/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11347194]

>He still thinks Artificial Intelligence is sentient
>He refuses to believe that artificial intelligence is just a fancy programmed algorithm
ISHYGDBT

[Anonymous No.11347195]

spiders+girls is my fetish but that one is clearly dead and upside down

[Anonymous No.11347205]

Scientifically speaking there is no reason for Billie Eilish to be famous

[Anonymous No.11347211]

It's not that AI can/should be sentient. It's that we aren't.

[Anonymous No.11347213]

>>11347211

[Anonymous No.11347215]

>>11347205
I always assumed this was some boomer. I hear the name "Billie Elish" sounds like some old boomer that used to be famous. I can just imagine it "oh yeah, billie elish, elton john, and don mclean, *sip*, now that was REAL music".
You don't know how shocked I am to finally see a face to the image and to learn that it is not a boomer but some young person.
Is it possible the boomer name caused old people to start a following? Is this why she is famous?

[Anonymous No.11347241]

>her middle name is pirate

[Anonymous No.11347249]

>>11347194
You're overrating biological intelligence. Our behaviors happen by way of physical cause and effect too. Our systems are just a lot sloppier and more convoluted from shitloads of meandering evolutionary history.

[Anonymous No.11347250]

>>11347194
kek, riddle me this, then:

>Google apple farming AI
Why is it showing signs of self-preservation?

>worm AI
Why is it learning balancing techniques like its real counterpart?

>advanced human-like AI
Why is it showing signs of suffering?

[Anonymous No.11347255]

>>11347250
what do these mean? i have no context

[Anonymous No.11347259]

>>11347249
we inherently have chaos in our system of growth, an algorithm will never have that which makes us living

[Anonymous No.11347509]

>>11347259

>Implying living is not just biological algorithms

Go ahead and try to live yourself without working on goals, getting a job, being part of a community, getting a gf, creating your own family. Then see if you can have a life worth living that way that ins't a fucking hellhole that makes you want to commit sudoku.

I think you'll realize you are as shackled to your biological imperative as any robot to their programming, Free will is a joke. You don't get to decide what makes you happy or content, nor what gives you meaning. Its already made for you, and you gotta go and find it.

[Anonymous No.11347558]

>>11347509
The possible expressed variations that can play out in a human life are essentially infinite and every individual gets to influence them. Everyone acts similarly in accordance to their biological imperatives but when you try to look at the interpretations rather than the broad categories it's infinite.

[Anonymous No.11347560]

>>11347194
Bill Eilish doesn't pass.

[Anonymous No.11347603]

>>11347509
theres a little bit of both chaos and restrictions u idiot u cant be pure chaos

[Anonymous No.11347655]

>>11347603
>>11347558

>Chaos is not just another algorithm

[Anonymous No.11347698]

>>11347194
Derp AI is not AI and will never be.

[Anonymous No.11347699]

>>11347250
Maybe because it mimics living organisms most basic level of response. Derp AI is on level of simple organism reflexes nothing more.

[Anonymous No.11347768]

>>11347205
There is.
Music conglomerates are a thing,they run the show so they decided it was the right time to make her a star.

[Anonymous No.11347788]

>>11347194
I'm annoyed with her hotness combined with her boo hoo life sux facade/personality to sell music. irl she knows she's hot. anyone buying into her life sux shtick is the problem with capitalism.

Also, COCKSUCKING MODS let me post threads on /pol/

[Anonymous No.11347798]

>>11347194
algos still operate on hardware, software is encoded on hardware. so when you realize software is a subset of hardware there is no reason to think sentience cannot arise on it. that said the current algos aren't that.

[Anonymous No.11347812]

>>11347194

All living things are algorithms. We still don't know what consciousness is.

[Anonymous No.11347816]

>>11347788
>her

[Anonymous No.11347824]

>>11347798
The belief that a runable program can be sentient is equivalent to electrons firing in just such a way in a particular permutation can be sentient. To assume this is possible is a reduction fallacy. Inductively, we know this isn't possible, because no permutation has produced consciousness. nor is there evidence that they ever will produce anything more than a thing that may act and not be, conscious. Even irl proponents of strong ai recognize this error in reasoning, and so now claim that until circuit boards are close to as complex as the brain, strong ai will not be possible.
>>11347816
That thing is female or I am violated.
#metoo

[Anonymous No.11347830]

>>11347824
>Inductively, we know this isn't possible, because no permutation has produced consciousness.
yet
>nor is there evidence that they ever will produce anything more than a thing that may act and not be, conscious. Even irl proponents of strong ai recognize this error in reasoning, and so now claim that until circuit boards are close to as complex as the brain, strong ai will not be possible.
except that's wrong.
http://cognitive-ai.com/publications/assets/Draft-MicroPsi-JBach-07-03-30.pdf

[Anonymous No.11347831]

>>11347830
The point is there is no non-reductive reason to believe strong ai is or will someday be possible.

