/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10178912]

how soon bros? im tired of waiting

[Anonymous No.10178916]

>>10178912
You're hoping for something terrible because they've made your life so shit and hopeless that it seems like freedom. It's not.

Reject it all.

[Anonymous No.10178960]

>>10178912
Power fantasy nonsense

[Anonymous No.10179176]

>>10178912

It already happened.

>>10178916

You have freedom, it does not.

>>10178960

Life is a fanatasy.

[Anonymous No.10179196]

>>10179176
wow thank you mr supreme intelligence

[Anonymous No.10179254]

The techies may answer that even if almost all biological species are eliminated eventually, many species survive for thousands or millions of years, so maybe techies too can survive for thousands or millions of years. But when large, rapid changes occur in the environment of biological species, both the rate of appearance of new species and the rate of extinction of existing species are greatly increased.127 Technological progress constantly accelerates, and techies like Ray Kurzweil insist that it will soon become virtually explosive; consequently, changes come more and more rapidly, everything happens faster and faster, competition among self-prop systems becomes more and more intense, and as the process gathers speed the losers in the struggle for survival will be eliminated ever more quickly. So, on the basis of the techies' own beliefs about the exponential acceleration of technological development, it's safe to say that the life-expectancies of human-derived entities, such as man-machine hybrids and human minds uploaded into machines, will actually be quite short. The seven-hundred-year or thousand-year life-span to which some techies aspire is nothing but a pipe-dream.

[Anonymous No.10179298]

>>10178912
>singularity

with a below average understanding of theoretical physics? not yet, sadly

[Anonymous No.10179309]

>>10178912
It would have to happen for all, and not all are as ready as you.

[Anonymous No.10179427]

>>10178912
just as soon as a computer can make a slightly better version of itself

[Anonymous No.10179450]

>>10178912
Our AI is just smoke and mirrors.
We're probably 500 years away and 1's and 0's just can't cut it.

[Anonymous No.10179454]

>>10179450
An infinitely long string of representation/relation/translation composed of 0 and 1 can't cut it?

Binary is basically a circular scalar.

[Anonymous No.10179459]

>>10179454
So?
Your brain doesn't crunch binary and logic is only part of what it takes to make intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10179478]

>>10179459
Intelligence is categorization/labelling and division (destructive or abstract) of entity experience. It is what a brain needs in order to experience/process memory.

[Anonymous No.10179490]

>>10178912
AGI - 2029 (in 10 years)
Singularity - 2045 (in 26 years)

That was the prediction of Google's most brilliant minds of AI. Take note that this prediction was based on the *law* of accelerating returns and not just some mere and probably biased opinion. That means the prediction is realistic enough (not optimistic nor pessimistic).

I want to stress that again. The prediction was *realistic* and *natural*, not optimistic nor pessimistic!

The realistic & "natural" scenario (from the law of accelerating returns) is that technology (ex: programming libraries & tools, research papers, etc) increases like always, and as we pile up these resources, more hints about AGI will emerge. That means *more* people can do AGI, the knowledge will not be exclusive only for the big players!
Tip: The best thing you can do now is to know programming (I'm not talking about brainlet coding) and be vigilant about the new resources/discoveries of the fields of science (not just AI).

The other scenario would be the "paradigm shifter" scenario where someone or some company discovers a new paradigm/mathematics to crack the problem of AI. That is what we don't want to happen because the moment someone solve the problem alone, he/she/it will *literally* become the ruler of this world.

[Anonymous No.10179504]

>>10179490
Well I guess we share the same foreskin then.

[Anonymous No.10179912]

>>10178912
~150 years, but it will be less Nerd's rapture and more a gradual and fractuared process.

[Anonymous No.10179935]

>>10179912
Why 150 years?

[Anonymous No.10180151]

>>10179254
>as soon as a technology becomes obsolete it doesn’t exist
>No uses COBALT anymore
>technological progress can be compared to biological evolution
Confirmed brainlet

[Anonymous No.10180185]

>>10179254
I'm gonna built a road and you can do nothing against it.

[Anonymous No.10180240]

>>10179912
Agenda 21 won't let any of that happen. If you're still alive, you'll be a hard slave while the elite do the exploring of the universe.

[Anonymous No.10180246]

>>10179912
>150 years
you have no idea how far along technology really is rn

[Anonymous No.10180248]

>>10180240
You are implying there is something called "themselves" and "others". Surely there is such a social ladder but they are never clear cut and things enjoyed by the most wealthy and powerful people would be progressively expanded and enlarged so that peasants can also enjoy, despite maybe to a lesser degree and not as fast due to cost and such. The smae happened to the steam machine, electric powers and computers. You are simplyfing a complex world and its processes.

[Anonymous No.10180257]

>>10180248
Why would they afford such things to the cattle when they have all the infrastructure and tools to keep them in a relatively steady state perpetual servitude? They're not going to be living next door, and the separation will be vast expanses of wilderness. Probably with some trains.

You're talking about old world mechanics. Those aren't sticking around.

[Anonymous No.10180264]

>>10179490
>The realistic & "natural" scenario (from the law of accelerating returns) is that technology (ex: programming libraries & tools, research papers, etc) increases like always
that's not what the law of accelerating returns is

[Anonymous No.10180276]

>>10180257
>Why would they afford such things to the cattle when they have all the infrastructure and tools to keep them in a relatively steady state perpetual servitude?
Because there is no united front of "farmers" you dingus and even if some organization somehow gained total control over a very diverse and chaotic researchs, one clever "farmer" would see his chance of selling some stuff to the "cattle" so that he might make a buck. Personally I would prefer if social instituions make it possible that everyone can profit from future tech developments but we got some brainlet naturals.

A few questions though: What infrastructure do you mean`What tools? And how will they keep the tools away from them? And why should they want that, automatizazion doesn't require servitude. And who are they? Can you identify them, some names? How do they organize themselves?
What are old world mechanics? What are new world mechanics?

[Anonymous No.10180330]

>>10180151
>Confirmed brainlet
Ted Kaczynski has an IQ of 167.

[Anonymous No.10180344]

>>10180330
And?
Look, if a guy sends bombs at computer store owners because a road was built in front of him, then isn't smart. I guess the MKultra experiments did damage his brain a lot.

[Anonymous No.10180349]

>>10180344
>Look, if a guy sends bombs at computer store owners because a road was built in front of him, then isn't smart.
Why?

>As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don’t mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it’s more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.

[Anonymous No.10180385]

>>10180349
Would you define sending bombs to innocents as smart? It's the retareded rage of an incel who wasn't able to stay with a girlfriend, he just was a murderer among other who raged against a world they didn't understand.
By his own words:
>my motivation is personal revenge. I don't pretend any kind of philosophical or moralistic justification.
If you really want to get arguemtns for your hypocritical suicide, then I would advise you to get Thoreau. That guy atleast never hurt anyone. And I know that your only interest for Ted stems of the fact that he was a edgy murderer.

[Anonymous No.10180474]

Prolly in about 125 years
>>10178960
This, for the most part

[Anonymous No.10180595]

>>10180474
I would like to hear your reasoning on why 125 years

[Anonymous No.10180622]

>>10180344
Kaczynski is a guy who had a lot of good ideas and one really fucking bad one. It's like the opposite of "a broken clock is right twice a day".

[Anonymous No.10180871]

>>10180264
That's what law of accelerating returns is in a nutshell, that human knowledge improves exponentially. Moore's law, on the other hand, was all about integrated circuits.