/sci/ - Science & Math

>ww3
No reason why a world war would result in human extinction
>ai
absolute meme shit
>huge ass volcano
not a problem
>global warming
absolute meme shit
>direct destruction of ecosystems
not a problem
>massive crop failure
not a problem
>economic collapse
people will always trade
>extraterrestrial bacterial infections
not a problem
>asteroids
could happen
>epidemic
not a problem
>shrinking of the human brain
you're still posting just fine
>superbugs
meme shit
>massive solar wind
not a problem
>gamma ray flash
not a problem
>alien invasion
meme shit
>andromeda and milky way collision
not a problem
>heat death of the universe
"near future"
>Supernova
"near future"

>>9966523
>ai
>absolute meme shit

this 1000%. We are beyond extraordinary creatures. The mystery and magic residing within humanity is unimaginable and imperceptable. To think AI could organize quicker/faster/more efficiently than us is laughable. We are the product of millions and billions of years of evolution. AI has a lot of fucking ground to cover to compete with us.

>>9966513
>shrinking of the human brain
hmmm brain ray when?

>>9966609
>We are the product of millions and billions of years of evolution
Natural selection is extremely inefficient

>>9966609
You’re retarded if you think some retarded apes that only just started living in huts in the last 100,000 years could compete with artificial intelligence. It would be faster, quicker, and more efficient at everything in every way.

>>9966624
Not wrong

>>9966609
Yes we are invincible and can never die too. Shame on you if you think humans can die ever.

>>9966617
>Natural selection is extremely inefficient
It was efficient enough to make us.

>>9966624
>You’re retarded if you think some retarded apes that only just started living in huts in the last 100,000 years
You're retarded if that's what you use to measure humanity's value

>>9966637
>Yes we are invincible and can never die too. Shame on you if you think humans can die ever.
I shouldn't even waste my time responding to this one, but here we go. We are unbelievably resilient on top of there being almost 8,000,000,000 of us. Where/how the fuck did you interpret me saying we can't die?

>>9966641
>>9966617

And natural selection is poorly understood. It assuredly isn't what anyone makes it out to be.

>>9966644
>>9966641
AND if AI did wipe us out, life will continue. We may go extinct. We will go extinct. Life will continue. The resilience of life man, holy fuck. Where it can survive, how it can survive. AI will never compare to life. It will never be able to compete with life.

>>9966644
Enlighten us, genius

>>9966663
How the fuck should I know? I don't think natural selection is even a thing. I think life just mass propagates itself for the sake of endless opportunities for mutations whether good or bad. The good mutations get used for whatever they can be used for. Over a long enough period of time, some unbelievably spectacular shit develops.

>>9966672
So you think natural selection is wrong and that all mutations are propagated regardless of good or bad? What mechanism do you suggest that these mutations are propagated by?

>>9966513
>ww3
Doubtful, it'll probably be more cyber than anything else.
>ai
Meme, it'll never be sentient.
>volcano
Only for Ameritards and those nearby.
>ecosystems
No, we're actually starting to restore them now.
>crop failure
It would literally have to be global, otherwise we could just go and steal other peoples crops.
>economic collapse
Already happened (several times), didn't wipe out humanity.
>extraterrestrial bacteria
How? They probably wouldn't function in the same way once inside our host system. That is, if they even exist at all within this solar system.
>asteroids
Unlikely, just have some colonies in space, on Earth; on the Moon and maybe on Mars. Sorted.
>epidemic
Already happened a couple of times, didn't wipe out all of humanity.
>shrinking human brain
Is a meme, and if it is happening (inconclusive) then that's probably due to us removing redundancy as IQ hasn't dropped.
>superbugs
Also a meme, we've already promising solutions to this problem, like bacteriophages.
>solar wind
Also not really a problem, and a meme.
>gamma ray
See above.
>alien invasion
Stop memeing, this isn't very likely at all. And even if there isn't intelligent alien life near enough to us to matter, it is problem as intelligent as us, or less. Why? There isn't a shitload of waste radio chatter that would exist if alien life as intelligent as us, or more, existed in our neighborhood.
>andromeda and milky way collision
Literally billions of years away. And the Earth may not even get thrown out, or struck.
>heat death
We probably wont even be humans by that point.
>Supernova
By that point, even going slow as fuck, we could have stilled reached several other solar systems.
In short, you're an idiot. stop reading IFLS.

