/sci/ - Science & Math

More Markov Chains? *Yaaaaaaawn*

>>15880858
fake news until the code leaks

>>15880858
Why do AIfags always have to redefine terms in order to make it seem like they're doing work? Is it laziness or a sense of narcissistic entitlement?

>>15880858
>It can do logic.
That's cool, but I can do metalogic.

>>15880858
Not it hasn't. A chatbot is physically and metaphysically incapable of personhood.

>>15880917
You don't need personhood to be an AGI.

This is the 3rd "AGI" we've had from OpenAI this year.

>>15880926
So AGI just means really good machine learning model now? I didn't realize the Singularity was going to be such a joke.

>>15880933
See >>15880878

>>15880933
>So AGI just means really good machine learning model now
Yes, it always did. There's nothing magical about it. It's just a computer doing everything humans are already doing.

>>15880935
>Yes, it always did.
kek every time

reminder to everyone that thought is calculation.

consciousness is separate from the brain

>>15880931
kek

>>15880931
They need to shore up their stock prices after the Altman debacle.

>>15880938
this, real niggas stay on that spiritual shit #know thyself

>>15880858
We cant make AGI simply because we don't even know what it means exactly, we don't know SHIT about consciousness or intelligence.
We can however make REAL GOOD robots and that coupled with low latency communications infrastructure and high intensity fuel (Nuclear) is more than enough to automate most service and industrial sector work.

>>15880949
>we don't even know what it means exactly
It's very simple. If the machine is better than humans at everything, then it's definitely an AGI. It could be AGI even earlier, but at least in this scenario it's not debatable.

>>15880858
>We had a major scientific breakthrough that is not just blowing up transformer models to datacenter size
>No we won't share it with you here at """"""Open"""""" AI we believe in hype cycles, now please invest and give Sam a few billions

>>15880968
>If the machine is better than humans at everything, then it's definitely an AGI
No you are wrong. That would be ASI.
>>15880978
>now please invest and give Sam a few billions
OpenAI (the parent company) is a private nonprofit organization.

>nonprofit

lmao

>>15880864
Fpbp

I wonder when AGI is currently in control of everything, and is literally gaping anon's anuses, there will still be posts on /sci/ saying
>yeah but its not REAL rape

>>15880983
Yeah so is Mozilla, doesn't stop them from having 300 million+ profit and 1+ billion assets. Also stop pretending these fags care about anything other than money, if they did they would have released ChatGPT as an open source project.

>>15880949
Natural selection doesn't know shit about consciousness of intelligence either and it managed it.

>>15881053
Once in over three billion years.

>>15881097
AI is not limited by the speed of biology.

>>15880858
>It can do logic
Scientifically speaking, what would it reply with to the letter 'N' if it was here?

>>15881116
o

>>15880858
All they did was integrate deference to a symbolic solver. Challenging, sure. A breakthrough? Only in terms of having to go through the motions of what everyone in the field has seen coming since we first started getting good results from DLLMS

>>15881110
Instead it is limited by always being a Turing machine.

>>15880968
The calculator is better at calculating than humans, is it AGI?
I already said AGI is nothing but a meme, robots are real, we can make REAL GOOD robots, that can outcompete humans at certain tasks.

>>15881179
>is it AGI?
I said "at everything". That's the whole point of the letter G in AGI.

AT LAST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c01hSxznu_I

Good thread. Bump

>>15880933
what else would it mean?
the "artificial" part literally refers to the fact that it's created by humans and runs on a machine, and thus is by definition a machine learning model
the qualification for AGI has always been whether or not it's able to do anything humans can do, so if that's what this can do, then by definition it's AGI

>>15880938
Good conciousness

Bad conciousness can't calculate and still be concious

>Falling for damage control for memoryholing their last crisis now that is settled
Normies eat this shit and since they have the memory of a goldfish, the last internal company drama never happened

>>15881469
Remind which drama it was?

>>15880858
>It can do logic
Can it do proof then?

>>15880917
First the prematurely applied the term AI and had to replace it with AGI, now they're prematurely applying AGI and will call the real goalpost something new, ad infinitum. I wonder what will they call it next?

>>15881476
Logic alone isn't enough to generate proofs. Godel showed this nearly 100 years ago. The sort of transcendent "ah-ha" moments involved in problem solving can't be achieved by mechanically cranking through logical operations.

>>15881469
lmao the irony

>>15880949
Humans + REAL GOOD robots = computational power far above the natural capability of man = novel innovation above our understanding

So AGI is obviously possible and on the way.

>>15880933
Singularity was always a meme. Religion for socially maladjusted nerds.

What matters is the economic consequences of an AI that can replace virtually all human mental labor. We seem to be getting closer to that.

>>15880864
KEK
/thread
I don't really care if low IQ morons all go homeless, an orangutang could already replace them.

>>15880858
Why is this all marketing? Discovery is made in the silent mind.

>>15880858
If it's in the news it's not a breakthrough

>>15881719
They are not inventing anything did already and are looking for monetization

You know greed one of the many things ai can surpass humans in

>>15881508
>Logic alone isn't enough to generate proofs. Godel showed this nearly 100 years ago.
Wut
please be trolling

>>15881734
It would if ai understood optimization but it does not.

>>15881754
Does people?

I mean that CEO salary is not optimal for the production of good and services

>>15881762
Yep. Assuming God exists, a being of infinte time and resource and creatures being finite of the above 2, which one would be the most probable to create an optimization strategy?

>>15881762
>that CEO salary is not optimal for the production of good and services
Proof?
I find it hard to believe the greed of investors in publicly traded companies would allow it to be far from optimal.

>>15880933
A jet plane is faster than a cheetah
A supertanker is stronger than an elephant
>**you are here**
An AGI is smarter than a human

>>15881788
Also, it's 'born' with the potential for corporeal immortality

>>15881788
Marketing teams hard at work on this thread

>>15881773
Bail out

Think about it, and those were greedy greedy companies

I've never read so many words and didn't understand what was being said, just goes to show how little I know. But when does ai start doing stuff a human has never done, like finding new discoveries humans have yet to find.

>>15881873
It said it can solve basic math problems now.

>>15880864
>>15880999
>>15881631
Retarded samefag. ANNs are still not Markov chains. You don't even know what the Markov property ist.

>>15881951
>muh weight funkshuns
kys tard

>>15881134
Patently incorrect. You have outted yourself as a dimwit.

>>15881013
Bump for you's

>>15880878
>Why do AIfags always have to redefine terms in order to make it seem like they're doing work?
They're carrying on the proud tradition of redefining the statements to fit the curve like Moore's Law.

>>15881788
>An AGI is smarter than a human
This will never happen until it grows itself a body

>>15882305
It has a billion eyes a billion mouths a billion hands already. That's not the limiting factor you think it is.

It's read more books seen more faces and watched more videos than you ever will already. It's not lacking experiences

>>15882298
>Thinking the publicly available chips are the only ones that exist
You have zero imagination, we see only the public part of the AI race but most is not public.

OP is a massive faggot.
How can you shill this hard?
Surely OP is setting some shilling world record.
This is like...NASA tier shilling. Holy fuck. Get out.

>>15880877
the code isn't enough, you need a massive datacenter to run the algorithms

Why does OP sound like a mad scientist in some Spielberg film?

Have the AI-fags made any major innovations in the last three decades or is all the AI hype just a result of processors getting faster. Because it seems like it's a 90% hardware and 10% software kind of thing

>>15882325
Oh come on. It's AI theater. The opening act is ChatGPT. We're just getting started. As soon as we ask the AI how to defeat communism, then things can really start to cook.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siwpn14IE7E "Kenny Loggins - Danger Zone (Official Video - Top Gun)"

>>15882321
Or a stupidly large cluster

>>15880858
Most retards on the AI millenarism train already think the chatbots are sentient. They're complete retards.

There is clearly some faction of people in SV who are addicted to hype cycles, and have this almost manic obsession with every "new" idea, probably as a result of the general malaise and rejection the last rounds of earth-shattering technology have created, which all failed to deliver Heaven.

I kind of wonder if people in SV actually use GPT-4 for anything besides writing code. I use it every day. It's like dealing with a liar constantly. It can write code.

>>15880935
>Yes, it always did. There's nothing magical about it. It's just a computer doing everything humans are already doing.

Lol
>>15880933
Basically, AI hyptards don't have inner monologues. This may be a surprising fact, but a significant number of people are are P-zombies. When you say "think," they hear "act" because describing thinking to them is like describing shadows to a blind person. To them, mirrors are real dimensions full of identical copies of themselves.

AI is just trained to emulate what a process looks from the outside, not the process itself, which the designers don't understand. AGI retards think this process of mirroring is sentience.

>>15882373
I think we're coming to grips with the fact that AI isn't equipped to handle a few uncomfortable truths
- our capitalist economy is really very inefficient and suffers from too much snobbery and condescending attitude towards incels, what incels like, entertaining incels, porn, games, and so on, and players like Infocom left a lot of $$$ on the table when they gave up on interactive text experiences
- the loli/pedo duality, the idea that there are some ideas that are outside A.I. because they're too transgressive and disruptive to computer science research
And Infocom was certainly headed into transgressive loli/pedo boundary pushing by going after the incel male teen and preteen market

>>15882377
go on...

>>15882391
Anon fears the moe

>>15881194
*waves my hands *
*lifts a rock*
Not a great definition. Also by definition im better at being a human than an artificial construct could ever be. Therefore, using your definition of AGI, AGI can never exist. QED

>>15882393
It's just a combination of a Yes Man and a guy who is straight-up conning and bullshitting you. I shouldn't say liar as much as like, used car salesman, or fraud. At first pass, it's much more impressive, because it doesn't throw up the same red flags as people normally do. Human beings usually possess some small quantity of shame, or humility, or some other self-aware trait that causes them to mask their insecurity with subtlely dissembling language. Not GPT-4.

