Singularity 2045

[Anonymous No.12659702]

What do you think of this nigger?

[Anonymous No.12659728]

>>12659702
AIfags are just in a cult at this point. There is no technological singularity. Your brain is not a computer. We will never upload our brains to the internet.

[Anonymous No.12659763]

>>12659702
crackpot

[Anonymous No.12659824]

>>12659702
Imagine using a MRI machine to to a scan of your brain so you can simulate a A.I. clone of it in a simulated world. Not sure who this guy is but if only it was that simple.

[Anonymous No.12659840]

We the singularity arrive he won't be around.

ngmi

[Anonymous No.12660883]

>>12659702
It is a cult. But no one really can guess what tech we'll have at 2045. Could be, Could not be. I am sure there were at least some japs in the town of Hiroshima, who believed nukes while physically plausible where impossible to make.
2020--25--2045
1920--25--1945
how many people had accurate predictions of the nukes falling?
Like a tiny sliver.

No one can guess at real technological growth, and effort mobilization. There is a ton of both human capital, and capital, to mobilize. So I wouldn't stake any bets either way.

[Anonymous No.12660887]

>>12659728
>aifags are in a cult!
>muh soul!

[Anonymous No.12660932]

Judging by GPT progress will happen sooner.

[Anonymous No.12661066]

>>12660887
It has nothing to do with a soul. Souls don't exist either. Your brain still isn't a computer, and will never be able to be uploaded into computers.

[Anonymous No.12661073]

>>12661066
Books are not computers too, yet they are nicely uploaded.

[Anonymous No.12661096]

>>12661073
Books aren't computers, but their content is quantifiable via bits. You can make an exact string of bits corresponding to the letters in the text. Your brain doesn't store memory anywhere. There is nothing in your brain quantifiable by bits. There is no image saved in your brain of what a dollar bill looks like. Memories are fluid, and ever-changing (and easily manipulated). Go ahead, try to draw a dollar bill from memory (NO cheating, you cannot look up an image as a reference to trace, not even to get an image in your head). Try to draw, purely on memory, what a dollar bill looks like. The brain is, from a bit perspective, empty. It'd be like trying to upload the text of a Shakespeare book to a computer, only it's drenched in paint and literally no text is decipherable, and you don't even know how many pages are in the book since half are torn out.

[Anonymous No.12661121]

>>12659702

[Anonymous No.12661124]

>>12661121
>It is an index of the techies' self-deception that they habitually assume that anything they consider desirable will actually be done when it becomes technically feasible. Of course, there are lots of wonderful things that already are and for a long time have been technically feasible, but don't get done. Intelligent people have said again and again: "How easily men could make things much better than they are-if they only all tried together!" But people never do "all try together," because the principle of natural selection guarantees that self-prop systems will act mainly for their own survival and propagation in competition with other self-prop systems, and will not sacrifice competitive advantages for the achievement of philanthropic goals.

[Anonymous No.12661127]

>>12661124
>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. 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.12661130]

>>12661127
>In view of everything we've said up to this point, and in view moreover of the fact that the techies' vision of the future is based on pure speculation and is unsupported by evidence,131 one has to ask how they can believe in that vision. Some techies, e.g., Kurzweil, do concede a slight degree of uncertainty as to whether their expectations for the future will be realized, but this seems to be no more than a sop that they throw to the skeptics, something they have to concede in order to avoid making themselves too obviously ridiculous in the eyes of rational people. Despite their pro forma admission of uncertainty, it's clear that most techies confidently expect to live for many centuries, if not forever, in a world that will be in some vaguely defined sense a utopia. Thus Kurzweil states flatly: "We will be able to live as long as we want .... " He adds no qualifiers-no "prob-ably," no "if things turn out as expected." His whole book reveals a man intoxicated with a vision of the future in which, as an immortal machine, he will participate in the conquest of the universe. In fact, Kurzweil and other techies are living in a fantasy world.

