/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11552817
No.

>>11552817
Definitely not. Modern tech, and most tech in general, has made human life worse. Increasing the "quality of life" and "comfort level" etc doesn't make life better, quite the opposite. It makes us weak, domesticated, unhappy, unfulfilled and enslaved (to the tech and the society which is necessary to keep the tech running), and also it harms the relationships between humans; resulting in more distance between people, less physical closeness, which makes things less real and more fake and makes it more difficult for people to truly bond, and it makes us more 2-dimensional, makes us less tribal, etc etc etc, it just goes on and on.

Recommended viewing:

> About Sun Storms
https://files.catbox.moe/r3rvnm.webm

> About Auto-Domestication, Technology & Civilization
https://files.catbox.moe/lfh6ol.webm

> About High Technology (Part I & II)
https://files.catbox.moe/tt1vvu.webm

> The Yoke of Civilisation
https://files.catbox.moe/6ienrb.webm

> About the Fall of our Civilisation
https://files.catbox.moe/nfq86j.webm

> About Wildness, Barbarism & Freedom
https://files.catbox.moe/n1rdmn.webm

> Primitive Pagan Barbarians?
https://files.catbox.moe/11xbgi.webm

> About Slavery & Civilization
https://files.catbox.moe/3fdicv.webm

> Is Oil Abiotic? (The Fall of Civilization)
https://files.catbox.moe/azymsy.webm

> Muh Modern Civilization
https://files.catbox.moe/73pj5w.webm

> The Most Advanced Man
https://files.catbox.moe/g9c5y8.webm

> About Civilization & Multiculturalism
https://files.catbox.moe/z1zr0x.webm

> Why did Civilization Fall?
https://files.catbox.moe/g9bgqq.webm

> Civilization as a Tool
https://files.catbox.moe/la69k0.webm

> Predictions (The Train)
https://files.catbox.moe/zhdygb.webm

> "Race-mixing is the future of Civilization!"
https://files.catbox.moe/7qfaps.webm

> The PURPOSE of Civilization
https://files.catbox.moe/1nccyy.webm

> More at:
https://archive.is/14TPm

>/sci/-tan

>>11552817
It's telling that a decade ago nobody would even think to ask such a question.

>>11552817
Nah, not really.
I find that often those that are most familiar with computers are the most wary (and weary) of them.

>>11552817
Will a computer ever be able to know the answer to 99999999999999999 multiplied by 999999999999999991010101010101010?

>>11552993
A naive thing to say. Even two decades ago there were people asking that. Although some of that had to do with the Y2K scare.

>>11552880
Reminder this guy burned down a couple churches and killed Euronymous

Both. Depends on how you use the technology.

>>11552817
>solve big math problems exponentially faster
>serial rapists and murderers eventually get caught because they have evidence of their crimes matched in a database
>shitposting wouldn't exist without computers
>can communicate with my friends and family all across the world
>vidya
>can buy roastitutes with bitcoin off the internet
>can buy shrooms and e pills from the other side of the world without having to be a drug kingpin
It's certainly made my life better, but I guess I can't speak for these pathetic faggots
>>11552841
>>11552880
>>11553124
Go send your governor a mail bomb you luddites. I bet he'll catch you with computers though.

>>11552841
>>11552817

This quote is edgy and all but there is a very real problem with computers making decisions that affect humans. Consider if you will the way amazon treats it's employees. You think that highly stressful optimizing min-maxing bullshit would ever happen without computers?

Technology in general dehumanizes us in many ways, that doesn't make it the devil, I like my computer. I just think the ways we interact with technology, (particularly the people who use computers to make decisions about how thousands or more of people should be treated, including marketing and advertising firms, as well as people who use bots and AstroTurfing to change public opinion on online spaces such as twitter and Facebook), is extremely unhealthy. The computer isn't the problem, it's our culture of technology worship that is.

>>11553373
>computers optimizing every aspect of our lives is somehow worse than men in smoke-filled rooms making all our decisions
That's objectively wrong. The pinnacle of societal development is using computers to make policy decisions, and cutting the money-grubbing corrupt scumbag politicians out of the equation.

>>11552817
No

>>11553391
I used to think a benevolent A.I. would be a good idea, but we would cease to be humans at that point. If such a thing were to happen we would basically be ants that had built our own queen, our every action would be determined by vast and lengthy calculations, we would be so manipulated by every tiny thing, as the A.I. would have a better understanding of our mind then we do. We become a basic input/output machine, a hive of puppets for the A.I.

When I say "we would cease to be humans" I don't mean that in a flowery metaphorical sense, I mean it literally, because the moment we lose the ability to self-determine we are no longer the same species, we would have evolved memetically into a new super-structure hive-type species.

Handing over control of our fate to a machine is tantamount to memetic suicide. It would be the absolute end of human thought all together. Anything that happened post this transformation would not be a human's doing, it would be the A.I.'s.

>>11553427
wrong

>>11553351
based retard

>>11553427
I don't identify with you any more than I identify my computer, and I certainly identify less with the sub 100 IQ half of the population as well as my country's politicians, so really why should I give a fuck? Bleed your heart somewhere else.

>>11553427
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE HECKIN HUMAN SPECIESERINO!!!!!!!!!!! NOT MUH FLIPPIN HOMO SAPIENSERINO!!!!!!!!! I HECKIN LOVE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!

>>11553427
I'm a relative beginner in the AI research field, but we are so far off of a general intelligence that, at this point, it's not worth considering.

What machine learning experts are stuck on nowadays is developing an algorithm that can recognize objects in varied and changing environments. This is really important for self-driving cars, image processing, and other ventures. And it would be even better if this model could do so without millions of labelled training data examples, as is typically conventionally necessary for building state of the art models.

As of yet, there's no capacity for logical reasoning or strategy involved on the computer's part. We have no idea how to do that. In fact, neuroscientists have a much better understanding of that than AI researchers do. Our best performing image recognition models have roughly the visual reasoning capabilities of a rat. And to produce them cost a whole lot more.

Suppose that in a hundred, two hundred years we have killer robots on the loose. Oh well. At least global warming didn't get us first.

>>11552817
Computers yes but the internet no

>>11552817
quantitatively yes. qualatively no.

>>11552817
Yes. It's disgusting how much human to human interaction you had to go through before.

>>11553427
>benevolent A.I.
No such thing. Benevolent for whom?