/lit/ - Literature

>>16131859
No it isn't.

I spent my last $50 on lottery tickets. I don't care about AI. I don't care about climate change. I dont care about anything. Wish me luck.

>>16131870
You only have 50$ left bro?

Put that money on AGI coin.

>>16131870
Good luck fren

>>16131859
real cybernetics are still centuries away anon. so is AGI. what will happen in our lifetimes, though, is the point at which critical mass of internet usage/ integration is reached. this will upend the world order over the course of decades and probably bring about the end of the nation state as we know it

>>16131859
not literature

>>16131913
AGI is only 5 years away, anon. It is much, much closer than any of us could have expected. I was skeptic of it myself; but after I had seen GPT-3's (new deeplearning language model) capabilities, then I was convinced. Elon Musk has got his prediction right and it's all coming true. Expect some form of true Strong Artificial Intelligence by 2025. This is not a threat - it is an advise.

>>16131859
>Everything this guy has said is coming true
>”Covid will be over by April”

No doubt computers will be able to generate good YA literature en masse for the consumer market. However, they wont be capable of producing anything profound or creative until we develop brain emulation technology, and once we do that biological humanity will be completely redundant and we will slowly die out

>>16131919
Yes, literature and philosophy.

>>16131930
I haven't heard a cough or a sniffle since April. I've seen a lot of "charts" and "graphs" and "numbers," but, you know, people don't get flus in the summer, lol.

>>16131859
Good video talking about this
https://youtu.be/5gnlhmaM-dM

>>16131931
You're wrong. AI will surpass the greatest writers even before. Just look at what happened to Garry Kasparov and Lee Sedol. AI beat them just improving one computational gemeration. Writers are doomed already. Have you taken a look at what GPT-3 can do? Itf a human understands 90% of a text, GPT-3 understands 87% of it.

>>16131887
Thank you. If I make it, so will you.

>>16131870
Good luck, I've blown about a grand on lottery this year desu

>>16131958
Chess doesn't require any creativity though. It's mostly about memorising different openings. A computer can easily do that. Of course, if you give a monkey a typewriter, he will eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare. But in any meaningful time frame, computers wont be able to produce original works of art of literature until we develop brain emulation technology. They are incapable of doing this because they cant "think", they only use an algorithm. Their writing will lack the "human touch" which makes great literature

>>16131934
>discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

I don't want it. I don't trust the algorithm. In fact I HATE THE ALGORITHM. If I could find out where to punch the algorithm right in it's most important code I WOULD.

>>16131958
Comparing Chess, which is a mathematical problem to literature.. Insane levels of retardation here

>>16132061
Read about language-games. Read Wittgenstein. Late Wittgenstein specifically makes a comparison between language-games and chess. Get informed.

>>16131859
>>16131934

Philosophy: Completely rehashed concepts that have always been present within the collective network and individual psyche but the language of the past was either misread or went unread thus our philosophers began unintentionally rediscovering 'relevant' additions to the archival treasure-house and applying to them neologisms that are - of course - analogous to the intuitions of Babylonian babies.
"There is properly no history, only biography" much in the same way that the Emersonian transcendental philosophy can be expressed as "There is properly no philosophy, only biography"

What about Elon's scientific approximation is in any way consistent with a philosophical viewpoint? He is neither a Delphic oracle nor a paradigm-shifting physicist; neither a melodramatic exhumer of ideas nor technological virtuoso. He is a businessman. A very good, productive businessman. But a businessman. Less and less do we as a society have to fret over predicting outcomes because of scarce or incomplete information, the lenses are focusing, the timeline is narrowing, how are the effects of Francis Bacon, Nostradamus, Rockefeller, and the inordinate deluges of mathematicians and physicists in any way, shape or form congruent with this fucking /lit/board?

>>16132115
I could use an AI to answer your question right now.

>>16131859
This guy is a total midwit and only other midwits praise him, hence his popularity.

>>16132115
>He is a con artist
*ftfy