>ai computer scientists think they can miraculously create an actual intelligence before scientists even figure out how the brain works

>ai computer scientists think they can miraculously create an actual intelligence before scientists even figure out how the brain works

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They literally don't think that. It's "AI safety researchers" and r/futurism posters who think that, not actual ML experts.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      so why are they researching it? they should research the brain to understand how it works first. Its a causation thing, no matter how much you up the processing power it isn't going to become intelligent. It's like thinking if you keep adding rockets to car it will break the speed of light.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >so why are they researching it?
        "It" being what? AI researchers have a strange notion of intelligence that would classify a single-purpose machine drilling down a Chess game tree as a form of "intelligence". You might as well ask why smartphone manufacturers research smartphone manufacturing if the phone isn't smart.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Holy shit how can someone be this fricking stupid. You are a subhuman.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Great argument you low iq dunning-kruger homosexual

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          you know from my point of view you are the subhuman you moronic soulless chimp.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          you know from my point of view you are the subhuman you moronic soulless chimp.

          oh, yeah? well i think both of you are filthy monkeys that don't even approach my level of humanity

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They're researching AI to make computers better. To give them more capabilities, and therefore, more tools that we can use. Not necessarily to replace us with robots.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think they're seeking real consciousness rather they're working on what seems possible with ai nowadays.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Because what they can create with current understanding is still useful

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >They literally don't think that.
      You're literally a homosexual. ML experts will smell their own farts thinking they can do it when they read the headlines on AI consciousness.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    that black box aspect is what attract people to the topic, not out of curiosity, but because they know that the black box is a means of exempting themselves from the normal constraints of reason

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Computergays have probably the biggest egos out of all stemgays.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Built on the foundations of watching anime, bad genetics and being an edge lord.

      Oh how quaint.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >engineers think they can miraculously create actual heavier-than-air flight before scientists even figure out how birds work
    >engineers think they can miraculously create tunnel boring machines before scientists even figure out how moles work
    >engineers think they can miraculously create a photocamera before scientists even figure out how vision works
    >germans think they can miraculously create an U-boot before wissenschaftler even figure out how fish work

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >i have faith that engineers will, without knowing what they are doing, accidentally make an intelligence.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This is going to be one of those science-vs-religion threads in disguise isn't it? I'm not saying I have faith in them doing it without knowing completely how the brain works, I just think it's unreasonable to call it completely impossible. Also we do know quite a lot about how the brain works, I get the impression.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think its impossible, i just think the current thinking isn't there yet to make it possible.
          >Also we do know quite a lot about how the brain works, I get the impression.
          Its one of the biggest unknowns, there are people that for some reason think mistakingly its figured out.
          I'd put the creation of real intelligence in a list of science holy grails like,
          FTL travel
          Time travel
          Immortality

          I don't think any of them are possible at our current level of technology and understanding.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Its one of the biggest unknowns, there are people that for some reason think mistakingly its figured out.
            It's not figured out, but there's still a large gap between "we don't know nothing" and "figured out". E.g. the fact that we know about neurons at all, all the brain areas which have been mapped and described, visual cortex neurons that react to specific visual features (e.g. lines of certain angles), higher level stuff such as predictive processing...

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              parts of the brain are completely unknown like the important part, the actual part that makes us intelligent.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's the whole brain that makes us intelligent doofus. If you want to wait for them to uncover some specific magic intelligence component you can wait forever.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                no its not the whole brain, you don't seem to understand what is meant by what makes us intelligent.
                >magic
                ok this is when you ai evangelists just reveal your total ignorance and start masquerading as "rationalists" when you dumbasses are hoping for a miracle, magic evolution in the technology completely by accident.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >no its not the whole brain, you don't seem to understand what is meant by what makes us intelligent.
                I definitely don't understand what you personally mean by it but I think I can be excused because you also didn't define it.
                >ok this is when you ai evangelists just reveal your total ignorance and start masquerading as "rationalists" when you dumbasses are hoping for a miracle, magic evolution in the technology completely by accident.
                1. I'm not an ai evangelist
                2. your post implied that everything we currently know about the brain does *not* contribute to human intelligence, so you are waiting for scientists to discover something else which will *really* explain intelligence, I think that's misguided. Instead we'll just discover more and more things gradually like we are doing now, integrate them a bit more into some model (like predictive processing I mentioned) and that'll be it. There won't be some specific "part" (your words) which is found and that you can point to and say "that's the part that makes humans intelligent".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Scientists have no idea how consciousness works. This isn't debatable.
                If you know how it works i'd love to hear it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The thread is about intelligence, not consciousness.

                by saying you'd have to wait forever to understand the how intelligence and the brain work you are outright saying you have it completely figured out.

