Will there be anything left for humans once A.I. is created? By that I mean creative work, since scientists are now insisting that robots are going to be able to write music and literature better than any human.
So, assuming that's true, what are we going to do? Or do you think that robots, whether they have A.I. or not, are going to stick to practical tasks?
Well I dunno about you, but the way I see things is that biological intelligences are the universe's stepping stone to artificial ones. robots made of silica and metal are supposed to explore the cosmos not us biodegradable meat cucks.
Baseline humans will will basically be zoo animals, eventually.
>since scientists are now insisting that robots are going to be able to write music and literature better than any human.
Is this what STEMfags actually believe?
It's inevitable. Getting salty about it is pointless.
>tfw born in time to enjoy the final generations of humanity unsubjugated by AI overlords
comfy feels lads
AI are fags and we'll program them to feel pain so we can beat them up.
>2017
>delusional enough to believe in the Transhumanist and the Singularity scientificist myths.
>mfw
Clearly STEMcucks are the lowest point of the slave mentality.
AI lacks a will of their own, their "purpose" is whatever their programmer gives them
t. Butthurt "artist" wasting $250k of daddy's money on an MFA
You'll be replaced by an algorithm by decade's end.
Who's to say we aren't already?
Says the STEMcuck who lost his job to an Indian
I would prefer AI to keep itself mostly to data recopilation and menial tasks (manual labor) so humans can devote themselves to philosophy and discovery, we could have a society like the ancient greeks used to have but probably we're going to get enslaved or genocided by the AI
>implying we aren't all fucked
AI already composes music and paintings.
And it's shit.
They're just upset they can program a robot, but can't pen a haiku, user.
Humans lack a will of their own, their "purpose" is whatever their DNA gives them.
MUST BREED
MUST LOOK COOL
MUST HAVE FRIENDS
MUST EAT
MUST FIGHT
Seeing people that know nothing of computer science or programming talk about AI is fucking hilarious
>he believes in free will
"heh this casuals ;)"
>MUST BREED
>MUST LOOK COOL
>MUST HAVE FRIENDS
>MUST EAT
>MUST FIGHT
You should take up a religion, friend. It teaches you how how to transcend all that shit or at least control your desires for it.
Oh please, designing AI's at a complexity we're speaking about is absolutely beyond everybody in this thread, including me, by a fucking LONG SHOT. Don't pretend like you even know the basics of where an AI begins, ends, and is designed. Literally crazy robophobes
Not all of it.
Most of what humans compose is shit as well.
Transhumanism is secular eschatology: it's the rapture for computer nerds
The truth is, the brain is not an information processor: it doesn't have the same parts, it doesn't store and retrieve data the same way, the best that you can ever get is a computer which imitates life, a philosophical zombie. And for amount of raw processing power needed to perfectly simulate a brain, it may always be easier to build one the old fashioned way.
And because we don't have a working theory of consciousness yet we simply don't know if it is even possible to create an actual, conscious being, as learning the truth is almost certainly going to yield limitations, just like the space race died down when we realized that there's not really an easy way to get anywhere interesting in a short span of time
Labor saving devices have been continuously employed throughout history. But there are a certain number of things that our tools have never been able to take from us.
Sales: no matter how good your tools are, you need people who are good at convincing other people that buying your labor saving device is a worthwhile investment
Installation: you'll always need people to supervise work being done, even if its being done by robots
Analytics: all this work produces a lot of data: organizing and tracking this data is something people will always need to do
Coding: you need somebody to tell your robots what to do.
Creativity is something else entirely: it's a function of totally arbitrary shifting of tastes and fashion sensibilities over time, and timing is more important than anything. Futurama had a good spoof of this concept when Bender tries to create a folk song by logically compiling all of folk's most popular tropes into a single song: and was then mercilessly mocked by the crowd and told to come back when he had an actual story worth singing about (a story he artificially brings to life using a 3D printer)
More like repress
Also, this has nothing to do with history and to say it's humanities is a stretch at best
>More like repress
Not if you do it right.
