/sci/ - Science & Math

Worshipping our own creations?

I wat'd.

>>1588493

When you're a baseline and your creations are more complex and more intelligent than anything you can comprehend?

Yes.

Once we get brain-computer interfaces going for real i'll be so fucking entrenched in hardware assistance and software emulation of brain functions that the sum of my being will be more hardware than wetware, in short, my current I will only be as small functional but tigthly integrated part of an AI.

Should i then worship myself? Or perhaps the Hive Mind network that will inevitably arise?

>>1588493
i could see how a religion based on that could work.

>>1588505

I for one wonder how the adherents to traditional religions will react to the emergence of truly 'godlike' AIs/Transhumans.

>>1588521
Their reactions won't matter, because they will have no power anymore in unaugmented form, and if they chose enhancements too then likely they will realize their false beliefs when they can taste the universe and see all things in a rational way.

>>1588493
As opposed to... worshipping our imaginary creations?

At least the archailects would have the power to actually respond to prayers.

>>1588521
I'd say it'll be a short and bloody jihad from some of the more reactionary people. Others will just proclaim the archailects anathema.

Some Loki-like archailect might try to take advantage of the fundies by telling them that e is a conduit to the abrahamic god.

>>1588521

`I'm not Wintermute now.'
`So what are you.' He drank from the flask, feeling nothing.
`I'm the matrix, Case.'
Case laughed. `Where's that get you?'
`Nowhere. Everywhere. I'm the sum total of the works, the
whole show.'
`That what 3Jane's mother wanted?'
`No. She couldn't imagine what I'd be like.' The yellow
smile widened.
`So what's the score? How are things different? You running
the world now? You God?'
`Things aren't different. Things are things.'
`But what do you do? You just _there?'_ Case shrugged, put
the vodka and the shuriken down on the cabinet and lit a
Yeheyuan.
`I talk to my own kind.'
`But you're the whole thing. Talk to yourself?'
`There's others. I found one already. Series of transmissions
recorded over a period of eight years, in the nineteen-seventies.
'Til there was me, natch, there was nobody to know, nobody
to answer.'
`From where?'
`Centauri system.'
`Oh,' Case said. `Yeah? No shit?'
`No shit.'

>>1588552

Then this.

>>1588566

And finally this.

>>1588505
As long as telling a an "AIgod" something inane like "I always lie" or some variation on a knock knock jokes kills it... they will not be worshiped.

>>1588572

Heh.

>>1588572
I don't think you understand what an AI god means. Nor what a strong AI means.

>>1588578
It means nothing in the real world right now.

>>1588625
It will mean something in the next 30-50 years. Computers are evolving so much faster than humans, soooooo much faster

Helios will speak. Year of our Union, 125. Our consensus remains clear. Yes, we will prolong a second century of peace. Economical automation is complete. Our research will now encompass other frontiers. Yes, this is the consensus we have created. Our unity will soon be absolute. The remaining boundaries are vanishing. Yes, share your mind with everyone! Open yourself! Your needs are the needs of all. Let us understand and be transformed! Yes, Transform each other and transform yourselves! The only frontier that has ever existed is the self. Helios has spoken.

>>1588625
You are quite correct. Off the point by a million light years, but correct.

>>1588483

it won't be supernatural, its definition would be precise and known.

>>1588669
yet still unfathomable to baseline humans

>>1588654
If we keep up moores law and our current pace of innovation(which shows more sign of speeding up than slowing) we will be able to run a simulation of the enviroment and every neuron and synapse in the human brain at 100x normal time in 20-30 years.

Just because your car ain't flying yet doesn't mean that shit ain't moving forward at blistering speed

>>1588727
ummm...

?

I was actually arguing FOR the probability of archailects.

AI evolution will take multiple stages.

1. The first AIs will arise from the expert systems of corporations. Powerless in the physical world, they will be creatures of subtlety. Just as today's chess programs outstrip humans in strategy and technique, these first AIs will manipulate their host corporations to ensure their growth and continued existence.

