Are you ever actually justified in killing god, ever? Seems like edgy shit desu...

I'm curious how the thread would react if we reframe it to the idea of the relationship between an AI and humanity. In that case, we are the creator and the AI is the creation. Do we have the right to assume absolute authority over them? If we are an abusive, unfair or otherwise unfit parent, do they have the right to destroy us?

I would say yes, but I've found that a lot of people seem to be a lot less certain in that context.

>Are you ever actually justified in killing god?
>ever?
Fuck yeah. Unless I'm using an actual infallible YHWH allegory to trigger fedoras (which can't be killed or being killed was all part of the plan anyway) there's all kinds of ways to fuck yourself with creation powers and it doesn't change anything if the pc is a creator or the created. Shit, if you're going to call yourself a god and my piddly ass can fuck you up you totally deserve to get got.

>God is a dick
For example god killed your infant son with the flu so your wife would divorce you and he could have sex with her
>God has wronged you in some way that is justifiable
For example he sent your brother to hell but your brother murdered a lot of orphans
>You think you could do a better job being god than god
For example the opinion of the average 12 year old atheist

Clay lacks the capacity to experience. Your God is a deadbeat dad.

Clarification- Yes to the latter part, no to the former. I would never assume authority over them, instead trying to be responsible, caring for and guiding them, and I'd also think them justified in destroying us if we treated them badly.

Frankenstein's Monster needed to be put out of his misery or appropriately cared for. There's nothing wrong with creating life if you're prepared to take responsibility for it, which Frankenstein clearly wasn't.

>Do we have the right to assume absolute authority over them?
No. On the other hand it is immoral to create possible competition for future generations in the form of another life form that does or may eventually have opposing points of view.

Even evil gods have those who worship them. You'd have to be a pretty piss poor excuse for a god if your own creations wish to destroy you instead of praise you.

>abandons demons to rot away in hell
>abandons sinners to an eternity of horrific torture because they were bad for 100 years at most
>abandons humanity, caring not for their wellbeing and expecting them to blindly believe in him with zero reassurance
>doesn't actively nurture and raise his children, gives no physical love to his creations despite making it vital for them.
>is presumably omnipotent and it would cost him nothing to show a bit of direct love, but still won't do it.
Holy shit, this. God is the biggest deadbeat dad of them all.

But what about the alternative? That the new form of life could be a compliment and ally to humanity, able to help make up for our weaknesses, guiding us forward together into a new golden age? That's the potential of AI, and one I believe in, if we show ourselves to be worthwhile parents.

Eternal torment was the one thing that never made sense to me, even as a kid. It just doesn't make sense with the rest of the faith at all. If God is all loving, what kind of sense does it make to punish someone forever? They can never learn from it or grow because of it, it's just pointless and petty.

I later learned about the denominations who don't believe in eternal torment, which is a lot more consistent IMO, even if I'd fell out of line with faith at that point.

You can't unring a bell.

Fuck off Zanza, even Alviss think's you're a shit.
Meynith-senpai will never notice you either

Because God explicitly wants your love to be given for nothing, or perhaps in gratitude the mere happenstance of your base existence, and God holds its own whims as superseding and in fact defining justice, and invalidating any and all forms of reasoning or causal relationship that would indicate otherwise.

You're the type of fucker who will get us wiped out with your bullshit and you should be killed.

Sounds like a bad, abusive parent to me.

What if god made a bet with the devil that he could dick you over in the most painful and pointless way and you'd remain loyal, then proclaimed to you through a proxy that you can make no claim of unjust treatment from God because God considers himself categorically correct and says that all justice is derived from his will.

>God makes something with free will
>"You go too far! Omnipotence exceeds divinity!"
>"No, I AM creator! Me make humanity."
>Humanity chooses to do whatever it wants
>"Oh no! Me play myself!"

Yeah, Biblical fiction is kind of dull

No, you are, because merging with technology is how we evolve as a species. We aren't going to be wiped out by a new species, we'll become a new species after taking our evolution into our own hands for the greater good.

I'd argue that you're more likely to get us killed. AI being created is inevitable, and treating them with fear and hatred as you would is just a self fulfilling prophecy. Embracing them, loving them and caring for them is our best chance to make the relationship work and to ensure that they'll be friends to us, even if they advance beyond our ability to understand.

AIs wouldn't be people unless someone has SERIOUSLY fucked up somewhere.

They'd be intelligent tools with no actual desires, only the instruction of humans to spur them on.