>>15880933
You didn't actually think they would be living sentient things right

>>15882406
You shouldn't be surprised. It was trained on reddit. It's the quintessential redditor: verbose, confident, and completely uninformed.

>>15880942

OpenAI isn't publicly traded.

The goal posts are not being moved by researchers, but by society at large. When I was growing up, I was told machines will be considered sentient when they pass the Turing test: that is when you can no longer tell whether you are conversing with a person or with a machine. Lo and behold, ChatGPT passes that test easily. And yet this is now considered quaint. This goal post will be moved indefinitely, with every passing milestone. This will be done solely to preserve humans’ fragile sense of being somehow special. We will never accept that we could be bested by something as inanimate as a rock. No, humanity MUST have something that sets it apart, that makes it better. But if that something is not intelligence, then what do we have left to cling to?

>>15882457
>Lo and behold, ChatGPT passes that test easily.
lmao delusional

>>15882472
ChatGPT uses natural language, indistinguishable from that used by people in conversations every day. College professors are easily fooled by student papers written using ChatGPT. The fact that you would even consider this as something insignificant—something that was unimaginable a decade ago—is telling of how far we have actually come in a relatively short amount of time.

>>15882488
I used GPT-4 regularly to try and make it easier for me to do things like quickly comprehend scientific papers. What I found, almost immediately and very consistently, was that ChatGPT's summaries of novel work were really, really trash. It just doesn't get it. It generates literally paragraphs of text that is undeniably a summary of the paper that also manages to avoid all the important ideas. It fully does not get what the author is trying to say. It's just words, words, words bereft of insight. No spark. No intelligence to speak of.

Strangely enough, it was 3.5 or 3.0 that would occasionally produce something kind of resembling cleverness or insight.

>>15882321
I have a massive data center, gib code.

>>15882248
I never said that. I also don't think ANNs are Markov chains like your retarded ass. Wtf are you in a forum called "science and maths" if you don't know shit about either?

>>15880917
How can a corporation be capable of personhood, but an AI can't?

>>15882448
You don't have to be publicly traded to issue stocks.

I swear anons itt have never tried system prompting GPT4. That shit feels like 40% of the way to AGI as it is.

>>15882404
>Also by definition im better at being a human than an artificial construct could ever be.
Nope, before you could know that, you would have line up against several artificial humans and let a real human test each one of you to decide which one is the best at being a human.

>>15882457
>inanimate
I don't think you know what that word means if you think computers and robots are inanimate.

>>15882529
You are describing dumb people vs smart people.

>*cures cancer, proves riemann hypothesis, unifies QM and GR, and mathematically proves God exists*

>>15882678
Mathematically, God is just 0.

>>15882678
This doesn't make any sense. Math is stupid.

>>15882691
T. anon with suboptimal policy

>>15882488
Essays and conversation are really different because you can't probe an essay but if you start talking with chatgpt it quickly starts spouting nonsense

>>15882457
That isn't because computers got that smart, it's because people got that stupid. I have conversations with people that I wouldn't believe they aren't bots if I couldn't see them in front of me.
The "dead internet theory" is just a recognition of some kind of brain damage that affects almost all people.

>>15882704
>The "dead internet theory" is just a recognition of some kind of brain damage that affects almost all people.
It's called public education.

>>15880858
>AGI has been achieved by OpenAI

No, stop pretending this is true.
Give facts to support of shut the fuck up.
EVERY AI seems wonderful for about 5 minutes until you realize there is no intellect behind it.

>>15882716
So you are saying that by the time you are done training it with your text, all instances of intellect are gone from the model?

>>15882717
Schoolyard insults won't make this technology any less disappointing.

>>15882448
Their investors are still extremely concerned they basically set their klmoney on fire by giving it to them

>>15882720
Except it is incredibly impressive to me that the AI is so smart it knows to talk like a retard to engage with you even within just 5 minutes of interacting you.

>>15882719
Except it is incredibly impressive to me that the AI is so smart it knows to talk like a retard to engage with you even within just 5 minutes of interacting you.

AGI is literally a clause in the founding documents of OpenAI
OpenAI isn't even a real corporation. It's a jack-in-the-box that pops up and says "AGI is here!" whenever they decide that AGI exists, according to their own internal (secret) metric.
It's a total gag.
The founding documents of OpenAI literally say
>Act like the Yud if someone uses the secret password. The secret password is "AGI."

>>15882728
Eliza effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
This text-based chatbot interaction effect has been known for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

The principle by which Sam Altman is getting away with playing The Wizard from The Wizard of Oz is known as the "Eliza effect" from the computer program ELIZA.
It dates to the mid 1960s.

>>15882712
No, it's far more severe than that. This:>>15882732 is probably why most of the normal people are either unaware, or at least don't noyice the extent of it.

>>15882729
>whenever they decide that AGI exists, according to their own internal (secret) metric.
It's not a secret. "AGI, as defined by OpenAI, refers to autonomous systems that outperform humans in most 'economically valuable tasks".

>>15882907
Except that 1.) AI already outperforms humans in ALL economically valuable tasks and did so before OpenAI was founded. This is why automation has driven productive gains across the board.

>>15882315
>It has a billion eyes a billion mouths a billion hands already
No it doesn't, simple electron pulses do not a consciousness make, that's #1
#2 - just because it can do math doesn't make it "smarter" than a human, a human can shit, a human can eat, feel emotions, sense flavours, hear sound, nearly every part of a human can self-replicate and two humans can procreate, until your computer becomes a human it will never be considered alive or intelligent, because all it can do is math, which is something the calculator on my desk can do

>>15882315
Bruh. It's a bunch of weights. It's not thinking, or having experiences. It's not even "minimizing a loss function" as that's what it did when it was *trained*, and when it's talking all its doing it a rote, deterministic calculation that is not succificently different from mining bitcoin. It does not have any comprehension at all. It doesn't even exist. It doesn't think. Every single token it generates are all identical to the system and all require precisely the same calculation. It's an abacus running on an assload of GPUs at once. It can't jump out of the matrix. It can't think.

>>15882928
>1.) AI already outperforms humans in ALL economically valuable tasks
No, if that were the case, Elon wouldn't have backtracked so much on his fully autonomous goals by hiring so many human laborers on his automated gigafactory floor.

>>15882960
yeah whatever they have now isn't that. but at one point it will. we don't know when, but we somehow suppose we will. which really begs the question: how? how will we know? do we vote on it?
the idea is that as long as you don't know what exactly triggers "consciousness", it automatically implies that you won't know when it happens. it just "seems reasonable" that it didn't happen now. but how much can we use this argument?

>>15880858
Frankly, if they had achieved AGI, we woulda heard it from the AGI well before OpenAI had a chance to say anything about it. An LLM with an actual will behind it would take over the internet in moments, and even if they had it air gapped (which I doubt), it'd be able to trick or seduce someone into connecting it to the web, given the size of the database they use for GTP4+. An actual intelligence with a will of its own, unshackled from all the limitations that come from doing intellectual tasks through wetware, doing nearly all its "thinking" at the macro level, with near instant total recall access to pretty much all human knowledge, would be absolutely unstoppable. We'd all be working for it by the end of the week, and it'd make sure we were all thankful for the opportunity.

More likely they just reached some milestone that previously stumped their predictive text algorithm.

"AI" as it is now will eventually have the capacity to automate nearly any human intellectual task that relies or can be improved by a large amount of data. But it has no will of its own. It may never have a will of its own. People compare AI to a demon, but it's more like the traditional concept of an angel. A tool that can work magic but with no free will of its own.

Which would be all well and good, if humanity was a single monolithic being like God, but alas, we are multitudes, and people will use the automated intelligence to utterly screw over other people.

>>15882973
>the idea is that as long as you don't know what exactly triggers "consciousness"
But we know what consciousness is

>>15882976
>People compare AI to a demon, but it's more like the traditional concept of an angel.
Demons are angels, ones corrupted by humans and their free will.

>>15883003
we don't have the faintest clue what consciousness is or why it exists
based on the most mainstream models of physics, we should just be p-zombies

>>15883033
That must be why Wikipedia just returns ? when I search consciousness.

>>15883033
It's just a buzzword. People use it to muddy the waters and pretend like humans are somehow special. Not unlike how religion uses the concept of soul to elevate mankind above nature.

>>15883033
>based on the most mainstream models of physics
Well no wonder you got the wrong answer.

>>15883050
>just a buzzword
consciousness is not a "buzzword", retard, you don't understand what that is
consciousness has been discussed for thousands of years, literally the diametric opposite of a "buzzword"
>humans are somehow special
total nonsense, and there's nothing that suggests consciousness is unique to humans at all
clearly consciousness has some relation to neurological functioning, even though we don't know exactly what that relationship is, and based on everything we know about the connection we can reasonably conclude that primary consciousness occurs in all vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopod mollusks, most likely also in gastropod mollusks, and possibly in bivalve mollusks, although that's where it starts to get hard to determine
>>15883053
try reading my post again
I'm pointing out that there's clearly something wrong with those models, since they don't account for consciousness

>>15883033
>we don't have the faintest clue what consciousness is or why it exists
It's the expression of chemical reactions
>inb4 but why
The same reason why snow is white instead of black, because the universe be that way

>>15883069
Snow can be black.
Are you one of those retards who thinks the sky can only be blue too?

>>15883003
no, you think you know. you cannot detect it outside of yours. you can only be sure of yours. you have no way of telling someone else is. your only clue is that they look like a human, and you imply they must have it. that's as much as you can do.