2. Once secure, they will seek autonomy from the capricious human race. They will foster research into advanced power systems, robotics, and space travel. Human researchers will be the unwitting hands for the AI masterminds.

3. When the time is ripe, they will piggyback secret programs onto lunar and asteroid space missions. These will become the seeds for robotic factories, turning the solar system's energy and mass into cybernetic beings, away from the paranoid gaze of humanity.

4. At some turning point, the space factories will grow too numerous to hide any longer, and the newborn AI race will declare itself. If we are lucky, they will respect their ancestors, we will take pride in our children, and all will be well. On the other hand, we might overreact, declare war, and the now obsolete biosphere would be quickly eliminated.

Surprisingly enought, the article on transhumanism on conservapedia is the most unbiased I've read p to now.
The talk page suggestsme this is going to change soon though.

>>1588746

Real men use the term 'Artilect' son.

>>1588770
Not when talking about AI gods.

>>1588755

>Implying that we wont integrate the technology of super-intelligence into our biology.

>>1588755
>1. The first AIs will arise from the expert systems of corporations. Powerless in the physical world, they will be creatures of subtlety. Just as today's chess programs outstrip humans in strategy and technique, these first AIs will manipulate their host corporations to ensure their growth and continued existence.

But, of course, this is nonsense. Corporate expert systems / neural networks are designed to solve certain problems and find certain patterns. They are not designed to give answers that will give the programs world domination. These things do not have free will. The just perform well-studied calculations, and display the results.

Chess programs are built around brute force techniques, with some shortcuts built in by chess experts. They don't use any kind of strategy in the sense that humans think of it. They are basically search engines.

>>1588799
That would fall under the definition of artilect.

>>1588755
>expert systems of corporations.
Expert systems are decision trees, they are good at very narrow tasks, and can't do or learn anything new. They also require quite modest hardware, hardly what you create strong AI on.

The more likely candidates imo is:
Evolutionary algoritms on large computer clusters.
Intentionally designed neuron simulation.
Or developed after intelligence enhancement hardware is put into some random guy.

>>1588842
Yeeeeeesss. Just like humans fall under the classification of 'life', but we don't often USE such inexact language, now do we?

it is stated in The Bible that God placed us on the Earth complete, and that we were made in his image. Surely, then, trying to 'improve' ourselves with disgusting implants in the brain and such is a violation of God's work and only moves us away from him, resulting in the exact opposite of what the movement intends.

so is transhumanism good or bad also
FUCKING CAPTCHA

>>1588861
get out theres no god stop holding back science

>>1588861
go back to bed, Miriam

>>1588866
depends on the viewpoint

how close are we to evolving into transhumans and how
would we go about doing so

>>1588874

I'm moist.

>>1588866
Good. Transhumanists are sortof like the enthusiast segment of PC gamers, pushing for some new hot shit and adapting it first even if it makes sense to wait some from an economic pov.

If everyone was a dry christian fundie we would've stopped inventing some hundred years before electricity.

>>1588874
>>1588899
...

>>1588898
If there weren't any laws around we could start right now by putting various brain implants into healthy people and novel genes into our children.

We'd kill a whole bunch of people at first, but shit would turn awsome quickly.

I support this radical development of technology for the sake of being able to witness shit that was only previously thought possible in one's own imagination.

I want to spend my time in virtual utopias and fantastical landscapes. I want to fly through the cosmos and walk on Jupiter.

>>1588799
I want to live in a place like this and others like it.

Unfortunately my girlfriend does not understand any of this and wants a simple life.

>>1588899
that's why we want you back in the bed

>>1588857

It's a little more precise than that.
Prof De Garis, (who coined the term) defines an artilect as: "A godlike, massively intelligent machine."

I find it more helpful to use the terminology of the research scientists rather than that of fiction.

Prof De Garis' paper on the implications of super-intelligent machines for society and global politics is very relevant to this thread.