So cliche and mediocre at best?
How can you trascend what you are? I feel like you need to alienate yourself from the things that cause such feelings (which most serious religious people do) I don't believe that is possible to trascend them, I think that a budhist who is close to nirvana can fall again to reality
I have no desire to fight, to be pissed, to be a glutton. It's not "repression."
Maybe because you avoid the kind of people that infuriate you or the food that you really like or maybe you're neither a fighter nor a gluton by personality
>Maybe because you avoid the kind of people that infuriate you
And that take discipline. Something you need to foster.
I call it "evolution"
as time goes on, the continuing employment of labor saving devices allow for humans of ever greater behavioral complexity, as humans are increasingly and more easily able to enrich themselves and indulge in introspection when there is more peace, more nutritious food, and ever easier access to ever larger quantities of information.
In this way, humans are able to consciously examine their place in the world, and what place old habits have, and if its worth the conscious effort to change them. There are a lot of habits that we probably had as hunter gatherers that we simply abandoned when it became feasible to grow enough food out of the ground for you to not have to be constantly moving around looking for it. But sometimes introspection bears the exact opposite fruit: that some old habits are worth maintaining, even returning too. Sometimes there's a really good reason for a fence to exist, and you shouldn't go tearing it down until you understand why someone put it there in the first place.
What makes you think AI will be smarter than humans?
Aaand that is pure garbage.
Lol that shit is bad and I say this as a person who hates music
Wow. Mediocre "classical music", I'm so impressed. Sarcasm aside I think regurgitating Beethoven would be better than that mess.
What makes you think computers won't be smarter? It's all just a matter of creating potent enough hardware and then writing intelligent software for it. Computers are already the best chess and go players and this will never change. Should we ever design a general intelligence that was capable of self-improving then it would create an intelligence explosion beyond our comprehension.
in my head, I logically recognize that as music. In my heart, I'm laughing because it reminds me of Bender trying to impress people with a contrived folk song.
It fits the logical description of "music" but it has no soul. Any musician worth his chops will tell you that music has to have soul. You don't even need to be a technically good singer if you've got soul, raspy-voiced Bob Dylan being a prime example of this. Soul is something intangible, that defies logical explanation, because at its core its a statement of human feelings, and that's something a music writing algorithm will never have.
>he believes p zombies are metaphysically possible
Brainlet as fuck
While I agree with the other anons, we have to remember that these are just the first steps, now the sunset of humanity begins
Discipline =/= trascendence
> we simply don't know if it is even possible to create an actual, conscious being
Such a being was created by natural selection, which promotes mainly "not dying out", and you're saying it wouldn't be possible to create one with actual intent to do so? Assuming you consider humans conscious, that is.
>What is a computer so sophisticated that it can replicate conversation with enough accuracy to fool the average person into believing them to be intelligent, but isn't actually a thinking device, just a really sophisticated computer algorithm
I mean, there's no certainty that there will even be A.I. that are are like us (whether that's due to technological limitations, or simply because humans don't want them).
I can conceive of a future where A.I. much smarter than humans exist, but they aren't bothering themselves by competing in human shit like writing the best horror novel of the year or whatever.
I don't know. I'm just wondering, I guess. The other part of it is that, if an A.I. really is conscious and aware in the same way that a human is, it would definitely be aware of what it is. That is to say, not human.
So my only hope is that art made by humans stays relevant by mere virtue of being created by a human, which this differently about himself and the world compared to a machine, no matter how intelligent it becomes.
It could be that even if the A.I. is way smarter than us, it's so autistic that whatever it considers entertainment wouldn't even be fun for us. Just, totally unpalatable.
I'm picturing the book form of a wizard-autist playing Dwarf Fortress at x50 times the speed. He might be better than 99,999% of the population (or even far above that). But that doesn't make it entertaining.