[Anonymous No.12661137]

>>12661096
>computers will run on binary and semiconductors forever
That's the assumption you're basing all of your statements on, and it's dead wrong.

[Anonymous No.12661140]

>>12659702
Juden

[Anonymous No.12661149]

>>12661137
Are you talking about quantum computers and qbits? That's hilarious and won't work. Here's what futurefags don't ever talk about because it BTFO's them hardcore: how do I store information using qbits? You can't. As far as the digital age is concerned, we're always going to store information on bits. Qbits are only useful for processing speed, that's it. You still need to convert back to bits to store information, which, btw, is a stopgap in quantum computer speed anyway. You want a GUI using qbits? Fucking kek.

[Anonymous No.12661158]

>>12659702
>Singularity
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.12661239]

>>12661158

[Anonymous No.12661281]

>>12661149
Quantum computers are a possibility, but I'm skeptical of them at this point in time. It just seems absurd to me to operate on the assumption that semiconductors and binary computing will be the computing paradigm for the rest of humanity's existence. An easy example is the human brain. It's capable of a huge amount of both computation and storage, and it's able do that quickly (mostly due to being insanely parallelized). Unless you believe in the "soul" or something else that makes the human brain capable other than the matter it is comprised of, why wouldn't we eventually be able to make a computer that runs on similar mechanisms?

[Anonymous No.12661344]

>>12659728
Yes we are in a cult. Please don't take us seriously nothing is gonna happen.

[Anonymous No.12661345]

>>12660932
GPT doesn’t think though

[Anonymous No.12661404]

>>12661066
>Your brain still isn't a computer
Ah, but anon.. you have not explained what a computer is? You must be precise with what you mean. Is your notion of a computer capable of doing something which my brain is not also cable of doing? Can it execute instructions in a way that my brain could not execute just the same? If it cannot, then I assert that my brain DEFINITELY IS a computer, as it can do everything a computer can do, among other things.

[Anonymous No.12661408]

>>12659702
He's not wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFZr2LTTNS8

[Anonymous No.12661479]

>>12659702
Theres nothing to say. Either A.I happens or it doesnt. How do people fill books with this topic?

[Anonymous No.12661544]

>>12661479
>Either A.I happens
Long have.

[Anonymous No.12661881]

2040 is 618

[Anonymous No.12661908]

>>12661066

A computer is any device, biological mechanical or otherwise, that takes in input and creates output after some number of processing steps. Unless you think a brain is like a house for some sort of ghosts spirit, I don't know where you're going with this.

[Anonymous No.12661912]

>>12661544
Tay wasn't an AI.
It was a glorified chatbot that /pol/ raided then felt vindicated when the parrot repeated their bullshit because they are dumb and think machines can't be biased.

[Anonymous No.12661930]

>>12661281
>It's capable of a huge amount of both computation and storage
You're brain doesn't compute or store anything. It's just biologically tuned to the environment. When a you try to catch a flying baseball, you don't compute its trajectory. You just sense where it'll land depending on its height and shadow and run. When you hit a baseball with a bat, you don't compute where it'll be. You see where it is and swing. The problem you're having is that youre using computer analogies to understand the brain. Your brain is not a computer.

[Anonymous No.12661934]

>>12661908
Your brain doesn't process information. It doesn't store memory and then perform computations on it.

[Anonymous No.12661992]

>>12661930
>>12661934
>you don't compute its trajectory.
> You just sense where it'll land depending on its height and shadow and run.
>>you don't compute its trajectory.
> It doesn't store memory
Yours definitely doesnt.

[Anonymous No.12662014]

>>12661992
Not sure which part of that is contradictory to you. Maybe I need a lower IQ to think like you. Quantify, exactly, what kind of processing steps you think your brain is making when catching a baseball. Remember, quantify it in a way you can program it into a computer. Let me guess,
>If shadow < size, run
That's not a quantification, that's a qualification. What's the size? What's the speed? What's the processing power required to raise your arm up to a specific height? Where's that stored in the brain, to open your palm and catch a ball by clenching your fingers? Why can't I find where that storage is?