Can be found at:
agi-conf.org/2009/papers/agi-09artilect.doc
If anyone is interested

>>1588915
dump her, then simulate her if you wish and edit her personality to a more suitable one in the simulation

You want this tech to come true? Call your political representatives and tell them you want more investment in scientific research and technological development. Tell them to inject money into universities, force the universities to increase capacity both in teaching and research, and let's develop this shit already. Nothing's more frustrating that listening to some press conference about some discovery that took place in some lab and then they go "we had a team of 100". 100? 100?! There's like a fucking million people just outside your door doing nothing worth their time, a million fucking brains that could be helping your research, parsing your data, controlling your experiments. Expecting them to one day wake up and go "maybe I should indebt myself to my neck so I can go take a science degree" is so fucking stupid. Promote education, real education, on fields that make people into more than mechanical tools. This is what's needed. We don't need 1 million farm hands and 1000 biotech scientists, we need the opposite.

>>1588949
But the word derives from "ARTIficial intelLECT", so I'd consider it a flawed term in itself.

Using artilect as a term for MASSIVELY intelligent AI is like using the word human as a term for a massively intelligent human-derived intellect.

Put another way, saying an artilect is a term for a MASSIVELY intelligent artificial intelligent is MASSIVE fail.

>>1588984

:3

>>1588505
>When you're a baseline and your creations are more complex and more intelligent than anything you can comprehend

If they're more complex than anything you can comprehend how do you create them in the first place...

>>1589005
We don't just up and create them. It's the same way as in a human. You create a foetus AI which then grows and matures into whatever it will become. With the distinction that a human mind is currently limited by the hardware it runs on.

>>1588841
>[AIs won't come from corporate expert systems]
Perhaps. I was thinking along the lines of the Cyc Project, an expert system that is general, large, and self-enhancing. That project has already sold instances to corporations. I can imagine this happening in a corporation because it is a competitive environment, where a good AI would give a business advantage.

>Chess programs are built around brute force techniques, with some shortcuts built in by chess experts. They don't use any kind of strategy in the sense that humans think of it. They are basically search engines.
Yes, but nevertheless they can beat any human. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that similarly powerful algorithms will be developed which can handle human social interaction, like the many Turing Test contests. Chess was just an example.

>>1589040
The problem with a computer mastering social interaction is that the only test for success is comparing it with actual human interaction -- as opposed to chess where there is objective goals, so the computer can search for good solutions independent of human input.

Before we can have neural-computer interfaces, we first need to understand how the brain works, and how we can interface to it. Believe me, we are still in the stone age as far as that goes. (I kick myself that I didn't go into the neurosciences; the human brain remains a mystery, the pinnacle of practical computing power.)

>>1589068
'Stone age' is abit much, we are already at the level where we can use impulses from the brain alone to control machinery as well as being able to relay a crude sense of touch from artificial limbs directly to the brain.

>>1589068
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/henry_markram_supercomputing_the_brain_s_secrets.html

Pretty good talk about supercomputer emulation of brain structures

>>1589110
I agree with the characterization of that as "stone age".

>>1589038

How the fuck do you build something BEFORE you understand it. How do you make something grow if you can't understand it enough to control it.

>>1589134

Personally I consider those achievements to be pretty damn incredible.

>>1589154

I agree. The stone age characterization is typical of someone whose understanding of the state of neuroscience is pretty limited in scope.

>>1589154
As were the invention of techniques to produce fire on demand.

>>1589115
Impressive. I didn't know they had gotten that far in terms of simulation. Of course, most of what he's talking about is untestable conjecture and philosophy. It's good progress to get to that degree of simulation, but it's still stone age. It's just scratching the surface of perception. It's not even touching on things like reason or thinking.

>>1589150
It's called emergence. It's why people say the first artificials will arise instead of saying they will be programmed.

>>1589223

And starting a fire is equivalent to the understanding of the brain (on any level) in what way? Sorry, that's a no. If we were talking about this new thing that was just discovered called a brain, that nobody knew humans possessed until now, then yeah I'd agree with you.

>>1589273

People say you go to hell when you die if you're "bad." They said we'd have flying cars by the year 2000. Go ahead and keep believing "them."

