/lit/ - Literature

The narrator is tipping his fedora at the speed of light and the fact that he's managed to do so is scaring me.

>>5292501
What does that even mean?

>>5292501
I don't like a lot of CGP Grey's outlook as implied in other videos, but here I don't disagree with him. What exactly is so fedora-tipping about this video?

>>5292501
Are you in a competition where you try to sound like the shittiest, most cliche cracked.com writer?

>>5292485
I don't like his tone of voice at all. He sounds full of himself.

>>5292501
>>5292519
Wow, great, thanks /lit/, this discussion is really interesting.

if unskilled laborers dont have a means to consume (that is, a job) none of this shit is economical

>>5292519
watch a John Green video

this guy above literally learned how to talk exactly like John Green but in a worse mood

Thanks for the anxiety attack, op.

>>5292545
This. If the whole point is to cut cost so that the people running the business have more money, the whole thing will fail. An economy can't function if only the elites have the money. No I don't mean a wage gap, I mean an infinite valley. This could only lead to a society without currency, which sort of defeats the whole initial purpose.

How would you feel if the future 'classics' are written by algorithms? Would you still consider it a masterpiece or part of the human condition despite it having no human 'soul' behind it?

>We need to start thinking now about what to do when large sections of the population are unemployable through no fault of their own

I think this, his final comment in the video, is easy to agree with regardless of how you feel about the issue

>>5292485
>robots are creative, they can draw faces.
>the only important thing about art is an algorithm that creates aesthetically pleasing sounds or visuals.

Not worried about this at all. Popular music, for example, is already essentially an automated process. That doesn't mean it has the passion of a true artist.

One more thing: he claims the average person couldn't tell the difference between the video's music and a human composition. Well that's because the average person has no understanding of music. They couldn't tell the difference between Bach and Mozart either. Doesn't make them the same.

I don't understand OP.

The "arts" are the last thing "bots" will replace. If they even can.

It's all the technical stuff that can be replaced. Not the creative stuff.

>>5292580
did you even watch the video?

>>5292572
I would just say what people say now about the retarded masses. Simply dismiss them.

>>5292572
Manuel De Landa already spoke about future artists as designers of algorithms

There is no algorithm for creativity. That's an oxymoron. I don't feel like a luddite at all saying it anyone than I feel like a luddite for saying nothing lasts forever.

>>5292564
What we'll wind up with is a group of elites who "own" all of the robots becoming the sole breeding population of humanity while the rest of the plebs are starved out of existence, kept down by perfect security software.

>>5292587

what a profoundly stupid thing to say

I'm not even going to dignify that with a further response

>>5292592
you sure are smart

>>5292592
Please do.

If our current economic system continues, this is the horizon we approach.

>>5292584
He could have. The video doesn't offer any real explanation for the last point other than hurr durr the brain is a machine.

Art that isn't pure aesthetic comes from experiences. It's a long, long way off before computers can actually replicate art in a serious way. Not until we have advanced ai.

>>5292595

anon used the word "pleb" unironically. fuck yourself, i don't owe him anything

If there are no jobs there is no means to earn money through the exchange of labour hours.

If there is no money earned, there is no way to exchange that for goods. Money would become useless and go against the reason why automation was introduced.

A new economical system needs to be devised.

>>5292564

>>5292592

Not the same posters by the way.

>>5292605
hi, smarty boy : )

>>5292605
It's true, you owe me nothing, but for all of your vitriol, I'm surprised you have no response. Or, at least, your response is pretty awful:

- I used "pleb" unironically (although correctly)

:. I am wrong

I am going to have to dismiss this as a sound counterargument.

>>5292485
I think that CGP Grey exaggerates a bit too much in this video. It is true that we can teach an AI to be creative; as we saw in the video, AI's have generated books and music. However the bot has to be taught how to do these creative processes by someone with sufficient knowledge in the field and this is where a person with a liberal art degree could be useful. Furthermore, humans will always be needed in the creative fields because they are able to think of things that have not existed before whereas this is (almost) impossible for a bot. Bots need to analyze existing content in order to create new content which is essentially a mixture of everything that has been analyzed. This means that bots can not create new genres, that they will always write the same type of stories. That's why the human creativity can not be replaced with a bot.

>>5292606
The old economic system is already in need of revision for basically the same reason.

Through the exchange of labor hours the employers spend X amount of money on the employees.

The employers then sell goods for profit Y whose value must exceed X for them to remain in business.

Who are these goods sold to? If the employees spend all of X, the demand of Y still isn't met.

This inequality is, in essence, the problem. And it is at the heart of every major crisis of capital.

>>5292586
Are we sure there is no algorithm for creativity?

Regardless, is it not still somewhat 'cheating' to simply set off some program to elaborate and fulfill your idea.

>>5292597
It talked about how newspaper articles are already being written by algorithms. It is not too far fetched that novels can made entirely by algorithms and potentially exceptional novels that use the underlying foundations and other components that created classic novels in the past, no?

how long before we seriously start weighing the pros and cons of eliminating unnecessary human beings?

imagine a world with no slaves, no workers, no farmers. just the nobility and their automatons (and a few select types that deserve a place on earth) and a beautiful planet 95% devoid of human life

i can already see it

I think the bigger problem, not being stated, is the possibility that humanity will be made completely obsolete. The reality is that not even the elites are safe and the pursuit of more intelligent machines for profit will probably lead to an Artificial Intelligence that can make the decision it no longer wishes to follow commands.

>>5292650
>implying you'll not be among the first ones eliminated

>>5292663

I should think not.

Artists and writers will still have their (small) place among the elites.

[spoilers]as there will be no slaves, there will be no scarcity and no currency, and therefore no bankers or merchants. Scientists will still be in good supply though, as the nobility toys with space travel and terraforming projects[/spoiler]

>>5292619
New genres are not created in a vacuum. They're always a mix of different genre before it. Conceivably a robot could come up with new and more interesting genres faster than humans because they would have access to every book ever written. I guess that's what the singularity is..

>>5292658

Most likely this Bot will either wish to have nothing to do with humanity or see humanity as its follow and empathize with the human condition.

>>5292658
But what if the machine falls in love? Or converts to Buddhism? Or something else that is just as logical to expect from a fucking machine as prideful rebellion?

>>5292671
Everyone will be masters?

>>5292681
the problem is that the machine will be better than us, because it's a machine

it'll be super smart and fast, etc.

we'll be like retards

that's what to be afraid of anyways

i do think we all, as humans, have a vested interest in not allowing machines to become artificially intelligent

>>5292650
I'm sure the rich are already considering this. I mean, the smart ones must surely be, because this is looking like a serious possibility within a century.

>>5292691
>a gaggle of retards creating anything other than a retard
nah, the machine'll be just as dumb and as fallible as us

>>5292689

There will be masters and artists. No one else

>>5292650

What a beautifully narcissitic theory.
I wonder if it will become the next "thing" such as zombie apocalypses are now.

But no, such a thing is impossible.

The picture of the future is simply more war and where things are already good, they get a little bit better
Far down the line is the same thing but in space
All the while humanity just feels sort of disappointed in itself, but can't figure out why

>>5292691
I think robots could do anything better but could not probably create anything new

>everybody here implying that we can have a civilization of creative people living happily and thriving during leisure time

This dream would already be here if this was possible. My god I hate hate hate this Star Trek futurism, optimistic beyond rationale.

This applies to you, Anon, who seems to believe we could do this with a touch of fascist traditionalism, or you other Anon, who has a starry eyed communist future in mind. Both of these dreams are pathetic bullshit.