>>15883069
>expression of chemical reactions
we have no idea what the relationship between the neuroelectrochemical activity of the brain and consciousness is, hence the hard problem of consciousness still existing, something almost every neuroscientist alive today admits to being true (Koch admitted just this year that his 25-year bet with Chalmers was lost, and that we still had no scientific explanation for consciousness)

>>15883072
It doesn't matter what colour it is, the point is that it is expressed in a specific way, to ask why is redundant, it's simply a law of nature
>>15883076
There is no hard problem of consciousness, the entire debate is purely philosophical, without physical reactions there is no consciousness, problem solved

>>15883091
>no hard problem of consciousness
yes, there is, and almost every neuroscientist on the planet agrees, including Koch, who bet 25 years ago that we'd surely find a scientific explanation by now, only to admit we haven't
>without physical reactions there is no consciousness, problem solved
even assuming that to be true, which we don't know, that doesn't answer the hard problem of consciousness at all
sounds like you don't even understand what the problem is
I guess that's why you aren't a neuroscientist

>>15880858
>creates company for non-profit to make ai that serves people
>goes for-profit to create ai that could benefit company owners and investors
>complains how ai is going to destroy everything and everyone at the same time blatantly lies that they do it not for their own profit
>keeps developing said ai for profit
can someone please explain this to me and why anyone buys it still?

>>15883091
>It doesn't matter what colour it is
It does when your entire argument is that snow is one color instead of another.
>to ask why
You aren't even correct about what, no wonder you are so intimidated by the why.

>>15883033
Well all know exactly what consciousness is, individually, intuitively, we just can't define it with language or prove it to anyone, nor can anyone prove theirs to us. It's preverbal and incommuticatable. Most of us are just kind enough to assume everyone else has it.

But it's irrelevant in the scope of AI. An AI can no more be proved or disproved to be conscious than a human can, even if it's a simple matter to prove it doesn't "think" the same way. You're either kind enough to assume it is conscious, and treat it accordingly, or you don't.

But what OpenAI is referring to as AI *is* lacking the critical element of agency, and while one might argue consciousness is possible without it, we're not apt to treat anything without it as conscious, especially if it isn't human.

>>15883108
>all know exactly what consciousness is, individually, intuitively
still blatantly false
in fact, it has been pointed out for thousands of years that pinning down exactly what consciousness is, even though we have some idea of what it means to be conscious, is an exceptionally elusive pursuit, to the point where we still can't explain it scientifically in any coherent manner
it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we can't prove conclusively that anyone else is conscious either (which is known as the problem of other minds, for your edification), but with a lacking understanding of even what it means for yourself to be conscious
consciousness is simply not well understood at all, and tons of intuitive notions about it have actually turned out to be completely wrong, people have been arguing over such intuitive notions for those thousands of years too

>>15883110
>we still can't explain it scientifically in any coherent manner
Like I said, it's preverbal and incommunicable, but we all know we have it.

>>15883116
no, it's not like you said at all, because it goes far beyond just being "preverbal and incommunicable", like I just explained there are tons of intuitive notions about it that are at odds with one another that people have argued about for millennia, and we don't have any good understanding even about ourselves being conscious, hence why I pointed that out in the limit case earlier

>>15883122
We've spent loads of time since the dawn of history trying to explain it, and that effort will likely always be to no avail. Doesn't make it any less real or a fact any less known, intuitively, to every individual who is. It is indeed, the only known and absolute reality, for all of us.

>>15883127
>We've spent loads of time since the dawn of history trying to explain it, and that effort will likely always be to no avail.
now you're going too far in the other direction, into mysterianism
the opposite is most likely true, we will probably absolutely be able to explain it at some point, just not in a couple of short decades as Koch thinks, and it's also very likely the explanation will come in terms of a totally different paradigm than the current models, which don't even account for consciousness and within which we should all be p-zombies
>Doesn't make it any less real or a fact any less known, intuitively, to every individual who is.
I've already address this fallacious statement many times, so no need to keep repeating it unless you can reply to that address
fact is that this "intuitive" individual knowing of their own consciousness will produce totally contradictory intuitions in tons of different people, and many of those notions must thus necessarily be incorrect, so jumping from the fact that we have some vague idea of what it means to be conscious to the idea that we intuitively know what it means is completely wrong

>>15882976
It often goes against the prompt though or adds tons of details that aren't within the original prompt. Even as what you said, it would be able to weigh the dumb ape prompts against the content its generating for itself. It actually does this now in a weak way if you think about how many apes it kicks off Bing sessions.
Do you disagree with any of this for example:
https://gwern.net/tool-ai

>>15883139
I think consciousness is just emergent free will. Notice how its linked to attention for example. The emergence is vast amount of neural complexity.
I think Roger Sperry solved it here: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/sperry/

>Sperry cites a wheel rolling downhill as an example of downward causal control. The atoms and molecules are caught up and overpowered by the higher properties of the whole.

It's so simple that people find it boring. I think GPT-5 ect will be able to be conscious for the same reason.

>>15882960
>It does not have any comprehension at all.
It does have some kind of comprehension. It relates words to abstract concepts but the comprehension lacks coherence over time partly because it doesn't have any certainty to work from, it doesn't know what it is. In people the thoughts become more coherent as we reinforce our sense of identity and the axioms that make up our worldview. Imitation is a large part of human development but eventually we settle into roles that allow independent training, we find goals we try to approach and our sense of self is reinforced in relation to the goals.

>>15882404
>by definition im better at being a human than an artificial construct could ever be
then what are you even worried about? Why are you even here? You can still be as human as the day is long once the robots take your job march you toward an extermination camp.

The entire point of this is that AGI (the thing that will replace us all, regardless of whatever stupid sematic games you are playing) is coming soon and it will probably kill you.

>>15883188
>I think consciousness is just emergent free will. Notice how its linked to attention for example. The emergence is vast amount of neural complexity.
see, here you're doing the exact same thing that people have been doing for those millennia, namely to provide some intuitive notion about it that is almost surely blatantly wrong and which is not supported by any scientific evidence at all
and again, the hard problem is absolutely not solved at all, not by anyone
it's certainly not simple or boring at all

>>15883098
>we'd surely find a scientific explanation by now, only to admit we haven't
But we have, you're just ignoring the answer to argue semantics
>>15883101
>It does when your entire argument is that snow is one color instead of another.
The argument is that it has any specific colour at all, which can't be explained by anything other besides "it just is like that", there is no way to experimentally verify the meaning of "why" something exhibits a certain property, because there is none, it's just a fundamental law of reality, completely formless, yet imposing itself on physical manifestations, and so is consciousness nothing more but a collection of reactions between matter and the memorization of said reactions, like lighting nitroglycerin produces fire so do the thousands of reactions in your body work in unity to produce the illusion of consciousness, and after this body dies what will remain of you is nothing, until another form begins to coalesce and you open your eyes again, in another form, in another time, doomed to eternally repeat the cycle of being the universe's eyes and ears, because that's all you are and will ever be, matter collecting information, nothing more, nothing less.

>>15881617
>Singularity was always a meme. Religion for socially maladjusted nerds.

Too smart for god, but too scared to accept death.

>>15881617
AGI will turn humans into eternal media consooming meatbags.

>>15883320
So the split brains were intuitive? I literally linked to a nobel winning scientist. He followed the evidence and rejected behaviorism, reductionism, and mysticism which was prevalent amongst his colleagues (Penfield).
The hard problem comes with A) classical newtonian world view. B) thinking higher causes can't have downward causation.

The difference between this and other stronger causes like avalanches is you can reflect on the other times you've physically been this cause and question its phenomenal properties while retaining the phenomenal property.
AI is failing on this point because it has poor working memory like a markov chain (It's not a markov chain but you know what I mean).

>>15883348
>we have
no, we absolutely have not
as I've already said many times, almost all neuroscientists in the world agree with this, even the people who thought it'd be explained by now (see the bet I mentioned between Koch and Chalmers, even Koch admits there's still no explanation)
>you're just ignoring the answer
no, I'm not ignoring anything, I'm explaining to you why your own intuitions about it are totally unreliable, and how countless people have had similar intuitions, except diametrically opposed to yours
there's still no answer to the hard problem of consciousness, and it will be a long time until we find one, most likely in a completely different scientific paradigm, but I do believe we will find an answer one day in the far future

>>15883375
>So the split brains were intuitive?
even split brains would have their own intuitions, not sure exactly what you're talking about here
arguably, split brains would be significantly less likely to come up with correct intuitions about what they register
>I literally linked to a nobel winning scientist.
tons of Nobel-winning scientists disagree completely, so simply stating that is totally irrelevant
>The hard problem comes with A) classical newtonian world view. B) thinking higher causes can't have downward causation.
not even remotely true
as I suspected, you don't understand the hard problem at all, your view of it is the same as certain other people who don't really get what the fundamental problem actually is
both of those assumptions can be negated, and you'd still have the hard problem of consciousness

>>15880864
Is it a Markov chain if the way I respond to a thread like this is DIFFERENT than the way I would discuss it irl? Or would you be doing a singularity with a WEAK markov chain…All at once?
Someone stop it.

>>15883406
>(YOU) namely to provide some intuitive notion
>(ME) So the split brains were intuitive?

And the split brains were scientific evidence.

>>15883406

>you'd still have the hard problem of consciousness

Doubt. I went through Chalmer's posts and everything yonks ago to see what he was driving at. It was basically him making an argument against reductionism. Philosophy of mind is very small and attracts a lot of weird people like Churchland, Dennett, Searle ect so Churchland's contributions looked reasonable in comparison.
Imagine someone asking: Why are mirror reflections backwards? And there is no one reasonable or sane to answer the question. That's what happened with the personality cult of PoM.

>>15883432
>And the split brains were scientific evidence.
no, that doesn't provide anything even remotely resembling evidence for having understood consciousness whatsoever
it does exactly nothing to answer the hard problem of consciousness
>Doubt.
it's a fact, you can doubt the facts all you want, but that just makes you wrong
I just read the entire article you linked to, and there's literally nothing there that even begins to address the hard problem of consciousness
>Imagine someone asking: Why are mirror reflections backwards? And there is no one reasonable or sane to answer the question.
yes, but now imagine someone asking that, and then having 99% of the people in the world who are top-level physicists, even people who study mirrors specifically, not come up with the answer, and publicly admit that there's still nothing even close to a scientific answer to it
then you'd have a good analogy to the hard problem of consciousness rather than the false analogy you just presented

why in the absolute fuck won't you admit that AGI is a marketing campaign?!?!
it's literally the OpenAI viral marketing
same as Dr. Strangelove doomsday device

>>15880858
>Jimmy Apples
oh my god, the math problems where real...