I'm just afraid of humans losing relevancy as a species altogether. I'm not against improvements, even on a transhuman level, but I wouldn't want some robot faggot replacing me.
Not a P zombie. Humans can do a lot more than have conversations.
Its bad and soulless, yes.
Still, its doable.
>Such a being was created by natural selection, which promotes mainly "not dying out", and you're saying it wouldn't be possible to create one with actual intent to do so? Assuming you consider humans conscious, that is.
Yes, but the process which created that being by natural selection was non-algorithmic, a long-term adaptation to external stimuli, which is totally unlike the way that a computer works and operates.
>, and you're saying it wouldn't be possible to create one with actual intent to do so?
I'm saying that we should bridle our optimism with a sense of frank realism. half a century ago people thought that we'd have moon bases and round-trip tickets to Jupiter by 2017, but we ran up against a bunch of hard limitations that makes Space-Colonialism more impractical than we initially realized.
We're already starting to approach the point of diminishing returns with regards to computational power, and once transistors reach the size of molecules then it won't be possible to create computers of greater density. We should keep these limitations in mind when we start talking about creating something as insanely complex as a human brain in a software program. A single, giant, powerful brain might never be as useful or energy efficient as a bunch of smaller brains working together.
t. shodan
I hope you're right.
t. worried robophobe
Honestly, this. All this talk about whether or not something is "soulless" or not is utterly irrelevant to the fact that that music is good enough for the average person and that will be enough to make it that much harder to make a living as a musician.
now you're just arguing semantics.
What I am describing is something that is virtually intelligent, but isn't. It's a bunch of 'If/then' switches designed to be a perfect mimicry of intelligence, but doesn't have feelings, doesn't have a sense of self-preservation, doesn't have self-agency, doesn't have so much of the things that make an animal conscious
Weirdly enough I sometimes have the same fear about automation and computerization. Yet I think of lyrics in rush's song "spirit of the radio"
"All this machinery
Making modern music
Can still be open-hearted
Not so coldly charted
It's really just a question
Of your honesty, yeah your honesty
One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity,…"
And realize it doesn't make a difference whether or not you drive yourself someplace or type in the coordinates on a gps and the car drives you there itself. What matters is what you make of it.
You should be worried, because we aren't going to need "True A.I" to automate away a large amount of work that average people used to do. The consequences of that are as unpleasant to consider as they are predictable.
There's no reason to believe an exact replica of the human brain wouldn't be conscious
Let me put it this way:
Whatever insights we discover into the nature of intelligence are insights that we can apply to our own intelligence as living beings.
Personally, I think "people with wetware computers in their brains" is a more likely final outcome than "robotic people with computers for brains being controlled by a giant central mother brain"
Labor saving devices has never made human labor completely obsolete, humans find new ways to use their time productively. We may become a race of machine tenders, as Isaac Asimov called it, but is that any different than a hunter-gatherer depending on his fur cloak, his knife, his spear, his atlatl, or any other tool which makes it feasible for naked apes to exist and work on the planet?
And there's no reason to believe that an exact replica of a human brain wouldn't just sit there like a cucumber not doing anything
>Projecting this hard
I can understand that you are insecure about your capabilities, but please, don't suppose everyone wants to be an AI cuck slave as much as you do.
Those aren't real issues, though. I mean, yes, of course, these people are going to need to have an occupation to not go insane and an income to live off of. But what I'm talking about isn't that artist's are going to run out of business--it's the flame of mankind going out.
I hope for the same, user. I'm not against technology as such. It's doing a lot of good for the people that need it (and as far as intelligence goes, I'm sure we all need it.) I mean, people that have smartphones already have huge advantages over those that don't. I don't see that being fundamentally different from people getting an upgrade directly to their hardware.
But, as always, humanity first.
Except this "The ultimate goal of the project is to completely replicate C. elegans as a virtual organism, but for now, they’ve only managed to simulate its brain, and they’ve now uploaded that into a simple Lego robot.