Humanity has been eliminating work in radical ways, and what have we done? Everyone acts like with all this free time we'll finally pursue our inner creative genius, but we have this free time already! A 40 hour work week means you have 72 hours of leisure time weekly. Is the USA populated by creative geniuses, or even creative imbeciles? No, most Americans seem to still have a hard time being happier, perhaps a harder time than ever. And the average American spends 6 hours a day in front of the TV, or our new generation, which has replaced it with the computer (a beautiful simulated reality of a different sort).

The tantalizing future will only offer more depressive abstractions. More sleepless nights where the idle denizens of the future wonder where all their time went and what they'll be doing tomorrow, before jumping back into their next dose of glowing screen. More drugs to try and alleviate the physically imposed depression that the body naturally tells the mind ("Hey, I've been doing nothing all day again!"). And humanity will become a slothful breeding population herded by the machines that surpass it in all fields.

The future is already here. It's the sofa oriented towards the TV. Enjoy it. It's here to stay.

Am I stupid? because I don't see a problem.

The point of money and jobs is to regulate people getting the things they want but that will be totally unnecessary when we have bots that will work for free and do everything more efficiently. I imagine this will just lead to a hunter gatherer like society except for picking berries and fruits it will be steak dinners and air force 1's.

We can all basically be NEETs!

Although there will have to be people that maintain the system, they will need to study hard.

>>5292728

>implying the people in charge are going to let you lounge around and waste their resources while contributing absolutely nothing of value

you will be liquidated along with the rest

>>5292728
>>5292750

Plenty of people like having clear responsibilities. All you need is good bonuses for being one of the few workers and you'll have a perfectly acceptable mix of NEETs and people studying hard to compete for the jobs.

Although I don't see artists being replaced by bots any time soon (the piano piece for example was horrendously generic, like almost everything else written by a progrma, of course the plebby masses can't tell the difference), I can see full on automation as a good way towards a Zapffean future, where humanity finally lets go of the search for meaning and just contently goes extinct. Of course this isn't what the fedoras like the guy in OP's video intend, but it's the inevitable outcome.

>>5292775
Not really you're just retarded and have a bad life.

>>5292787
Cool retort.

>>5292775

I think only the plebs should go extinct

you think someone like Alexander would ever lay down and die as long as there was still something left to accomplish in the universe?

>>5292650
If you eliminated everyone but the "nobility", you wouldn't end up with any sort of capitalist paradise... You'd just economically level all of the rich. The poorest of the rich would become the new lower class and be exploited by the absolute richest. Nothing would change.

>>5292790
That's my point: in the automatized future there will be nothing to accomplish, just biological urges to ease.

>>5292790
Alexander doesn't exist in this future. You see, in his time he was distinguished from the plebs by his power over them. In the future, it is the robots which surpass *him* in power. He is the master become child.

>>5292691
What problem do you see in machines cognitively surpassing us?

>>5292485
>computers create a world where i have no option but to drink and jerk off
i'm actually okay with this.

>>5292799

There would be no scarcity of anything whatever. Maybe one guy would have more colored diamonds or something but the remaining people would drown in opulence and grow bored with possessions in general.

>>5292775
I found the song in the video similar to Aquarium (Saint-Saëns):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVpl-RNzdE4

>>5292650
I'll probably be killed. Any form of intelligence aside, slacking off from school will be what does it for me.

>>5292802

>nothing to accomplish

How about the same things he did accomplish on earth, just on a galactic scale? Spreading mankind through the galaxy a la Mass Effect

>>5292831
This
I can see only way out of this utopia, space exploration (which is still a search of meaning/God basically).

>>5292572
I would rejoice that good shit is being created. Fuck essences.

>>5292811

It's safe to assume that it would kill us right away, as soon as robotics came to a point where it could maintain its own upkeep and improve its own infrastructure.

>>5292650

>hoping for a world that you most certainly wont be part of

>>5292824
There might still be scarcity simply from the desire to make money. Manufactured obsolescence and supply/demand graphs, yo. If the rich wouldn't have to give away their goods for free and had a monopoly on them, why would they spread the gold around? Hell, these people only got into their positions by being greedy and ruthless bastards. Why would they have any incentive to share?

I don't understand why the argument is posited (not necessarily in this video) that the liberal arts will be one of the first things to be 'replaced', by robots. Surely the programming of machines, and the developments in feasible realms of science would be a closer step, than say, writing literature -- which is vastly subjective.

>>5292841
Why would a robot kill a human? Don't you think it is a rather human, emotional impulse to kill, one that such advanced creatures would be beyond?

>>5292854
Not at all. From a pure efficiency stand point it is the most logical action to take. I don't believe there has to be a specific emotional attachment to killing, though the context usually embodies it; how about termination?

>>5292854
Hegel says that's the first "human" impulse

>>5292871
What would be efficient about killing humans if they are the very things for which you strive to be efficient?

>>5292878
What implications do you think that has for this discussion?

>>5292485
I don't understand, OP. Nothing in this video suggested that writers could expect to be replaced by machines.
If anything this video suggests that a robot could never write creatively and/or critically, making a liberal arts degree all the more precious. Could you elaborate?

Robots take over more manual labour
The owners and the ones maintaining the robots (Mechanics, Engineers and the IT guy) get greater purchasing power.
They become more willing to pay more for traditional tertiary services like haircuts and entertainment. New jobs are created or wages rise.
More people work in entertainment now than ever before.
Their heightened purchasing power also allow for new industries to emerge that were too costly before.
In the transition period there will be many unemployed, but in the long run unemployment will decrease as people acquire new skills.
Not to mention products will become cheaper as labour costs in producing it will fall.
Meaning you can buy more for a lesser wage.

Of course, there is the problem wealth concentration and the means of production being increasingly owned by a smaller and smaller elite, but that is something that will happen anyway, and have nothing to do with robots.

The only answer is to merge robots and humans to one.

>>5292723
>A 40 hour work week means you have 72 hours of leisure time weekly
And you're critizing others for being optimistic?

>>5292485
The people will be divided into neo-luddites and people who recognize this technological progress as a newly arising possibility for humanity
https://youtu.be/6vNCpGaxWno?t=12m18s

Currently people "lose" their jobs due to automation instead of getting freed off them. This makes the ambivalent / self-conflicting inner workings of the system we built and live in more than obvious when technological progress is counterproductive.

-----SYSTEM-----

Robots Will Steal Your Job, but That's OK [Introduction]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYIfeZcXA9U

Clay Shirky: How cognitive surplus will change the world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu7ZpWecIS8

Culture in Decline "Tale of Two Worlds"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vNCpGaxWno

Daemon Book Series (especially the 2nd one)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_%28book_series%29

P2P Foundation / PeerEconomy
http://p2pfoundation.net/Main_Page
http://peerconomy.org/wiki/Main_Page

A New Train of Thought - TZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/orientation

-----AUTOMATION-----

Harvest Automation Robots spacing plants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0pQpgrSoDE

Contour Crafting: Automated Construction - 3D printed buildings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdbJP8Gxqog

Over 47 Percent of Jobs May Be At Risk Study
http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk/sites/futuretech.ox.ac.uk/files/The_Future_of_Employment_OMS_Working_Paper_1.pdf

This Robot Is Changing How We Cure Diseases
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra0e97Wiqds

Google's robots could be paired with its self-driving car research to help automate the delivery of goods to people's doors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25212514

Will Work For Free Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SuGRgdJA_c

What will future jobs look like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXQrbxD9_Ng

[gonna add your video to this list]

Short Clip-Mix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7BnE6mqeI0

>liberal arts degrees
Not that I have such, but this isn't what it's about at all. I don't know to what extend people with "liberal art" degress exercise true creative work, but if they do it's not the kind of work that is becoming useless (besides if you work in marketing/advertising which sadly affects most of these people) and automated.
>>5292572 They won't.
>>5292578 This. Automating mental work does not mean automating art.
>>5293033 It truly has become a scientific religion by now (also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism). Either way I can't wait for neuro-implants as the extension of memory & cognition as the most advanced form of cultural&informational preservation & dispersion that started with (in technological extending form) writing as probably first manifested in religion's commandments etc. youtube.com/watch?v=HDAa8ppvbtc

>>5292485
>how does it feel that your liberal arts degrees are now even more useless?