>>9966689
The very fact useless, or harmful mutations still exist in our genome and have for a very long time is proof of this, you retard. Mutations get passed on whether harmful or not if the organism carrying them gets to reproduce. Unless a mutation is so fatal that is literally stops you from reproducing, it is going to get passed on, should a majority of the carriers reproduce.

>>9966641
>You're retarded if that's what you use to measure humanity's value

What value? We’re social apes intelligent enough to create writing and technology, allowing for sustained technological improvement over generations. In comparison, our brains have not improved at all outside of not being as stunted from malnutrition and this shows in our incredibly short-sighted attitude towards the environment and our tribes we call governments. We’ve hit the ceiling of our potential mentally and it’s time to improve with genetic engineering, cybernetics, or be phased out by something better.

>>9966647
That’s a retarded comparison. How does AI even “compete” with thermophilic archaea living at the bottom of the ocean in any sense? Wow, so cool, the singe-called organisms live in a hot place. Wow, the deer survive long enough to shit out another deer to live another life of struggle. Literally and? Who fucking cares?

>>9966696
Organisms can compensate for negative mutations, brainlet child. It doesn’t mean they don’t affect their chance of survival.

>>9966703
Lol, that isn't even what we're going on about, you absolute moron. Of course they can, but it doesn't mean harmful mutations DIDN'T get passed on. Which was the argument. In fact, you admit that harmful mutations DO GET PASSED ON, good job.

>>9966700
>We’ve hit the ceiling of our potential mentally and it’s time to improve with genetic engineering, cybernetics, or be phased out by something better.
Why the fuck do you try to speak for the whole of humanity? All men are not created equal.

> How does AI even “compete” with thermophilic archaea living at the bottom of the ocean in any sense?
Exactly. Over millions of years those organisms could turn into something special.

>>9966689
Like I said, I don't understand natural selection. I don't have an answer for what mechanism life abides by. All I can do is observe shit and come up with the simplest analysis I can. And i'm assuredly wrong.

>>9966706
Yes they do. This has nothing to do with natural selection being real or not, good job.

>>9966708
>Why the fuck do you try to speak for the whole of humanity? All men are not created equal.

Yes, and even the greatest of men are limited by the fact that they have the brain of a fucking monkey adapted to live on the savannah.

>Exactly. Over millions of years those organisms could turn into something special.

Meanwhile, while the archaea gave rise to another group of eukaryotes, which will remain single-cells for hundreds of millions of years, SKYNET built a Dyson sphere because he can improve himself whenever he wants.

>>9966708
And on top of all men/women not being created equal, we do not develop equally either. We have a lot of time on this earth to develop. We have a lot of time to mutate.

>>9966720
Yes, let’s sit on our ass and wait for random mutations to improve us when we could do so artificially in a millionth of the time span.

>>9966716
I guess that would be the competition. Who's gonna last the longest, life or AI? Life has already proven itself. AI has billions of years of ground to cover.

>>9966716
>Yes they do. This has nothing to do with natural selection being real or not, good job.
It think it is a purely semantic argument you're pushing here.
>natural selection
Sounds like nature is making a "wise decision", when it isn't. It's simply down to probability.

>>9966724
You could also work on improving yourself as opposed to sitting on your ass, as well as opposed to improving AI.

>>9966728
>Sounds like nature is making a "wise decision", when it isn't. It's simply down to probability.
good post anon, that's how I feel about natural selection.

>>9966729
I do improve myself, and only a moron would be opposed to the improvement of AI technology.

>>9966728
What do you not understand about natural selection? Genes that make you less likely to successfully reproduce are less likely to be passed on, genes that increase likelihood of reproduction are more likely to be passed on

>>9966726
Would it even be AI if it had occurred naturally?

>>9966523
>No reason why a world war would result in human extinction
Haha it's not like there are WMDs that will be involved or anything this time

>>9966726
Very, very obviously the AI.

>>9966737
Yes, that's right, that's exactly what I said, see: >>9966696
And that's also what the other anon said who you started to argue with.
What, so now you agree with us? That's great.
Also, if you re-read my post, you'll see our feeling is more of a semantic one, than a technical one.
Good job, you might want to work on that reading comprehension.