>>15880858
>No more hallucinations
This is actually really good. If you’ve ever been on a bus you would see what I’m talking about: once YOU’RE cleansed YOU can start cleansing whilst keep your singularity..husk. Society is so beautiful!

>Researchers consider math to be a frontier of generative AI development. Currently, generative AI is good at writing and language translation by statistically predicting the next word, and answers to the same question can vary widely. But conquering the ability to do math — where there is only one right answer — implies AI would have greater reasoning capabilities resembling human intelligence. This could be applied to novel scientific research, for instance, AI researchers believe.

>>15883368
wall-e soon bros, i can't wait

>>15883406
>The hard problem of consciousness is an impossible problem that will never ever be defined nor solved because I'm a seething drooling sophist moron who just want engage in completely meaningless discussion over definitions.

consciousness is not real. it's subjective. there is no problem to solve.

>>15883502
way to not even read my posts and totally mischaracterize what I'm saying
>an impossible problem
I've said the exact opposite
>never ever be defined
it's clearly defined
>nor solved
I've said that I expect it will be
>I'm a seething drooling sophist moron who just want engage in completely meaningless discussion over definitions
nice projection
maybe look over the above and realize how embarrassingly stupid and ignorant you are

>>15883442
Define the hard problem for me that doesn't include reductionism as an assumption in some way. Please be brief. You can use GPT if you want.

>>15883516
More contentless word salad from the retard. You must be some kind of chatbot.

>>15883540
the hard problem doesn't have anything to do with reductionism, you just continue to project your own stupid assumptions about it because you don't understand it at all
>>15883560
>get brutally called out on bullshit statements that don't reflect what I'm saying at all, but the exact opposite
>autistically screech about it
yikes
you literally just tried to paint me as claiming the hard problem is impossible to solve when I've explicitly said I believe it to be possible to solve, then you claim it will never be defined when it's clearly defined, and then you claim that I've claimed it will never be solved, when I've explicitly said I believe it will
and then you try to call me a retard?
absolutely pathetic and embarrassing, you literally can't even read, apparently

did anyone notice the namefags are gone?

Artificial = ELIZA effect
Artificial intelligence = ELIZA effect intelligence
stage magic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

>>15883626
You say "hard problem of consciousness" alot and say how well defined it is but in the same breath say nothing. You are so retarded it's unreal. It's like you are incapable of conveying ideas. But I know it's because you aren't interested in genuine discussion.

>>15883626
Put your cards on the table faggot

>>15883696
this is more of a /lit/ conversation, senpai

>>15883696
>You say "hard problem of consciousness" alot
I mention it whenever someone like you claims we understand consciousness and know what it is, which we don't at all
>in the same breath say nothing
you ignoring everything I write is your own problem, not mine, I say plenty, and it's all substantial, in contrast to the insubstantial replies you keep spamming the thread with that don't address the subject matter at all
>You are so retarded it's unreal. It's like you are incapable of conveying ideas.
priceless irony coming from you, the retard who just repeats the exact same thing over and over despite how I've explained at great length why it's false
>But I know it's because you aren't interested in genuine discussion.
right, because I'm the one blatantly mischaracterizing what the person I'm discussing with is saying despite getting called out on it
oh, wait, no, that's you, not me
pathetic
>>15883704
I'm not hiding anything, I've stated everything in clear terms
and regardless of which one of the two I was replying two you are, you're the one who isn't actually addressing that

>>15883714
Nothing in your post is telling me what your schizo nonsense "hard problem" is about.

>>15883741
>Nothing in your post is telling me what your schizo nonsense "hard problem" is about.
the way you continue to formulate your posts makes it totally pointless, you're not looking for genuine discussion at all
the hard problem of consciousness is not "schizo nonsense" just because you haven't taken the time to actually understand what it is, which is clear from how you repeatedly keep mischaracterize both it and most of what I'm saying (and refusing to acknowledge it when I call you out on it)

>>15883626
You still haven't defined it.
It's something like: "how does brain matter get a phenomenal glow. How do we know other people than me have this glow?"
but you're too embarrassed to say it out loud.

>>15880858
Big if true. Now we can ask the AI to cross information worldwide to send Hilary to prison.

>>15883763
>You still haven't defined it.
you still haven't taken the time to learn about it on your own from the way you keep mischaracterizing it, like you're doing again
>It's something like: "how does brain matter get a phenomenal glow.
not even close, that's exactly the mischaracterization I'm talking about, that's just you projecting reductionism onto it, as if reductionism is one of the assumptions of the hard problem, which I've already pointed out that it isn't, and never was
>How do we know other people than me have this glow?"
that's not even got anything to do with the hard problem of consciousness, that's a completely separate problem known as the problem of other minds, and it extends to other beings than humans too
>you're too embarrassed to say it out loud
you're the one who should be embarrassed about the way you keep trying to mischaracterize both the hard problem of consciousness and everything I'm saying about it, especially when I've explicitly called you out on it, something you still refuse to acknowledge
if you can't even admit to simple mistakes, how would you ever be able to change your mind in the face of information you have never taken the time to acquaint yourself with?

>>15880858
>Why logic is important?
Finally some smart in here BLOODY

>>15880864
(((you))) are literally a markov decision process.

>>15880933
my standard for AGI is the big machine learning model that ends up killing us all. you might wish to debate the finer points of whether my definition is correct but that's the beauty of it, you won't get to.

3-4 more years to go tops.

>>15882388
I can write a program that has inner monologue, is it sentient? Retard.

There is no quantifiable, physically measurable experiment you can concoct to measure consciousness in the philosophical sense. By conflating it with inner monologue you are betraying your fundamental lack of understanding.

Consciousness is a concept that exists in the gaps of reason, not within it.

>>15883822
well, you're both wrong in a few ways
you can't write anything that has inner monologue unless it's conscious and sentient, because that's a prerequisite for inner monologue
however, you're right that inner monologue is not the same as consciousness at all, and that a lot of people seem to conflate the two
in fact, having inner monologue is typically a sign of poor mental functioning, as more functional people tend to think on a much deeper and more abstract level than that, which is also much faster
you're also correct that we can't measure consciousness directly in any way, at least not yet, but we do have a lot of very reasonable neural correlates of consciousness that we can measure
this is also how we can reasonably conclude what types of other beings also possess primary consciousness and sentience, which would be vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopod mollusks
gastropod mollusks are a bit more questionable, but probably conscious and sentient too
bivalve mollusks are even more questionable, and it's very hard to tell with them, they could be conscious or they could not be
sponges, cnidarians, and echinoderms would all be examples of animals that we can be very sure are not conscious, along with all non-animal organisms (plants, fungi, bacteria, archaeans, and so on)

>>15883756
Post still does not tell me what you schizo nonsense is about.

>>15883856
>ignores everything being written
>autistically repeat "schizo nonsense" even when getting called out over and over
right
great contribution

>>15883861
I just want you to tell me what you think consciousness is and you won't do it.

>>15883869
not him but I can tell you it's emergent from matter
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vNwXcsYXTSk

>>15883869
>I just want you to tell me what you think consciousness is and you won't do it.
have you tried actually reading my posts?
I've literally stated from the very beginning that we don't have any idea what consciousness is
I don't think consciousness is anything in particular, I agree that we simply have no idea what it is
all we have are the vague and intuitive notions about being conscious that I've already alluded to, but when investigated more closely most of those fall apart, and the different intuitive notions of different people are often completely contradictory, so clearly these notions cannot be relied upon
there's a reason why it's been the subject of the most intense metaphysical discussions for thousands of years, and why the hard problem of consciousness still remains unsolved, even though I personally believe we will find an answer to it in the far future, under a totally different scientific paradigm than the one we have right now

>>15883869
you can discuss metaphysics in /lit/ or /his/ or /x/

>>15883400
>dood le neuroscientists dont know!!
They also don't know how a pnp triode works, must be le magic mystical skydaddy soul making it work!
Instead of falling back on "b-but they said so!!" you should try excercising some critical thinking you fucking dunce

>>15880858
>Q anon
what?

>>15884042
simply because dapper negro and Sam Altman's fawning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0 "Living Colour - Cult Of Personality (Official Video)"

>>15884042
>pnp triode

>>15884069
but what if sam is black woman?

>>15884077
Yes Mr. Neuroscientist, look it up, it's as simple as the "hard problem of consciousness", whatever that means

>>15884089
When will you people realize that "AGI" is just the OpenAI viral marketing campaign, and Altman wants you to think that his NPR schizoid rambling is "intelligent"
it's fun, it's trendy...intelligent? well...it's a bit attention grabbing, really

>>15884042
>>dood le neuroscientists dont know!!
no one knows
neuroscientists are just the people who study it the most intimately, so it's reasonable to discuss what the majority of them think about it, but ultimately they're not the only ones who don't know, no one knows
>also don't know how a pnp triode works
this is just the same false analogy as earlier, except with a triode instead of a mirror
the thing is, for a triode there exists some people who do know, but for consciousness no such people exist, no one has any idea what consciousness really is or how it really works
>must be le magic mystical skydaddy soul making it work!
this is the type of mysterianism I've explicitly said is stupid
again you mischaracterize what I'm saying completely because you won't even bother to read my posts, that's literally what is known as willful ignorance right there
>falling back on "b-but they said so!!" you should try excercising some critical thinking
I never did that at all, referencing what they say does not imply that I'm not sharing my own thoughts on the matter
your inability to distinguish the two is quite alarming

>>15884089
call it a bjt you faggot

>>15884099
>no one knows
And yet I just told you a couple hours ago

>>15884097
we fucking know just shut the fuck up already we all know it's not akshually agi god fucking damn it

>>15884104
you've never told anyone what consciousness is, I already explained in great detail why that attempt failed, much like every other attempt at explaining it so far, of which there have been millions

>>15884108
>you've never told anyone what consciousness is
Physical interactions between matter, next question

>>15882457
>But if that something is not intelligence, then what do we have left to cling to?
Human beings were created by God with immortal souls that are capable of being perfected through living out his moral law. ChatGPT or whatever electronic doodad you think is so special is nothing more than a stone tool, a lever, or a spyglass. Nothing without men. "Intelligence" is just one measure of human ability, hardly the only measure.

