Philosophy of artificial intelligence

[Anonymous No.12331234]

Hit me up with books dealing with artificial intelligence, knowledge vs perception, Mary's room thought experiment, the Chinese room thought argument and stuff like that

[Anonymous No.12331300]

I don’t know anymore but just want to say that’s an amazing read and should be a requirement for anyone looking for modern philosophy

[Anonymous No.12331485]

>>12331300
>>12331234
this book legitimately scared me and made me feel like the apocalypse is coming

[Anonymous No.12331488]

>>12331485
Sweet, buying immediately

[Anonymous No.12331685]

>>12331485
I think the best thing about this book is to highlight the extreme lengths that AI is capable of, and those wanting to discover it. It's reasonable to tuck your tail between your legs and hide and await the end, but on the other hand being informed can aid in bringing forth a careful and planned form of AI.

I don't know why I'm so optimistic, we humans are gonna fuck this up somehow

[Anonymous No.12331730]

>>12331300
>>12331485
>>12331488
>>12331685
"Strong" AI is a fucking meme and will never happen you faggot STEMlards.

[Anonymous No.12331802]

>>12331234
Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom

[Anonymous No.12331826]

>>12331730
Its inevitable.

[Anonymous No.12331832]

>>12331826
>t. your ass

[Anonymous No.12331853]

>>12331832
Have you read any of the literature or just another luddite

[Anonymous No.12331916]

>>12331853
>h-haha have you even read any of the books?? yeah don't expect an answer from me just read the books I've certainly read but can't summarize until then don't comment dumb luddite

You fags are insufferable. When did I even mention being a luddite? I criticize your petty little progressive AI God narrative worship and you immediately identify me as a luddite. Back to /sci/, dumb cuck. Stick some USB drives up your rectum.

[Anonymous No.12331923]

>>12331234
Turing, Searle, Dennett, Chalmers, Dreyfus

[Anonymous No.12331955]

>>12331923
Based, i would add Brooks, Simon and Newell, Varela, Nöe, Carlos Herrera (less known) and Putnam, one Churchland essay and maybye Sellars for personal and subpersonal levels of explanation.

[Anonymous No.12332003]

>>12331916
either you have a counter-argument to your posting other than just base insults or feel free to leave any time

[Anonymous No.12332033]

>>12332003
>Its inevitable.

Sorry sweetie, but it's up to you to prove this statement.

[Anonymous No.12332093]

>>12332033
>all the literature discussing the prospect and eventuality of AI
>LALALA NAAH BACK TO /SCI-FI/ WITH YOU

[Anonymous No.12332105]

>>12332033
based

[Anonymous No.12332167]

>nick bostrom
reminder that this is a hack who barely knows anything about computer science.
I'm disappointed by you /lit/

[Anonymous No.12332193]

>>12332093
There you go. You just did it again. I hate to say it since it's a terrible meme, but you're an NPC.

[Anonymous No.12332236]

>>12332193
Why bother engaging with you if you'll just sprout your mindless memes? I asked you for your counter, the onus was on you,

fine you want a rec? Peter Norvig and Stuart J. Russell

[Anonymous No.12332297]

>>12332236
this is a survey of 200 experts, not only two guys.

[Anonymous No.12332311]

>>12332297
67% is still fairly high. Besides accelerationism and China are massive factors

[Anonymous No.12332329]

>>12332311
do you unironically think most of them think it's going to happen after 25 years? no, they just picked it because there was no other option.
>“Way, way, way more than 25 years. Centuries most likely. But not never.”

[Anonymous No.12332336]

>>12332329
>>12332311
what happens if theres no super ai yet and petroleum starts running out???

[Anonymous No.12332344]

>>12332329
Its a ballpark estimation. US Military intelligence believed that China was decades away from a functioning rail-gun, guess what was spotted on a warship two days ago?

Its a crap shot but its coming.

[Anonymous No.12332406]

>>12331916
Low quality b8

[Anonymous No.12332407]

>>12332344
anon, im in the fucking field. right now there is absolutely no foreseeable way to achieve superhuman intelligence. this is not the 1880s "yeah we technically could build a gigantic cannon to shoot us into orbit" and then space travel happens a century later, we have actually no clue how we should approach it.
currently, AI is fancy statistics and optimization algorithms. The advancements on that are further improvements and applying the algorithms to new problems. This is, however, a dead end, because as soon as the problem becomes more than a few variables and inputs the entire concept falls apart. THATS why most experts think it's out of reach and absolute fear mongering on "muh paperclip" retards part.
This is equivalent to being afraid of trains at the time of their invention when they were going about 30 miles an hour, in the mid 19th century, because they "surely will get faster and faster and kill every passenger when they become too fast"

[Anonymous No.12332426]

>>12332407
I'm also in the field, but I see the fearmongering as legitimate because of the advancement of the technology and sheer number of state actors working towards weaponizing/utilizing it. Its baby steps now but we need to realise that this has an end goal, I mean it was what 80 years from the first steam engine to the bullet train?

[Anonymous No.12332454]

>>12332426
>is on /lit/
>knows human history
>thinks he somehow can "contain" the advancement of technology
you will be dead in 80 years anyway anon

[Anonymous No.12332470]

>>12332426
>I'm in the field
you're not exactly smart either then, because unless a literal ex machina on earth happens and God sends us down a genius who will show us the true way of creating superhuman ai, it's not going to happen during your lifetime either way. the chances of that are... miniscule, because this has only happened around two or three times in human history

[Anonymous No.12332477]

>>12331923
>>12331955
Thanks

[Anonymous No.12332515]

>>12332454
I'll live on....IN THE COMPUTER!

>>12332470
1000 monkeys at a 1000 typewriters anon. Look, I'm not saying the AI will be all skynet etc. but if we survive as a species, you don't think the drive or continuation to try to tap AI isn't feasible? I don't care if I'm not around to see it, but what I am saying is that many are invested so much in it, something is bound to happen.

[Anonymous No.12332526]

>>12332336
>petroleum starts running out
there's still way more oil around than they would like you to know.

[Anonymous No.12332557]

This is an interesting lecture which is related
https:youtube.com/watch?v=VSAaGcPsim0

[Anonymous No.12332668]

>>12331234
Is there anything more removed from the actual science and technology involved, than philosophers and other laymen spewing dumb shit about 'AI'? Or rather, their vague, anthropomorphic ideals of intelligence and mind, with the assumption that these necessarily relate to or even dictate AI. Granted, in the 'actual science and technology' it is not some small and clear thing, but a vast ecology of philosophies and approaches, AI being a fairly vague umbrella that only gets vaguer as more ideas are introduced (and as gets appropriated for social ends, such as hyping a product or making something topical). So I suppose it's all part of the interplay and this post is self-obsoleting.

[Anonymous No.12332861]

>>12332668
How did you manage to write that much without saying a single thing

[Anonymous No.12333073]

Sageru shit bolstrom
Ai++ never happens
Problem of different sumits / peaks and gaps. Philosophers pls STFU

You aren't as smart as you think you are