pls explain it to me.

[Anonymous No.6551500]

any CS fag here?

scriptkiddie here.
Can /sci/ explain how a fucking algorithm can acording to some pop sci develop conciusness at the singularity?
what are the scientific facts they base their belief?

I understand how A* works, but I don't see how it will develop a conciussness.

[Anonymous No.6551514]

can /sci/ pls show me a lecture where they explain how the most complex AI works today?

[Anonymous No.6551571]

>>6551500
bump

[Anonymous No.6551600]

>>6551500
>pop sci

it's pseudo sci

[Anonymous No.6551606]

It can't, bud. You drank the kool-aid.

[Anonymous No.6551621]

>Can /sci/ explain how a fucking algorithm can acording to some pop sci develop conciusness at the singularity

[Anonymous No.6551626]

ok op think A* but bigger, it's called A^

[Anonymous No.6551635]

>>6551500
>singularity

wrong board.

>>>http://boards.420chan.org/psy
>>>http://boards.420chan.org/wc

[Anonymous No.6551641]

>>6551500
>Can /sci/ explain how a fucking algorithm can acording to some pop sci develop conciusness at the singularity?

Read about ANN's and look at how the code turns out for a encoded one. You can't really read the program because the structure itself is the program.
People see this then they extrapolate the natural 'what if'' questions onto the future. Also if one's atheist this realization comes very naturally
as we already know it to be possible to build self-aware machines, since we are self-aware machines.

With sophisticated genetic algorithms and vast networks of simulated neurons it's not unlikely that we one day will be able
to synthesize new life. But don't expect any this to happen within our lifetime.

>I understand how A* works, but I don't see how it will develop a conciussness.

Let's just say that this stuff is a bit beyond the scope of A*

[Anonymous No.6551642]

>>6551500

[Anonymous No.6552014]

>>6551642

[Anonymous No.6552025]

>>6552014
Time travel when?

[Anonymous No.6552055]

>>6551642

- The red curve makes sense.

- The blue curve is retarded and might be what people think when they think "muh singularity", but it isn't actually the singularity: singularity is just the moment where machines become better than humans at designing machines, and therefore the slope of the development of technology increases substantially, but that doesn't prevent the existence of a slow-down or a ceiling, and simply means that technology will advance faster than if we at that point prevented machines from developing new machines.

- The green curve might have the good kind of shape, but it's incredibly pessimistic. Putting 2013 at only about half of the top means that following even the slowest of Moore's laws (sice they somewhat depend on the field), technology would basically stop evolving at the latest in the 2030ies or something... No one can seriously believe that.

The most reasonable curve that doesn't assume that we kill ourselves in some way is just a curve that keeps being exponential for a far longer period of time, until 2013's technology doesn't even seem higher than 0. And then maybe it slows down. And maybe it stops, even. But not for a loooooong time.

[Anonymous No.6552078]

They model proteins folding, atom by atom.

Lets model the brain using this method. In 1000 years we could have a 2 year old modeled.

[Anonymous No.6552099]

>>6551642
>>6552014
Why would technology retrogess back to 0?

[Anonymous No.6552105]

>>6552055
>The most reasonable curve [...] is just a curve that keeps being exponential for a far longer period of time
>keeps being exponential for a far longer period of time
>most reasonable

Yeah, no.

>technology would basically stop evolving at the latest in the 2030ies or something... No one can seriously believe that.

Right now we're at ~14 nm, the smallest chips can get is about 8 nm. Even with exotic new material, Landauer's principle will limit new chips to within 1-2 orders of magnitude of what we have now. Computing power is well into diminishing returns.

[Anonymous No.6552151]

>>6552099

10 years
>Max computational power reached
>Tight oil supplies cause medicine, plastics, and other petrochemical shortages
>Economy in ruins from the bust of VLSI bubble, subsequent lack of innovation, material storages, and taxes from war.
>Historic global depression and unemployment which leads to widespread banking and business failures
>Terrorism rebounds
>Extreme weather and land erosion dislocates countless number of people
>Loss of all privacy with increases in population monitoring, spying, and tracking
>Internet traffic becomes monitored, censored, and activism is stifled

15 years
>Unprecedented crop failures
>Large scale food, water, ore, and oil shortages
>War everywhere
>Lack of clean water, medicine, and sterile plastics goods cause global pandemics
>Ethnic strife and massive increase in genocides

28 years
>Nuclear and Biological weapon proliferation
>Large rise in random acts of killings
>Behavioral sink kicks in
>Effort to force peace by the formation of a Global Government by surviving NATO powers begins, those opposed are mercilessly dealt with.
>WWIII begins

50-70 years
>WWIII ends
>Extinction of the human race.

[Anonymous No.6552232]

>>6552105
That's because you assume that the only way to improve technology is to make smaller chips.

- Moore's law is all about the evolution of the price of a given measure of "technological power" (memory, processing power, bandwidth...) divided by the area or volume or power or (for radio transmissions) bandwidth it requires and by its cost. If you keep everything else constant but reduce divide the cost by 2 every 18 months, you're following Moore's law.

- Regardless of that first point, you're restricting yourself to improving current technology, instead of realizing that it's always been about developing new technologies. When the floppy disk came out, it was awesome. Then it got better, people managed to store more on a single floppy drive by improving the ECCs and the hardware itself. But at some point, we reached a limit. Does it portable storage systems stopped evolving? Of course not. We just developed different technologies.

[Anonymous No.6552506]

>>6551642
>>6552099
We Fallout now

[Anonymous No.6552523]

>>6552151
Thanks Hari Seldon. You sure got it figured out, just like every other doomsday prophet before you.