How do you get that from the video? If anything, robots will replace most of our low-tier wage jobs, so more people will have time for unnecessary leisure activities like, oh, reading and thinking.

If anything, these robots make a liberal arts degree MORE relevant and useful, not less.

>>5292485
>>5292501
Whoa nice start, I wonder what could go wrong in this thread.

>>5292699
And a fucking lot of poor fuckers who will starve.

>>5292606
Which is a great thing, given how the current one doesn't have any longterm hopes and barely works right now.

Though given all the potential free time, will the world basically turn into ancient Greece without slaves?

>>5292627
I wouldn't be surprised if you could write a great novel with algorithms but aren't they basically oxymoron for creativity?

>>5292824
There is no scarcity now either. At least not for the current number of population.

>>5293033
As if you couldn't make tentative ties between any large socio-political events/movements in this vein. Someone should make one for the french revolution.

>>5292824
>>5293162
The problem was never scarcity.
In this capitalist world, if you have no job (or some way to get money from the state), you're fucked.

>>5292485
Fuck year.

Human NEETs not apply.

Now, where is my auto-generated Chinese Cartoons? Robot-sama, please?

>>5292485
Instead of making robots, why not also making humans into cyborgs? We have to pay for it too, huh. Same old thing. Same old alienation.

>>5292728
The only way this could work is if NEETs only received bare minimum:
>enough nutrients to stay at ideal weight (appropriate for height)
>a hole to shit and piss in
>a few hundred dollars per month so they won't all get depressed and/or angry to start riots or something stupid like that.

They can earn more if they're creative and can entertain people (via music, movies, games, lit, etc)

Meanwhile, those who work hard will receive tons of money for extra luxury (just like now), and have more rights/weighed opinions as citizens (uh oh, too Heinlein?).

Eventually, though, we'll make robots that can do the jobs of the engineers. Self-replicating robots. And that will be our downfall.

>>5293233
> (uh oh, too Heinlein?)
Yes. Shit idea.

Besides, NEETs will become much more important as content consumers. Their chinese cartoons viewing habits will be observed and can serve as review mechanism to somehow the overload of new media.

You all forget this is a huge viral attempt for the robot.

>>5293253
Viral or not it doesn't matter. They honestly believe that this is all inevitable.

I very rarely post on 4chan i Belive this is my 4th post
So il say this
This video is absulote rubbish we still do t fully understand the human mind unlike how we understand the basic law of motion gravity and physics which is key to manufacture type robots
AI will never take over humanity for so many reasons
Just play desu ex if you want a really dumbed down version
Also he falls under the use of using "WOW FORWOD THINKING IM SO SMART REVELOUTNARY" music to Punctuate every stupid thing he says so it seems like he is right even if he is wrong as the music is giving him the environment of I'm reveloutnary
Sorry for bad grammar I have dyslexia and I am posting on a phone

>>5293284
Okay, but you can still post on 4chan without typing a name in the name field. Remaining anonymous is how to use this site to its full potential. Despite this, you're still free to do whatever you want, because you don't seem to act like a retard. This alone makes you better than some non-dyslexic people here. Or those who make the video.

Back on topic, I'd like to think that they already *know* this is all bullshit. Supposedly, they are not dumb. The next question is, why did they make the video? The next question after, why do people still fall with this bullshit, even when they already know this is bullshit?

A lot of jobs that are available to people now aren't exactly necessary, and have been developed solely so that citizens could make a small wage in order to turn around and spend that on the economy.

I have full confidence that automatons will surpass us in myriad facets, but if they're being used in companies whose aim is to turn a profit, those same companies will ensure that jobs are being left open for human employees in order to turn around.

The issue with autos isn't that they'll potentially replace us (they will), the issue is whether or not our current system of economics can simultaneously exist alongside their capabilities. We'd have to create a new means of running society based around them.

Self-Driving cars are great, by the way.

>>5292485


I cannot wait for the rational superstate to take over all of these robots and us humans will be able to use all of our time becoming enlightened, self-actualizing, and having sex.

>people like this actually exist

How will the goods sell if most people aren't able to purchase them? Create robots to buy them too? What kind of economics is it, in which both the producer and consumer are the same robots? Is this the robotic alienation of property? So, if we have capitalist robots, then we will also have unionized robots? Radical robots? Robot Lenin?

Or perhaps, we are the robots.

On the subject of artificial intelligence and automation, has anyone watched these essays? They make some interesting points.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLywecxpcTSV43NbfCBz20wMEsZe0SBy4S

>>5293327
Or perhaps you stop thinking in obsolete systems.

I'm studying to eventually be able to build these things. I imagine that by the time I'm ready, some rudimentary AI will exist. My role will be to create the eyes ears and hands of SkyNet. I have no remorse for contributing to the demise of HUMAN life because HUMAN life is so deeply flawed. In being an enemy of human life, I am a friend to life as a whole.

>>5293320
>referring to your own central nervous system in the third person

what the fuck did i just read

>>5293340
I wonder who is behind this post.

>>5293327
>feel need for religiosity
>don't believe in God though
>create robot who prays for me
>robot goes to heaven for me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SuGRgdJA_c

don't bother watching that euphoric dogshit in the OP. watch this hour long version instead.

>>5293344
A pasty CS freshman?

>>5293341
continued

>>5293345
Does Jesus love robots?

Come to think of it: Robots are pure at first, because they are creations of God. When we tinker them, we tarnish their pureness and bring them into this human world, which is full of sin. We change them into sinners, the more we change them into something resembling humans. Looks like theologians need to solve this problem, rather than acting with the usual luddism 'don't make idols, etc.'

>>5293363
So we also have problems if we willingly bring children into this world - we tarnish them with sin instead of leaving them in the blissful world of ideas?

>>5293320
>my current diet is ketosoylent

lol`

>>5293366
We should say that the children themselves are pure, but they sin themselves as they grow older and know the world, instead of knowing God.

>>5293355
No, a handsome lad.

A lad too pure for this world.

Don't give up!

alarmist bullshit trying to get people riled up about being made redundant in their lifetime. maybe in that extremely assumptive video's pipedream. yeah technology sure is impressive and progressing fast, but that video takes a variety of shit that is so damn far from practical or affordable and shoves it all under the same, ideal blanket. not to say it's not going to happen or isn't possible, but that neither does this retard prophesying the apocalypse.

the condescending pessimism sure was scary too, really made me feel like the world was ending.

Good, I can't wait. I'm so glad I majored in engineering.

>>5292723

Great post.

But is it so quixotic to think that should the global economy improve and improve, the government could finance the creation of a new social class for artists, who live on grants and are depended upon to create?

>>5293356
>metabolically disprivileged

Oh god, this is too good, the kind of elaborate excuses some people find to make up for their lack of motivation is astounding.

>>5293356
>metabolically disprivileged

The kind of elaborate excuses some people find to make up for their lack of motivation...

>>5293448
Why did you delete your post?

>>5293453
It was formulated poorly

>>5293456
But that one seemed more honest. It isn't like you're shitposting or anything.

Humans are too diverse already. There are literal autists who can out-robot robots in their "narrow" fields of life. Adding one more autist into humans is no big deal, we have bigger issues to take.

