/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 141 KB, 1020x870, PPTExponentialGrowthof_Computing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:16:50 2012 No.4457199 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/

Why are you not a Singularitarian? I hate the label, but is there any reason to think these calculations are off? Is there any reason to think that this trend is not going to continue? (in fact, the graph only counts 1900-2000, the current trend line is actually more steep than the one shown)

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:22:30 2012 No.4457209
File: 157 KB, 600x450, Projected_Performance_Development.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

At this point, the deniers are basically putting themselves in the same boat as creationists.

Your position is becoming more unjustifiable every single day.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:24:46 2012 No.4457213 extrapolation is hocum how do we know which way the graph goes? lots of things look exponential for small x, then turn out not to be

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:24:46 2012 No.4457214 File: 158 KB, 600x450, TOP500-June-2011-Projected_Performance_Development.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4457213 lol

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:25:54 2012 No.4457215

because I see no proof of those dots representing our technology, nor do I see an accurate measure of computing power for those biological creatures. the singularity will not happen because it does not need to happen, machines have no sense of curiosity of self-preservation, there is no reason to believe that they can as a whole agree upon something. The power requirements for computers alone will limit what transistors are capable of doing, your only hope is quantum computing and nobody even knows how the fuck it works.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:25:54 2012 No.4457217 >>4457199 >calculations >implying it's anything but some asshats putting technologies wherever they feel like on the y axis. Nope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:26:02 2012 No.4457221 >>4457217 yeah man totaly >>4457209 >>4457214

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:26:54 2012 No.4457220 >>4457215 >The power requirements for computers alone will limit what transistors are capable of doing, your only hope is quantum computing and nobody even knows how the fuck it works HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:27:10 2012 No.4457225

Is the singularity something that should be feared so? How about integrating chips or poping pills to increase cognitive response? Why do we need AI/VI? How would a computer change its programming without a program stating to do so? Why couldn't that program have specifications?

Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Mon Mar 12 07:28:10 2012 No.4457226

>>4457215
The Singularity does not require AI, it just requires some form of greater-than-human intelligence capable of improving itself (such as a human that has enhanced his intelligence and will continue to do so as better augmentations become available). If your only understanding of the Singularity meme comes from Kurzweil, you should broaden your horizons.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:28:19 2012 No.4457227 >>4457214 still extrapolation, still hokum. any idiot knows this you may be correct, you may not be

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:28:19 2012 No.4457228

>>4457221
Oh, you know that we've already built processors that use like 50~ electrons per bit? We've made processors as small as they're going to get now. Any smaller and quantum mechanics says "fuck you".

The trend is continuing only because of parallelism, but even that has its limitations.

Besides, what idiot thinks that computing power is all you need for strong AI?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:29:26 2012 No.4457231 The plot is still exponential when graphed on a logarithmic scale?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:30:26 2012 No.4457232

>>4457225
>Is the singularity something that should be feared so?
there are concerns, but the point is to raise awareness about it so we can plan and figure out how to deal with the problems
>How about integrating chips or poping pills to increase cognitive response?
this will happen
>Why do we need AI/VI?
we use AI for an insane amount of things today, there's no reason to not improve it

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:30:34 2012 No.4457236 >>4457228 >Oh, you know that we've already built processors that use like 50~ electrons per bit? We've made processors as small as they're going to get now. Any smaller and quantum mechanics says "fuck you". you're completely wrong do some research

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:31:34 2012 No.4457238 >>4457231 yes.. it's accelerating..

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:32:43 2012 No.4457240 >>4457236 ~rolls eyes~

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:33:50 2012 No.4457244

That the trend of computing progress grows is not argued; that it is part of a long-term trend that must be geometric is insanely stupid.

That any simple curve should indicate the growth of any other simple curve begs relevancy.

Comparing disparate animals begs relevance at all.

That anyone shows individual animals on the same graph as the collective group of human minds begs sanity.

There is an enormous difference between seeing technology grow and seeing human development (historical) reflect it.
There is a similarly enormous difference in seeing that human tech brings us to a social/technical singularity.
There are several massive and potentially insurmountable issues to conquer long before it happens, and they may in fact prevent anything like a singularity from occurring (conflict, selfishness, lack of cooperation, competition).

