/sci/ - Science & Math

And you never even THOUGHT that robots could maybe, I don't know, replace 99% of all professions, causing a huge surplus of all goods so that money is no longer needed and we can basically make everything the best and poverty, climate change and shit like that disappear basically overnight?

>>1331252
What? That's completely irrelevant. Of course I accept that, which is why I'm looking so forward to the god damned future.

Are you saying gaming will suddenly not be a desired form of entertainment?

>>1331252
And you never even THOUGHT that your TRIPFAG STATUS coulbe maybe, I don't know, be fucking 100% TOLD FUCKING TRIPFAG?

>>1331252
>replace 99% of all professions
okay

>causing a huge surplus of all goods
perhaps

>so that money is no longer needed
lol no

>and we can basically make everything the best and poverty, climate change and shit like that disappear basically overnight
LOL NO

>>1331256
...wat?
>>1331255
>>1331254
Also, thread successfully derailed. Off to /g/ I go.

>Within 50 years we will have unlocked strong AI

(He thinks well be able to duplicate the human mind in computers in 50 years.)

>artificial universes vs. our single reality.

Why are they opposing?

I know this isn't entirely to the point of your post but in these separate artificial realities, we'd still have our own minds therefore we'd still exist and continue to knowing there are these realities. Nothing negative can happen to us as a product from something which exists in another artificial reality. It's dick-in-a-blender stupid to assume that (1: there is a God, and 2), anything we do has a genuine effect on him/her/it/whocares.
We'd just co-exist with the security of knowing we can pull the plug and end it at any moment.

>implying we're not living in a simulation run on indestructible substrate near timelike infinity right now

>>1331239

Isn't this what Nick Bostrum said years ago?

It's like the 'are you just butterfly dreaming your human' idea. Impossible to prove.

I want a holodeck.

>>1331267
Are you kidding? We're well on our way. Look up the blue brain project, and try searching for lectures on AI. You'd be surprised how much word is being done.

>>1331273
Well, the artificial reality would be a branch-off of our own, so yeah, likely impossible for them to affect us in any way other than us observing them (watchful Gods?).

I imagine there will also be technologies (mind-machine interfaces) which will allow us to visit these planes under our own crafted avatars, something like Jesus coming to earth (obviously that's just a fable).

So it is possible for us, as post-singularity/enlightened beings to intervene with these worlds. Whose to say that doesn't happen already in our world?

The point of this discussion is that this hypothesis has a whole fuckload of deep implications that most people never take the time to consider.

With this possibility in mind, how do we know we're not just part of an extremely complex simulation/game on some kid's computer (or equivalent) and this simulated universe could end at any time due to the kid getting bored and turning off the power?
HOW WOULD WE KNOW?!?!?!

>>1331313
We'd know if this kid tried to make contact with us.

"hey d00ds, you're just part of my game. i'm just gonna possess all the major world leaders and try to guide the course of your planet"

>>1331310
We KNOW we aren't part of any artificial simulation controlled or produced by another conscious movement.
I mean come on..

>>1331334
How? It's just been demonstrated that it's more likely we are, assuming it's possible to replicate consciousness, which is something most atheists/skeptics agree with.

Here are our options:

1. No civilization will reach a technological level capable of producing simulated realities.
2. No civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will produce a simulated reality, for any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Almost all entities with our general set of experiences are living in a simulation (or "You are almost certainly in a simulation" elsewhere: almost certainly your mind "would be simulated rather than biological"[3]).

thus leading to the following theorem:

"So if you think that (1) and (2) are both false, you should accept (3)

>>1331334
How exactly do we know
>we aren't part of any artificial simulation controlled or produced by another conscious movement.
?

>>1331342
You're really bad at the whole logic thing.

>>1331360
Present the alternatives then, you stupid douchebag.

also
>implying you're smarter than Nick Bostrom

bump for atheist retort

did you just watch the second episode of through the wormhole and are now pretending to have an intelligent argument by shamelessly ripping it off?

FUCK OFF!

>>1331421
Who cares. None of us discovered a lot of the topics we discuss.

>>1331381
Okay. AI can be achieved, simulated realities can be achieved, our reality is not simulated.

>>1331421
acutally he prob just turned 13 and his parents let him watch 45 min of the matrix

>>1331446
How is this more logical?

Potentially infinite simulated realities versus our single reality. Statistics would argue that you're a fucking moron.
>>1331477
Funny.

>>1331524
Hey man, there could be like, infinite realities like ours. You know. That's deep.

>>1331239

If AI exists in a game-world, that would raise all sorts of ethical dilemmas. The very definition of AI is that it is artificial life cogniscent of its existence. If you were to kill an AI in a game, would it fear death? Would it have a will to live? How terrible of a person would you have to be to kill one anyway?

> Look up the blue brain project

"It is not an attempt to create a brain. It is not an artificial intelligence project."

They simulate 1 neocortical column (of a rat brain) on an 8192 processor supercomputer slower than real time and you think this is 'well on our way'...

the human brain has roughly 10,000,000 of these columns so we just need 819,999 more kraken supercomputers and we're good to go. add in the exabyte-scale data output and you're right... this is totally feasible

inb4 moore's law or 'but but 50 years' or some other bullshit

>>1331617

I don't understand how you could ignore the obvious fact that computer technology is increasing exponentially. You'd be dumb to not admit that in fifty years, there's the possibility we might have the technology to reproduce it on a very small scale.