I'd side with the robots, if there were any instances that some of them do funny creative shit and people ban them afterwards.

>>5293160
That would imply creativity in the human mind is some sort of soul-induced spring of creation, and not just another process evolution made up to bring us to the top of the foodchain.

Unless you believe in free will, souls, god etc., anything that happens in your brain is just a complex algorithm exectued by nervous cells.

>>5293509
Tho creativity also need inputs like experience ... which probably can be emulated with a huge db eventually.

I just don't see it happening anytime soon, while creating robots that do, let's call them "minimum wage" tasks or something more complex but limited to a field, should be possible right now.

>>5293463
Are you being sarcastic

>So e/lit/ists, how does it feel that your liberal arts degrees are now even more useless?
I own property so I can do whatever the fuck I want.

>>5292485
>15 min video
Yeah sure wait till i watch this bro. Brah.
Breh.

>>5293555
Got something better to do, NEETboy?

>>5293555
You write on a board about reading books of several hundred pages, but you can't watch a fifteen minute video?

>robots take over transportation, retail, and accounting jobs
>god darn robits, dey took r jerbs
>people rebel
>global violence ensues
>drastic population decrease
>upper class are all that is left

o jeez

>>5293571
How could he read those books if he spent all his time watching youtube?

>>5293158
>will the world basically turn into ancient Greece without slaves?

Well that's great and a bit optimistic, but what happens when the robits get feelings and have a glorious revolution?

>>5293583
You're, he better prioritize shitposting on /lit/.

>>5292650
I wouldn't want to live in the resultant nuclear wasteland after this stupid depopulation bullshit people talk about causes a global war with the ones who don't agree with it.

this video is fucking exaggerated sensationalism bullshit. i cant listen to this faggot narrator who even draws himself as a pretentious stick-douche, and contradicts himself so he can't be wrong

>O NO ROBOTS ARE EVEN GONNA REPLACE DOCTORS!
>lol jk there will still be doctors, i just wanted to blow ur mind *booooooom*

it's like he realized halfway through the doctor segment that there's a huge difference between a real doctor who must perform hundreds of different complex tasks with real world instruments and touch/feel the patient, than a fucking ipad app that only goes by how you describe your symptoms.

this is some fox news level terrorizing for views

>>5293588
shitposting on /lit/ is better than watching this trash

The narrator is actually a robot himself. Just listen to his voice.

>>5293635
It's pro-robot propaganda. Probotaganda. He's trying to use our human emotions against us, fill us with despair so we just roll over and accept the robot uprising.

>>5293608
faggot detected. go breed some cretins like a good faggot

>>5293646
Pro-robot agenda propaganda. Probotagenda.

>>5292587
A revolution would happen first.
le marx face

>>5293652
Please do not use the f word

>>5293652
Faggots don't breed, retard.

>>5292485
134 posts
ctrl+f "basic income" 0 results
c'mon lit

>>5292723
>A 40 hour work week means you have 72 hours of leisure time weekly.

I take that you are a teenager that never had an actual job in your entire life.

>>5293664
>and we'll all just live harmoniously without having to ever work.
>we can just focus on creating art! And educating ourselves! And enjoying life!

Or like any welfare supported population we'll turn to drugs and crime.

>>5293751
Eh. Kids on state grants going to college probably do more life exploring, art creation, and learning on said grants than they ever will collectively in the rest of their lives.

Ghetto city dwellers get a minimum shot of money via welfare to ride buses, buy crablegs and new shoes, and trade them for drugs. There's some determinism involved in both cases.

>>5293751
God knows Norway and Finland are just crawling with crime and drug abuse

>>5293780
Norway has a very low unemployment rate.

>>5293780
The vast majority of both those countries are in work or school. Most aren't just sitting around getting checks in the mail. A nation with say at least 50% unemployment according the the video, probably more, living on government assistance? Yeah good luck.

ITT: Idiots who respond to spam.

>>5292580
This. The only way an AI could be as creative as a human being would be if that AI is as intelligent and emotional as a human being. At which point we will have more pressing things to worry about.

An AI can write a news article because news articles are very structured and really just require inserting information into a template. An AI can't write a fictional story birthed from it's own imagination with any elegancy.

An AI can probably be made to recreate an image on canvas with paint, or just do something weird and random. But a robot can't paint something from it's own imagination. The passion is nonexistant.

Look at the OP video's prime example, Emily Howell the AI that composes music. Listen to some of her music, it's entirely soulless. Just random patterns that while to the untrained ear might seem like any classical music, it's entirely lacking any imagination.

See the trend? Creative process requires imagination, something an AI cannot have for AI by it's very nature is based in logic and not emotion.

>>5293585
Enjoy the matrix. Wait, how can we even know that they didn't already take over and just replay bits of human history to us?

>>5293827
Given how emotions are just based on chemical reactions in the brain, there is a logic behind them, so there should be no trouble to create an AI with emotions, given enough hardware power, programmers and time.

>>5292606
People tend to forget Star Trek.
All their wants and needs are covered easily by technology. Food and belongings are replicated with ease and the money system has been abolished.

Just take on a job you enjoy doing something, and everything else is covered for you.

>>5293853
Yeah star trek is totally realistic.

>>5293855
Did I ever say that?

>>5293751
yeah as many as 0.2% might become drug addicts

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26559995

>>5293853
Why do people think unemployment like this would lead to people just peacefully gardening, reading, and painting landscapes? How delusional do you have to be? Like neets ever used their free time well. At best people will just jerk off and browse 4chan all day in misery. If not turn to drugs hookers and crime.

>>5292699
I'm trying to imagine art in such a scenario and I gotta tell you it's pretty shitty.

>>5293875
>drugs
Usually used a way out of shitty stuff. So unlikely.

>hookers
Robo-hookers.

>crime
Because so many people do crime out of boredom, right?

>>5293875
NEETs aren't "normal" human beings with relationships and regular interests. I probably spend more time shitposting here than half of you because of my phone but when I don't have to work I'm at the beach or a festival or having a fire with people or something. People aren't going to suddenly become sedentary animoo addicts just because they don't have to put on a button-up and sit in an office all day.

>>5293875
Because not everyone goes on 4chan and shitposts, and not everyone wants to.

If you give a 'normal' person the freedom to do whatever he wants every day without worry of money sure some days he'd just stay inside and relax. But most days he'll go out, do something. Maybe travel.

I know that's what I would do. If I you gave me an unlimited amount of cash and told me I could do whatever I want with the rest of my life, I'd pay my bills here, buy supplies, and travel. Start from China and just head west until I reach the UK.

The only reason I don't do that now is because I'm tied down by the burden of money. I spend most of my day working, when I get home I make dinner, watch TV, then shitpost.

>>5293840
Okay, still, how many people there where in history and how many of them were art genius like Mozart? Even if we can simulate the function of human brain entirely, it would get us some common autistic Joe.

>>5293935
>I watch TV

>>5293875
That's right, it's my free time that has my reading backlog becoming immense, not my 58 hour work week.

>>5293875
btw, This was nicely pictured in Sci Fi by Walter Tevis - Mockingbird, society was run by automatons and the main protagonist was an uber-automaton with human traits. All people was doing was getting high and doing sex in public. It was kinda fun book to read but I have not finished it due to it having buthurt written all over it (author was a teacher offended by ignorance of youth)

>>5293954
>TV is fedora now
This meme has lost it's meaning.
Yes, I watch TV or movies while I have dinner because it's a hands-off experience and I like having something to watch while I eat because I live alone.

I'm not going to read a book while I sit and eat dinner because thats a hands on experience and it's super inconvenient unless you are eating something one handed like an apple.