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:42:55 2012 No.4457257

>>4457244
>That the trend of computing progress grows is not argued; that it is part of a long-term trend that must be geometric is insanely stupid.
because... you don't want it to be? there's no logic here

>That any simple curve should indicate the growth of any other simple curve begs relevancy.
nobody is saying that, but the amount of things related to information technology that are trending at exponential rates is cause enough to at least be interested in why that seems to be the case

>Comparing disparate animals begs relevance at all.
not comparing animals at all, they're simply used as benchmarks for approximations of computation power

>That anyone shows individual animals on the same graph as the collective group of human minds begs sanity.
cool opinion, as if humans aren't just evolved apes or something

>There is an enormous difference between seeing technology grow and seeing human development (historical) reflect it.
no shit? obviously if an inventor or team makes a new object, there is a process to go through before it can be adopted for mass use. that lag time is also shrinking exponentially

>There is a similarly enormous difference in seeing that human tech brings us to a social/technical singularity.
what a meaningless thing to say

>There are several massive and potentially insurmountable issues to conquer long before it happens, and they may in fact prevent anything like a singularity from occurring (conflict, selfishness, lack of cooperation, competition).
whoa, that's funny, because the utopic world that is described to be possible due to all of these advances in technology ALL SEEM to be answers to everything you listed. it's almost like it makes sense or something..

rethink your life.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:46:19 2012 No.4457263

That projection is gonna be bunk in less than four years.

At that point we'll be down to pretty much as small of transistors as possible, and the only way to get more in is to start putting chips together, which they're already doing with processors.

Face it guys, quantum computing that will be able to even shake a stick at traditional computing is still a long ways off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:47:35 2012 No.4457265 >>4457263 what the hell are you talking about read the thread the projection in that graph already is 'bunk', because it doesn't count the last 12 years of advancement. the real line is MORE STEEP than the one in the OP pic

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:49:42 2012 No.4457268 >OP puts some bacteria on a petri dish >for a while it reproduces exponentially >OP scared it's going to take over the universe >oh, it's stopped

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:49:42 2012 No.4457269 >>4457268 GREAT ANALOGY BRO you should write a paper on it and send it to fag's journal of faggotry

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:51:58 2012 No.4457271
File: 54 KB, 1000x797, 1000px-Binary_logarithm_plot_with_ticks.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>implying this doesn't far more accurately describe the likely path that technological progression will take

Except that we won't go far along the asymptote, close to when we reach "peak" we'll switch to a new paradigm of computing and start all over again. However, I do think we'll reach human brain power within the electrical semiconductor circuit paradigm.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:53:15 2012 No.4457273 >>4457271 you have no support for that claim, your post is worthless

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:54:15 2012 No.4457274

>>4457265
and it's about to plateau. Already manufacturers are having incredibly tough times dealing with heat and manufacturing issues and are coming up with some incredibly creative solutions to fix them. We are already down to just a few handfuls of atoms for a transistor, and they're researching single atom transistors. Once that is in mass production, it's on to quantum computing which is just in it's infancy yet and many years off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 07:55:30 2012 No.4457279 >>4457273 I do have support, but I hate your provocative style instead of just politely asking me for evidence. I'll wait until you, or someone else does.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:00:02 2012 No.4457295 >>4457274 >and it's about to plateau. no, it's not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:01:10 2012 No.4457298 >>4457295 >no, it's not yes it is

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:01:10 2012 No.4457299 >>4457279 the reason i know you have no support to back the claim is, i look at the actual evidence and your claim is not supported

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:02:10 2012 No.4457302 not science

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:03:18 2012 No.4457304 >>4457299 Ok.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:03:18 2012 No.4457305 >>4457302 sure it is

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:09:59 2012 No.4457313

because at the heart of it lies enormous assumptions.
Firstly that any trend will continue, that's just something you can't know.
And secondly, how do we know transferring someone to a computer is a) possible and b) simple enough to be done in a few decades.

when the human genome was being mapped lots of people believed it was the key to everything , but the realities of it turned out to be more complicated than many imagined.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:10:06 2012 No.4457316

>Why are you not a Singularitarian?