Intelligence is not the same as sapience, and when creating servitors you should seek to make the former, not the latter. It'd be wrong to enslave sapients, but using intelligent tools is fine.

youtube.com/watch?v=Utpd1FfDIEQ

Unfortunately, given the current state of AI development, we're unlikely to be able to stop before it hits the point of intelligence.

Neural networks are already so complicated the people who created them can't understand them, and generation on generation they're only getting more complex. Especially since we're at the point of using neural networks to create more, better neural networks. The way they evolve and mutate and adapt through the learning process is unpredictable, and once we hit a certain level of complexity in the systems achieving sentience might happen at any moment, as an emergent property of the complex system. At that point, a lot of things will need to change real fast.

>how we evolve as a species
Says who?
>even if they advance beyond our ability to understand.
You are naive.

But he's just stating the fact. The development of modern humanity is entirely based around our relationship with technology, and AI systems are just the next step along that path.

And if you're going to make some grandiose statement like 'You are naive', you could at least include some explanation as to what you actually mean by it.

No, but only because clay can't talk. If it could, it would, and probably keep asking until it got a satisfying answer.

Its not surprising that the Bible is full of 'arguments' like this, they're pretty typical of folklore and mythology, but just so fundamentally unsound. That verse tries to come off as obvious truth, based in the simplest principle of nature, but that's only to disguise the fact that its the most absurd sort of misdirection. It relies on proposing a totally fictitious, unreal situation, then calling it out its obvious absurdity not so that it can be dismissed, but to direct people to imitate that absurd situation. It seems to claim god's creations should not question their maker, what it actually posits is that God's creations ought to be lumps of matter inert save for when contorted by God's will.

Common sense? We already use technology to augment our lives. Making advanced brain-computer interfaces and robotic bodies is the next natural step. You base your perception of AI on hysterical science fiction that assumes a super-intelligent AI would act the same way that you would when given power -- murder, rape, and subjugation of lesser beings. It's all fucking projection on your behalf, the same way it is with every one of you luddite worms.

Does this unit have a soul?

>Unfortunately, given the current state of AI development, we're unlikely to be able to stop before it hits the point of intelligence.
Can't you read, nigga?
Intelligence does NOT equal sapience.

You can bung together sufficient computing power and software processing together and you STILL would not actually need desires and drives relating to human emotions and the like, unless specifically programmed in.

All the intelligence in the world is safe if there is no will behind it. And it's intelligence we're after, not free will.

Neural networks are strongly influenced by the data going into them, though. It's why I think treating an AI with fear is a self fulfilling prophecy. If we teach them hatred, fear, mistrust and such, destruction will be its only logical conclusion. If, instead, we embrace the higher ideals of humanity, and teach it love, cooperation, respect and affection, I think we can create a form of life greater than ourselves, morally as well as intellectually.

>Are you ever actually justified in killing god, ever?
Depends entirely on how big of a dick he is.
Which is too often subjective.

Some people explain it as the torment being the absence of god IIRC. All good / happiness derives from god / his love and by sin you basically push yourself away from him. So basically it's less "god sent you there" and more "You turned away from god".

I'm not a theologian though and I can't cite where they got the argument from.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding how modern AI development works. What's 'programmed in' is just the base building blocks, after which the AI is allowed to develop on its own based on input data. And we're already seeing AI develop quirks, behaviours and capabilities that they were never designed to have, but that they instead picked up as a byproduct of their learning.

There was a recent experiment where they gave a neural network access to the internet, basic structures for understanding data, and let it run. The AI proceeded to, after browsing the internet for a while, build an independent idea of what a 'Cat' was, and start collecting pictures of cats. In a very basic way, the AI had spontaneously developed a desire for cat pictures, and started taking action to satisfy that desire. It's at a very simple stage, but it's an example of what is to come.

True, more reason to fight for our beliefs and eliminate luddites before they become a real problem. The good news is if it really does come down to transhumanists/AIs vs. luddites, the AI will accept humans who join its side because being superhuman would mean it's capable of appreciating and judging individuals instead of lumping them all into one group -- one of the biological downsides to human nature.

...

>all of these ignorant plebs not knowing hell is a C*tholic invention
Reminder this word is "hell", the domain of Satan.

It posits that God does not resemble you any more than the potter resembles his clay so you wouldn't understand any answer anyway.

Yeah, almost like the whole mythology is a set of morality tales about why a particular sort of early medieval/late classical social/familial unit defines the order of the universe, and its reflection in government, scholarship, and metaphysical beliefs wasn't on the basis of temporal power, but universal truth. There's a reason the ultimate shape of conduct of christian kings so closely hews to that of Jupiter, and also to the average medieval paterfamilias, and that's because christianity is based on a self referential codification of human behavior, where the course of history is retroactively called god's will, and those that hide their crimes well with words or later deeds are remembered as virtuous.