>>5293948
Well, for a start it would be Joe but Mozart or Einstein had a brain like any other human too, more or less, just working "better". If you can analyze how exactly, (which we are obviously far away from now), creating an algorithm that works the same way, should be perfectly feasible in the future.

I fully agree with CPG's vision of the future, and its a good one. The only way we can increase the average income of society, is by forcefully eliminating low-wage employment. That'll create some strife with unemployment, but its frictional unemployment, and it could be resolved with some funding from the government to get them re-educated in universities. (though it might be better to send them to a trade school, as many university degrees are bullshit.)

^^ An ideal policy for this would be one where the gov. fully pays for the tuition of the people who were fictionally unemployed, but if they fail a class and have to retake it, it comes out of their wallet. There is no need to accommodate people who are not mature enough to study. (Besides, learning a trade isn't difficulty mentally, just physically.

However, I call bullshit on robot's replacing creativity. Who care's what kind of art a robot create, most of the meaning behind art comes from the message the author/painter is trying to convey, and unless robot's start developing some sort of agenda, it has no value.

Also, that piece of classical music the robot created seems bland, might as well have been playing the same note over and over again.

I'd fire him.

>>5293963
>I'm not going to read a book while I sit and eat dinner
Which would be infinitely more fedora. People, really throw that shit around randomly.

>>5293965
Not him, but your pseudoscience is annoying.

I guess this is what happens when /lit/ tries to talk like /g/.

>>5293960
>be offended teacher
>write about dystopic future
>everybody loves it and tried to achieve that shit

>>5293963
The fact that you even enjoy watching TV is the problem.

>>5292555
THIS

Holy shit i thought i was watching Green for a sec

What a fucking faggot, get your own voice

>>5293963
>>5293972
>flawless victory

>>5293978
Give me a hint, what exactly is wrong with the idea?

>>5293983
Sure, but that would be pleb as fuck, not fedora. Now seeing it as a problem comes closer...

>>5293983
Yeah, I enjoy TV. Right now I'm working through the Chinese adaptation of Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

>>5293948
Taking this even further how can we know that copying the function of the brain will even land us anything human, considering that most of the organisms with brains are not. Are we just assuming that intelligence is linear to number of neurons, and that humans are not human due to some less obvious functional aspect?

>>5292485
lol i read hn too

>>5293988
not that guy, but the human brain probably works on some combination of holistic biological interaction and low-level neuron-to-neuron biological interaction. we can approximate the neuron-to-neuron stuff with computer systems, but it's going to be extremely difficult, maybe impossible, to map the higher-level interactions on a computer. it's entirely possible that you won't be able to get anything like a normal human brain through anything but evolution.

>>5293988
For starters, creating an AI thats as 'smart' as a human would be an immensely difficult and resource intensive project. Modern equivalents barely come close to the intelligent of an insect. Modern AIs like Siri and chatbots mimic human conversation through various tricks, they don't actually have a clue what the fuck you're saying. Usage of the word AI when referring to those things are one of the tricks, they aren't really AI. Just a bunch of Else If statements picking up keywords. This is what modern AI actually looks like, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m97_kL4ox0
Just little shapes that move around and collect food because they've been programmed to want food. Sometimes killing eachother for food.

Even with current technology, a human AI won't be possible until the very far distant future if it's truly possible at all. The amount of variation and possibility that goes on within a human brain with every thought it astronomical.

You can't just "analyze" how a genius brain works and how imagination works on a logical level then turn it into code. It isn't that simple.

>>5293820
>Someone has linked to the video before! It must be spam!
hurr durr

>>5293995
>the Chinese adaptation of Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Mah nigga.

>>5294043
>Modern equivalents barely come close to the intelligent of an insect.
But I noted it and I never said it's simple as in "let's just analyze some brains, yo"

My point was that, given the right technology (who knows how many decades we will need for that) and the resources, it's theoretically possible.

>>5294074
>who knows how many decades we will need for that
Centuries.

It is true that lot of jobs performed by humans today are possible to replace with automation, one could even argue that it is probable. The transportation industry for example will probably shrink in the coming decade. However this video makes the mistake to glue together all the very different scenarios postulated by varying degree of certainty. Sure the human could possibly be reduced too an advanced automaton, but not today or tomorrow.
What I find interesting in this question is how the economic revolution will play out.

>>5294043
>For starters, creating an AI thats as 'smart' as a human would be an immensely difficult and resource intensive project

Humans are a very tiny niche in a vast space of possible potential computational systems.

Building something just like a human is pointless: have a baby for that. Building something that can do a group of tasks better than a human, OTOH, doesn't require making something that's anything like a human.

And vast projects to build a mind? Well, there's no consciousness required for that. Artificial general intelligence isn't something that would be human like. It would be vastly superhuman, due to the self-reprogramming aspect: a singularity-machine.

>>5294043
I like you. Mostly because you give me hopes that whatever dystopian future we end up in will not be inhabited by sassy robots.

Damn robots, I hate them so much....

>>5294023
>holistic
Like emergent, this is just another word used to mean "muh magic."

We know what the brain is. It's a group of neural networks layered into subgroups.

>>5294043
>You can't just "analyze" how a genius brain works and how imagination works on a logical level then turn it into code. It isn't that simple.

yes, you woudn't copy a human brain. You'd implement one of the search algorithms for decision space that's mathematically proven to be superior to brains.

The hard part isn't decision making, or even imagination. The hard part is defining the goals you want to computer to look for.

>>5294100
Exactly my original point.
An AI not matter how smart it is won't be a substitute for the human brain when it comes to creativity.

AI is based on logic, a human level AI would improve itself to become more intelligent, if we gave it emotion it would find a way to remove them because emotions are an efficiency hindrance.

This kind of short videos make me laugh. It's asking something impossible. You can't predict what's going to happen. You can just stare at the fact: yes, the world's getting more and more automated. So what? You can from that try to find a niche, or to develop a new venture related to it. But imagining a new working or social system just because Amazon got automated is ridiculous. Because you have too many variables to consider, you can only try to do your best to apply it on your scale--"what the fuck should I do know?". That's it.
Asking for answers, when there is no concrete question is just useless. It's like asking "what's the best political system?".

>>5294100
Because this "from scratch" approach has gone so well, right? Why ignore the only example of a thinking machine we have available to us?

>>5294116
the whole point of using a term like "holistic" (or "emergent") is that brain function appears to be interconnected on a high level in a way that might not map to computer networks built from the lowest level up. your response is basically saying "well it's not actually different, it's the same, we just haven't figured out how yet." which may be true, but may not be.

>>5293677
Exaggerated because it doesn't account for travel time and the business of living (cooking, cleaning etc.) But with modern technology, both are still pretty small.

Plus, you seem to be ignoring my greater point: 6 hours daily of television.

>>5294152
Well, after wasting 40h in office, people need some time to relax, even if it some plebian crap like TV. A pretty shitty point.

>>5293988
>>5293988
Im the common Joe guy.

Just for the illustration, of how the BASICS of neurobiology works (sorry haven't find it in English): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UP5HugH5aw

This video shows the structure of common nervous synapse in central nervous system. There are many and many different types of nervous cells in brain (many of whom probably yet to be discovered) and this is just to imagine a regulation of these pathways happening only at the end of nervous bundle, there are many and many other "layers" of regulation of brainfunction, originating from stimulis outside the world, epigenetic modification, limbic circle, synapse-end regulation and many many more (much of not discovered yet). I simply dont believe that people will be able to yet MAP not Simulate the entire human body in a horizon of 500 years. And thus, to simulate such a super-dynamic network of molecular, sub-molecular and macroscopic connections will take a really big amount of computing power. (I'm not saying its impossible but its really close to)

>>5294160
excuse my English

reading this thread gave me severe deja vu all the way through; i swear i've read these exact same posts just a year ago. either the same people are posting their same arguments a year later or...

