[ 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: 38 KB, 640x480, systemshock02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2943818 No.2943818 [Reply] [Original]

Hello /sci/ I am by no means a /sci/entist
but I do enjoy science mainly physics and I
just got done watching "Transcendent Man"
and I know most of /sci/ feel Kurzweil's time line
for the singularity is bull shit. But I think most of us can agree that it will happen eventually and my question is what will happen when we can make computers smarter than us and they make computers smarter than them? What will happen to Scientist will they just be to obsolete and all new scientific discoveries will be made by computers?

>> No.2943841

Yes

>> No.2943845
File: 21 KB, 461x295, 1301424268102.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2943845

>my question is what will happen when we can make computers smarter than us and they make computers smarter than them?
Kurzweil called it the singularity because the traditional laws break down and you can't really predict beyond that point. Scientists won't be obsolete provided they improve their own intelligence by merging with the machine intelligence that has been created.
High probability of this happening this century. Not gonna say for sure that it is.

>> No.2943852

Nope. As machines can't think truly abstract.
>>2943845
Seems more likely. Machines for repetitive logical work, humans for abstract. Combine them and get super intelligence.

>> No.2943876

>>2943852
OP here who's to say a computer couldn't make AI to think 'truly abstract'?

>> No.2943877

>>2943852
Humans are machines....

>> No.2943902

>>2943876
>>2943877
He's partially correct, it will most likely be a while longer after we get strong AI for proper abstract computer intelligence on the level of a human.

>> No.2943997

>>2943852
Why wouldn't machines be able to think abstractly? After all, WE are machines, albeit biological ones, and we can think abstractly. Why would flesh be that more special than metal or whatever?

>> No.2944021

>>2943997

I don't think its a matter of whether or not we can have thinking machines, more honestly its a matter of whether or not we'll still care about or even need such things in the distant future.

Evolution hasn't stood still for humans despite our reasonable claims to have made exceptional medical advances. In my honest opinion, its impossible to determine the course of the evolutionary process to an extent where we could determine where such a point would/could be reached.

>> No.2944051

>>2943845
This.
There's no reason for humans to be content with our imperfect bodies. Want to have a better spine than the shitty one nature gave you? We can do that. Want to have better reflexes? We can do that. Want to be more intelligent? We can, and will, do that. There will be no "machines making humans obsolete", there will only be us replacing more of our imperfect bodies with less imperfect artificial parts.

>> No.2944063

>>2943997
Are we machines? We don't know what we are.

>> No.2944074

>>2944063
Are we humans?
Or are we dancers?

>> No.2944094

>>2944021
I don't think evolution has stopped, just that it has bumped up step on the abstraction ladder. Only hazy understanding of genetics but it seems that epigenetics and genes controlling other genes arose as a mechanism to make gainful mutations happen faster than over many generations.

To me, it seems that culture is the new playground for evolution as concerns humans. Genes have become less important as we replace our bodily functions with externalized versions of them; cooking and tools and machines and computers and stuff.

So ultimately we hand over our culture to cyborg versions of ourselves or true AI when that comes, since culture can jump the species barriers easier than any genetic material.

Hope that made SOME sense. Felt rambly.

>> No.2944098

>>2944063
Yes. Gears and levers acting according to laws of physics is no different from molecules doing that inside ourselves, just on different scales.

>> No.2944178

>>2944094

Thank you for the reponse. I do concur that human beings are very far from being the sum of a series of biological processes. Culture has most certainly become the replicator of choice, in the time of modern humans at least. One can only hope that in taking a step beyond the inherent weakness of a biological mechanism we can also leave behind our prejudice and respect the true value of our sentience.

>> No.2944304

>Transcendent Man"
That movie was terrible, they made him look like an idiot.
I actually read the Singularity is Near and its a lot better laid out in that than in the movie.

The question is when and how and not what. We'll get to a time when there will be no choice if we want to improve, the system is in place.
You can help, or not. Your choice.

>> No.2946764

lol