This Lego robot has all the equivalent limited body parts that C. elegans has - a sonar sensor that acts as a nose, and motors that replace its motor neurons on each side of its body.
Amazingly, without any instruction being programmed into the robot, the C. elegans brain upload controlled and move the Lego robot."
Yes, there's is. Namely that, in virtue of being an exact replica, it would replicate the neurological mechanisms that make a human brain do what it does, thus it would act as a human brain would. There's no reason to believe there's some sort of non-physical, non-computable causation in the brain.
>all these people who don't realize there will still be a demand for true authentic verified® human art™ and all the algorithmic crap won't just be a novelty or background noise
Will stemcuck spergelords EVER learn?
Alright famalams Ive been thunkan
Suppose it is impossible to create an artificial intelligence, as in actual intelligence ie sentience, would that not imply that sentience in and of itself is impossible? Just like how creating a simulation of the universe would imply our universe is nothing but a simulation
C. elegans is an insanely simple organism. Scaling that same process up to the scale of a human brain would be orders of magnitude more complex, and given the fact that computers are gradually starting to creep up against hard limitations, I'm wondering what the practical purpose of replicating a human brain would be if the endeavor remains more energy intensive than the way we currently have of replicating one: by plowing your DNA into your wives cunt.
And furthermore, we currently have no idea how to rouse a person in a vegetative state. Figuring that secret out might very well be the ultimate key to conquering death, but if we can't do it in real life, then how are we going to do it in a simulation? And if this simulated brain wasn't subject to external stimuli or any of the sensory input that a human gets, how would we go about studying this without building a world around that brain and calling it it's own universe, at this point.
The largest wildcard for me, is quantum computers. We're only just starting to understand the implications of computers where the If/then switch can be both at the same time, and there are still too many unknowns for us to make any authoritative statements about the way that this technology will mature.
Reading humanitiesfags write about science is cringeworthy
Best post itt
The exact same thing is true when STEMfags attempt to write about humanities. Their varying autismal patterns make them ill-behaved and ill-informed judges of human behavior
Why are people accusing these AI-fearmongers of being STEM?
It takes a certain sort of idiocy to suppose we'll reproduce consciousness in way somehow better than our own yet without us understanding it in the first place.
It's a complex issue, and people's feelings about it are complex.
Some people think that A.I. is going to happen and that it will be a good thing: we'll all live as the gods of our own little created universe.
Some people think that A.I. is going to happen and that it will be a bad thing: robot labor completely replaces human labor and humans go the way of the horse, being relegated in status to that of a zoo, or a preserve.
Some people think that A.I. is not going to happen and that's a bad thing: we'll either all die out thanks to climate change, or because we were overrun by psychotic Muslim immigrants with suitcase nukes as white people let themselves be cucked out of existence.
Personally, I would argue a forth option: A.I. is probably not going to happen, at least in the way that we're currently envisioning it, and that's a good thing. Science is all about paradigm shifts, eventually a new market will open up where we never even thought to look, turning something that was once junk into something valuable, and will capture our imaginations all over again, the way that Faster than Light spaceships and A.I. Gods once did.
AI as smart as humans is proven possible by the very fact that humans exist. We are the proof of concept, and if all else fails we can just recreate a human brain.
Now, in orderto think there is NO POSSIBLE WAY such a mind could be enhanced, despite the fact there are no indications whatsoever that we are so stone natural limit, requires a pretty extreme and entirely unjustified supposotion.
Only for the autistic ones. There are many nonautistic stemfags that are even competent about humanities, but there are no humanitiesfags who aren't completely clueless about science.
I concur.
We won't truly understand if 'super-intelligence' is possible (and to what magnitude) or if it's about as logical a statement as 'super-north' until we have a working theory of consciousness.
It's a field that has proven extremely elusive, frustrating almost everybody's predictions and always being "20 years away" yet never actually arriving.
