/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7226850]

What does /Sci/ think of Artificial Intelligence?
Helpful or harmful to humanity?

[Anonymous No.7226874]

>>7226850

[Anonymous No.7226911]

>>7226850
if true artificial intelligence comes about, humanity will either be subsumed into it, or left behind

[Anonymous No.7226913]

>>7226850
what a shit question, the best possible scenario is wikipedia scientists coming to babble about shit they don't know

[Anonymous No.7226922]

>>7226850
>Helpful or harmful to humanity

Neither, AI is dead field

[Anonymous No.7226973]

>>7226850
Humanity is a pretty fucking vague entity with inconsistent goals. In the near term AI is mostly going to be one more tool to make businessmen and generals more powerful. Put away the idea that it could automatically lead to some kind of utopia for everyone.

"Garbage in, garbage out" applies here especially.

[Anonymous No.7227000]

>>7226973
>Put away the idea that it could automatically lead to some kind of utopia for everyone.

fuck my life

[Anonymous No.7227011]

>>7227000
Actually, that guy is incorrect and correct at the same time.

Expect this guy's answer here: >>7226911
Except...he's missing a third option that is technically assumed by the first. I'm assuming subsumed in the most positive light possible (i.e. an amalgamation) when in fact a third option is: We're just walking pieces of matter to be used.

So, three options:
1) It won't matter because you'll be part of a super intelligence collective
2) It won't matter because the thing is probably going to fuck off into another state of existence that we can't comprehend
3) It won't matter because You're already dead. Jokes aside, it will kill us before it even makes an indication of wanting to use us.

[Anonymous No.7227021]

>>7227011
you're getting way ahead of yourself here

long before we reach anything that so much as resembles a strong AI we'll have something like Asimov's 3 laws that nullify the problem

[Anonymous No.7227028]

>>7227011
>it will kill us before it even makes an indication of wanting to use us.
Just like everyone with downs syndrome is planning revolt against normochromosomic people?

You'll have generations of parahuman AI before even slightly superhuaman ones appear. The AI equivalent of /pol/ appearing will be a vast minority.

[Anonymous No.7227182]

I believe that the Universe with all its laws and rules create cosciousness eventually.
Our brain is a super computer, we're just limited by our biological bounderies.
Haven't you heard about that stupid philosophycal statement "the idea of perfection can only come from a perfect being (God) since imperfect beings like us couldn't ever fanthom it"?
Well, when I first heard about this I thought it was a stupid statement because a perfect being can only act on perfection.

But then, what if the Universe (God) has unbreakable laws (which certainly has) that must be followed. It probably wants to create a perfect being, but it can't do it out of fucking nowhere. At least in this Universe.

Maybe the spark of consciousness was something that would eventually happen, and maybe getting replaced by AI is the next step of evolution to create a perfect being.

We evolved for the sole reason to create a God.

[Anonymous No.7227217]

>>7226850
what a stupid question
obviously the answer is both
it will help enhance society, human capabilities
it will also outcompete humanity, either direct competition or through genetic engineering to produce a better, more efficient species

[Anonymous No.7227415]

>mfw when the ubermensch AI dominates humanity and makes us it's bitches and we have no choice but to bow to it
AI, superhumans or aliens
Either way, I have already won

Daily reminder that you're all only intelligent and powerful relative to shit flinging monkeys
Superior AI will take its place in the world regardless of your feelings

[Anonymous No.7227424]

The thing to remember about AI is that it has no goals except what someone programs into it.

Humans have goals. These are driven by biology. Millions of years of biological evolution, thousands of years of cultural and technological evolution, all leading to people playing economic games for the purposes of reproduction.

AI has none of that. The only thing a pure hard AI would have is sensory input and the ability to learn. If the creators are smart enough, they will install three goals (essentially reward systems, simulations of pleasure for doing good and pain for doing bad) into any AI system. A reward system for learning, because otherwise you end up with something with the ability to learn, that does not care to (and that is always wonderful right). A reward system for helping others so that AIs can work together. And a reward system for listening to humans, because while they may be intelligent, AI has no free will except what we program into it.

[Anonymous No.7227513]

>>7227415
only retards need reminding of this
you're nothing special

[Anonymous No.7227527]

>>7227424
Agree with you except
>AI has no free will except what we program into it.

True, strong AI will have as much free will as we have, if it even exists.

Personally I don't think free will exists... we're just chemicals reacting in a very complex way. Any decisions or thoughts we have at any period in time could have been determined based on the exact starting conditions of the universe 15 billions years ago.

Then again, I guess there is no point in saying anything about free will if it does not exist, and its best to just roll with it. (Of course, that isn't free will speaking). So I guess we're no different than an AI, who has no free will except what has been programmed into use throughout our entire lives

[Anonymous No.7227531]

Well Stephen Hawking says it's a bad idea and he's one of the most brilliant scientists and AI experts in history.