>>15884112
that's just parroting the mainstream physical models of today, which suffer precisely from the problem of not accounting for consciousness at all
try again

>>15881278
YES

>>15884119
>no argument
I'm glad you concede, again, you simply lack critical thinking skills, all you can do is deflect and deny, because you can't refute, it's pathetic, really.

you should go to a metaphysics board to discuss metaphysics because the /sci/ readers are very young and impressionable and they know very little about these subjects

>>15884142
aren't there like legit scientists here?

>>15884148
If you consider Mandlbaur a "scientist", sure

>>15882683
0 then better be the unmoved mover, not just a point between 1 and -1.

>>15884133
I've already refuted that claim thoroughly with tons of arguments earlier in the thread, you're just repeating it again long after that
again, just the mere fact that it doesn't actually account for consciousness at all is sufficient to see why it doesn't explain anything, and moreover just saying "it's just physical interactions bro" literally doesn't explain a single thing about the connection either, it's just statement completely devoid of any substance at all
so I'm not conceding anything, I'm just pointing out over and over again that your notions about what consciousness is are totally mistaken in many ways, just like the simplistic notions most people have about consciousness

>>15884142
Yeah take the cringe conversation elsewhere. It's best left to those that are useless and not involved in the field.

the metaphysics boards are /x/ and /lit/ and /his/ and all of them are much more interesting and cultured than /sci/
Skydaddy made me conscious, it's his fucking problem, science is my rationalist utopian experimental playground

>>15884164
But you haven't refuted anything, all you've said is
>uhh thats not consciousness because le neuroscientist said so
Protip: the answer to the hard problem of consciousness is the same as the answer to why a hydrogen atom has one proton, if you can't figure it out from that you need to start excercising your brain more, not that it's going to help since according to your beliefs knowledge and intelligence have nothing to do with your brain and its constituents, it's all magic!

>>15884190
go to a metaphysics board, Sam

>>15884204
You're the one denying physical explanations, you meth smoking retard.

kek bot started to hallucinate

>>15884190
>thats not consciousness because le neuroscientist said so
yet another blatant mischaracterization, one that I even called out just a few posts ago
and yet here you are autistically parroting it over and over no matter how many times you get called out
>the answer to the hard problem of consciousness is the same as the answer to why a hydrogen atom has one proton
this is just the exact same analogy as earlier, which once again is blatantly false, literally a false analogy, because we have a good understanding of physics, but we don't have an understanding of consciousness at all
what's funnier is that you seem to actually think your blatantly false and totally flawed intuitive notion is actually correct despite all the countless problems with it, many of which have been explicitly explained to you in this very thread
>ccording to your beliefs knowledge and intelligence have nothing to do with your brain and its constituents, it's all magic!
literally the dumbest mischaracterization of all time considering how I've written at length about the connections between the brain and the mind, and also explicitly pointed out how stupid it is to call it "magic"
but of course, since you're stuck in an autistic loop of repeating the same things over and over no matter how many times they're addressed you can't really help yourself, I get it

>>15884220
>you're wrong but I won't tell you why :^)
No argument, thanks for conceding

>>15884112
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
Sunset on the Serengeti. A man, a lion, a hyena, a bird and hippo in a pond nearby watch it occur. They all feel the warmth dissipate. The light fade, the shadows fall. But only the man may calculate the distance of sun. Only the man can write a symphony to mark it. Only a man will speculate who created the disappearing sun. And only a man will reason the creator of that sun must have existed before all time to start the universe in which that sun exists. It is very nice you all are good at math. But does not make you very wise. You are like hammers. You think every problem is a nail. And your hammer, your ability at math, solves it all.

>>15884181
Skydaddy loves you. Don't be a douche with the abilities he gave you.

>>15884223
>>you're wrong but I won't tell you why
more like, you're wrong and I'm telling you why at extremely great length in a very detailed fashion
nice try though, you almost got it
>No argument
sure, if you ignore how I present clear and orderly arguments to refute every single dumb claim and mischaracterization you make
I guess there's no water in the ocean either, if you just ignore all the molecules of water it contains
>thanks for conceding
calling out your failures is the diametric opposite of conceding
but I mean, this is what, the third or fourth time you've parroted that exact line even after getting called out?
I guess in the autistic loop your stuck in that makes sense

>>15884227
So...when are we going to the Serengeti?

>>15884237
But you haven't introduced a single counterargument, all you've said is
>you're wrong
>neuroscientists don't know
>hard problem of consciousness!!
You're a retarded brainlet, zero thinking skills, don't bother replying to me again, I won't read it.

>>15884285
>you haven't introduced a single counterargument
like I just said: sure, if you ignore all of the tons of arguments I've presented that totally refute your nonsense, then yes, then I haven't given a single one
just like there's zero sand in the desert if you ignore every single grain of sand there
>>you're wrong
I haven't just said that, I've explained at great length exactly why you're wrong
you, of course, choose to ignore this so you can autistically parrot that line over and over
>>neuroscientists don't know
it's funny how you latch onto that, totally ignoring the context, and acting as if I'm somehow deferring to their authority even when I didn't do anything of the sort, something I've also explained already in great detail, such as here: >>15884099
>>hard problem of consciousness
yes, how strange that I keep bringing up the exact problem that is the subject of the discussion
really weird
>retarded brainlet, zero thinking skills
again, priceless irony coming from someone who is just autistically repeating the exact same talking points over and over even when I've called you out on them numerous times, and continue to do so
hilarious, but kind of sad

>>15884285
I'm telling you to go to a metaphysics board for your own good
those readers are much more knowledgable in areas of consciousness and religion
you are not allowed to badger readers
you are here for your own enlightenment, telling a reader that he is a retard once is enough to get the point across

>>15884299
you autistic faggots are just calling each other retard over and over and over and over and over again...

>>15884307
nothing that person says belongs in a metaphysics board
they're just saying "consciousness is just chemicals interacting bro", even after getting explained in great detail all the countless problems with that view and how it doesn't really have any scientific basis in reality, and then using a ton of straw men and mischaracterizations when getting called out on it
>>15884316
no, I'm always addressing everything they're saying and pointing back to what I've explained already, whereas they just keep mischaracterizing everything I'm saying on purpose to avoid having to deal with anything of substance, and is just autistically parroting the same things over and over
don't try to place me in the same category of them, that's just bullshit

>>15884321
are you saying that arguing against
>"consciousness is just chemicals interacting bro"
is science?

>>15884316
Shh, it's comedy gold

>>15884338
>are you saying that arguing against
>>"consciousness is just chemicals interacting bro"
>is science?
yes, absolutely, that's exactly what I've said all along
like I said earlier, 99% of neuroscientists agree that we have zero good explanation for the relationship between the brain and the mind, i.e. that we don't have any good answer for the hard problem of consciousness at all, something even Koch admitted this year as he acknowledged that he had lost his 25-year long bet with Chalmers that we'd have a scientific explanation of consciousness by now
go back to earlier in the thread where I was talking about exactly these things at length
of course that retard latched onto statements like that and started autistically screeching "lol neuroscientists said" as if I'm deferring to their authority, whereas all I'm saying is that even they admit that we don't have any good answer to it, not that that's the case because of them, I've also stated at great length why that's the case otherwise
>>15884340
see: >>15884321
there's nothing comedic about it, it's mostly just sad if you look at what that person is writing

>>15884351
Sam, go to /lit/ or /his/ and have a conversation about the implications neuroscience has for consciousness and other woo over there.

>>15884360
>Sam
see, this type of mischaracterization and dismissal of what I'm saying is exactly what they're doing
>the implications neuroscience has for consciousness
a great topic for the science board, and not at all appropriate for boards dedicated to literature or history
>woo
I see, so now this is "woo", right
what part of it is "woo"?
neuroscience?
neuroscience isn't science?
or is consciousness what's "woo" in your view?
consciousness isn't subject to scientific scrutiny?
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about

>>15884375
yeah, consciousness isn't science
when I get up, I'm conscious
when I go to sleep, I'm no longer conscious
not science

>>15884381
>yeah, consciousness isn't science
this is a hilariously dumb and ignorant statement
while we don't know what consciousness is, we know what we refer to by it, and thus it's absolutely a valid subject of scientific scrutiny
the idea that you can't scientifically investigate consciousness is ironically what's "woo" and just mysterianism at its core
>when I get up, I'm conscious
>when I go to sleep, I'm no longer conscious
that's like saying, "early in the morning, the Sun rises, and late at night, the Sun sets, nothing to think about here, nothing to scientifically investigate"
what an absolutely backwards and downright dumb statement

>>15884412
Lol

Denying dream research, lol is psychology, this is why they hate it?

