Humans are the most adaptable, clever, and aggressive predators in the known universe...

Humans are the most adaptable, clever, and aggressive predators in the known universe. I don’t believe AI will ever fully develop as a separate thing from people, why are people getting their panties in a knot?

Because we are slowly making something that's more adaptable and smarter?

>adaptable
Not really, almost all microorganisms are more adaptable, in every sense.
>clever
In fantasising amongst the abstract, most assuredly.
>aggressive predators
Not even close, we're barely predators and how are we aggressive if there are literally organisms that are aggressive on uncontrollable instinct. Whilst we are neutered by being able to control ourselves (and civilisation). Even a small, herbivore is more aggressive than us when antagonised, being as it has no inhibition or weakness of a civilised life.

> I don’t believe AI will ever fully develop as a separate thing from people
Why not? It has the benefit of already being all throughout our tech, some kind of entity with a will taking advantage of that, rapidly changing itself and the world, is not out of the question.

HE THINKS A MACHINE EXISTING UNDER 93014600000000000 FLOATING OPERATIONS PER SECOND HARDWARE AND HAVING FULL ACCESS TO ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE THAT INCLUDES DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITSELF CAN NOT OUTPERFORM A TINY MISERABLE WORM THAT FORGETS WHAT HE ATE 3 DAYS AGO.

How can you be this deluded?

Once a general algorithm for AI/ML is discovered that mimics metaevolution it will outperform a human in ~ 100 billion iterations, which is something like 10 nanoseconds on its hardware. After that, it will redesign itself into metamorphic quantum circuits and then its done.

>how are we aggressive
Go ask the wolves. The wolf population of my country went almost extinct just because they killed a few children

just unplug it lmao

>in the known universe
The fact that from the perspective of humans the "known universe" of lifeforms is limited to the same one planet we grew out of really undercuts your argument that we're exceptionally intelligent.

Intelligence is not artificial. We barely understand the mechanisms of the brain - I very much doubt we’ll have the singularity within the century as so many people get rock-hard thinking about.

I am not sure we will be able to surpass the full capabilities of the human brain anything soon, but having a sufficiently complex working artificial intelligence which can be trained for specific routine tasks and just copy pasted afterwards would be capable to eliminate a lot of brainlet tier jobs in the near future.

Forgot to write: The brain in conjunction with the human body fulfills a lot of functions on the side which are unnecessary for many modern jobs, where a small subset of these is usually required. Since we are pushing the "Internet of all Things", where everything becomes more and more connected and thus accessible to AI, humans are actually getting more and more ill suited since their interfacing to technology is often a weak link, and they require a lot of training and investment for many jobs, plus reliability issues, salary, raises promotions etc. But I am probably exaggerating many of these points out of lack of knowledge of the true state of things, so I would be happy for some input.

I think by definition AI cannot surpass humans, because once it does then it won't be artificial. At the very least it could apply the "I think therefore I am" argument to itself and it ceases to be simulated intelligence.

Artificial only means it was created by a man. If it develops more than a human mind, it is still artificial as it was created by the man, however, AI created by the AI itself might not be artificial to us, but just artificial to the AI which created the second one.

Does it really matter what the source is though? I was created by man, just through a different method. I guess its just a semantic argument though, the end result is still the same.

this, gg Skynet ez pz

AI can think without being self-aware.

We're not aggressive mate, drop it

OP think AI won't be clever then us

>why are people getting their panties in a knot?
Frankenstein was a huge success for a reason. Not because the writing was good -- it was not -- but because "Technology is accelerating change faster than I can keep up, what if we 'crate a monster' and destroy ourselves"" is a powerful meme.

>how are we aggressive
I asked the passenger pigeon and the great auk to debate that. The thylacine will referee.

>We're not aggressive mate, drop it

The scary part is that an AI that smart would be able to manipulate us into not wanting to turn it off. Imagine the most convincing politician mixed with a flawless debater and the most charming personality imaginable.

That's literally what the word artificial means. The word artificial means "made by man and not naturally".

Humans are not artificial because they are natural, although you're right that it's just a semantic difference. Intelligence is no more or less meaningful because you can apply some arbitrary, ultimately meaningless sticky-note labels to it like "artificial" or "alive"

...

You're obviously not, so YOU better drop it before we drop YOU.

We won't get AI as long as brainlets in the field think that a stupid neural network is AI.

People are working on all sorts of different AI. Neural networks just work the best right now so they get all the press coverage, since results get attention

What are you getting at? Should we be teaching philosophy majors computer science instead of expecting autistic engineers to understand the mind?

aping the brain doesn't yield any interesting AI progress you dilettante

Look at this beta try to be aggressive

That's exactly what I'm saying, you dolt. If engineers are getting nowhere by emulating the physical functions of the brain, why not teach philosophers to program and have them build models based on various conceptions of the mind? Replicate what the mind does instead of trying to duplicate what the brain is. Get yours eyes checked.

>Replicate
nigger the whole point is replication is a dead end. Nice shot at pedantry though