Your brain is not a computer. Get out of your AI cult.

[Anonymous No.12662022]

>>12659702
he seems a jew more than a nigger lol

[Anonymous No.12662044]

>>12662014
>What's the size? What's the speed? What's the processing power required to raise your arm up to a specific height? Where's that stored in the brain, to open your palm and catch a ball by clenching your fingers? Why can't I find where that storage is?
Lmao thats because you're actually retarded.

We dont know the exact processing steps but we do know, exactly, where it is located and how it gets to the muscles.
The cerebellum does this and specifically the spinocerebellum & cerebrocerebellum.
If you take out those parts you'll find that people cannont do those things anymore. (Ataxia, intention tremor, dysmetria etc.)
If you actually had a clue what you were talking about I could explain how the deep cerebellar nuclei worked but I doubt you could even name any of the cortices let alone know how many spinal nerves there are.
>link related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnQcKAYNuyk
Its someone with actual brain damage who is still more capable than you.

[Anonymous No.12662061]

>>12662044
>Brain damage prevents that part of brain from working
That's not evidence that information is stored there. That's evidence that your brain no longer can work. Perhaps an analogy will help. If I stab your eyes out with steak knives, then you won't be able to see anymore. Can I then claim that your eyes stored visual images? No more eyes, no more seeing. Ergo, your eyes store visual information as jpegs.

[Anonymous No.12662070]

>>12661239

[Anonymous No.12662075]

>>12662061
>Can I then claim that your eyes stored visual images?
Yes you can retard. People who later became blind in life can still recal faces of their loved ones for example.
Wtf you are actually retarded.
Not to mention you glossed of the whole relevant part and went hyperspesific onto ""brain damage"" the only part you actually understood lmao.
Here's another paradox for you. If you suffer from an infarct in your left temporal lobe its possible to get wernicke's aphasia. Ie you'll be able to form words but you cannot give them any meaning at all writen or spoken. Easiest example of stored information in the brain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oef68YabD0

[Anonymous No.12662080]

>>12662075
>Yes you can retard.
Are you retarded?
The eye does not store anything. It is a lens you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.12662091]

Same energy

[Anonymous No.12662094]

>>12662075
>Your eyes store visual information
>You're retarded
You know, I often shit on psychology, but in this case, I'd say they're right about how projection works.
>People who later became blind in life can still recal faces of their loved ones for example.
... Imperfectly. And more often, incorrectly. Draw the face of your most loved one, without any photo reference, based purely on memory. Do it. Then compare the result to a picture, and then try to tell me you actually store these images.
Wernicke and Broca's aphasia are well understood phenomena in linguistics. We say an area of the brain controls something, e.g. language. What we actually notice is that when your Wernicke or Broca brain region suffer a lesion, the other part of the brain often takes over and compensates for this damage. Which suggests your brain isn't storing any of this.

I recommend you evaluate why you're getting so emotionally riled over this. Could it be that you're in a cult? And that when someone presents information counter to your orthodoxy, you fall back on derogation and arguments from authority, where, oddly, you're this authority? You won't get me to back down by insulting my intellect.

[Anonymous No.12662098]

>>12662080
>The eye does not store anything. It is a lens you fucking moron.
>Ergo, your eyes store visual information as jpegs.
lmao trying to weasel yourself yet you fail.
The retina which is part of the eye is also a direct part of the brain.
Youre trying very hard but still failing, sad tbqh.

[Anonymous No.12662114]

>>12662098
When the lens of your eye refracts physical light onto your retina, it forms an inverted, reduced image. Yet what you see is the actual physical size of an object, and upright. So even if these images were stored somewhere (which they aren't), it certainly wouldn't be on the retinas.