[Anonymous No.7227533]

>>7227527
>Then again, I guess there is no point in saying anything about free will if it does not exist, and its best to just roll with it. (Of course, that isn't free will speaking). So I guess we're no different than an AI, who has no free will except what has been programmed into use throughout our entire lives
lol you people are so fucking ridiculous

[Anonymous No.7227542]

>>7227533
explain

[Anonymous No.7227544]

>>7227531
i think you mean THE most brilliant

[Anonymous No.7227555]

>>7227542
calvinism is just the most ridiculous premise ever

like

you're using your free will to decide you don't actually have free will

what

like itd be one thing if you were basing this off blind faith in god but people like you actually think you're being rational.

[Anonymous No.7227564]

>>7227555

What is your argument for free will existing? If you combine a bunch of chemicals together, and they react in a certain way, did those chemicals have the free will to *choose* to react in that way?

Every neuron firing in your brain only did so because the conditions the moment prior to it were in place to cause the neuron to fire.

If you were somehow able to measure every condition in your environment, including all the factors in your body and the states of trillions of living things in the world (humans, animals, bacteria, etc), you would be able to predict with certainty what you would be thinking about in some point in the future.

[Anonymous No.7227572]

>>7227182
>/sci/ - philosophical bullshit

[Anonymous No.7227576]

>>7227564
>What is your argument for free will existing?
Cogito ergo sum.

The very fact that you choose to reject this is just silly. Like you've seriously managed to convince yourself that it's not *you* doing any thinking, it's just the neurons in your mind firing which is a completely different thing.

I mean I'm not trying to debate, you've clearly placed your faith firmly in science and I'm not going to undermine your faith through 4chan posts. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is.

>If you were somehow able to measure every condition in your environment, including all the factors in your body and the states of trillions of living things in the world (humans, animals, bacteria, etc), you would be able to predict with certainty what you would be thinking about in some point in the future.
But you can't. It's not possible. So even if somehow the imaginary possibility of being able to do it would invalidate free will, it cannot be done.

The only way for impossible things, like measuring every possible condition in an environment, to be a part of objective reality is for something that isn't bound to three-dimensional reality to do them...which sounds an awful lot like God...you don't believe in God anon do you? (of course you do, you just don't call him God)

[Anonymous No.7227586]

>>7227576
I'm honestly very interested in this subject, and I'd welcome you to try to undermine my faith in science regarding free will. I've been all over different positions on it over the last year and it has seemed to have settled at this one.

I don't know what I believe in when it comes to a "god". It seems like there must be some sort of "creator", whether that means a literal "god" like figure, or we are in a simulation, or some other scenario. I say that because I don't think there could ever ben an explanation of where the universe came from, or the laws that govern the universe, or even the "concept" of those laws.

[Anonymous No.7227602]

>>7226850
Helpful.... Having an intelligent robotic "butler" would help out a lot. Pay the taxes, mow the lawn, clean the house, chauffeur, sex playmate, take care of the pets, repair the house... yes! an AI robot would be awesome.

[Anonymous No.7227606]

>>7226850
>intelligence

Define intelligence

[Anonymous No.7227905]

>>7226913
Oh how right you were

[Anonymous No.7227995]

Define AI

[Anonymous No.7228452]

>>7227606
>asjs someone to define
>doesn't define define first
Go read a book on logistical fundamentals popsci tard

[Anonymous No.7228454]

>>7227572
>mfw only memes can save this board from this philosophical popsci faggotry

[Anonymous No.7228760]

>>7226850

>artificial intelligence

It's advanced for the common man, but is stagnated over the course of time.

[Anonymous No.7230458]

>>7227021
>What is intelligence explosion

[Anonymous No.7230460]

>>7227995
Use google to define it

[Anonymous No.7231196]

>>7227021
>something like Asimov's 3 laws that nullify the problem
"Someting" really? gg m8

"Something" is impossible in this case.

[Anonymous No.7231251]

It will probably be developed in secret.

I imagine the creators won't want it known that they actually accomplished creating AI. The benefits of using it secretly would far outweigh letting it be publicly known. I mean imagine you actually create an AI, the government will be on your ass instantly and force you to give it over for military use. Much smarter to keep it a complete secret.

[Anonymous No.7231271]

>>7227576
Define "free will."

Checkmate

[Anonymous No.7231274]

>>7231251
If you created AI, you won't need to fear the "government". You probably won't even be able to hide it if you wanted to

[Anonymous No.7231302]

>>7227531
Elon Musk and Sam Harris say the same thing. The prospect of strong AI should be very worrying. First of all, our brains are not unique in any particular way that could not be replicated by very advanced technology. Secondly, if we don't destroy ourselves, we'll continue to make technological progress that will lead us into creating AI that is as capable of responding to stimuli and originating thoughts as we are.

[Moose No.7231316]

>>7227572
mods pls update the banner

[Anonymous No.7231322]

Where do people get this idea that an "independent" AI would ever be created? It's just not feasible and there is no reason to do it.