/lit/ - Literature

>>18603933
This but unironically

>>18603933
Based Capitalchad.

It doesn’t even sound good on paper though.

>>18603966
It sounds wonderful. We'd all be rotating jobs constantly, one minute I'm a rocket scientist then next I'm scrubbing toilets because the division of labour is gone, meanwhile i'm also coordinating with 8 billion other people on matters of global governance and production planning for a gift economy and

>>18603933
>human nature

F for gigachad

>>18603980
Automation'll fix it.

>>18603994
A giant central computer that controls all our lives. What could possibly go wrong?

>>18603933
yeah, bodybuilders are stupid
I don't think the women would agree, though

>>18603933
As he says in a deep, noble voice.

>>18603940
fpbp

>>18603980
Who is going to clean up all the literal shit though? Who would be a janitor for free?

>>18604285
Seriously though, machines probably will liberate us from most such gross menial drudgery by this century. Just making fun of Marx's insane claim that we can all can and should be neurosurgeons on a rotating basis.

>>18604316
If machines ever become that intelligent, they might as well be sentient, so we'll have to grant them the same rights as human beings, which means we then come back to the same problem. Why would anyone, robot or human, choose to clean up fecal matter?

>>18604337
Sub sentient robots could do it and you can just program the sentient ones to not be disgusted by it, which is a product of evolution not a necessary feature of sentience.

>>18604411
So why can't we just program humans not to be disgusted with it then? Genetic and psychological engineering is probably more efficient and realistic at this stage, given how poorly AI is progressing in general. Another problem is it's impossible to even know whether something is sentient. If we program away its ability to display disgust, that doesn't mean it isn't there. It's like sewing someone's mouth shut so they can't voice their disgust.

>>18604316
>>18604285
>>18604012
>>18603994
>>18604444
>>18604411
>resorting to offering up “le sci fi xD” suggestions to make your retarded childish murderous ideology work

Grow the fuck up. Fuck I hate westerners so much.

>>18604444
>>18604411
My point here is that, although it can't be outright proven for the reason I just mentioned, the communist idea of utopia, however beautifully you make it appear, necessarily contains demonic and disturbing undertones caused by unseen reactions and costs (in this case the most disturbing type of slavery ever witnessed on Earth) which stem from that surface of luxury. There is nothing free in this world. Someone has to suffer for someone else to benefit. The other option is suffering for your own benefit.

>>18604487
>ignoring basic common sense refutation of your belief system because you refuse to see reality for what it is
Grow the fuck up. Fuck I hate continentals so much.

>>18604444
AI is progressing magnificently, what are you talking about? We should have AGI in a few decades. All bets are kind of off when that happens though. I think people will object to being modified to literally like shit, so I think basic cleaning robots will come well before then, just like we already have the little smart vacuums. By the time we have got that far in neuroscience we should have a scientific theory of consciousness or else good reason to rule one out, but the latter seems unlikely.
>>18604487
>the future is a total unknowable black box we can't speculate on or prepare for
Imbecilic non-Western scum. Get more Faustian.
>>18604490
Lel wut?

>>18603933
>Pic related barges in
>"AS SYSTEM COMPLEXITY GROWS THE POTENTIAL FOR SPONTANEOUS INTERLINKING AND MODES OF FAILURE INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY. COST AND DECENTRALIZATION ARE THE SENSIBLE WAYS TO PRUNE THESE FAILURE PRONE SYSTEMS BUT IN COMMUNISM YOU HAVE THE MOST COMPLEX SYSTEM WITH BOTH SAFEGUARDS REMOVED"

>>18603994
That's what the industrialists said about capitalism

>>18604624
But it can't fail, it's the next and final stage of History under which all social antagonisms and contradictions are resolved. To say it can fail suggests history can run backwards which is undialectical.