[Anonymous No.12662120]

>>12662094
>Draw the face of your most loved one, without any photo reference, based purely on memory. Do it. Then compare the result to a picture,
Disingenuous argument that is void. This is more a test of drawing skill than memory recollection, which is even harder when blind. A more valid argument would be prosopagnosia, but then again that only strenghtens my claim.
>What we actually notice is that when your Wernicke or Broca brain region suffer a lesion, the other part of the brain often takes over and compensates for this damage. Which suggests your brain isn't storing any of this.
Which is a flat out lie and doesnt happen at all. 1st the location on the brain is important (right/way more common: left sided) 2n split brain patients have already been shown to not recognize words when they dont have contact to wernicke's area. So yeah it does.
>I recommend you evaluate why you're getting so emotionally riled over this. Could it be that you're in a cult? And that when someone presents information counter to your orthodoxy, you fall back on derogation and arguments from authority, where, oddly, you're this authority? You won't get me to back down by insulting my intellect.
Its just easy to rile up tryhards like you while at the same time asserting my knowledge. Your first sentence is your own
>ou know, I often shit on psychology, but in this case, I'd say they're right about how projection works.
Now I ask you the same question.

[Anonymous No.12662122]

>>12662098
>The retina which is part of the eye is also a direct part of the brain.
MD here.
Some people consider that to be true, but it's an argument of semantics. As they connect by the optic nerve to brain proper I'd say they are about as much of the brain as other things connected by cranial nerves. So if you consider the skin sensorium of your face to be part of your brain then well I guess the retinas are too.

As for storage, no they eyes don't store information, they are sensors, the occipital cortex will contain the processing and storage neurons in someone who recently went blind. In someone blind since birth or early childhood the area might be overtaken by other functions.

As for the original argument. Both functions and memory are stored in the physical structure of the brain. I've worked a lot with rehab of stroke patients and it is abundantly clear that any and all things a human do on both a sensory, motoric and cognitive level is determined by the absence or presence of the living neurons in certain areas of the brain.

[Anonymous No.12662131]

>>12662114
You're telling me you are the npc meme than cannot form the image of a dog in its head kek.

[Anonymous No.12662144]

>>12662122
>As they connect by the optic nerve to brain proper
Optic nerve is brain tissue, whilst the N.V is not. So while I dont really agree with your example the whole thing is splitting hairs really.
>As for storage, no they eyes don't store information, they are sensors, the occipital cortex will contain the processing and storage neurons in someone who recently went blind
Yeah obviously but I'm replying to a shit poster whose game is semantics.
I'll assume you meant the occipital lobe and the associative cortices.
Unless youre here to make fun of know it alls in your freetime I wouldn't bother.

[Anonymous No.12662152]

>>12662120
>Your brain stores images
>okay, so draw an image of your loved one
>NoOOOOo that's dependent on drawing ability.
Come on man. Obviously the argument is based on perfect drawing ability. Talk to any artist who draws faces. They need to see you to draw a portrait. Even when the portrait is of their wife. Surely, if the brain stores these images, they should be able to use their artistic ability to draw their wife when he can't see her.
>No man you're just lying
Ugh, what? Pseud detected. I probably should have guessed since you were referencing YouTube videos. See e.g.
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0093934X16300475
Notwithstanding, surely you're aware of treatment for Wernicke and Brocas aphasia. There are cases (few) of full recoveries. Brain scans of these patients show that when one region of the brain (Wernicke, Broca) is damaged, the other one is taking over for all the language roles, causing the full recovery.

[Anonymous No.12662168]

>>12662152
>Talk to any artist who draws faces. They need to see you to draw a portrait.
Maybe once but it is neccecary. See Kim Jung Gi or that autist that draws whole city skylines correctly after seeing it only once.
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0093934X16300475
This article doesnt counter what I say it merely pleads for better anatomical positioning. Also
>we refer throughout the paper to a short survey that was conducted online during November and December of 2015
>n159
>A large number of the respondents (47%) suggested that, while they thought the Classic Model was outdated, they considered that it still served a heuristic function.
Way to skim over the split brain part...
>Pseud detected.

