than the AI you criticize that we have right now; and a lot less unoriginal too.