/sci/ - Science & Math

1 I disagree.

2 I disagree.

3 I disagree.

OP guzzles cum.

For 1) things will happen in that relative timeline, but not quite the way that he says it will.

>>1621709
I understand disagreiing with 1 and 3, but there is really nothing to disagree on n.2 : I merely stated I don't know if it's feasible.

Please summerfag, make yourself clear!

time to invest in a skulltap

>>1621720

Simple: You guzzle cum. Buckets of horse semen.

non-bookfag basement dweller here.

I heard about some of the shit transherpanists (or what ever the fuck you're trying to identify with) praise.

I share a lot of the high hopes. I for one am hellbent on the idea of agelessness, or at least regenerating the body with younger healthy limbs.

growing working and readily transplantable tissue (on limited parts of the body) can be done in labs already. I'm hoping for everything to be transplantable of course. At least then once organs age they can be swapped out with healthier ones grown from the tissue of your own body.

Intelligence aug. seems very easy because you just put a chip on the brain that takes data and output by creating a voltage on your brain and your brain will "learn" to understand it. The scientists themselves have to do very little. Ok, that's a simplification, but still, I'm sure it will be achieved in a major way. Probably before AI.

>>1621723
No argument there. Still it doesn't explain your refusal of point 2.

>>1621743
The desire to be contrary.

>>1621727
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029

>>1621759

I wouldn't mind everyone to be ageless, so long as space colonization is practical at the time.

>I don't know enought about computing to say if AI is feasible

You are too ignorant to contribute in any useful way. Or to put it another way, you have a stong opinion about something you don't understand.

>>1621816
Troll troll, troll your boat...

>>1621816
Well, then, enlighten us.

>1) I believe Kurzweil to be either a nutjob or too biased to contribute in any useful way

I haven't read his books, but still. He predicted that by 2010 we would have computers in clothes and the traditional computer would cease to exist, and that computers would have the processing power or a human brain.

He then said he got the numbers wrong and it was supposed to say 2020. He may be spouting BS for transhumanists to hollow him in blind hopes etc etc. so yeah.

>2) I don't know enought about computing to say if AI is feasible or if it will be within the next 50 years

I don't know either, but it seems that basic AI is possible by having virtual life evolve in a virtual environment using a computer capable of simulating millions of years of evolution in days (Moore's Law etc.), but a top-down approach where you simulate the entire human brain molecule by molecule, with quantum-mechanical equations? That seems rather complicated, but still: If sentience happened in nature, it can be done in lab conditions. But it might not come as fast as some expect it to, and I honestly don't think it will just jump onto an upward spiral of self-improvement. It will be years before a computer can tell us something we don't know. Maybe even centuries.

>3) I'm a biology major. I hold great hopes for intelligience augmentation, on which a related link:

Intelligence augmentation, cyborg parts, nano mods and immortality all sound awesome. I'll just put some utility fog in myself and RESIST BULLETS.

>>you have a stong opinion
>>stong

Do not!

>I don't know either, but it seems that basic AI is possible by having virtual life evolve in a virtual environment using a computer capable of simulating millions of years of evolution in days (Moore's Law etc.), but a top-down approach where you simulate the entire human brain molecule by molecule, with quantum-mechanical equations? That seems rather complicated, but still: If sentience happened in nature, it can be done in lab conditions. But it might not come as fast as some expect it to, and I honestly don't think it will just jump onto an upward spiral of self-improvement. It will be years before a computer can tell us something we don't know. Maybe even centuries.

This. This a thousand times over. Simulating basic intelligence is one thing, simulating an intelligence more capable than that of a human being is another altogether.

>Intelligence augmentation, cyborg parts, nano mods and immortality all sound awesome. I'll just put some utility fog in myself and RESIST BULLETS.
Eh, I seriously doubt that nanotech will go that far that soon. If they don't end aging through biotechnological means you won't live to see that sort of thing, I think. I mean, look at where nanotechnology is right now: making microscopic barbells with rings around the middle. Intelligence augmentation without nanotech, however, seems like a distinct possibility, whether through some crazy-ass direct current stimulation shit or advanced nootropics. Also, immortality? Well, I don't fucking know. Tumors will be hard to deal with but the other causes of aging could be defeated within the next thirty or so years, yeah, it's possible.

(I think it says something when one of our least faggy tripfags is a furfag but whatever.)

Immortality seems feasible at least in this century, but if we haven't developed strong space infrastructure by then (Spaceplanes, orbital habitats, colonization of the Moon and the asteroids, also Mars, maybe a Lofstrom Loop or a Space Elevator here and there), then there will be some serious shit with overpopulation and who gets to have immortality.

>>1621823
>It will be years before a computer can tell us something we don't know. Maybe even centuries.

This is off topic but still interesting... Your post just happened to remind me of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem#Proof_by_computer
There is no human-readable proof of this this theorem. We know of no way to prove this by hand.
The days where we rely upon computers to figure things out are upon us.