>>18604552
>AI is progressing magnificently, what are you talking about?
Speak to any person in the field. It's not at all. AGI is nowhere close to being real, and nor is it progressing quickly either, if you can even call it progress.
> I think people will object to being modified to literally like shit,
Why is their objection relevant? Their objection is based on something which is only subjective and can be genetically modified out of existence. It won't exist, supposedly, once they've been modified to like it, so the objection is invalid because it is contingent upon a mere opinion which can be engineered out of existence. And again we raise the question of what is the real difference between robotic and human consciousness at an ethical level. Why are robots lesser than us so as to be made our slaves? Isn't this just antiquity all over again, with robots as the slave caste rather than subjugated tribes?
>scientific theory of consciousness
Which is still totally invalid here, because not only will it only apply to human brains and circumstances, it is still merely a scientific theory with no ontological grounding. If you think this a poor retort, look at the huge difference between the fundamental formulations of gravity between Newton and Einstein. Newton's theory was believed to be indisputably real until Einstein discovered those subtle flaws with respect to Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism and the photovoltaic problem (which few people would've suspected would have such huge ramifications prior to Einstein and a few of his contemporaries). Newton himself was clever enough to never claim to be able to understand reality with his theories, only to describe it, which is exactly what science is capable of: more or less accurate descriptions of phenomena (not the underlying workings), and predictions which are based on the tendency for things to occur in sequence.

Furthermore, consider this: In order to know what consciousness is scientifically, one has to be able to perceive it somehow. In order to perceive it (practically speaking), one has to set criteria for what perceptions count as indications of consciousness. In order to determine these criteria, one looks for similarities within oneself, which are necessarily human because we are human. Ergo, we will only be able to have a good guess (but again, not perfect) at perceiving human consciousness scientifically, because we have no possible measure of any other type of consciousness (except insofar as other beings emulate humans, both neurologically and behaviorally).

>>18604660
CIA nigger eugenicists should be killed in front of their families

>>18604645
Or option B humanity goes extinct before any deterministic resolution is achieved

>>18604675
You’re trying to get me on a watchlist?
They’ll just get your IP if they were looking

>>18604675
I'm Chinese master race sorry

>>18604660
>AI progress is slow
Pic related. I mean a sizable minority think it won't happen but this is a kind of wishful thinking I'd wager, they just don't want to believe their research will lead to such dramatic consequences as possible human extinction. Who could bare that responsibility? I don't see any real impediments to it emerging in our lifetime. Shit's going to get wild even well before we hit human level intelligence.
>Why is their objection relevant?
You have to get them to consent in the first place. You're like arguing why don't you just end things now because you won't mind dying when you're dead.
>And again we raise the question of what is the real difference between robotic and human consciousness at an ethical level. Why are robots lesser than us so as to be made our slaves? Isn't this just antiquity all over again, with robots as the slave caste rather than subjugated tribes?
I don't believe most menial tasks require sentience. You can also possibly have very advanced levels of cognition without any phenomenal consciousness. With the ethics of it, presumably our sense of social justice by then will be expansive enough to include all consciousnesses, animal and robot too. I imagine factory farming will be abolished in the not too distant future. If you're skeptical of such progress I remind you everyone used to beat the shit out of their kids until research came out showing it was harmful and most parents stopped. Same with recycling. Most people will do the right thing eventually. That gives me some hope that, despite the silly excesses of today's social justice and imperfect our political systems, we can still all genuinely work towards a more ethical life.
>scientitic theory of consciousness won't have ontological grounding
I think these details will all get solved. Newton's theory still holds as a limit case approximation of Einstein's.
>you can only perceive our own human consciousness
This hurdle too will be overcome once we know what the actual fuck qualia even are. You're just prematurely committing to some kind of dual aspect monism where it remains ontologically mysterious and inaccessible except by direct first person experience even if we understand all the cognitions underlying it, but that very much remains to be seen, as consciousness has to be somehow transparent to nature as natural selection worked on it. So for it to be impermeable to probing by natural means seems impossible.

