/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15344437
>I can't believe it.
Bro you are a biomechanical machine composed of hundreds of thousands little chemical machines that process information to create the illusion of consciousness which evolved on a rock that just happened to have the exact right chemical composition and conditions to necessitate any kind of evolution in an universe filled with trillions of galaxies, stars and planets with a completely unknown origin point, this existence is an absolute mindfuck and no amount of scientific analysis will be able to answer what the fuck is going on

>>14740911
I don't know because I make conclusions based on information I can observe instead of trying to shove in quadrillions of made-up oblongo scrimblo bimblo particles that exist/don't exist and are particles and are also waves and are also massless but also somehow have mass and don't interact with anything and are invisible and also have these other billion properties that we can't prove that exist outside of paper smearing but we 100% know they exists because our incomplete and inconsistent theories of the universe have to be 100% right and there's no way that we could ever be wrong. Fuck off, if your theory (let's say QCD, just because it's the most notorious) can't be coherently defined by even a single person in the field without it devolving into a schizo word salad then it's retarded and most likely wrong

Hey fags the Elon Interview just dropped
https://youtu.be/hIPLmZK3C1Y

>>14541549
the hwhat in the china hwhat now? Seems like gibberish to me

>>14526107
>1/3 and 0.333... are the same value
Okay
Let 1/3 be 0.333...
1 - 1/3 = 2/3
1 - 0.333... = 0.777...
0.777... / 2 =/= 0.333..
And thus 1/3 =/= 0.333..

>>14515160
waht

>>12599075

>get car trouble
>crash down ontop of anon's house

"We are rapidly heading towards digital superintelligence that far exceeds any human," Musk said. "I think it's very obvious."

He added: "We have five years. I think digital superintelligence will happen in my lifetime, 100%."

Do you agree?

>>9984489
While I disagree with some of his more freaky doomsday soothsaying, I have to admit I've been leaning this way for a long time- it seems like there are three distinct possibilities for humanity's eventual (medium-term) future:

1. We let robots be robots and humans be humans. Artificial Intelligence either evolves to a point where it can serve as global caretaker and to where it is doing 99% of major research and exploration, while humanity focuses on its cultural heritage and living life free of significant worries. (AKA "Humans as AI pets"). This can go both ways- it can either be a utopia, with AI as the ultimate "Philosopher King", or it can go the opposite way and humanity just kinda obsoletes itself and dies.

2. We attempt to coexist with AI. This involves modifying the human psyche and body (biologically or cybernetically) to the point where we can compete with an artificial intelligence, or to at least supplement it in some critical way. We maintain AI for database purposes, complex systems, and other things that require intensive data processing, but otherwise we try to give humans the opportunity to be at the forefront of jobs and avoid ultra-strong AI. (AKA "Humans with AI workhorses"). This is basically like Star Trek idealism crossed with posthumanism.

3. We supplant and become AI. Over the course of many years, cybernetic enhancements allow us to upload our minds into robot bodies, computers, or otherwise, and over time this allows humanity to essentially take over the same role that AI would have in Option 1. (AKA "Humanity as a stepping stone"). Human traditions can remain, or can be excised because we don't care anymore.

Frankly, all of these might happen at some point. It's really more a question of which the species chooses in the majority. There's also Option 4, "Avoid AI Entirely/AI Not Possible", but that's basically just Option 1 but more boring.

>>9984863
>Are these claims credible?