>>1621857
>Space Elevator
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4799369.ece

>>1621878

>There is no human-readable proof of this this theorem. We know of no way to prove this by hand.
>The days where we rely upon computers to figure things out are upon us.

Marvelous, but will the AIs know how to make a human-readable version of the proof? Sure it might tell us the answer, but we won't understand, so yeah.

:(

>>1621881

Space Elevators seem like... The flying cars of this century.

Not that they are infeasible, it's just that people are constantly circlewanking at the idea to the point where it's... Too popular to be true. You get the idea? For example, the laser was so goddamn obscure when invented, now we use it for everything. Vacuum tubes were so popular but they were gone in decades.

>>1621893

tl;dr version: Only hipsterish inventions are successful.

>>1621857
> then there will be some serious shit with overpopulation and who gets to have immortality

Maybe we'll base one's mortality on their education. We'd have a race of nothing but math and science nerds.

>>1621893
>electricity is AMAZING
>everyone loves it
>...

Though I do see your point, I do think space elevators will eventually be created and used popularly.

>>1621897

Oh here we go again you sibbly-wibbly eugenicists >;3~~

>>1621898

I'd rather have a Lofstrom Loop, but whatever, space elevators have some more popularity.

GO NANOTECH GO GOGOG

>>1621897
More like:
>smart people impose mortality on dumb people
>dumb people murder smart people
>Christianity gets reborn, humans go extinct on Earth within 100 years from nuclear war arguing on what Jesus said

>>1621905

>Next Sunday A.D.: Nuclear war between Atheists and Muslims.

>>1621901
Education generally has little to do with one's genes. It will only provide motivation for those who are already capable of learning.

Besides, as you mentioned, some form of population-control will clearly be necessary. Why not have education be the deciding factor?

>inb4 some are genetically predisposed to book-learnin'
>inb4 mental retardation
I have no answer for these objections.

>>1621924
No eugenics. Just saying that we're going to have your tube snipped. And some sperm and eggs frozen in case you want ONE child.

>>1621913
>Atheists victorious. Muslim suicide bombing attempts wipe out entire Muslim opposition.
Thank Science H. Logic for those force fields invented back in 2079.

Another reason to love transhumanism.

... Am I the only one who thinks pic related is strangely arousing?

>>1621933
I wonder how sex feels if you don't actually get to spray warm DNA goo everywhere. Flinging genetic information at people is part of being human.

>>1621943
what do you mean >strangely

>>1621857

This article provides a decent explanation of why overpopulation might not be a massive problem.

http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=24

>Population growth depends far more on how many children families have, as opposed to how long people live. In mathematical terms, longer life has no effect on the exponential growth rate. It only affects a constant of the equation. This means that it matters little how long we live after we have reproduced.

What we have right now:

-artifical sight that works at least a 1000 times faster than human sight. (For example walnut sorting machine)

The main thing that the human mind is better at than computers is pattern recognition.
With the projected improvements in computing we will solve this problem and you don't have to go to 2050, even 5 years from now many more systems will use artifical sight and will replace humans in more and more fields.

Right now it seems that the idea behind AI is:

WHEN WE GET ENOUGH TRANSISTORS IN THE SAME ROOM WE WILL EMULATE THE HUMAN BRAIN LOLSLOL I ARE SUCCESS

So, uh, it's a human mind clone. Not AI.

And how do you expect a clone of the human mind to enter this so called "upward curve of self-modification"? By adding more transistors?

Okay, you go girl!

> I believe Kurzweil to be either a nutjob or too biased to contribute in any useful way
He has already contributed a lot.

>>1622130
That may be some people's "idea behind AI," but not all. Lots of promising approaches don't involve just emulating what the brain does. I think those approaches have a vast advantage because they aren't burdened by all the evolutionary "leftovers" in the modern human brain.

>>1622157
Okay, he made the movement known, but right now he is seen by many as kind of a clown

>>1622445
that's not the (only) way he contributed, speach recognition, statistical data processing, reader device for the blind, those are all technologies related to this.

I like evolutionary design via computer simulation.

NASA made this antenna doing that.

>>1622174
I've always thought that but I was never able to phrase it.
Thank you, kind anon.

>>1622469

>>1621943
>... Am I the only one who thinks pic related is strangely arousing?

Nope. She reminds me of SHODAN and SHODAN is mai waifu~

>>1623948
I would do anything Janice Polito's voice told me to.

Wow, still on I see.

Well, bump.

>>1622469
Any good documentaries or literature concerning the matter?

Though Shodan is definitely the epitome of post-human erotica, I find the maturity of Ma3a more attractive. Even in her "Let's kill all the users"-form. Or especially in that form.

>Concern #2
>suggested reading

Transhumanist fag here, too.

I've begun reading a little Kurzweil, but haven't had much opportunity to get a lot of reading done lately. I've heard mixed things, so I don't know.

AI will be AI when we stop relying on behavioral output as an indicator of machine intelligence.

I want to augment my intelligence. Do like.

>>1622130

Wintermute here.
Stop talkin' shit.
BRB, roping some guys into heading down to Rio.