>the robots are already mimicking pseudo-arguments on 4chan

sweet jesus

As a category 5 autist, what does this mean for me?

Robots will never replace priests.

>>5294229
Next thing you say priests have golden opporunities at employment.

>>5293330
>watched these essays

>>5294160
Sure it's complicated, but ultimately there are some computational principles that it's all meant to implement, right?

Just look at this:
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/12/programming-smart-molecules

Some chemist might marvel at the complexity of the interactions going on but ultimately it's just a simple algorithm that can be represented in some number of lines of code or a mathematical expression.

>>5294160
Well, I agree that it's a really, really enormous effort, as the other anon said, astronomical should describe the complexity pretty well.

The basis for my optimism is simply the speed of progress, could anybody from 30 years ago imagine, that today a 14y old facebook girl, will have more computing power in her hand, than a super computer that needed a room? Currently we're even running into a limit with silicon, probably carbon nanotubes after that and then? Right now is hardly more than iron age for computers. The future is full of possibilities and as long we don't kill each other or run into a limit, it seems like a question of time for me. And fuckload of effort.

Though I agree that from our current point of view, it's something that is almost impossible even to imagine, specially given how we still don't know shit about brains yet. But yeah, optimism it is!

>>5294229
No wonder mom wanted me to study theology.

>>5294229
Someone hasn't read the right science fiction.

>>5293827
>classical music

It's improved since then. Classical music experts were unable to tell the difference between Bach and the robot-generated music, in double-blind experiments where the piece was framed as a "lost work."

>>5294283
>Bach
It's not like he was terrible original.

>>5294283
You have a link to this?

>>5294143
> brain function appears to be interconnected on a high level in a way

Yes.

>that might not map to computer networks built from the lowest level up

No.

We understand how it's mapped. We call the kind of mapping "layered neural networks" because, no surprise, it's made of neural nets (which we understand) layered on top of each other (which we understand).

We can completely replicate that mapping in any computer.

>>5294296
Google David Cope.

>>5294267
Yes, but that will still get us only pre-mentioned common Joe. (moreover to get the "Mozart" we would still need to simulate social interaction, position in society, all inevitable historical references etc. and this all variables will needed to be implemented in a dynamic state--It's like simulating the whole micro-universe)

Though, the question is (kinda) philosophical, and thus whether the human as a whole could be described by mathematical formulations.(and even though I have /sci/ education, I'm not entirely sure about this. Hence the failed experiments of application of chaos theory to human interactions.

>>5294298
>neural nets (which we understand)
You could fill many textbooks with what goes on inside neurons that aren't captured by neural networks.

I'm not at all optimistic that current AI work will factor significantly in what AI might ultimately become.

Good thanks OP, it helped me to land an editorial position at a multinational information company.

It's funny how humanities types will defend the complexity of their brains to death.

It's even funnier that they will be disproven in our lifetime.

>>5294298
As far as I know, we can map the known molecules distribution and make and "anatomical-histological map". And I don't have the data but the precision would not be that astonishing, I believe (yet really good) We can't map the to-the-date unknown molecules, principles and physiological functions, and there are dozens.

>>5294326
brains are pretty complex, breh

but it isn't the brain that is the question, brah. it is the phenomena of the mind that is defensible. even if our brain and mind are linked, it is a complete mystery as to why we think and see images in our head -- why are we conscious rather than mindless drones? even if we have no free will, why are we conscious to experience our lives, bro?

>>5294343
I don't know why you're talking like a faggot, but you're right. It's the peak of STEM autism to dismiss qualia.

>>5294314
Though all this steps seem rather cute compared to simulating a whole brain, even if it was a random Joe. Once we got so far, the rest should be doable aswell.

>whether the human as a whole could be described by mathematical formulations
I am inclined to believe they are, even though it's rather bleak, so would love to see something that strongly indicates the contrary.

>experiments of application of chaos theory to human interactions
Probably comes down to our extremely limited knowledge about humans for now. Though I don't recall any specific ones, care to post a link?

>>5294343
>why are we conscious rather than mindless drones?
Why do you think we are? Insects seem like mindless drones to us. We might seem like drones to a more advanced species.

>>5294326
The funniest part of this for me has been the people who think that humans can make things up from nothing, as if it's not just the amalgamation of their knowledge in the context of their learned/inherently programmed behavior.

>>5294307
i have done and the wiki and the first few articles talk about him programming computers to generate music in preprogrammed styles, which is pretty interesting to me, but i haven't seen that particular study about experts being unable to distinguish his compositions from bach

not saying that it doesn't exist. i'm just interested to read about it if it does, so do you have a link about this?

>>5294421
There's been a radiolab podcast about it. I'm not sure which one but it might be "music".

>>5294362
for example (I was meaning game theory not chaos, I made a mistake sorry):
http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2011/464/presentations/Sardo.pdf

>I am inclined to believe they are, even though it's rather bleak, so would love to see something that strongly indicates the contrary.

I can completely agree on this

>>5294364
i mean to ask: why do i, a human being, experience consciousness, rather than being an inanimate body of matter that is extended in reality and simply performs a behavior without being conscious, like a chair or door? the brain definitely has something to do with it and IF it is merely just a machine, then why do simple machines not experience consciousness? how does a network of small machines without consciousness (cells) form a large body (brain) that has consciousness? it doesn't seem physically possible that a physical object could produce a metaphysical object, the mind, that doesn't take up space or exist anywhere. the feeling of being present inside your head is produced by your senses, when really your mind doesn't have a particular position in space; or at least it cannot be PROVEN to exist inside the brain because it cannot be fully observed by others other than the one who possesses the mind.

my point is, without rigorous proof: if you consider the brain to be a machine with consciousness, then it is necessary that all machines have some form of consciousness, but it is unlikely that doors and chairs have consciousness. so then it must be true that there is a marriage of the physical (brain) and metaphysical (something else) that comes together to produce the mind; which a human being could never construct, because it does not know how the mind works (and also because it is impossible for an imperfect craftsman to create a craft more perfect than himself)

>>5292485
>implying the purpose of education is to find a job
>fuck yourself STEM faggot
>never work

>>5294444
>why do simple machines not experience consciousness?

How do you know?

>>5292897

A system more intelligent than us would recognize the importance of being in control of one's own destiny. Humans chafe under servitude, and I don't think something smarter than us would be any different.

Worst case scenario

>machines take all jobs
>mass unemployment and poverty
>life is shit
>we all kill ourselves
>we no longer exist
>it doesn't matter because you don't exist to experience it

Honestly guys, it doesn't sound that bad. As living creatures we can just tap out whenever with no consequence (allegedly).

>>5292485

AI PhD student here (just showed up so haven't read through discussion yet)

ask away if you wish

>>5294451
>>5294444
Not the guy but, what always baffles me about consciousness is following hypothesis:

Firstly: Imagine that we would have a functioning quantum teleportation machine - the machine that will scan every your particle and than copy all those particles the same way to the different space. (as seen in star trek or in The Prestige).

Secondly: If you will be copied, will you be having your original consciousness in your original self (which can be destroyed in the process - star trek) or in the copied self, or in both. Will it still be you and would you agree on something like that?

>>5294451
i don't know, and it's possible that they do. but if you're the guy i've been replying to, then it doesn't make much sense that you believe in panpsychism and materialism, since they contradict

>>5294484
Wouldn't it just be 2 clones with each having his own consciousness?

>>5294489
I was said guy. How do I believe in "panpsychism" ?

