[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 76 KB, 700x933, ai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14733425 No.14733425 [Reply] [Original]

AI will never be intelligent because it has no awareness, as such it has no motivation, it's all just meaningless numbers.

>> No.14733438

define "awareness" and "motivation".

Boy are you in for a shock

>> No.14733439

>>14733438
Can't be defined precisely because they are fuzzy properties of actual intelligence. They're axiomatic and thus don't need a definition.

>> No.14733468

>>14733439
And that's why you'll never be a scientist or accomplish anything with your life.

>> No.14733501

>>14733425
Meat will never be intelligent because it has no awareness, as such it has no motivation, it’s all just meaningless molecules.

>> No.14733509

>>14733501
So you're saying you're not aware of your surroundings right now?

>> No.14733511

>>14733501
Everything you can do, your meat can do without you. You're just an auxiliary device it uses for designing new algorithms.

>> No.14733514

>>14733439
You calling them "axiomatic" means a definition is in fact even more fundamental so that anything logically valid can be derived from these concepts. You should look up what an axiom is.
Then again, don't. You ought to get a job as a street sweeper instead, or maybe human resources would be better. Even a street sweeper needs logic.
I shall now leave this thread forever, my spirit elevated by the total certainty that whatever future triumphs and failures await me, I could never be as averse to logic as you. It is in fact hard to imagine you are a conscious human being. You are beyond help.

>> No.14733516

>>14733514
Axiomatic means self-evident. Awareness is self evident, ergo awareness is axiomatic. You can't define it because qualia isn't something you can cut with a knife. You can point to it conceptually, but you can't ever define it. If you actually understood my argument rather than strut about like a cocky ego, you would grasp it very soon.

>> No.14733524

>>14733509
The point is, everything in the OP applies to meat as well, and yet you are intelligent, aware and motivated.

The problem is that you use the words “intelligence”, “awareness” and “motivation” as real objects independent from us, when really they’re macroscopic descriptors (that we made up for the convenience of fast communication) of certain perceptions that we have of systems that are too complex to describe microscopically. But they really are just molecules or numbers or whatever.

If a cup breaks into a million pieces, is it still a cup? What if I grind it down to its individual molecules and throw them into the wind? Where did the cup go and when did it go? Where is the “cupness”? It’s all in our heads. It was always a bunch of molecules that temporarily excited some of our neurons to make us go, “cup!”

>> No.14733531

>>14733524
The problem is you're trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, without admitting your fallacy. Consciousness isn't an object, but it is self-evident. Just because you can't formalize something, doesn't mean you can ignore the reality that it exists.

>> No.14733558
File: 29 KB, 552x447, 1632045096705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14733558

>>14733514
>>14733468
holy fuck this board is merciless at times

>> No.14733566

>>14733531
It is self-evident and it does exist, but the best working theories that we have describe it as purely physical. We don’t have any theories that say otherwise that also make testable predictions, so the most useful stance in terms of predicting human behavior is that it is purely physical. That doesn’t mean it is physical, but I’ll assume it is until a more accurate theory says otherwise.

>> No.14733594

>>14733566
An assumption without evidence can be dismissed.

>> No.14733599

>you can't BUILD consciousness because you can't KNOW how consciousness works MAN
Just gotta brute force it then. Like nature did.

>> No.14733606
File: 25 KB, 269x215, 325234.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14733606

>>14733438
>Boy are you in for a shock
I don't think anyone is surprised that AGI schizophrenics are literal NPCs.

>> No.14733660

>>14733594
You can dismiss any assumption you want. I care about predictive ability, and the assumption that it is purely physical gives me more predictive power than the alternative.

>> No.14733670

>>14733660
What factual and empirically verifiable phenomenon can you predict with this assumption?

>> No.14733755
File: 251 KB, 732x709, 1659733272298928.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14733755

>>14733425
Some AI already display some intelligent traits.

>> No.14733787

>>14733670
That a decrease in blood flow to the brain leads to a decrease in consciousness.

>> No.14733791

>>14733425
>Brain is made of trillions of individual cells with either an action potential or no action potential
>somehow different from a computer
>somehow not meaningless numbers all just adding up

You are living in a really shitty and sad dream world OP

>> No.14733842

>>14733787
Decrease in power to a tv set leads to a decrease in picture quality. I guess that means that the tv show on the screen is produced by the tv set.

>> No.14733905

>>14733842
The tv show is only the content of the experience, right? And not the experience itself? Or are you saying that the experience takes place outside the brain and is beamed into the brain? In that case the TV analogy doesn’t make sense because a TV only receives signals: if I do something to my TV to change what it displays that doesn’t affect the source of the signal, whereas if the blood flow to the brain decreases that definitely decreases conscious experience.

>> No.14733913

>>14733791
Can a computer evolve or have flaws?
How do you think that a human brain is capable of creating something better than them?
Theoretically impossible

>> No.14736201

>>14733501
>Meat will never be intelligent because it has no awareness, as such it has no motivation, it’s all just meaningless molecules.
omg u are retarded a lot, the motivation concept is not matter, but molecules are matter, then u can not compare an unmattered thing with a mattered thing. Also, ideas are not compoused by molecules, and for this last one the all is not only matter, there is more than this. But why do u believe that? The answer is that u have a wrong point of view of the world, a materialistic shit philosophy, and an atheist religion. So fuck you motherfucker, you dont know nothing stupid shit disgusting human being

>> No.14736265

>>14733913
>Can a computer evolve
The easy takedown to this is that neurons are already definitely 100% computers by definition and have evolved, so yes.
Theoretically it wouldn't be impossible to arrange.
>or have flaws?
Surely you jest?

>> No.14736271

>>14733594
I swear this fucking board sometimes surprises me with its stupidity.

>> No.14736457

>>14733509
Are you autistic by any chance

>> No.14736502
File: 72 KB, 604x604, 1633024772253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14736502

>>14733425
Physical matter based life forms will never be intelligent because they have no awareness, as such they have no motivations, it's all just meaningless chemical and electrical interactions.

>> No.14736513

You just has neurons all connected together triggering because of chemical potential. As such it has no motivation it all meaningless pulses.

>> No.14736514

holy fuck this thread is gay