>the brain is not a sophisticated computer
>So, assuming that's true, what are we going to do?
Fuck the robots and have qt robot waifus. What kind of question is that. It's already happening
>bbc.com
Machines already write popular music. It's engineered for humans to enjoy it. I say we purge all machines and create a socialist utopia wherein every human being will have a stable job contributing to the good of all.
Any sufficiently realistic AI would still be grossed out by you though.
>Machines already write popular music
Humans have always relied on their tools to produce music. It's just that the ones we have nowadays are exceedingly efficient at it.
Unless she was deliberately programmed to be sincerely attracted to sweaty, obese tech-dweebs in need of a fuck-doll.
About sales, bots (in this case, financial algorythms) run a lot of finnance. Youtube advertising is managed entirely by bots that sell advertising slots to bots that prioritize certain types of slots and bid against each other, all in less time than it takes you to blink. Marketing is becoming more and more targeted and automated.
As for analytics, evolving artificial neural networks do pattern recognition (they have developed something like imagination and categorization, matching images fabricated by themselves to keywords handed by the tester) and have limited learning (they can be conditioned, at least).
I don't believe in rapture. I believe you can't "move" a mind from a person to a computer, but I could create a system that is practically indistinguishable. And that's the same as what we have now - it's not like we have direct evidence of anyone else's subjective experience.
Thanks autism, fuck these guys
I read a story the other day where computer people are becoming preppers because they fear that unemployed masses will lynch them when jobs for humans start to disappear and society falls apart.
People who believe in transhumanism fail to understand the nature of power and how its a shifting sands that you cannot build a utopia on.
Its also fairly ridiculous when there are very real problems such as climate change and the alarming scarcity of drinkable water, and those people are talking about conscious robots? When the human brain is still very much a mystery in very fundamental ways? Hilarious.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall
With your opinion which is of no consequence at all
What's that?
What's that?
What does OP mean with "better music" ? Better how? By what we estimate goodness of art?
Art is subjective you STEMcucks
>tfw I have a semi closed eye like him
>About sales, bots (in this case, financial algorythms) run a lot of finnance. Youtube advertising is managed entirely by bots that sell advertising slots to bots that prioritize certain types of slots and bid against each other, all in less time than it takes you to blink. Marketing is becoming more and more targeted and automated.
It's just reflecting the shift in marketing to the online economy, specifically towards industries where you need to shout repeatedly in the faces of your audience just to get them to show up to buy your shit, like restaurants and lawyers offices. This industry is already in the process of maturing.
For industry-specific sales between corporations who don't want their nightly entertainment interrupted with your company's bullshit, (for the same reason you don't want to think about theirs in your off-hours) you need salesmen making pitches to capital owners that investing in their product is the right one.
> evolving artificial neural networks do pattern recognition
At best, it would be akin to the relationship between a falconer and his bird, or a cop with his K9, creatures which are way more optimized for the specific tasks that humans need them for. You'll always need a human interface
>I don't believe in rapture. I believe you can't "move" a mind from a person to a computer, but I could create a system that is practically indistinguishable. And that's the same as what we have now - it's not like we have direct evidence of anyone else's subjective experience.
Good point, but if we create a system that is completely indistinguishable, is it still "artificial"?
Well I mean we'd have to be pretty advanced to conceive of something much more advanced than ourselves
as it stands, at that point there's no real reason to suppose we couldn't at that point just meddle with our own conciousness, instead of making fancy AI's.