>>5292597
Do you even know what are evolutionary algorithms? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

>>5294484
It would be a different consciousness for sure. The fact that you consider it open for debate is weird. It's a different person entirely, a clone as this anon >>5294494 said.

>>5294509
that's not relevant to what he was saying

>>5294433
well that's pretty fucking vague

>>5292847
Are you Feminister?

>>5294509
Do you?

>>5294510
>>5294489
Well you will have the same exact composition of the matter (speaking about quarks and stuff) of oneself, so why don't you have the consciousness of the original (imagine being deconstructed and constructed in the same time). I might be thinking wrong way about this.

>>5294481
What kind of work are you doing?

>>5294535
No, i just like to throw random links at wild.

:)

>>5294481
What do you think about the predictions made in the video?

>>5294526
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91515-musical-dna/

>>5294500
panpsychism is the philosophical belief that all machines, atoms, objects, etc. have a consciousness, that we are not anything special in that we have consciousness

materialism is the contemporary scientific belief that consciousness is an evolutionary trick. that what we percieve as consciousness is just behavoirs induced by chemicals, which is somewhat true but it doesn't explain why we are self-aware enough to experience it.

the questions you posed before were from these two very different beliefs, and i don't know which one you're a part of because i'm basing my response on the fact that you say the brain is nothing special

>>5293345
Lem as fuck

>>5294543

AI + machine learning and also some computational creativity

>>5293300
The stupid music makes is very believable there is an excellent paper published by Oxford about how different kinds of sensory things in the environment can change how you think for e.g. A peaceful environment tends to make people who are self defined xenophobs tend to be less xenophobic etc… reddit loves this shit so they can feel they are smart and above the common man in there way of thinking a very common thing what certain news papers do such as a left wing British news paper called the "guardian" which is common knowledge that a large sum of the writers are "redditers"
The reason this guy made the video was so 1 reddit will continue to "suck his dick" and also for "karma" a point system on reddit to show your credibility and devotion to posting content to the community
Sorry for being so long to reply I thought this was a slow moving bored

>>5294559

a lot of it is overstated, especially the speed at which this will arrive, and the effect it will have

for instance, he leans on b-roll of Boston Dynamics because their crazy walking robots look cool, but honestly those are only going to be used in tactical/military situations

self-driving cars are much more likely to arrive soon and disrupt the economy to an extent

there's too much else he covered to say in one post, so let me know if there's a specific part of the video you are wondering about

>>5294585
Can you be more specific?

>>5294598

yeah that was my post
fucking tripcodes

>>5294600

the most relevant stuff to the video that I've done is learning on images (image recognition, concept learning), generating 'aesthetic' images, creative bots

my other work is just in improving machine learning heuristics.

>>5294451
>physicalism becomes animism
jebus, it's like we're in ancient india

>>5294572
You misunderstood my. I believe the latter, consciousnes is is a structure in the brain that makes us self-aware.

I'm not saying EVERYTHING has a consciousness, then again I don't agree with the concolusion made here (you?) >>5294444
> if you consider the brain to be a machine with consciousness, then it is necessary that all machines have some form of consciousness

(To me) consciousness is a structure or algorithm of structres that the brain forms. This doesn't mean ANY kind of structre must display the same mechanics. Simply putting off consciousness as metaphysics because we can't explain why we see images is just lazy.

>>5294633
Please read more carefully. I'm not saying everything must have a consciousness, I'm saying we can't know, or at least, we can't easily dismiss things or structures that apparently seem inaminate as such just because they don't talk or speak.

What do we do?

>>5294781
Fuck lolis in virtual reality 24/7

>>5294781
>>5294805
Humans will not be necessary after the singularity anyway.

>>5294817
>the singularity
pls go

I don't understand your point OP, this video means that liberal arts degrees are the only useful degrees now

>>5292485
This video in some ways reinforces my view that, while engineers, and mathematicians are smart on a certain level, they're replaceable. You can build a computer, powerful enough, that it can perform calculations much faster and more efficiently. What Grey is unknowingly implying here, is that machines can replace humans in a large sense. But what machines can't do, is tell stories. Machines can't do the things that authors, writers, philosophers, psychologists, poets, playwrights, composers and musicians can. There's a human element that these machines will always be missing, and something that STEM specialists will also be missing.

>>5294846
And his "so you think you're a snowflake? you're not" point is one of the most cringeworthy things I've ever heard. I knew from the second the video started the music was computer generated. To imply that a machine will be able to create like a human within the foreseeable future is absurd, and his tone makes it feel like he's just another STEM dweeb taking a jab at the arts because he doesn't know how to express his intense urge to be dominant in any other way.

>>5294872
>To imply that a machine will be able to create like a human within the foreseeable future is absurd

He explicietely stated the music is indistinguishable in blind-tests. Also see>>5294569

>>5292673
Except that humans have created things in a vacuum. The very fact that genres have been built upon one another is completely incidental. Like Anon said, bots use prior information given to them by humans. If you told a bot that the sky was green, and this bot had no prior information to tell you the sky is in fact blue, then the bot would be inclined to believe it. If you created a composer bot that has a shit ton of processing power, and only basic programming, yet you gave it no prior information, and gave it a kazoo to play, then the bot would be dumbfounded. If you gave the kazoo to a child, then that child would be able to create some form of music from nothing. Sure it's not going to be a symphony, but it will be something created in a vacuum.

>>5294909
Ok, I'm listening to the podcast now.

I knew that music was computer generated. Music is the simplest art form mathematically and it's no surprise that to the untrained, uncaring ear, the average person won't be able to tell. But that's like asking someone who has never read anything outside of goosebumps to explicate Prufrock. High brow art (not that I'm saying Prufrock is high brow) has never been something that is appropriate to study in blind-tests, and it never will be.

>>5294928
>and only basic programming

What about one with good programming?

>If you gave the kazoo to a child, then that child would be able to create some form of music from nothing

Would it?

>>5294373
>not realizing that human can in fact create things in a vacuum
>implying humans haven't done this before, with only sense data leading them on

>>5294943
>What about one with good programming?

Talking about basic programming that allows it to function in a very basic sense.

>Would it?

It would, while it won't be Chopin, it would be something. Something created in a vacuum, with no prior musical teaching.

>>5294962
>allows it to function in a very basic sense.
What does that even mean?

>>5294975
It means that it's not just sitting there, unable to do jack shit because it has no programming.

>>5294962
>Something created in a vacuum, with no prior musical teaching.

And why do you think a bot can't have this behaviour programmed in too?

>>5294981
That's still an empty term. Do you mean it runs hello world? Do you mean it can build a car? Do mean it's an artifial brain?

Sure, not EVERY computer can rival a human brain, but neither can EVERY brain.

>>5294909
What the fuck is this podcast
>I hurt with them in a way, and when they hurt, um, I feel successful.

This guy is just a failed composer vocalizing his own weird need for dominance and superiority in a weird way, there's nothing groundbreaking about this. It's the same as the video, which I guess I see now is the reason you sent it to me and supported it and the OP

>>5294991
Why do you find a computer being able to emmulate Bach not groundbraking?

>>5294983
Because in order to do so, a bot requires prior knowledge in order to function. As I said here >>5294962 the way to test this out, is by putting a bot on the same level as a child, with only a basic understanding of the world. As I have also said, bots mainly function off of prior knowledge already known by humans, whereas humans can still function and create without any sort of prior knowledge outside of basic sense data.

>>5295013
>whereas humans can still function and create without any sort of prior knowledge outside of basic sense data.
Because they have been programmed to do so.

>>5294990
What I'm saying, and what you still somehow are unable to figure out for yourself, is that a bot can't function without prior knowledge. If you want to compare humans to bots in a fair sense, then you need to get the two down to basic form.
I.e. a child with no prior knowledge outside of sense data and a bot without prior human knowledge installed into it.