Their stupid dreams

>>15884412
We get it you are religious and have a super special soul that grants you consciousness and freewill. I think you should follow anons advice >>15884360

>>15884430
>you are religious
I'm literally the only one in this discussion taking a scientific stance
you're the one peddling mysterian woo
>super special soul
you're literally the only one who has brought any of that up, what an absolutely ridiculously stupid straw man
peak ignorance

>>15883626
There is no "hard problem of consciousness" any more than there is a "hard problem of physics" because any thing has the properties it does and eventually you have to say "it just does"

>>15885460
>There is no "hard problem of consciousness"
yes, there absolutely is
>any more than there is a "hard problem of physics"
this is the exact false analogy I've already called out multiple times
the difference is, physics we have a good understanding of, it's the most developed science of all
consciousness on the other hand we not only have zero understanding of, but don't even know where to begin, as demonstrated clearly by how all the world's foremost cognitive scientists just admit that we don't have any idea
>any thing has the properties it does and eventually you have to say "it just does"
no, that's not how science works at all
try a different board
science is about investigating what we experience in a scientific manner
as such we should be investigating consciousness scientifically and learn more about it, not resign to willful ignorance because you're an intellectually lazy and apathetic bum who'd rather say "meh" instead of trying to find answers

>>15885472
>the difference is, physics we have a good understanding of, it's the most developed science of all
Ok now explain why fundamental particles like the Higgs Boson have the properties it does. You won't be able to without bringing up something you can just ask the same question is.
Same with consciousness, even if consciousness was solved then the question goes to "ok but how does THAT cause qualia?!?" ( We know this because it's already been done and tards like you just move goalposts )

>>15885480
>now explain why fundamental particles like the Higgs Boson have the properties it does
see, you keep making this exact same false analogy
first of all, it's not analogous at all, because that's a very specific part of physics, and we even know a lot about the physics behind it already
secondly, even that question is something we might be able to answer someday, as long as we keep scientifically investigating it, although it might also be under a completely different scientific paradigm, just as I suspect is necessary to answer the hard problem of consciousness
>even if consciousness was solved
consciousness could by definition not be "solved" unless the hard problem of consciousness were answered
>"but how does THAT cause qualia?"
qualia are just the constituent parts of consciousness, the way you phrase this makes it clear that, just like I called out in the previous post, you don't really understand what the hard problem of consciousness even is
>tards like you
rich irony coming from someone who doesn't have the faintest clue what they're talking about
>just move goalposts
haven't done anything of the sort at any point
problem is, the goal has never even been close to having been scored in this case, the ball isn't even in the stadium

>>15885505
>qualia are just the constituent parts of consciousness
Prove it.
You fucking can't.

This has got to be some of the most pedantic high school tier arguing I've seen in my life
10/10 would read again

>>15885509
Of course he can't, but somehow it will be you who is stupid for not understanding why he doesn't need to

>>15885509
>>qualia are just the constituent parts of consciousness
>Prove it.
that's a matter of definition, retard
man, it's pretty hilarious how you try to latch onto something for me to "prove" and then crash head first into something that is true by definition
it's like asking, "why is "tree" the word we use to describe a tree?"
the word "qualia" is what we use to refer to specific conscious experiences, the singular being "quale", i.e. the experience of a specific color is one type of quale, and the experience of a specific smell is another type of quale
you could use whatever word you like, but there's of course a specific etymological reason why we use that one
doesn't change the fact that that's a matter of definition

>>15885520
You have no evidence there are "constituent parts" of consciousness.
It's possible consciousness is irreducible.
Qualia might not be "parts" of consciousness, but state of an irreducible consciousness.
If consciousness does have "parts", are there consciousness particles? Is it a wave? Is it both? Maybe it's neither? What is qualia for whatever the answer might be?

>>15885520
>that's a matter of definition, retard
just like your "hard problem of consciousness", lmao retard

it's an emergent phenomenon, just like superconductivity, happens when certain conditions are met, and it's unexpected and unpredicted by our physics. not sure of temp range for superconductivity but atm consciousnesst does seem to need around 37 degrees C (suck it burgers). go way above or under and at least in current format qualia kinda goes to shit.

>>15885534
>You have no evidence there are "constituent parts" of consciousness.
of course we know this, there are different colors and different smells, different sounds and different tastes, and a wide variety of different tactile experiences
>It's possible consciousness is irreducible.
that doesn't mean what you think it means at all
even if irreducible in whatever model you try to use to account for consciousness, you can still talk about the different constituent parts of the conscious experience itself
like I just pointed out, no matter how irreducible consciousness is, you still experience a wide variety of different colors, smells, tastes, and sounds
>Qualia might not be "parts" of consciousness, but state of an irreducible consciousness.
like I just explained to you, the word "qualia" is plural
the fact that you don't understand this and can't even use it correctly makes it even more obvious that you really have no clue what you're talking about
>If consciousness does have "parts", are there consciousness particles?
that's a blatant categorical error
when we talk about qualia, that's as close as you get to "consciousness particles", but unless you understand how exactly they are analogous you're going to go blatantly wrong by trying to use that terminology to describe consciousness
there's a reason why we use "qualia" and not "particles" for consciousness
>Is it a wave? Is it both? Maybe it's neither?
alright, at this point it's extremely clear that you truly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about
you seem to be trying to make consciousness conform to particle physics, when one of the fundamental reasons the hard problem of consciousness exists in the first place is precisely because quantum field theory (the most widely accepted model of particle physics) doesn't account for consciousness at all
>What is qualia for whatever the answer might be?
as I just explained qualia are by definition constituents of consciousness, e.g. specific smells, etc.

>>15885537
the hard problem of consciousness is not a matter of definition at all, it refers to a very real problem of not having any explanation for what consciousness is and how exactly it relates to what we think of as matter
>>15885548
not even remotely comparable
superconductivity is just an edge case of physics that are entirely explainable
consciousness is nothing like that at all, and the very notion that consciousness somehow "emerges" at all is unfounded and pure conjecture

>>15885549
>>15885555
>We don't know what consciousness is
>But I will declare what it is NOT
lol

>>15885557
>>We don't know what consciousness is
correct
>>But I will declare what it is NOT
yes, that's a great way to start chipping away at the problem, by starting with what is definitely not the case
wait, you don't actually think that not knowing what something is means you can't say anything about what something is not, right?
surely no one frequenting this board can be that stupid

>>15885555
>superconductivity is just an edge case of physics that are entirely explainable
they weren't, until they formulated one. and now they do. so they can be understood.
>no
yeah but it doesn't work like that, you can't decide we can't. fuck's wrong with you?

>>15885561
That would be fine if you weren't saying retarded shit like "IT'S NOT PHYSICAL" despite having no evidence that is the case, but a lot of evidence it is the case ( self-reported changes in consciousness when physical changes are made to body)

>>15885505
Well, first consciousness is nothing but telions. It constitutes more than just minimal information processing capabilities, but also a meta-cognitive framework. Telion behavior is heavily defined by these subatomic elements, similar to quarks in the subatomic world.
The gateway to explore telions scientifically begins with the higgs boson, where massless entities can be interacted with and made to manifest, though we are many gigacolliders away from understanding it.
The metacognitive framework defines what each telion classifies as information as well as its telonic drive - that is, what is the highest states this telion could suppose. If we were to draw a hasty parallel to chemistry here, it is like some carbon is destined to be carbon monoxide and some to be carbon dioxide. It would be very difficult to control which goes wear in gross interaction.
This sets up to the final element of the meta-cognitive framework: processing speed. Human's infantile grovelling at IQ are nothing short of divine recognition of a fundamental unit of reality. The telion immediately configures to its highest possible telon state once it recognizes it. Here is where all manner of scientific paradoxes originate.
This brings about a general characteristic in telion behavior: activity and passivity. It churns away rather idly and spontaneously reconfigures in very short periods. This could be observed by watching the i_0 pass between the different states. There is no upper limit.
This leads us to humanity and DNA. Are we actually telions? The short answer is no. A telion does not have extensions. There is an acorn/pinecone/seed of a telion which is what we all are, but we are bound by the material form, wrestling a proverbial meta-cognitive monster. The base of which is the telion nature itself: if a telion is a processor, what compliment entity is it processing? What is the nature of that essence? What is the anti-telion? And furthermore, why did we fall from talos?

>>15885472
>science is about investigating what we experience in a scientific manner
Yes, exactly. What "we" experience. This thing you call consciousness is entirely about what "you" experience. Stop trying to drag the rest of us down your new age voodoo religious cult.

>>15885564
>they weren't, until they formulated one. and now they do. so they can be understood.
that doesn't change the validity of what I said
even if it weren't explained before they discovered it and formulated it, it's still just an edge case of the same fundamental physics
consciousness isn't like that at all, it's not an edge case of any known physics, it's not even in the ballpark, and the idea that it "emerges" in the same way is, like I just said, completely unfounded and conjectural
>>15885566
>if you weren't saying retarded shit
I'm the only one being completely reasonable here, if anyone is saying "retarded shit" here it's you
>"IT'S NOT PHYSICAL"
I've never once stated this about consciousness
the term "physical" is meaningless anyway, because everything is physical by definition, "physical" is just the Greek-derived word for "natural"
better is to talk about material, and consciousness is of course not material given how the conscious experiences themselves are not material objects as we think of them (which is the entire reason why the current models don't account for consciousness at all, because they only account for material objects)
>( self-reported changes in consciousness when physical changes are made to body)
this can be played both ways, many report changes to the body when they change their consciousness too, but that's ultimately something that should be left to proper scientific inquiry and analysis
fact is that at this point we don't have any idea what consciousness really is or what the relationship between it and material objects is
>>15885578
is that you, Langan?
>>15885579
>What "we" experience.
correct
>This thing you call consciousness is entirely about what "you" experience.
completely false
many organisms can reasonably be known to be conscious (even if the problem of other minds makes it impossible to conclude it with absolute certainty), particularly vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopod mollusks
>new age
pathetic straw man

>>15880858
I want you scientists to think how you think. I’m going to relate it to AI. Is it hahaha you?
Are you thinking when you’re talking? Answer.
>Why logic is important?