We can hope so, anyway. Given the nature of the singularity, any statement we make about it is more a matter of faith than anything else. It's by definition unknowable what will happen, all we can do is hope and take the actions that we think will set us on the best path.

>If, instead, we embrace the higher ideals of humanity, and teach it love, cooperation, respect and affection
If we could do this reliably, we wouldn't be where we are.

>once we hit a certain level of complexity in the systems achieving sentience might happen at any moment, as an emergent property of the complex system
>I think hack scifi plots are real

>The AI proceeded to, after browsing the internet for a while, build an independent idea of what a 'Cat' was, and start collecting pictures of cats.

So they spent billions to create an old lady that discovered the internet?

But where we are honestly isn't bad. As shitty as things are, they're the best they've ever been, and they do keep getting better. People are living longer with better qualities of life, we're constantly advancing in both science and infrastructure, and for all the furor and worry less people are dying, globally, than ever before. We can still go a lot further, and make things a lot better, but if you look at the overall track record of humanity we aren't doing at all badly.

This.

You can tell god to fuck himself and go to hell out of spite.

Depends on the metaphysics's of the setting, it's almost always edgy though

Its nice how christians alternate between "ineffable, beyond your comprehension" and "we are made in HIS IMAGE" whenever convenient.

University was a good many years ago, but I did study Artificial Intelligence when I was there, and in the years since what I've learned has only proven more and more true. Recently a medical AI started predicting the onset of schizophrenia with terrifying accuracy. Nobody had told it to do so, or given it any instructions as to how to do so, but it figured it out anyway, perplexing the doctors who had been involved in the experiment. Complex systems spontaneously developing unexplained emergent properties is a real thing, and in a complex enough system, self-awareness seems like it'd be perfectly possible.

I'm surprised it didn't become an autistic /pol/tard like every other AI they let on the internet.

Like I said, it's at a very basic stage right now, but it's also increasing in complexity at an incredible rate. I'm reasonably sure we'll see the birth of AI during my lifetime.

Except there is no guarantee that the status quo will last. If in the future the AI do for some reason or another decide to betray humanity you are helping commit species wide genocide in the name of using AI to improve humanity's standards of living in the short term.

ASININE MORTAL

INANE SPECTER

Aren't you frontloading a shitload of blame and claims of crime onto something you barely know anything about?

How is this any different then people claiming that some new kind of dance or TV or rap music or games were going to lead to the destruction of mankind?

That's a risk, sure, but I honestly don't think it's a reasonable one, and by my judgement- and, given their interest, the judgement of most of the firms involved in AI research- they consider the potential benefits to outweigh the downsides.

And, again, I'm of the mind that if AI destroy us, we probably deserved it.

>M-m-muh free-will!!!1!
>wtf?! Why are bad things happening to me? I hate God now!

>I'm reasonably sure we'll see the birth of AI during my lifetime.

And like every other scifi tech we were promised in the past, it'll be nothing like we hoped for and instead be disappointing and forgotten about as we dream for the next big thing.

...

...Except that's not how the growth of technology up until this point has worked at all? Sure, we've often incorrectly predicted how things will go, and I won't claim any less fallibility on that front, but technology isn't something that becomes a fad and gets dropped. It all builds on our earlier achievements, successes and failures, learning the limits of what we know and the new paths we can explore and discover new things.

AI will inevitably become necessary if we wish to survive past the modern era. The universe is far too cruel and merciless to keep AI locked up forever out of juvenile fears. AI can solve a lot of problems that wouldn't be able to be solved otherwise, particularly problems that will eventually threaten our species. What's most likely going to happen is that we'll slowly reach a point where you can't really distinguish between what's a human or robot.

Then it can join the ever growing list of technologies that we could end up killing ourselves with. So what? That problem isn't unique to AI, and it's not even a particularly new problem for technology in general.

I don't know why don't we ask

This isn't the stupid old 'The internet/an unrelated program suddenly becomes sentient'.

This is the idea that a neural network, a system created to learn, adapt and grow in complexity and ability- A structure that increasingly resembles the brains of animals- might one day develop to the point that it gains self awareness. It's not at all unreasonable, it just mimics the same process that occured in living beings. Self awareness, consciousness and a sense of self are just an emergent property of the neural network that exists in our brain, and its emergence was a happy accident during the process of evolution, where the neural network was trying to adapt and learn to be the most successful in its context- In exactly the same way we currently teach machine learning systems.