>>9966740
The radiation from all atomic bombs being detonated in an exchange would be irrelevant in rural areas after a few weeks. Humanity would survive, just losing a few centuries of development.

>>9966740
It would really fuck the planet up, sure. But it wouldn't kill all life, or all humans. Earth has been hit by worse, like that massive asteroid that rekt the dinosaurs.

>>9966746
>>9966747
If the big cities are hit it will kill a lot of people. Then the resulting societal collapse will take a lot of lives as well. Humans won't go extinct, but only a fraction will survive in case of a global nuclear holocaust.

>>9966752
That still isn't human extinction, or even extinction of life.

>>9966752
We’ll just fuck and make some more.

>>9966745
>Mutations get passed on whether harmful or not if the organism carrying them gets to reproduce
How do you define "harmful" if not as something that decreases one's likelihood at reproduction?

>>9966735
>only a moron would be opposed to the improvement of AI technology.
I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it will ever exceed the capability of life.

>Very, very obviously the AI.
Not obvious to me, but i guess that makes me a fuckwit not worth talking to in your perception.

>>9966739
>Would it even be AI if it had occurred naturally?
That's another debate as well. AI could be considered life to some, hell even me.

>>9966756
Again, a question of PROBABILITY.

>>9966758
AI that uses bionanotechnology to merge organic and inorganic life.

>>9966759
I don't understand what you're saying. Can you elaborate?

>>9966513
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/short-history-of-3rd-millennium/

>>9966760
But that's a combo of life and AI isn't it?

>>9966753
What about environmental causes though? Couldn't a potential harsh nuclear winter really fuck up the ecosystem?

>>9966761
X populations has no "harmful" mutation, they have a 50% chance to reproduce.
Y population has a "harmful" mutation, they have a 25% chance to reproduce.
X and Y population are the same species, this means, that if Y has a significant population there is a good chance it will also encounter a X population and thus reproduce. If X has a significant population there is also a good chance that it will encounter a Y population and thus reproduce.
For Y to significantly impact Y it would need to be isolated from the X population, or the X population would have to be less than the Y population.
It is a matter of probability.

>>9966763
Is it still AI?

>>9966774
idunno lol

>>9966768
The Permian–Triassic extinction event killed 96% of all marine life, 70% of all terrestrial life, leaving 57% of all biological families and 83% of all genera extinct. The most important ecosystem on the planet is oceanic, that produces more oxygen than terrestrial oxygen producing sources.
If life could survive that, I'm sure it could survive something like a nuclear holocaust of a lesser extent.

>>9966763
This whole argument you two are having is retarded because "life" is an absolute meme of a concept

>>9966872
poppycock, elaborate.

>>9966513
>What are some human Extinction events that will happe

None.

It is literally impossible to kill all human beings.

If there were to be a human extension, it would also be the end of all life and the destruction of the planet.

>>9966609
>this 1000%. We are beyond extraordinary creatures. The mystery and magic residing within humanity is unimaginable and imperceptable. To think AI could organize quicker/faster/more efficiently than us is laughable.
This entire argument can be summed up as "Superintelligent AI isn't a threat because muh feefees and muh gut feelings say so".
>We are the product of millions and billions of years of evolution.
And we also have millions and billions of years to build superintelligent AI.
>AI has a lot of fucking ground to cover to compete with us.
Pic related

>>9968644
They have a lot of ground to cover timewise, you completely disregarded or missed my point.

>And we also have millions and billions of years to build superintelligent AI.
That defeats the whole argument of AI being a threat to us if WE are developing it.

>This entire argument can be summed up as "Superintelligent AI isn't a threat because muh feefees and muh gut feelings say so".
This is just a fucktarded statement.

>>9968644
They have a lot of ground to cover timewise, you completely disregarded or missed my point.

>And we also have millions and billions of years to build superintelligent AI.
That defeats the whole argument of AI being a threat to us if WE are developing it.

>This entire argument can be summed up as "Superintelligent AI isn't a threat because muh feefees and muh gut feelings say so".
This is just a fucktarded statement. It is filled with resentful feelings itself.