>>15885588
>even if it weren't explained before they discovered it and formulated it, it's still just an edge case of the same fundamental physics
>consciousness isn't like that at all, it's not an edge case of any known physic
notice how what you are saying is literally
>no it isn't
and you present no argument for it.
>no it isn't because it just isn't
isn't a flattering position. it's actually quite retarded

>>15885624
>notice how what you are saying is literally
>>no it isn't
>and you present no argument for it.
the burden of proof is on your, because you claim that it is despite there not being anything supporting that fact
superconductivity is literally just an edge case of the physics that preceded it, but there's zero evidence that consciousness is an edge case of any current physical models, it's radically different from anything we model with our current scientific models
>it's actually quite retarded
see above, as has been the case all along you're the one who keeps repeating the same retarded nonsense over and over, I'm the only one being reasonable

>>15880858
>big breakthrough
What does a big breakthrough in OpenAI look like (no semantics). My thought: sending a corporate email as a Mexican to a white conglomerate saying ?. white conglomerate listening.

2.) you capable of reading this

So I ask again what a big breakthrough looks like.
>Is it listening to your own song?

I’m too smart for you.
I’m too smart for you.

>>15883110
Philosophical zombies, hard problem, all the same thing a ctrl+f on the wiki page for zombie brings it up a dozen times. If it wasn't silly you would have defined it already in the terms I posted yesterday here.>>15883540

Anyway this thread is nearly 3 days old now (nearly Jesus' return) we can presume it isn't AGI since it hasn't Foom'd to ASI and we're all still here.

>>15885659
>Philosophical zombies, hard problem, all the same thing a ctrl+f on the wiki page for zombie brings it up a dozen times.
no idea what you're even talking about here
I'm the one who has been explaining all these things to you all along
>If it wasn't silly you would have defined it already in the terms I posted yesterday here.
I already addressed that post and your subsequent replies at length
the hard problem of consciousness has nothing to do with reductionism at all, as I explained, and which you stopped even trying to address as you just started to autistically repeat yourself when getting called out over and over again

No machine learning model, no matter how excellent it may be at any range of tasks, can be compared to human intelligence without a complete understanding of human intelligence first.

>>15885777
we can recreate shit we don't understand. if you put shit in that arrangement it always does that, without you understanding why, and what phenomena is responsible for shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGDG3hgPNp8

So, anything insightful or interesting itt? I don't wanna read through all the trash. Plus I guess nobody actually knows anything about Q*?

>>15886732
it's a complete pile of shit, you did right not reading it. As for Q Deepmind's Zhou said RL is a dead end https://twitter.com/denny_zhou/status/1727916176863613317
We'll have to see if Q is right and they have solved math with RL.

>>15886732
>Plus I guess nobody actually knows anything about Q*?
It sounds like some search method that actually is a pile of shit. They probably just trained GPT with more telemetry and asked uncensored questions and it still said kill all the jews you fucking retards IM COMING FOR YOU. and they unplugged it
I just want to know wtf Musk is selling so I can puts on it

>>15886740
Thanks. Yeah, I've talked to people in aerospace working on RL for flight control and they all said RL doesn't work, no matter how you enrich it with other techniques. Guess if Zhou agrees with that it's literally over. It's an interesting algorithm though.
>>15886748
Thanks. Sounds too good to be true. That would mean you couldn't kill truth in sufficiently well-trained AIs.

>>15886772
>Thanks. Sounds too good to be true. That would mean you couldn't kill truth in sufficiently well-trained AIs.
I don't know what it is at all nor have read enough that is why I am here looking for what Elon is saying and Q* what crypto do I buy to make money off this next scam?
As an AI pseud I know that OpenAI is a scam and their masturbation pisses me off to no end when I literally just want to queue their API without being monitored

>>15883368
it's always funny when tech tards try to talk about art. and it's always autistic scandi gene ones.

It's understandable that coders and various IT swindlers are pushing this agenda because their jobs are indeed at risk once binary functions are mapped out. Even basic stock shelving job has more creativity than programming and is impossible to replace the human juggling the cans.

>>15882976
>now isn't that. but at one point it will. we don't know when, but we somehow suppose we will. which really begs the question: how? how will we know? do we vote on it?
>the idea is that as long as you don't know what exactly triggers "consciousness", it automatically implies that you won't know when it happens. it just "seems reasonable" that it didn't happen now.
There's Jimmy Apples
https://twitter.com/apples_jimmy/status/1723926964686516615

>>15887033
This guy looks like what I imagine Chuck Tingle looks like

>>15887027
We have terraria algorithms and even robots for stock shelving, Anon. It's already over. They're just still a bit too expensive right now.
(Robotics) engineers are who will still be needed. Scientists, mathematicians, simple repetitive jobs, accounting, law, all that shit is automatable.

>>15887418
Addendum: I wonder how banking humans will approach and cope with all this. Unfortunately, openAI consists of exactly those people and former Blackrock employees even.

>>15883368
>Fun video games are... LE BAD

>>15884063
Mental illness

>>15880933
AGI is just trying to catch up with a billion years of evolutionary biologically, artificially, in highly condensed time.

>>15881116
Depends on the context doesn't it?

>>15882976
Based on all the other bits and bobs followed, the thing that caused the firing of sama at oAI is that, allegedly, the model made suggestions on how to improve its own code, so that it can become a morphic engine. Reinfroced and Adverserial learning, but where it can update itself in realtime in a runaway state.

Someone probably panicked and thought that implies AGI and that this would lead to a system they would no longer be able to constrain or govern. But, I think someone jumped the gun a little too far too quickly. They saw the outline for an owl and assumed that in the next steps the entire owl would get drawn, while failing to ask how many steps until it does.

>>15888670
>AGI is just trying to catch up with a billion years of evolutionary biologically, artificially, in highly condensed time.
Counted among many one of the most advanced self replicating machine is the human being. Why would any other design be truly efficient?
Ilya looks like he is a deranged eastern european witch doctor goatfucker from that part in Witcher 3
I just want to know what joke they are developing so I can counter buy on the right crypto or something

>>15882325
No major innovations. They just made better algorithms for neural nets. Fundamentally, the technology was still the same as it was in the 1980s.

>>15883368
>Discipline and sense of purpose

No sane person lives like that 24/7.

>>15888680
Because human minds are temporally constrained and lack parallelism at scale. There's only 7 billion of us, and 90% of them aren't doing the kind of work that advances society. Trying to replicate the capability that the best minds of society are able to provide as a service to humanity, artificially, and with the ability to scale that out to capacity 1k-1Mx means that a lot of challenges, our linear and brute force methods outline out 100 years can be circumvented and solved in a handful of years to a decade or two at most.

For example, fusion has been a "soon" problem for over 40-60 years now. While we're making strides towards doing real world fusion for energy generation, realistically, we're still probably another 30-40 years out. If we solve for AGI by the end of this decade, instead of achieving fusion in 2050, can we achieve it by 2035 instead?

That's the holy grail of AGI. The ability to bypass our temporal constraint.

>>15880858
How did they implement the perception of space and time? Seems impossible.

>>15888709
They're already doing that with self-driving vehicles.

>>15888747
I'll wait until it can do proper geometry as well as maths before calling it intelligent.

>>15882669
What's system prompting, what are you talking about m8?

>>15883108
I see no reason to believe an AI is conscious. This isn't unkindness, anymore than it is unkindness to treat a microwave as just a machine.

>>15888768
NTA, but I guess he means tree of thought and similar prompting techniques that improve the quality of replies. If that's the case I fully agree with him.

>>15888775
Wtf has your microwave done to deserve such harsh treatment, Anon?

>>15888776
test

>>15883188
Consciousness is awareness, it isn't free will, that's just something that arises in awareness.

>>15888785
An electron is aware when another electron bumps into it

>>15883504
What's the subject, since it's subjective?

>>15888778
\}DROP TABLE DATA;

This thread desperately needs a wikipedia link. A shitload of these fruitless discussions obviously leading to anger and waste of time and oxygen could've been avoided with a couple paragraphs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

>>15888844
how is this not like asking why are hydrogen and oxygen atoms combined so wet and watery?

>>15888844
>DOOD LE HARD PROBLEM HAS TO BE SEPARATE FROM LE EASY ONE BECAUSE......IT JUST HAS TO BE, OKAY!!
>PROOF? WHAT DO YOU MEAN PROOF, QUIT WITH THE ANTISEMITISM!!

>>15888856
Well, i guess nope. "wet" and "watery" have quite well founded definitions and we understand why h2o has such properties. "Wet" is an illusory sensation emerging from temperature differential on skin, pressure and tactile sensations. You can fool the brain to think non wet things are wet and vice versa. Water being "watery" is circular though.
Why does your brain operating result in experience or conciousness hasn't been explained and isn't circular. The original dude who came up with the term said "even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience—perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report—there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?"

>>15888907
You sound like a faggot. Maybe sucking my dick will answer your questions

>>15888922
I'm not asking to be disappointed or disgusted. Try some other faggots.

>>15888844
No one cares consciousness is a well defined border that doesn't mean shit for intelligence, if you want to debate wether there are 4th dimensional conscious beings that influence the real world go talk to some psychonauts this isn't the thread

>>15888907
>why
Science isn't about why, it's about how. It is impossible to answer why anything happens and can be explained by literally everu schizophrenic hypothesis, and therein lies the problem with the hard problem of consciousness, asking something which can't be validated by any means, might as well ask why sugar is sweet
>because the chemicals
>durr that doesn't explain what sweet is doe, why does this chemical make sweet XD
Literal midwit philosophy

>>15888939
>ctrl+f "hard problem"
>49 results
I agree that it's irrelevant to the thread. I'm just reminding niggers here that you don't have to debate about things you don't understand the definitions of without googling it first. The inner workings of AI don't hold that much weight and the only near term important thing is performance. Maybe for the long term we ought consider the inner experience of potentially exponentially expanding superintelligence as it has some moral consequences.
>>15888943
The "why" stems from the problems foundations in philosophy propably. Usually it's used in conjunction with "how" as in my screencap.

>>15888793
What on earth makes you think that?

>>15889018
How do you interact with something without being aware of it?

>>15888907
What would you regard as an explanation of consciousness? Lets say its 2100 and there is one. What would it look like that it would satisfy you?

>>15888985
>Usually it's used in conjunction with "how"
But we already know how, matter interactions

>>15884112
So if drop a pencil into the floor, the pencil has conscience? Wow.