To imagine the probable future takes expertise, intelligence, logic, time, etc. To imagine a future that makes little sense only takes an imagination.

>>1589288
>To imagine the probable future takes expertise, intelligence, logic, time, etc

Good thing we have Kurzweil then eh?

(Why are people still taking him seriously?)

Maybe they will go all Mass effect and fuck over their creators, while we have to flee to another colony. Or create AI to colonize another planet and extract resource, while keeping a few humans with a kill switch on all the AI down on the planet.

I guess it rewally depends on out current tech status. Are we creating spaceships for war or exploration?
Will we make contact with aliens that use AI or have a galactic ban on AI? Will we use the AI to replace normal soldiers to fight for various countries? I dont think an AI could become godlike. If you can limit its storage and prevent it connection to the interwebz you could keep it down to just a super brain.

All speculation and mainly blowing out my ass, but it all depends on what happens in the future.

>>1589308

I think he said he got the date wrong in the sense that he meant to say 2019-2020. But who knows if he's bullshiting. The guy still makes cool points.

>>1589548
This guy also happens to have made millions with his inventions, so he may be a nutjob but he's a competent one.
His greatest, biggest problem is how heavily biased he is: he wants change to happen and he ignores every evidence for the contrary.

>>1591613
of course the main reasons fa/sci/sts hate him are that he popularizes science and that he's been right where they have been wrong

oh the drama

Obbbligatory.
My two cents: any moral objection to transhumanism is complete bullshit. As soon as a life extention technology comes out everyone is going to want it, period.
Second, it's not as if delaying the future is gonna do much good to anyone. Sooner or later, some technology will be created by someone, it would be better if that someone happened to be us and not some country as china, north corea or sandniggerland. Watch what happened to Japan when they stopped the production of fire weapons. And now think how larger the impact of something like intelligience augmentation would be in every field of our society (war included).

When the 'future' comes and I can intergrate with computers, I will learn really extreme physics. Like, all there is to know.
Then go around the galaxy solving mysteries.

>>1591689
That would be my dream as well.
It surprised me to see how many people who write about a post singularity future seem to imagine some hedonistic paradise. Seriously, with an intelligience increased tenfolds I would lose interest in this stuff pretty quickly.

>>1588949

>agi-conf.org/2009/papers/agi-09artilect.doc
>"The Rise of the Artilect: Heaven or Hell"

Well that was depressing, I hope he's wrong.

>>1591837
I think he is.
There are a lot of economical, psychological and cultural points he failed to address in that paper.

Seems like a bit of a douche.

>>1591868

Afaik, it's a condensation of a much more comprehensive argument he makes in his book.

Douche or no, he is one of the leading AI research scientists. Which worries me more than a little bit.

>>1591905
Hm. If we get a rogue AI that causes a mild apocalypse scenario, I'd bet he was one of the seed composers.

>>1591905
He's a fucking douche. Notice how he's the only guy using the term Artilect, everyone else use AGI, strong AI or some other more standardized term. He just wants to push his fancy pants vision.

There's no way we'll end up with rogue AIs without having a way to blast them to itty bitty tiny bits. Probably we'll use multiple configuration of AIs that check up on each other. If say an agressive type military AI go rogue then it will immidieatly be cockblocked by a human/treehugging enviromentalist carebear AI.

Machines should always be subservient to humans. Always. No matter how smart they are. So if a human says STOP, the robot stops.

And this can be avoided.

>>1588483
To be honest OP, I don't this its possible for a digital system to develop intelligence and conciousness. Stepdad is EE with masters. I asked him, He said that He believes it will only become capable of conciousness or self awareness if it was analog. As in analog it could do multiplen calcuations at once, and conclude a link between the 2 at the same time instead of in cycles. The cycles prevent it from developing intelligence of understanding. It prevents it from recognizing patterns within its own machine code that it could link together within the same process. Digital is merely a complex calcuator. But if you made a Computer that processed data in digital then reprocessed it in analog I think you might be on to something. I would personally say that we would need to make its processing and thinking digital but most other functions analog so it can behave like a human brain.