more productive
comfortable
not drinking too much
regular exercise at the gym (3 days a week)
getting on better with your associate employee contemporaries
at ease
eating well (no more microwave dinners and saturated fats)
a patient better driver
a safer car (baby smiling in back seat)
sleeping well (no bad dreams)
no paranoia
careful to all animals (never washing spiders down the plughole)
keep in contact with old friends (enjoy a drink now and then)
will frequently check credit at (moral) bank (hole in wall)
favours for favours
fond but not in love
charity standing orders
on sundays ring road supermarket
(no killing moths or putting boiling water on the ants)
car wash (also on sundays)
no longer afraid of the dark
or midday shadows
nothing so ridiculously teenage and desperate
nothing so childish
at a better pace
slower and more calculated
no chance of escape
now self-employed
concerned (but powerless)
an empowered and informed member of society (pragmatism not idealism)
will not cry in public
less chance of illness
tires that grip in the wet (shot of baby strapped in back seat)
a good memory
still cries at a good film
still kisses with saliva
no longer empty and frantic
like a cat
tied to a stick
that's driven into
frozen winter shit (the ability to laugh at weakness)
calm
fitter, healthier and more productive
a pig
in a cage
on antibiotics
Jesus Christ, who cares that robots will be able to do everything for us in the future. How about instead of being depressed and "oh I have no purpose in life" just enjoy the pleasures of freedom and being able to do whatever you want, unrestricted by scarcity. Learn about the world, consume art, create art, build relationships with, and do what makes you happy. You'll just have more time for these things and less shit to stress over.
build relationships with people*
A.I. can't be created, it's a huge meme. If A.I. can be created that means were are recreating our own conscious which would require the recreation of the brain. We aren't even slightly close to that, fucking sciencefags are always overblowing the significance of their "discoveries"
Exceedingly efficient=write
why can't you recreate a brain or something similar in a machine? no one says we're close, that's why the tiny improvements we get are such a big deal
>organizing and tracking data is something people will always need to do
nigga are you fuckin stupid
Yes. "Artificial" means that it is man-made. Think "artífice", "artisan" and "art".
I'd say having machine learning approach that which is present in the lowest beasts we have dominion over is a major breakthrough, considering we never before had to seriously consider reward-punishment relations with our tools.
>nigga are you fuckin stupid
I'm not perfect and sometimes make mistakes, but I do work in the home improvement industry where you can't actually make the sale until you physically go out to their house, make measurements, and come up with an estimate. I've worked in enough other industries to know that it works very much the same way when you talk about sales between corporations, you kind of have to know your audience and what their expectations are before you picked up the phone and called them. I don't believe that this sort of job will one day be replaced by some A.I. robot like in that shitty Will Smith movie about humanoid robots. I think that when humans make tools, we optimize them for specific tasks, with the humans themselves remaining the economy's ultimate generalists.
Whether we have more or less employment is a specific choice that societies chose to make. For example, the cotton gin was a labor saving device that made slavery insanely profitable, and reversed the gradual decline of slave-ownership in the United States in the early part of the 19th century. In this case, society was specifically structured so that literally all of the boosts to productivity were going to the solitary asshole at the very top.
>considering we never before had to seriously consider reward-punishment relations with our tools.
We could end up having a sincere and meaningful emotional connection with them, that was completely reciprocated and therefore wholesome, healthy, and life affirming.
>why can't you recreate a brain or something similar in a machine?
Well, for one, we don't really know what happens in the brain in regards to memory. We know that specialized parts of the brain relate to memory. But what is a 'thought', physically? I once asked my professor that and the answer I got was "ask a philosopher". We do not know what format memory is stored, or how it is. Its a fucking mystery.
Memory is paramount importance to consciousness, just look at cases where people have had their ability to create new memories damaged.
Because a human brain has billions of neurons and synapses in it, think of even a basic mammal and it will still have a brain with millions of neurons in it. There are also more simple animals that have even more neurons in their brains so there's still tons of shit we have absolutely no idea about.
Music isn't just sound and structure. Even listening to music on an album or track isn't really "music". Part of the reality of music is the physical presence of it, the reverberation in your bones, whether it comes from a single roaring electric guitar or the deep thrumming of the baseline in an orchestra pit. It's necessarily a human event- to be connected to another through these waves, and to discard that is to discard music itself.