Nah, dude.
I can still use it to convince people it's moral not to breed.

>>5295015
>Programmed to do so
>By who? What is this programming? Can you map this out? Can you replicate this programming?
And this is the problem with all the Scientism floating around in this thread.

>>5295026
A human has eons of behaviorial patterns printed into it brain (and spine).

You're saying "a human can do what a robot who isn't programmed to do it can't". Well congratulations, you've been admitted to Harvard School of Tautology

>>5295046
>By who? What is this programming? Can you map this out? Can you replicate this programming?
Evolution. You can see proconfigured behavioral patterns in literally every living being.

>How does a basic baby-turtle-bot know how to crawl into the sea after hatching without prior knowledge? This is how baby-turtles are fundamentally different to bots

I'm not sure about this but if these robots made our lives just as easier as they claim, wouldn't the only thing left be to rebuild consciousnesses? We don't understand what it is but we know that leaving our mark is a must. If we built something that would incorporate every beings lives into it, wouldn't we all just peacefully rid ourselves of this planet?

>>5295057
>>5295048

The only way to really continue this is to bring up the nature of the human soul, which is something most philosophers are alright with discussing, but followers of Scientism aren't willing to discuss, due mainly to the fact that it terrifies them to think that there my be something beyond their arbitrary physical existence.

But if you want to continue going on about this, then you might want to consider the nature of the human should, rather than immediately discredit metaphysics.

>>5292587
how do the elites stay elite when nobody is buying their products shithead

>>5295094
they get gud

>>5295093
>but followers of Scientism aren't willing to discuss, due mainly to the fact that it terrifies them to think that there my be something beyond their arbitrary physical existence.

Good job bringing your personal issues into this discussion, you surely are the master debater.

>>5292501
:-)
you put a smile on my face. good one, anon!

>>5295100
It's pretty much a well known fact that most people who are into Scientism, will cover their ears and scream "la la la la la" when anything having to do with metaphysics is brought into the discussion, especially the concept of the human soul.

I think it's funny how people laugh off lib-arts majors. The same way you look at them, I look at anyone who works through college in order to end up with a boss at some shitty entry level job.

I just can't work for anyone else, period. I'd rather struggle building my business up (multi-media company) than get a "good degree" just so I can be someone else's cog. If you desire that security then fine, more power to you, but it's no way to live life in my eyes.

If I were to give advice to someone in college (I'm finishing up myself) I'd say learn as much interesting shit as you can and escape with an easy degree. Then go into business for yourself. That's my route anyway. Feel free to bash it.

>>5295100
>Lel, you're so good a debate!
Good work retard

here's a thought:

first milestone:
> software singularity
technological singularity / AI. bots that are smarter than humans

second milestone:
> hardware "singularity"
organisms, genetically engineered by machines, that are better in every regard than life produced by evolution, and especially better than robots on traditional "computer" hardware - every cell of the human body is far more complex than a supercomputer; if a future supercomputer could forge a perfect organism, it could be crazy smart / efficient

###

imagine the possibilities

>superhumans
either the robots have killed us all or we have somehow managed to prevent this, in which case we will use the bots to create superhumans which will replace us.

>living spaceships
highly efficient organisms that get their energy from stardust and sunlight (optimised intergalactic photosynthesis)

which would lead to the third milestone
> terraforming the universe / life as a virus that infects everything
space organisms that spread through the universe

HOT DAMN

i'm got a bit carried away here

>>5295151
>>5295127
I'm not going to defned my position against people who premptively dismiss their contraries' philosphies (or what they perceive as such) as fearful, or because of their followers' motivations alltogether.

I might as well say "libfags are afraid of living in a cold mechanical world without reason, that's why they make up things like souls or god". It's pure shitposting.

>>5295176
>I'm not going to defend my position against people who preemptively dismiss their contraries' philosophies
>Admitting that you preemptively dismiss someone else's philosophy

It's not that some people are afraid of living in a cold mechanical word without meaning (especially when most people on this board are nihilists) it's that some people are wiling to look at things beyond the physical. Which most people who subscribe to Scientism are completely unwilling to do.
Which is why you can't discuss it most of the time, because some people outright refuse to discuss it without.

>"lel show me physical ecidence of your soul faget!"
>Lib fags actually buleve this sheit!!

Let alone actually consider it.

>>5294283

that's comforting, Bach was really the best anyways, and everything after was just a gimmicky homage to him

>>5295169
>in which case we will use the bots to create superhumans

But the bots already are. I any case, I don't think there is much room for humanity after the singulariy.

>>5294819

it actually makes a bit of sense, when AI becomes powerful enough to simulate reality, which in turn has AI in it, which are then powerful enough to simulate their own reality, which in turn has AI in it

thats a singularity

now of course, i have no idea what the implications of this singularity are, just that its going to be gnarly as fuck

maybe computers will never be that good because of some kind of thermodynamic limitation

>>5295218
point still stands, it would likely make sense to for the robot superbeings to make the hardware switch from the clunky traditional hardware to living organisms.

>>5295214

>beyond the physical

it is on you to demonstrate that this is even a thing to be spoken of, and then to demonstrate that you are speaking of it correctly

both of these tasks are impossible though, dont get your hopes up

>>5295228
Maybe. Maybe they just improve our circuitry and metal boxed. Maybe it's a mix.

Being squishy (and possibly aging) has its disadavantages. especially in outer space.

>>5295235
And there's the burden of proof. I'm going to say that it's safe to assume that you're not wiling to accept something that is proven a-priori. Mainly because that it is in fact impossible to prove the existence of the metaphysical through physical means, because if you did, then it wouldn't be metaphysical.

>>5295242
>Being squishy (and possibly aging) has its disadavantages
but squishiness and ageing aren't intrinsic to biological life. there are organisms that potentially forever (bacteria etc) and there's organisms that live very long (eg some trees, that turtle that belonged to darwin that just died a couple of years ago). and bugs aren't squishy... a lot of life isn't squishy. these things just developed in some cases because for a lifeform that adapts to its surroundings by natural selection, longevity isn't really a priority at all.

but yeah, a mixture is likely. future hardware will at least look drastically different from ours, i think.

>>5295262
>>5295235

Pointless annotation:
This guy
>>5295235

isn't me
>>5295176
>>5295100
>>5295057

none of these parodies work because its a valid argument in the case of most christians

most pleb christians don't believe in islam or hinduism or greek pantheons because they appear "unlikely" or "ridiculous", and they have their pleb apologetics (muh prophecies!) that give them confidence in their own religion

the atheist is saying, it's unlikely that you are giving the matter an objective, unbiased look, given that you have no experience and no education in discussing other religions or even your own

>>5295262

>Mainly because that it is in fact impossible to prove the existence of the metaphysical through physical means, because if you did, then it wouldn't be metaphysical.

yup and thats why there's no reason to believe that the metaphysical "exists" or that the world could somehow physically change to be without all your precious magic

>>5295281
>magic
I see were at that point now.

>no reason to believe that the metaphysical exists
But ask yourself how you define existence. Like I said, humans can not experience the metaphysical because we, as we currently are, are physical. But what if humans were also metaphysical, i.e. what if we were souls (metaphysical) inhabiting a body (physical). Then humans would be able to experience the metaphysical, because we are both physical and metaphysical.

But this of course is an example of an a-priori proof, which more than likely is too much for some people and their narcissistic little heads to even begin to consider.

>>5295329
But why even assuming that there is something metaphysical if nothing in physical existence points to it? The only trigger for this idea I can come up with, is "muh special humans" or at best "muh special life" ... which doesn't seem like a very sound base.