>>18603933
Kek well done, This reminds me of that one Husserl greentext.

>>18604732
I'm not saying it's impermeable to probing by natural means, I'm saying that natural probing is entirely insufficient for complete understanding (an analogy that is useful, but perhaps not entirely accurate, is quantitively examining the outputs of a program by infinitely varying the numeric inputs, as opposed to viewing the actual source code, which gives you certainty as to how the algorithm operates. Natural probing can only view and manipulate inputs and outputs, consciousness itself remains as a closed black box - except when you examine your own phenomenological experience, because you yourself have a direct, non-scientific existence within it). The brain and consciousness are obviously linked, that doesn't mean scientific inquiry is capable of determining anything about the nature, as opposed to "accident/accidens", of the latter.

>>18604764
I see where you're coming from but you're not understanding my objection. Evolution has to select for a quale of painfulness in response to noxious stimuli rather than pleasant one which would lead to masochistic organisms. I don't see how this is possible if it's a black box, which is equivalent to calling it an epiphenomenon, which would blind evolution. You could just as easily be feeling pleasure and cognitively responding to the noxious stimuli as though it were pain otherwise. It would just be an incoherent mess of random qualia rather than a coherent experience. Causality has to run both ways on qualia, there has to be feedback such that evolution can act on it. If it's transparent to evolution, there must be a way of understanding consciousness indirectly, though what possible form that could take is utterly impossible to apprehend ahead of time. I'm not explaining this the best but it's hard to put into words.

>>18604764
>>18604732
>>18604660
>>18604552
Holy fuck tl;dr

When will you fags learn to stop posting a wall of text about some retarded shit that could be summed up in two, three sentences max. Trust me, nothing you’re saying is profound or original enough to warrant this much text. Shit infuriates me to no end. Fucking redditors

>>18604316
>machines will probably liberate us
Yeah sure...

>>18604793
You'd have only wasted that 45 seconds anyway.

>>18604316
>machines probably will liberate us
Why haven't they already?

>>18604830
Economic system and the culture that goes with it, priorities out of whack. The material wealth technology has brought is staggering, just need to distribute it better, work less and so on.

>>18604645
>it's the next and final stage of History
sorry bucko, in the year 1000 the Earth was literally about to end. Now some bearded jew, who only looks at shit materially, contradicting himself every few paragraphs, who's goal is a bourgeois notion of "fweedom" and gives a literal step of faith to believe that we will hit technological singularity; is not gonna be our messiah

>>18604732
>Pic related.
It really does say "latter or NEVER", so yeah jerk off to more technology, creature
>You have to get them to consent in the first place.
no you don't
>If you're skeptical of such progress
societal orthogenesis isn't real
>everyone used to beat the shit out of their kids
other than poorfags (and even then it's rare), not really
>most parents stopped
the ones that beat their children will have their children beat their grandchildren; which is something I'm not opposed.
>Same with recycling
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry-insiders-reveal-the-truth-about-recycling/
>Facing heightened public concern about ever-increasing amounts of garbage, the image of plastics was falling dramatically. State and local officials across the country were considering banning some kinds of plastics in an effort to reduce waste and pollution. But the industry had a plan; a way to fend off plastic bans and keep its sales growing. It would publicly promote recycling as the solution to the waste crisis — despite internal industry doubts, from almost the beginning, that widespread plastic recycling could ever be economically viable.
>In all the years since the plastics industry mounted this recycling push, it’s estimated that no more than 10 percent of plastic produced has ever actually been recycled.

>I think these details will all get solved.
"just trust the science" you're retarded, ok

You are ALL stupid if you think there's the possibility for "post-scarcity"

>>18603933
Based

>>18603933
Didn't read your post, OP.

>>18604285
>Who is going to clean up all the literal shit though?
everybody cleans their own for starters. you're left with a minority who are too incapacitated to do that, so this remaining work is spread between those capable. but in the first place, the former are given products that will help them not get anything smeared in shit in the first place.