>>1331643

because adding additional columns to the simulation is exponential in complexity unless they use some form of coarse graining (making the simulation a moot point for the op).

see the O(c^n) version of fibonacci for an easy example of why you can't just throw more processors at a problem.

>>1331663

"Throwing more processors" at the issue is a gross oversimplification of what I'm talking about. In 50 years, the technology might exist to create those sorts of exponential connections.

In your view, where DO you see computers being in 50 years? Just as static as they are now? Surely that's delusion on your part. Consider that barely 40 years ago we had computers that could just run text and compute basic mathematics. I don't even have to tell you what we have now as comparison.

>>1331549
You're missing the bigger implications, moron.
>>1331617
Do you not agree that it still contributes to our understanding of AI and consciousness?

And you know what? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say it happens in a thousand years.

Newsflash: That doesn't change anything at all. The point still stands. 50 years was just a timeframe that makes it easier for us to relate to. I'm sure if it happened in a thousand years instead, we'd be a lot better prepared for it, emotionally/mentally speaking.
>>1331561
Well, ethics hasn't really stopped us from doing much. Yes, it would be unethical, but Yahweh is a malicious bastard according to the bible, isn't he?

And I'm sure you could create a world where everyone is happy, singing songs and dancing around all day.That would be a good thing, no?

>>1331680
>You're missing the bigger implications, moron.
No man, you're being closed minded. Open your third eye to the multiverse man.

> ai
> UNLOCKABLE
0/10

>>1331663
We have working quantum computers, and it's estimated they will reach their "super-efficiency" goals in under 20 years, at which point computing power will soar beyond what was ever thought possible before.

In addition to that, there are other methods being worked on to increase power. Stacking chips, for example, or using graphene for the chips.

>>1331680

1. Yahweh? Really? Nonexistent and therefore a non-issue.
2. Your assessment shirks ethical responsibility. It is something that must be dealt with if AI is ever to become a part of computer simulation.
3. I never said we should create a world that's happy-go-lucky, only that we should consider the ethical implication of creating a computer world with active AI.

>Abstract-semantic nonsense-speculation

Having fun?

>hurr durr open/closed mindedness
>agree with me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

>>1331677

its always just been simple math. its still just simple math. its just faster now. dont think its anything else because of how pretty it is.

>>1331680

they arent simulating intelligence or consciousness. it's purely the mechanical aspects of electricity through a field of neurons.

i'd like to see these AI people that are still doing the research you speak of; the field shifted direction a long time ago with great results.

>>1331707
1) Was an example of a seemingly cruel, other-worldly manipulator in charge of our universe. Something we may expect of ourselves in the future. Just a fictional example.

2) You're assuming it will be so black and white. What's stopping people from developing their own simulations without the knowledge or approval of the ethical authorities? Even if one nation decides it's wrong, what's stopping everyone else from reaching these boundary shattering heights of technological progress?

3) Okay.

> We have working quantum computers

nothing large enough scale for anything useful

> estimated they will reach their "super-efficiency" goals in under 20 years

citation needed, i dont keep up with the field

> other methods being worked on to increase power.

insignificant. my whole claim is that you don't solve exponential problems with more speed. quantum computing is functionally different and, therefore, a possibility.

>unlocked strong AI
>video gaming
>infinite artificial universes
>infinite
>intelligent design

Get back to /v/, faggot.

>>1331801
Hey, butthurt faggot, instead of acting like a 14 year old that's never touched a woman in his life, why don't you refute his points?

Oh, you can't? You're just an idiot? Okay. Good day

>- Within 50 years we will have unlocked strong AI (unless you believe the conscience isn't something that can be replicated, in which case you're a shitty skeptic).
>makes a retarded prediction about the future, even though predictions of the future prove to always be wildly incorrect
>calls himself a skeptic

It's like I'm reading Discourse on Method the 21st century edition.

So where's your evidence that WE were intelligently designed?

I mean i can make a watch but that doesn't mean that somebody made me.

>>1331848

>>1332669
He has no evidence. He's just stating that given the possibility that our minds could be replicated in a computer then the chances that we ourselves are a simulation are very high.

Of course, while the idea is easy to bawk at, the very itheory that we came from millions of years of evolution means that the idea of doing the same in a computer is not infeasible. After all, what is so special about matter?

Basically, what's more likely, that we're one of the 99.9% of simulations or that we're the "original" universe?

WTF AM I READ!!!!

FUCK

CAN YOU BE MORE OF A RETARD

WHO THE FUCK GAVE YOU THE QUALIFICATION TO PREDICT "STRONG AI" IN 50 FUCKING YEARS!!!

A strong point against the hypothesis that we ourselves are computer generated AI is the idea of pixels. Any computer generated image, upon looking closely into the quantum level, they should be seeing squares of on/off switches that change colors depending on the situation (which is what our current technology does). If we look at ourselves at the atomic level, we see no such thing, we see a completely different process.

Ultimately, you can never truly hide if you are a computer generated image.