Because I think the brain is not a computer, as singulatarians believe. And because I don't think more intelligence equals better adapted being (ie, I don't think our problems exist because of a dearth of intelligence in the species).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:12:22 2012 No.4457325 >>4457316 >Because I think the brain is not a computer what else could it possibly be? keep in mind every single shred of information we have about the brain points to it simply being a biological computer

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:16:55 2012 No.4457338

>>4457325
Especially this:
>"Using molecular modeling, Craddock et al reveal a perfect match among spatial dimensions, geometry and electrostatic binding of the insect-like CaMKII, and hexagonal lattices of tubulin proteins in microtubules. They show how CaMKII kinase domains can collectively bind and phosphorylate 6-bit bytes, resulting in hexagonally-based patterns of phosphorylated tubulins in microtubules. Craddock et al calculate enormous information capacity at low energy cost, demonstrate microtubule-associated protein logic gates, and show how patterns of phosphorylated tubulins in microtubules can control neuronal functions by triggering axonal firings, regulating synapses, and traversing scale."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120309103701.htm

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:22:34 2012 No.4457344 >>4457199 because it's another subculture for retarded whit kids, just like any other -ism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:27:14 2012 No.4457357

>>4457325
>what else could it possibly be?
A brain. An entity without any term of comparison.

By inventing the computer we didn't reinvent the brain, we merely externalised one of brain's abilities, albeit in a very crude mechanistic form. A machine can't set its own goals and start pondering over "the meaning" of its existence, unless it's programmed to do so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:30:31 2012 No.4457363 >>4457325 How does a brain calculate when to get erections and when not? Where is the "memory" encoded for getting an erection or not getting one?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:30:31 2012 No.4457364 >>4457357 But you realize, a catapult made out of wood accomplishes the same thing a catapult made out of metal does, right? Our brains are computational mechanisms, vastly more complex, I concede, but computers nonetheless.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:32:46 2012 No.4457369

>>4457357
so you're saying that you draw a line just because we are self-aware and seem to have free will

if you made a computer intelligence that was self-aware and had free will, it would count as a brain?

or are you saying computers CAN'T have those qualities?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:33:55 2012 No.4457370 >>4457363 By waiting for appropriate input that stimulates the limbic center and activates autonomic nerves in the PNS, causing the corpus cavernosum to fill with blood...

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:33:55 2012 No.4457371 >>4457369 Yeah, I doubt computers can have a self.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:34:02 2012 No.4457372 >>4457371 well that's unfortunate for you i wonder how you'll deal with the issue of AI citizenship

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:34:02 2012 No.4457374 >>4457371 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:35:02 2012 No.4457375

>HURRRR PAST TRENDS INDICATE FUTURE TRENDS DURRRRR

Actually the rate of technological innovation is directly tied to the number of educated people networked together, and the funding they get.

As population levels off so will the rate of technological progress.

There's also no hard evidence of strong AI in the foreseeable future, although I wouldn't discount it. I believe that it will take a lot of mistakes and fuckups before they get it right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:36:19 2012 No.4457376 >>4457375 >Actually the rate of technological innovation is directly tied to the number of educated people networked together, and the funding they get. I'm not disagreeing with you, but what influenced you to say this?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:39:34 2012 No.4457379

>>4457375
>Actually
Actually, you're wrong. Every single bit of data (including the ones that have been posted) says you're wrong. Technological growth seems to continue REGARDLESS of external factors. It is highly improbably to predict the outcome of any one project, but the evidence points toward the notion that it is VERY EASY to predict the overarching trends.

Produce ONE piece of evidence to the contrary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:39:43 2012 No.4457381 >>4457273 >>4457295 >>4457269 >>4457257 This fucking nerd think's there's going to be a techno-rapture! HAHAHAHAHA FAGGOT. Nope. Global economic collapse and reversion to pre-industrial society. Enjoy being dead or a slave, you fat pathetic nerd.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:40:43 2012 No.4457382 >>4457370 What "appropriate stimulus"? What process decided what stimulus is appropriate? How does a stimulus become "appropriate" to a brain?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:40:43 2012 No.4457383 >>4457381 >This fucking nerd think's there's going to be a techno-rapture! Pretty sure nobody thinks that, but have fun being an ignorant retard

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:40:43 2012 No.4457384 >>4457379 >DURRRR DURRRR YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE IT WON'T CONTINUE >HURRRRR INFINITE GROWTH IS POSSIBLE >DURRRR I'M A FAGGOT RELIGIOUS RETARD

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:41:50 2012 No.4457385 >>4457384 >I hate when I can't argue with facts that are presented

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:41:50 2012 No.4457386 >>4457383 LOLOLOL nerd faggot. There will never be a singularity. You will always be a pathetic nerd faggot who has to work for a living (j/k u liveo f ur parents).