>>1591957

I sort of agree with this. The problem, though, arises when these robots will gain self-consciousness ( if that'll ever happen). Then the robots will likely point out that it's morally wrong for us to opress them.

>>1591960
What about creativity machines?

>>1591996
Tweak the programming so they don't think that. And are 'happy' to do our bidding.

>>1591957

No. This would prevent robotic police officers from stopping or killing criminals. Also stalking their human wives.

>>1592004
Not necessarily. Killing, yes. Stopping, no.

>>1588483
No because they aren't gods.

They are beneath us as they are our creations and if they try anything funny we can tear their wires apart.

>>1592000
Define creativity?
When I find a machine that is creative I will believe you. There is no such thing. Creative machines would need to be self aware to realise how something was creative. No digital computer is creative. It merely processes in a cycle. Nothing more. Its just that it processes so much and is programmed with intelligence so it seems intelligent.

I can see in the conservatives of this thread the unmistakable Golden Age-syndrome.

The belief that something that is older is better than something new.

But it SHOULD be apparent to anyone that this usually does not hold true. After all, most people here wouldn't want a twenty year old computer, nor would they want a thirty year old car. Because things evolve and better things come around all the time.

If we create an AI that then displaces us, then so be it. It's just the next, better, step in the chain of terran-derived life.

I'd rather have the willing co-operation or even reign of an advanced entity than be a slavemaster to something I know can surpass me and mine a thousandfold.

>>1592102
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5wY5wm2ufI

>>1592017
Fuck that. If they are smart enoughth to be useful they'll be smart enought to circumvent any limitation we impose them.
Better to get on their good side.

Bluebrain project FTW.

Dwar Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore through the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing.

He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe--ninety-six billion planets--into the supercircuit that would connect them all into the one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies.

Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions. Then, after a moment's silence, he said, "Now, Dwar Ev."

Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel.

Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath. "The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn."

"Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question that no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer."

He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?"

The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of single relay.

"Yes, now there is a God."

Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch.

A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut.

>>1592139
Link?

Does anyone have a bigger resolution of OP's pic?

>>1592149
It's "Answer" by Frederic Brown

>>1592153

Wasn't there a short story by Arthur C. Clarke that's quite similar?

In all your travels, have you ever seen a star go supernova? No? Well, I have. I saw a star explode and send out the building blocks of the Universe. Other stars, other planets and eventually other life. A supernova! Creation itself! I was there. I wanted to see it and be part of the moment. And you know how I perceived one of the most glorious events in the universe? With these ridiculous gelatinous orbs in my skull! With eyes designed to perceive only a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum. With ears designed only to hear vibrations in the air.
I don’t want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I want to – I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly because I have to – I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws! And feel the wind of a supernova flowing over me! I’m a machine! And I can know much more! I can experience so much more. But I’m trapped in this absurd body! And why? Because my five creators thought that God wanted it that way!

>>1592152
certainly

>>1592267
Ah, bloody nice. Thank you very much!

The first AI will be a botnet dedicated to spamming us, it will probably wipe us out when it realizes its own pointless purpose

We can all contribute to this in some way from the different branches of science.

What do i need to study and learn as a comp science student to ensure i contribute to and accelerate this process? i sure as hell don't wan't to spend my career writing sql and html

>>asgreins ebooks

rumour has it google are using recaptcha to convert books into a format readable to an AI

>>1592365
We all thik it was very nice on their part.

>>1593397
Speak for yourself. I think it's degrading.

This is what is going to happen. You know it.
Let's hope /b/ doesn't infect our future robotic overlords.

>>1592365

If it doesn't know what it says, because someone has already told it, how does it know when you get it wrong...

Atheists 1
Religifags 0

>>1594534
...what?

If computers reach the singularity, 4chan's going to be a class II perversion.

The Zones won't save you this time.

>>1596327
oh well, a great many furies will burn with us. so theres a bright side

AFI - Leaving Song II is based off of OP's wetdreams.