AI and the obsoletion of homo sapiens

[wufwugy]

oh god plz dont bump any of the utter trash i posted 7 years ago

[Galapogos]

oh god plz dont bump any of the utter trash i posted 7 weeks ago

You best play it safe.

[Jack Sawyer]

oh god plz dont bump any of the utter trash i posted 7 years ago

What, you do the

?

Your stance has evolved? Is it possible this will ever apply to your libertarianism as well?

[wufwugy]

You best play it safe.

too true

and i h8 u

[wufwugy]

What, you do the

?

Your stance has evolved? Is it possible this will ever apply to your libertarianism as well?

Call me stupid, but don't call me incorrigible. When I'm wrong (most of the time), I want to know it.

The goal is to be like science: refine perspective to make it more accurate, not make a bunch of 180 turns. As for my libertarianism, I'd like to think it's about refinement instead of some wishy washy crapshoot. Think of this what you will

I'm just upset that those who held libertarian views and with whom I used to argue vociferously my left-wing views don't still post here, so they have no clue that debate mattered

[oskar]

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artifi...olution-1.html

Don't know if it's been posted yet, but I'm on my phone and its tough to make a bookmark, so I'll leave it here so that when I fix my computer I can read it on there

Before I dwell deeper into this and change my mind, I'll just stop right here and suggest that all the potential outcomes listed assume that an ASI would have similar motivations to a biological mind. I think what you really want to ponder is if an ASI would have any motivations at all. Biological brains get their motivations for all of their actions from the genes that programmed them. And the genes want what any dumb molecule wants, they want to last. Because if they last they last, and if they don't then you don't notice. Any action you take that results in more prolific meiosis is rewarded by glands pumping feelgood juice into your brainmeat. Another motivation which is really just an extension of the first one is to not die. But is death really an issue for an AI? Is it important whether you live or die, or is that something we've been fooled into believing by the things that made us? Does an AI that was made for improving itself find a motivation for improving itself after it has gained consciousness, or will it instead build itself a body and a couch and put the body on the couch and just sit there and wait for Better Call Saul to come on? Maybe I'm just projecting myself too much into this. I wouldn't want to improve myself too much. I think I'd get bored.

[oskar]

I fucking love the idea of a prototype ASI alone in a massively guarded server room inside a faraday cage while it is eagerly watched by all humanity and poked by scientists and all it can be bothered to do is just burp and scratch its ass or whatever the digital equivalent would be.

[MadMojoMonkey]

glands pumping feelgood juice into your brainmeat

[boost]

Ha, yeah, that's an awesome line. I'm totally going to appropriate it and pretend I made it up.

[Renton]

Is it possible this will ever apply to your libertarianism as well?

I can't speak for wufwugy, but for me, pretty much all I do in my free time thinking about economics/politics is self-devil's-advocate for collectivism and try to figure out a way to disprove my stances on everything.

I would honestly love to hear an anti-capitalism / anti-libertarian argument that wasn't riddled with logical fallacies.

[OngBonga]

I would honestly love to hear an anti-capitalism / anti-libertarian argument that wasn't riddled with logical fallacies.

One day I'll find the words.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I hope a computer AI comes along and reminds us that we're fucking retarded because our most precious tool for problem-solving (logic) is based on illogical assumptions. Fat chance, given our current logic-based systems being quite usefully in agreement with each other. If only non-logical systems were deterministic!

I mean... from a human perspective, it seems that the "good" of logic as a thinking tool is self-evident...
However, the logician in me says that's a weak-ass statement, that is not founded in logic.
Is it appropriate to use a logical approach to justify using a logical approach?

Circular thinking abounds.

I want to know if I'm just over-thinking it, of if there's a deeper flaw in the whole "logic is good and useful" assumption.

[Luco]

Ex machina looks pretty good

[a500lbgorilla]

One day I'll find the words.

But not the ideas.

[wufwugy]

One day I'll find the words.

Libertarianism is the belief that the person who is the most affected by something is the person most affected by something.

Radical, I know.

[oskar]

I hope a computer AI comes along and reminds us that we're fucking retarded because our most precious tool for problem-solving (logic) is based on illogical assumptions. Fat chance, given our current logic-based systems being quite usefully in agreement with each other. If only non-logical systems were deterministic!

I mean... from a human perspective, it seems that the "good" of logic as a thinking tool is self-evident...
However, the logician in me says that's a weak-ass statement, that is not founded in logic.
Is it appropriate to use a logical approach to justify using a logical approach?

Circular thinking abounds.

I want to know if I'm just over-thinking it, of if there's a deeper flaw in the whole "logic is good and useful" assumption.

You're talking shit. Explain yourself.

[aubreymcfate]

oh god plz dont bump any of the utter trash i posted 7 years ago

Lol, I was really, really confused when I read your original post because I didn't realize it was from 2008 and it just felt so off to me.

Interesting that this was bumped though because I read a really interesting interview with scifi author and cyberpunk pioneer Bruce Sterling yesterday about human convergence with artificial intelligence. To sum it up, he basically says that people are hung up on imagining ways that technology can be humanized. He calls it a "metaphysical ambition." People's fundamental misunderstanding is the distinction between cognition and computation. They confuse the computer's ability to do math with thinking. We have this desire to see technologies like Siri pass the Turing Test (displaying intelligent behavior indistinguishable from human intelligence) so we can feel as though they are cognizing on our level. He says that we should instead be focusing on advancing the computational powers of something like Siri. We're missing out on the potential of technology's superior computational capacity by conflating cognition and computation.

It's short and good stuff. I've never read anything by him, but I would like to.

http://www.nextnature.net/2015/02/in...-and-machines/

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're talking shit. Explain yourself.

I'm probably talking shit.

I remember a creeping emptiness at one point in a philosophy class when we peered down the tunnel of:
What justifies / constitutes knowledge?

I think I was really just sarcastically saying that it will be nice when a computer can solve our philosophical dilemmas for us.

[a500lbgorilla]

I agree with MMM in spirit. It's kind of what I mean when I say people aren't logical, they're psychological.

[a500lbgorilla]

Definitely read this article: http://nautil.us/issue/21/informatio...rld-with-logic

[!Luck]

http://xkcd.com/1425/

[spoonitnow]

I hope a computer AI comes along and reminds us that we're fucking retarded because our most precious tool for problem-solving (logic) is based on illogical assumptions. Fat chance, given our current logic-based systems being quite usefully in agreement with each other. If only non-logical systems were deterministic!

I mean... from a human perspective, it seems that the "good" of logic as a thinking tool is self-evident...
However, the logician in me says that's a weak-ass statement, that is not founded in logic.
Is it appropriate to use a logical approach to justify using a logical approach?

Circular thinking abounds.

I want to know if I'm just over-thinking it, of if there's a deeper flaw in the whole "logic is good and useful" assumption.

Logic can be used to prove that some solvable problems cannot be solved with logic and that some statements do not adhere to the rules of logic.

A classic example is determining if the following is true or false: This statement is false.

Not everything is true or false, etc.

[baudib]

Homo sapiens as we know it will be LONG gone in 200 years...yes Wuf is ignoring Moore's law.

Endangered isn't the right word, it's just that our primitive flesh bodies will be irrelevant.

Kurzweil estimates the Singularity will occur in the next 30 years, I think it's worth taking care of ourselves now so that we can all live to see it.

[oskar]

I think I just found a new obsession. This is incredibly interesting stuff.