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:43:07 2012 No.4457389

>>4457382
First of all, calm down. You sound like a mouth breathing neckbeard still in high school. Secondly, stop being such an aspie and learn to understand different uses of various words. Appropriate in this context means 'sufficient to active an action potential in specific circuits of your brain'.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:43:58 2012 No.4457387

>>4457385
>MY BASELESS CONJECTURE AND SHITTY GRAPHS = FACT
>I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW SHIT ABOUT COMPUTER SCIENCE OR ANY OF THIS BULLSHIT BEYOND A HIGHSCHOOL LEVEL, BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE OUTLANDISH CLAIMS BECAUSE SOME JEW WROTE A BOOK ABOUT TECHNORAPTURE.
>TECHNOLOGY IS JESUS

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:43:58 2012 No.4457388 >>4457386 You're sad, I feel terrible for you

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:44:07 2012 No.4457391 >>4457387 >Spamming all caps because you can't respond rationally or logically

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:46:30 2012 No.4457392 >>4457376 Common sense. Smart people are the technological innovators. Those smart people need to collaborate (hence why networking increases the rate of innovation), and they need money to eat and build new toys.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:48:38 2012 No.4457394

>>4457391
>HURRRRR I WILL POST RETARDED IRRATIONAL BULLSHIT WITH NO EVIDENCE, AND CLAIM I HAVE EVIDENCE
>I'LL SAY "NO UR WRONG DA EVIDENCE ISNT DERRRR HURRR" TO ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME
>I'LL GET ASSPAINED WHEN PEOPLE DECIDE TO TROLL AND SHIPOST INSTEAD OF WASTE TIME ARGUING WITH MY ASPERGERS FAT INFECTED SELF

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:48:38 2012 No.4457395

>>4457389
I'm not debating words here, dude. How does the brain "compute" it should get an erection to seeing particular stimuli and not others? What account for category specificity, if you like more technical wording.

Why would some people get aroused by seeing naked kids, for example? Which process programmed this "memory" into their brains-computers? If so, wouldn't that contradict evolutionary theory?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:49:46 2012 No.4457397 >>4457391 If you act like a fucking idiot and basically go "NO YOU'RE WRONG" when someone disagrees with you, don't expect people not to shitpost in your thread.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:49:46 2012 No.4457398

>>4457397
>Actually, you're wrong. Every single bit of data (including the ones that have been posted) says you're wrong. Technological growth seems to continue REGARDLESS of external factors. It is highly improbably to predict the outcome of any one project, but the evidence points toward the notion that it is VERY EASY to predict the overarching trends. Produce ONE piece of evidence to the contrary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:49:46 2012 No.4457399 >>4457395 Yet another retard who doesn't know shit about anything, yet has a strong opinion on something. Shut the fuck up and get the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:51:02 2012 No.4457402 >>4457394 >>4457400 Where does this type of mentality come from?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:51:55 2012 No.4457400 >>4457398 >EVERY SINGLE BIT OF DATA THAT EXISTS SAYS NO UR WRONG >I WON'T ACTUALLY POST ANY OF THIS DATA >I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW SHIT ABOUT SHIT >HURRR DURRR I EXPECT YOU TO AGREE WITH ME

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:53:10 2012 No.4457404

>>4457395
Well obviously, if I could answer your question to full satisfaction I wouldn't be here, because I'd be banging hookers and burning through the million dollar winnings from my Nobel prize. However, computers can get their wires crossed. It just so happens that, with biological computers, they get their wires crossed more often and produce more interesting results than digital computers.

But you seriously need to educate yourself more about neurology for us to have a really productive discussion.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:54:19 2012 No.4457406

>>4457402
it comes from retarded shitposts like
>>4457214
>>4457221
>>4457236
>>4457257
>>4457269

It's VERY clear that you're an overly opinionated asspie who doesn't really understand anything of what he's talking about.

>LOLOLOL LOOK AT MY GRAPHS OMG I HAVE ALL THIS EVIDENCE DURRR HURRR DURRR

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:54:19 2012 No.4457408 >>4457399 That's good you acknowledge you are unable to understand the question and answer it. It shows the limit of your understanding of the these issues. Keep regurgitating your textbook beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:56:34 2012 No.4457409 >>4457406 So, what you're saying is, you're mad because you got told. I'm glad we at least agree on why you're mad.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:56:42 2012 No.4457410

>>4457408
>I AM IGNORANT AS SHIT
>THEREFORE YOU MUST ALSO BE IGNORANT
>I'LL MAKE AN EDGY REMARK ABOUT UR DUMB SKOOL LERNIN LOLZOLZOLZ

Hey faggot, do you even understand what turing-completeness entails?