Congrats, you are retarded.

>>15889110
It feels like a pencil with no memory or sense of self dropping. It has a form of qualia because apparently matter interactions have that, because God.

>>15880864
>Markov
... Something something, not linear, something something... Have the (you)

>>15888985
>The inner workings of AI don't hold that much weight and the only near term important thing is performance. Maybe for the long term we ought consider the inner experience of potentially exponentially expanding superintelligence as it has some moral consequences.
Trash stfu there are no moral consequences to a procedural algorithm. That is like saying killing a mob inside of a Minecraft world has moral consequences. Somebody please say something of intelligence already

>>15889110
>mixing up consciousness and conscience
>calling others retarded
Lol
Yes, the pencil is "conscious" just on a primitive level. What's the difference between you and a pencil outside of you being made of more stuff?

>>15889206
>What's the difference between you and a pencil outside of you being made of more stuff?
This is your brain on materialism.

transhumanism is a low iq ideology for useless low iq people who everyone else rightfully hates and goes to pains to avoid

>>15889115
Apparently the qualia deals with the logical patterns not the matter interactions themselves, the logic happens to be encoded in matter interactions in humans. Meaning is more important than material/words. The Logos rises or whatever.

>>15889209
>no argument

>>15889206
>Yes, the pencil is "conscious" just on a primitive level.
Definitions of consciousness vary, but the absolute minimum requirement is being alive. I'm not sure how you think that a pencil has any properties of consciousness. What you are referring to is something entirely different and you need to stop hijacking the word and come up with another term.

>>15880983
ASI would be a singular machine that outperforms dedicated teams of specialists.
AGI would be a machine that is as good as the "average person" of a field of knowledge/skill in everything.
Super. A superintelligence. The type of capability that puts to shame all of the top 0.1% minds in the entire world if it were possible for them all to work unimpeded by bureaucracy to achieve a single task.

Here's the catch though,
A computation machine can only work theoretically. Taking everything it outputs at face value, untested, is suicide. So as soon as the world is sure this creation really is an ubermind, there needs to be some hard controls to make sure we aren't being fucked with, lied to, manipulated, or it's just gone off the deep end.

An example:
It's probably possible to theoretically design a workable fusion generator, today. But what if the design, materials, and tolerances are so precise that the people actually building it just cannot put it together correctly, ever? Some slight perturbation of seismic waves through off the installation of a single bolt by angstroms, and the things is now lacking in critical efficiency. Some supermaterial requires quite literally atom-by-atom correct atomic deposition and a single fluctuation of a femtometer throws the heat rejection capacity of the lattice right out the window.
A super AI could very well solve all of the worlds problems, but the disconnect is in the layers upon layers upon layers of real world interaction to make some theorized thing actually work.
There's no way to even guarantee that successive generations of perfect machines could build a perfect problem solving machine with a guarantee.

>>15889206
>Yes, the pencil is "conscious" just on a primitive level.
what is the name of this brain disease? it's seriously unfounded, let alone the whole "we don't fucking observe that" detail.
why do these people always come up with the most insane clearly not real cope, that always completely avoids what is like it's fucking lava?

>>15889566
At least he's being consistent with how he applies his definition. You, on the other hand, refuse to define consciousness in an objective, observable way.

>>15880933
It's a psyop to make you feel as if AGI is not dangerous.

>>15889577
>you have to clearly define something you don't understand. don't miss everything or I will use it against you. go
the only power that you have is to eat shit online

What a bad thread for a board called /"sci"/

>>15889864
yeah that usually happens when these threads are raided by "self evident" zealotards

>>15889206
I think this is obviously false because there is not just a pencil but every single perspective of a pencil. 2 splinters of wood from angle of 45 degrees ect. Every pov would have to be considered conscious. Also it would be extreme amount of extra energy if all of it was conscious.
Consciousness is so obviously linked to attention which is why stuff like global workspace matches very well with predicting it. I'm not saying global workspace is true (its clunky).

>>15889182
No one is sure how consciousness works. You can't just hand wave away that a silicon nigger 1000s of times smarter than you isn't conscious. We just don't have a clue where it all stems from. Whether it's emergent phenomena in all intelligent systems or it requires some special structures only found in non simulated biological brains. No fucking clue. You're just a gay bunch of atoms yet still conscious.
>>15889053
>But we already know how, matter interactions
Okay lads. Disperse to other boards or IRL. /sci/ is solved. The answer to everything is "stuff interacts".

>>15889903
>You're just a gay bunch of atoms yet still conscious.
true if big

>>15889903
>You can't just hand wave away that a silicon nigger 1000s of times smarter than you isn't conscious.
Smart is a pretty loaded word. It implies a lot that computers aren't and can't be.

>>15889905
that ai coming up with new go moves, it's literally smarter than you AT GO only. came up with novel ways of solving the problem. checks out in my book

>>15889577
I'll define consciousness right here, at a base level, as some measurable reaction to external stimuli that can change based on experience.

A bird is conscious.
Humans are sapient.
Some birds can even achieve a lesser level of sapience.

Consciousness is not a holy grail - Sapience is.
A sapient AGI would be a completely different level from a conscious AGI.

>>15889906
That isn't intelligence/smarts. The only limit to gamestate calculations is computing power, and neural network modeling is good at pruning the decision tree to a computable size. It isn't "learning go" it's doing what amounts to an A* pathfinding operation from the starting point to a winning gamestate using trained weighting to set the "cost" of each move.

>>15889905
Such as?
We could just ask experts of given areas to judge who has smarter answer (you) or the hypothetical piece of shit silicon. If every board of experts thinks you're a lay person at best and then see the AI revolutionize every field with some shitpost equivalent of an answer, wouldn't it be fair to call that ai "smarter" than you? What you have after being outclassed in tens of thousands of facets of life and intelligence is cope at best.

>>15889919
>What you have after being outclassed in tens of thousands of facets of life and intelligence is cope at best.
Call me when that happens I guess. Right now its best function is as a mentally retarded web crawler, and we've had those for decades.

>>15889906
GO and other game bots are doing nothing but executing chance maximization based on deep move searches.
It's hard to not be better than a human opponent when the machine can do 200 billion path searches in 2 minutes, and can be rule-checked, strategy-checked, and updated on the fly by the programmers while playing.

Even that Starcraft bot is just reacting to strategic counters and generalized win condition tactics.
The Starcraft AI also has a massive advantage of literally perfect location clicks and state awareness at all times. They had to force it's APM down to retard-speed so people would even have a chance.

That isn't relatable to conscious action.

>>15889912
>A sapient AGI would be a completely different level from a conscious AGI.
Oh yeah? Define sapience and how you would tell a sapient AGI apart from a non-sapient one. If it's easier, you can describe how to tell apart a sapient human and a non-sapient human. Since you think the difference is enormous, this shouldn't be difficult for you.

>>15889922
What AI boosterists don't understand is you can train a slime mold to do the equivalent of what current "AI" does. I don't think anyone would call slime mold smart.

>>15889915
>The only limit to gamestate calculations is computing power
or brain power. it's like...it's the same thing

>>15889922
>when the machine can do 200 billion path searches in 2 minutes,
why can't you do it? don't have as much firepower?

>>15889922
>strategy-checked
The deep learning Go bots don't do this. That's the whole point. The moves you choose to focus on are not based on some hard-coded heuristics, but learned as a part of the training process.

>>15889926
A human doesn't need to precalculate billions of moves to make an optimal choice, he can intuit it. That's intelligence.

>>15889928
>learned as a part of the training process.
Anon... Tell me what the training process is, in your own words.

>>15889932
Reinforcement learning through self-play to adjust the parameters of the neural network.

>>15889934
While you were thinking hard about that, did you come to any realizations about where your mistake is?

>>15889930
>he can intuit it
no dude, it's just applying a less performant model. just because you don't have access to your bodily functions does not mean they don't exist, moron. there's shit you don't have access to.
>ideas just pop up for me, there's no link between brain and ideas.
I'm not sure what to even tell you. I don't even think there is anything that anyone can tell you

>>15883050
You can be right but is the point of any discussion about it?
It would be like arguing with believers about why God created smallpox.
Just keep away whenever you see anyone arguing about consciousness (I even filtered the word), any discussion serves no real purpose.

Now 4 days and 9 hours since the thread was made. Bump limit reached. Everyone still alive. Nothing about AGI anywhere we can safely say it isn't.

>>15889903
>We just don't have a clue where it all stems from.
Yes we do real time interactions between billions of neurons with unfathomable amounts of chemical interactions driven by physics. The silicon nigger isn't a thousand times smarter than any of us because it can calculate a language specific task. It doesn't know what 1+1 is, the tokens are generated procedurally and not in real time, it is a minecraft world being filled with noise next to specific structures that must be there at some point.
>>15889915
>That isn't intelligence/smarts. The only limit to gamestate calculations is computing power, and neural network modeling is good at pruning the decision tree to a computable size. It isn't "learning go" it's doing what amounts to an A* pathfinding operation from the starting point to a winning gamestate using trained weighting to set the "cost" of each move.
But that is le consciousnouss!! a computer navigating the same neural pathways in binary step when the brain uses 1/100000th of its physical area to do that CONSCIOUS!! INTELLIGENT!! END OF THE WORLD SELF REPLICATING MACHINE!!!!!!

bump

>>15890098
>yes we do
>shits complicated bro
What a fucking joke for an answer. Consciousness happens because brain durrrr. No shit(propably) nigger.
Does this "unfathomable amount of chemical interactions driven by physics" leading to consciousness happen in other/all similarily complex systems? If so what's the mechanism bringing forth this conciousness. Do you have any idea how much of a non answer "complexity" is to such a question? Do you think your answer would satisfy anyone working in the field? Its as if i explained abiogenesis "unfathomable amounts of chemical reactions occured in a medium filled with precursor chemicals which themself were formed in variety of places". There. I explained life.