/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14657021
This but unironically

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

>>14610950
>We are literally at the absolute beginning of the human race.
Retarded. Biological life will only exist for a few thousand more years tops. Superintelligent AI will almost certainly kill us all, and even if it doesn't, we will be transformed into something that can barely be considered human.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities

>>14595838
>AI is geniunelly fucking retarded
Pic related

>>14548230
Retard

Why does popsci overhype the potienal of AI? Is it new toy syndrome or something?

>>12661158

>>12514160
>that which does not exist
Yet

>>10970249
You millions of years ago:
Lots of species have undergone intelligence improvements. None of them have formed civilization. Can you explain why that particular species of hominids becoming more intelligent would be different now?

>>10734081
Everyone laughs when AI is first getting started at something. Then they get blown the fuck out and eat their words.
https://www.chess.com/amp/article/machack-attack
>In 1965, Dr. Hubert Dreyfus, a professor of philosophy at MIT, later at Berkeley, was hired by RAND Corporation to explore the issue of artificial intelligence. >He wrote a 90-page paper called “Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence” (later expanded into the book What Computers Can’t Do) questioning the computer’s ability to serve as a model for the human brain. He also asserted that no computer program could defeat even a 10-year-old child at chess.
>In 1967, several MIT students and professors (organized by Seymour Papert) challenged Dreyfus to play a game of chess against MacHack VI. Dreyfus accepted.
>Dreyfus was being beaten by the computer when he found a move which could have captured the enemy queen. The only way the computer could get out of this was to keep Dreyfus in checks with his own queen until he could fork the queen and king, then exchange them. And that’s what the computer did. Soon, Dreyfus was losing. Finally, the computer checkmated Dreyfus in the middle of the board.

Does /sci/ believe in exponential growth?

>>10164561
>he thinks that the human brain is somehow magical and thinks it is somehow impossible to make anything smarter than the lump of meat between your skull

>>10146289

>>10023460
All of the resources spent on pure mathematics should be spent on preventing superintelligent AI from destroying the world.

>>9966609
>this 1000%. We are beyond extraordinary creatures. The mystery and magic residing within humanity is unimaginable and imperceptable. To think AI could organize quicker/faster/more efficiently than us is laughable.
This entire argument can be summed up as "Superintelligent AI isn't a threat because muh feefees and muh gut feelings say so".
>We are the product of millions and billions of years of evolution.
And we also have millions and billions of years to build superintelligent AI.
>AI has a lot of fucking ground to cover to compete with us.
Pic related

>>9862015
The crucial difference between human intelligence and human legal AI is the ability to self-modify. The human brain us not very user-modifiable, and even using gene editing technology, it could take thousands of years and hundreds of generations to reach anything resembling superintelligence. An AI, however, could potentially modify itself and reach suierintelligence far more quickly.

>>9676315
>It's fucking obvious that biological entities are superior
FOR NOW. Just because biological organisms CURRENTLY have far more computational power than machines, are you seriously implying that machines will NEVER get more advanced? You're a brainlet if you seriously don't understand the concept of exponential growth.

>AI is invented
>It learns about AI
>It invents a new AI
>This new AI invents a new AI
>Suddenly AI is hyperintelligent
>Humans are nothing to it

How do we fix this?

>>9104617
Because if it turns out to be a lot smarter than us, we'll not be able to reliably control it and make it follow human morals.
Its not just some ifs in the code, you can't create general intelligence and just block some specifics thoughts, even if you could you probably couldn't cover all cases completely.

>>9104621
>AI is super smart, doesn't mean it can do magic
How sure are you? We humans don't understand shit, if we go back in time just some centuries and show the people there some things that we have now, they would call it magic. An AI that can fetch data from the internet and is 100x smarter than us could elaborate some shit that we would call magic in seconds.

>>7529491
singularitarianists/transhumanists for one