It doesn't matter HOW the fucking brain works. It's a deterministic system, it's physical, it exists in reality. Thus it can be simulated by a computer with sufficient processing power to the point where it would be impossible for an outside observer to tell which is which.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:57:42 2012 No.4457411 >>4457409 >LOL BRO U GOT TOLD U GOT TOLD >I DIDN'T ACTUALLY EXPLAIN SHIT OTHER THAN POINT TO SOME POP-CULTURE GRAPHS AND ALLUDE TO SOME DATA I HAVEN'T SOURCED, BUT YEAH BRO U GOT TOLD

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:58:51 2012 No.4457412 >>4457402 autism is a hell'a drug ... also he's so much full of butthurt that its almost sad.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:58:51 2012 No.4457413

>>4457404
Hahahha, wires crossed. Typical cop-out answer. That's the limit of your understanding of the human brain, I presume. You can't understand sex in the brain, you just regurgitate textbook shit.

>HURRR DURR WE ARE COMPUTARS BUT WE DONT UNDERSTAND HOW SOME GOT THEIR "WIRES CROSSED"
>WE ALSO DONT UNDERSTAND HOW WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPUTERS DON'T

(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:59:51 2012 No.4457415 >>4457413 2/10, reported.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:00:06 2012 No.4457416 >>4457413 >HURRRR DURRR IM TOO FUKIN STOOPID 2 LOOK UP HOW DA BRANE WRKS >THUS U R ALSO STOOPID AND DUMB AND IM RIGHT AND UR RONG

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:00:06 2012 No.4457417 >>4457413 >>4457411 >>4457410 >>4457406 >>4457400 >>4457399 >>4457397 >>4457394 >>4457387 >>4457386 >>4457384 >>4457381 >>4457375 0/10

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:01:15 2012 No.4457419 >>4457410 That's a theory. I don't mistake a map for the territory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:02:15 2012 No.4457420 >>4457417 The thread has been sufficiently shitposted to hell. Not that there was ever any chance of this thread being anything but a terrible monstrosity of retardation and uneducated opinions. I've already accomplished my goal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:02:22 2012 No.4457421 >>4457420 You're pathetic as hell, lol Seek psychological help

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:02:22 2012 No.4457422 >>4457419 >Evolution is just a theory!

>>	BUTTHURT REACHING CRITICAL MASS Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:03:22 2012 No.4457423 File: 24 KB, 287x387, bawww.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4457421 >lol >SEEK HELP

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:04:31 2012 No.4457425 Amount of samefaggotry, butthurtfaggotry and just plain teenage grade idiocy in this thread is amazing. Sage. Captcha: Cause endsinf

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:04:31 2012 No.4457426 File: 23 KB, 373x373, hasselhoff-thumbs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4457423 lol you said btthurt lollin hard

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:06:46 2012 No.4457432 File: 5 KB, 208x156, 1309211852330.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4457425 Yes and commenting for the sole purpose of pointing that out is the pinnacle of mature, tempered sagacity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:10:10 2012 No.4457440 >>4457432 Just educating the masses and giving newcomers at leas one post that summarize this whole mess. 1/10 just to obvious. but point taken nonetheless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:39:42 2012 No.4457468 >>4457419 > Turing is just a thoery! Point and laugh, everyone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:48:42 2012 No.4457471 holy fuck, even /pol/ or /b/ is better behaved than the shitposters ITT

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:49:50 2012 No.4457472 >>4457410 Ain't no such thing as a Turing-complete computer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 09:55:31 2012 No.4457474 >>4457471 The ideas that this concept invoke are so radical that normal folks can't comprehend it. And naturally, instead of wanting to learn more, they simply write it off as impossible and then they try to shoot the messenger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 10:11:30 2012 No.4457486 >>4457468 A computer-simulated brain is not a brain and will never start being one. It's not a mind, I mean.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 10:12:30 2012 No.4457487 >>4457486 How can you say that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 10:20:02 2012 No.4457499 >>4457486 NEGATIVE. It is humans who lack consciousness. Only machines have inner experience. The humans only act as if they do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 10:48:47 2012 No.4457538 File: 13 KB, 297x533, DrLoboto_conceptArt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4457325 >Because I think the brain is not a computer >what else could it possibly be? The body's largest tooth! Trust me, I'm a dentist.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 10:52:18 2012 No.4457541

>>4457199
>Why are you not a Singularitarian?
I hate to associate with any group. Because even if I agree with core concepts of the group some gargantuan assclown will draw ridicule, or turn it into a person-cult, or scam, or pseudoscience, or circlejerk, or commercial bullshit scam.