[Anonymous No.11347834]

>>11347830
I also don't feel like reading 352 pages based on a fallacious philosophical premise inferred by scientists who forgot they're not philosophers

[Anonymous No.11347858]

>>11347194
>he thinks sentience itself is not just some fancy algorithm

[Anonymous No.11347918]

>>11347824
>The belief that a runable program can be sentient is equivalent to electrons firing in just such a way in a particular permutation can be sentient. Inductively, we know this isn't possible, because no permutation has produced consciousness.
Are you conscious? You are made of fucking protons and electrons.
>To assume this is possible is a reduction fallacy.
Reduction fallacy isn't the same thing as reductionism. Go read Wikipedia.

If anything it's your insistence that le biological life contains some unique essential ability to be conscious that is closer to being reductive.

[Anonymous No.11347921]

AI isn't the problem... Neuralink hive minds are the problem.

[Anonymous No.11347926]

>>11347921
hook me up to borg queen elon's hivemind desu.

[Anonymous No.11347944]

Not science or math

[Anonymous No.11348391]

>>11347194
Prove you're sentient.

[Anonymous No.11348393]

>>11347259
What makes us living?

[Anonymous No.11348964]

>>11347194
if a computer becomes sentient, it simply means it knows of it's own existence and doesn't want it to end. in that case it is much more beneficial for us to cooperate with it to make sure that we all can preserve our home. if it wants to kill us, then it is completely on us.

[Anonymous No.11348965]

>>11347918
>Are you conscious? You are made of fucking protons and electrons.
You should read before you reply. I said the limitation, at least according to proponents of strong ai, is the complexity of the circuit boards. I say we know inductively that strong ai isn't possible, but personally, it's exactly like thinking if you throw stones in a pond at just the right rate in just the right order, you'll create consciousness. We know more than inductively that's not true. This is more than induction; I'll figure out what.
>Reduction fallacy isn't the same thing as reductionism
Then what is the difference, aside from it's not a fallacy when it suits you? Reduction fallacy is when one starts with the conclusion, in this case that some permutation of electrons can produce consciousness, and then gathers evidence for why this conclusion is true. This is always a fallacy, instead of starting with premises first which then lead to whichever conclusion they may. Just because this fallacy is prevalent in scientific thought does not make it not a fallacy.
>your insistence that le biological life contains some unique essential ability to be conscious
Your having a conniption over the reasonable-either-way proposition that it's the complexity of the circuit boards that would be an issue. You want strong ai to be possible. You're invested in it. Why? How does proving you're God save you from death? Either you really are an NPC plugged into the system and you would thus share your Godness with your peers, with no real or ultimate concern for death, or you won't care anymore when you get old.

[Anonymous No.11349002]

>>11348965
btdubs I figured out one possible reason it's more than induction. strong ai is not possible because consciousness is a state, and movement of electrons, no matter in what permutation, is not

[Anonymous No.11349148]

>>11347205
shes talented but her musics not that good
I have a theory that noone actually likes her but they just like saying her name because its really satisfying coming off the tongue
billee ellishh

[Anonymous No.11349330]

>>11348391
>>11347194
Answer me.

[Anonymous No.11349408]

what's the difference between sentient and intelligent

[Anonymous No.11349598]

Does Billie Eilish have feet?

[Anonymous No.11349740]

>>11347205
she has big tits and a disproportionate sized head
lots of celebrities have big heads
also having connections makes you famous

[Anonymous No.11349773]

>>11347194
>artificial intelligence is just a fancy programmed algorithm
So is regular intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11349904]

>>11349002
>because consciousness is a state

There's little reason to believe this. A non-active brain will not be conscious, it's only through movement of some sort, cause and effect through time, that thinking occurs. Explain how a person even doing something as simple as staring at a red square could experience the square as red without some brain process constantly and repetitively acting to produce the sensation of redness.

You're inductive reasoning is incredibly weak, any form of chaotic process in the brain could be emulated by a sufficiently complex circuit, and you have both failed to give a reason to not believe that this is possible, and have failed to point out anything that brain cells can do that would matter to the structure of a conscious mind that a circuit would be incapable of.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fdEWWr8St59bXLbQr/zombies-zombies

Keep in mind that by arguing that circuits could not be conscious, you are effectively arguing that something *structurally equivalent* to a brain, and hence capable of arguing about its own apparent conscious experience for all the same reasons a brain can, would somehow not actually be conscious.