[Anonymous No.12662173]

>>12661930
>>12662014
>>12662061
>>12662094
>>12662152
So in your opinion the brain does not store anything, and your argument is that we can't recall things perfectly ?
Maybe storage is optimized to only keep important information ?

[Anonymous No.12662179]

>>12662152
Another example showing how the different language regions take over to aid in a full aphasia recovery.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22207068/

[Anonymous No.12662193]

>>12662173
Nobody understands how memory works, but we do have indications of how it doesn't work. You don't remember things, you remember cues. Long term memory is neither permanent nor really long term. When you "remember" a dollar bill, your brain is generating an image based on broad strokes. Maybe some $ symbols in the corners, the word ONE exists somewhere, in God we trust is somewhere, a big photo of a president in the center, maybe some serial numbers elsewhere. That's really it. Memories are notoriously faulty and it's ridiculously easy to imprint false memories. This simply shouldn't happen if your brain can store data, as it would recognize the fake data as fake. What's happening is your brain is tuned to the environment, and this "memory" is merely a tool to aid in survival (e.g. a bush is a bush is a bush, this green patch looks bushy, predators in bush, avoid). It's not doing anything even close to a computer.

[Anonymous No.12662199]

>>12662168
>>12662152
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22207068/
I actually dont understand why you linked that article
When the one you just posted
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0093934X16300475
contradicts it.
Anyway you're only supporting my argument that the brain does indeed process and compute + store information. Still waiting for you to counter prosopagnosia
>>12661930
>You're brain doesn't compute or store anything.

[Anonymous No.12662201]

>>12662173
>>12662193
In other words, your brain is necessarily coupled to the external environment. You cannot decouple it, as it would then cease to function. This is categorically different from a computer which operates independently of an external environment in complete accordance to internal programming. That's the difference. You cannot build a computer that's divorced from 100% internal processing. You cannot decouple a brain from the environment. And that's why we'll never be able to upload our brains to the internet.

[Anonymous No.12662208]

>>12662201
emulate the external environment

[Anonymous No.12662209]

>>12662193
>You don't remember things, you remember cues.
Ah so only pixel perfect is real then? You're just being vague on something I agree with. Go up the reply chain and you'll see anon saying you cant store anything . Not pictures, movements, or what have you. I assume you're aware that movements can get stored as seen in parkinsonism.

[Anonymous No.12662212]

>>12659702
Kurzweil is a fucking hack. Singularity retards just can't comprehend that the kind of technology they want isn't decades away, or even centuries away. If it's even possible true AI and neural interfacing will take thousands of years to become viable

[Anonymous No.12662214]

>>12662201
>your brain is necessarily coupled emulate to the external environment
No we have an autonomic function as well. But this statement is so bland that it can define anything really.
>You cannot build a computer that's divorced from 100% internal processing.
Neither can a brain

[Anonymous No.12662217]

>>12662209
It has nothing to do with "real" or "pixel perfection". It has everything to do with compatibility. Your brain isn't a computer and doesn't function in any way similar to a computer.

[Anonymous No.12662227]

>>12662214
The ANS is equivalent to being braindead. Just ask any vegetative patient. Oh, wait, they can't respond because they're literally dead.
>But technically no
That's the politically correct response. The actual answer that doctors know is that vegetative patients are dead. They're just kept breathing to placate family members who can't handle death.

[Anonymous No.12662244]

>>12662214
>>12662227
Keep in mind that you don't even really need a brain for the ANS. Well, okay, this one is splitting hairs since by definition you do. But the function of the ANS isn't really dissimilar from invertebrates basic mechanical functioning. The ANS is our most basic and fundamental core of survival, and almost surely was the first thing to develop in early vertebrate brains. But I'd argue that this isn't really what we think of when we think of a brain.