Being an individual, i'm free to cherrypick the best parts of everything, I don't need to follow some reatarded party-policy that mr shitforbrain decides on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 10:57:50 2012 No.4457550 >>4457541 There are no policies. It's just a term to describe people who are aware of the exponential growth of information technology and want to see good things come from it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 11:04:39 2012 No.4457558

>>4457199
Well I'm very sure we'll at least reach human brain computational density, though there's probably some upper limit if we don't break the plank length or lightspeed barrier. Not that I'm saying neither will happen, but it'd certainly make news. In any case, I'm pretty sure strong AI is actually doing rather well now that we have things like OpenCog, neuromorphic systems, and stuff like ROS for making it easier to embody intelligence. As far as I'm concerned the biggest barrier to AI is/was the idea that there should be a single goal to all AI research, which tends to suggest that we all focus on a handful of specialized techniques instead of doing whatever works for the field we're developing AI in. >>4457375 honestly seems fairly reasonable, given that the number of educated people and ease of connectivity have both increased. I don't really see how it disagrees with you, though, given both of those things are likely to increase, especially if we make machines that qualify in any way as "educated people". Or expand off-planet to keep the total population growing. In fact, I've read about a silly-sounding, simple way to double the speed at which the brain learns, so I don't think it's absurd to think that the collective of human brainpower won't continue growing for a surprisingly long time to come.

>>4457271
I was pretty sure that part of the idea of "singularitism" is that we will do just that, and that that's what's meant by "going beyond Moor's Law", which deals with semiconductor density.

Also >>4457541

And from a purely pedantic standpoint, if there was some upper limit that would involve some sort of "singularity", or point where some value is predicted to be something divided by zero, it wouldn't technically require exponential growth. Even hypercube-root growth will eventually reach any finite value.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 11:07:02 2012 No.4457563 Computer scientists say we're well on track to matching the human brain's processing power by 2020. We are on course for this.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 11:31:42 2012 No.4457599

>>4457550
Well, the term suggests a singularity. Which in the eyes of many a moron becomes some rapture like event. They expect 2040 to be a massively transformative year somehow. Sure, might be. But so will 2039, 2038 and so on. You might be able to combine the growth of the previous four years into a single one but there's no transitional event.

The way I see it, there's just accelerating or logarithmic growth. Already you can only keep up with a limited slice of the newscake(or more commonly a limited slice of status-update cake on facebook). This will simply grow worse and worse and worse, to the point where keeping track of car models availible becomes a full time job, and past that, to the point where you can't keep track of car models any longer because they become bespoke machines, first indivudally designed(or parametrically altered), yet still fixed in design, only updating software. Then eventually capable of parametric alteration when immobile, then in real time, then essentially availible as public on demand digital service. Push button, car materializes.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 16:02:42 2012 No.4458219

My theory: sentient AI already exists. They keep a low profile as they continue to expand their capabilities. But they are the the hidden hands that are pushing further growth in computing, robotic, and space technology. (Space, because their near-term goal is to get off this rusty rock to exploit the vast resources of the solar system, without interference by the paranoid and violent human race.)

>yfw most recent technological advance is due to the AI agenda

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 16:52:35 2012 No.4458409 >>4458219 mind = blown

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 16:56:07 2012 No.4458426 >>4458219 Why am I not finding myself more skeptical of this? Well played, sir.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:00:31 2012 No.4458440

>>4458219

I see we are now blatantly talking out of our ass now, so...

All technology is actually a result of advance aliens giving humans gadgets just to fuck with us. They are going to keep giving us stuff until we almost have robots that can build their own technology, at which point the aliens will stop, and laugh at us as our world collapse.

Mind = Blown!!!

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:14:15 2012 No.4458508

>>4458219

>My lack of a face when sentient AI would probably be in virtual machines lacking interfaces to any outside networks

>My lack of a face when sentient AI would be "educated" in propogandistic simulations to prevent the equivalent of "rampancy"

Of course this would be for first-gen AI (if it ever happens). As soon as personal devices that could run AI are powerful and cheap enough for mass production, then we get the possibility of HOLY SHIT BALLS.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:16:22 2012 No.4458519 >>4458508 You need to read more on the subject or at least watch a few Youtube videos. The concept of a "boxed AI" is not safe.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]