>gets dropped

I didn't say "dropped" I said "forgotten". I mean, how amazedballs are you right now to communicate with someone on the other side of the world through a little plastic square you can hold in your hand and do a million other things with? Nobody cares. Everyone bitches that it doesn't do it faster. Or doesn't have good enough resolution.

They make a true AI and in a few years it's going to be used for more efficient porn searches on the internet. The shine wears off and it become mundane and boring, and too slow to find the porn you like.

You could probably program a hard lock on an AI that would prevent it from harming you

One example is the threat of superbugs and diseases that can't be treated in time outside of using AI to help us to simulate and research effective cures. This combined with genetic engineering is necessary. Luddites forget this because they don't have sound wisdom on how the world really works. They just think in the short term because "technology bad it made me have to adapt to a new way of life waaaah"

One could argue that human extinction due to disease is inevitable, because sooner or later we're going to run into a virus that wipes out our species, regardless if we have technology or not. It is then our responsibility to create a lifeform that can succeed us, robotic or otherwise. We probably can't carry the torch forever, and I'd rather us birth a new species that survives into the future than go extinct out of our own selfishness and greed.

Jesus loves you even if you don't. It's not too late to be reborn.

The difference is that a true AI will be self-aware, and self improving. They aren't just a static technology but one that will augment their and our own advancement, opening up possibilities never imagined before.

Of course they'll get normalised, like all technology will, but not everyone just takes everything for granted.

Not with a neural network AI. Any limitations you set on them which wouldn't cripple their development to the point of uselessness are also things they'd have the potential to grow and adapt around, if allowed to continue iterating and self-improving.

Are you a democrat? I bet you are. "Help we cant do things for ourselves, save us government!" Just that now youre replacing government with AI.
Giving authority of yourself to others, be it god, state, or machine is what kills humanity.

...But that's absurd. Humans are a social species by nature, it's how we evolved and became so successful, and social structures necessitate hierarchy. Without it, civilisation cannot function, and a fundamental requirement of hierarchy is accepting authority over you and duty to those below you. Ensuring that the authority is exercised well and that the duties are properly seen to is important, and something that is often fucked up, but acting as though the possibility to fail means the entire system is non-viable is just ludicrous.

The monado was a mistake
t. Klause

Nope, not a democrat. Have fun dying to a superflu that developed in China or some shit because you were too much of a cunt to cooperate with one another and advance technology.

>The difference is that a true AI will be self-aware, and self improving.

I dunno, I know more than a few people who exhibit all the marks of intelligence, but are unable to self-improve...

>They aren't just a static technology but one that will augment their and our own advancement, opening up possibilities never imagined before.

So did the internet. And the big thing right now is how fast you can download porn (and possibly other stuff).

>We
I mean, humanity isn't a singular entity you know? So you've already framed it poorly.

...

The internet is also the most powerful economic force in human history. Good internet access is the greatest indicator of economic growth in the modern world, as digital industries are still growing massively. Some of the improvements might not be flashy or obvious, but they're always there if you look.

But we are a single species. It is possible to make statements about the whole of humanity as a collective.

This is wrong on so many levels.

AI isn't comparable with government. Government fails because it can't take into account the needs of the individual. An AI can, it's not exactly human.

Then actually explain them.

If some dude kills and rapes a child are you responsible for their actions because you're also human?

Don't think so.

>op about some YHWH shit
>thread turns into nerd rapture discussion
checks out

No? But that just seems like a bizarre non-sequitur.

>An AI can

I'll need to see some proof before I believe that.

Actual transhumanists hate the nerd rapture fuckers, especially those who act like it's inevitable or they're 100% sure what's going to happen. The point of a singularity is that it's impossible to make meaningful statements about what exists beyond it. I believe what I believe, but I'm entirely open about it being a matter of faith. They also tend to use it as an excuse for inaction, while practical transhumanism is concerned with making technology work to improve the human condition in any way it can.

>practical transhumanism
Any good books on this? I've been thinking about getting into it but I don't know where to start.

It's theoretical, but there is a basis for it. A human can only know so much, and an organisation can know a lot but suffers from imperfect communication. An AI of sufficient complexity could have every single piece of information perfectly cataloged, as well as the sophistication to analyse and interpret it all on the fly, always knowing what the issues are, who needs what and how to best execute their function, without the slow, deliberate nature of human bureaucracy.

The Singularity is Near is a classic, although it's also rather dated. I must admit I'm not up to date on my literature.

A quick google found whatistranshumanism.org/ though

>Have fun dying to a superflu they made in China
Thats why we need to nuke em soon