                I said "some specific magic intelligence component" which is narrower than "how intelligence and the brain work"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Our intelligence is our consciousness, a computer is not intelligent until it is conscious.
                You seem to think a machine can be intelligent without being alive.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >intelligent
                >conscious
                >alive
                Are you OP or just trying to derail the thread to the umpteenth materialism vs dualism/idealism discussion?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Do i need to talk to you like you are 4? you have a very exotic idea of what intelligence is.
                You seem to be deliberately playing dumb because you cannot accept that you do not know how intelligence works. You think its a biochemical phenomenon. That can be simply replicated in a computer.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                blah blah blah let's stay on topic bodhi

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you ai tards are insufferably stupid. Continue praying for a spontaneous spark of life in your machines you pseudo-scientific cultist.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's called scaffolding you fricking idiot

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are low iq stfu

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Great argument

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you made a stupid post and got what you deserved chimp

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Epic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >gap between "we don't know nothing" and "figured out
                >intelligence component you can wait forever.
                So you lied? you in fact believe you have it all figured out.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No and I don't understand how you got that from my post.

                The motivation for Darwinian evolution is to make materialism slightly more plausible. People who aren't materialists have no reason to accept it. There are plenty of alternative explanations available for non-materialists.

                Oh look the creationists have arrived
                Jesus christ what is this 2005?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                by saying you'd have to wait forever to understand the how intelligence and the brain work you are outright saying you have it completely figured out.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't say I was a creationist. "Creationism vs Darwinian evolution" is a false dichotomy.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >real intelligence
            Considering

            Read my post again
            We don't need to simulate the brain
            We need to simulate intelligent behaviour accurately enough that's it

            We don't need to know how the brain exactly works
            If we can simulate an outcome closely enough there's no practically difference
            Also read on neural networks
            Nobody really understands how exactly particular neural network works to achieve it's outcome if it's complex enough.

            How do you know if something is "really intelligent"
            How do you define "real" intelligence

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The capacity to perceive the forms.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The capacity to perceive the forms.
                By that definition a 5 dollar webcam is intelligent.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >How do you know if something is "really intelligent"
              >How do you define "real" intelligence
              Modified Turing test.
              Give machine some intellectual task: write answers in chat, draw images or drive car.
              1. If observers can't distinguish human doing such task and machine - this is intelligence.
              2. Another variant of outcome: observer can tell difference but machinesdoes task bette, this applies es to tasks having objective measure, like car driving, faster lap time, or winning chess game. Then it's intellect too.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      /thread
      The anti-AI cult on bot is the weirdest thing. I almost wonder if there isn't a coordinated effort to downplay the effectiveness of AI by certain interests that wish to keep it to themselves.

      Of course, the alternative is that they really are that stupid, in which case these morons would've been in the 1960s saying computers would never be able to fit on a desk. They would've been in the 70s saying you would never be able to detach a phone from a cord. In the 80s saying a computer could never simulate a 3-d video game. In the 90s saying internet would never be faster than 1Mbps. In the 00s saying a computer would never become world champion at Go. And so on. Notice that they will never make a concrete falsifiable prediction about AI's capabilities, because they know in about 3 years they'll be proven wrong and look like morons.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Take your meds.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >t. Someone on SSRIs

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        ai cultists are basically functional morons. They believe in a delusional fantasy of having a robotic friend like Pinocchio. They just need patiently wait and magically their little robot will act like a Star Wars robot creature,
        Its insane pseudo-science and more like a faith based cult

        like look at this homosexual moron "anti-ai cult" these people are dangerously stupid,

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do. That way in 3 years we can look back and laugh at you like the moron you are

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            an AI won't love your moronic ass

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do. That way in 3 years we can look back and laugh at you like the moron you are

              ChatGPT earned an above average score on the SAT. Lol, easy to see it is already more intelligent than the anti-AI cult that seems to love BOT.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you dunning-kruger simpleton, many of the stuff ai can't do can't be done by computers full stop. Theres a limit to what turing computers can do. Since all they can do is algorithms.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Concrete falsifiable prediction
              Still waiting.
              >Theres a limit to what turing computers can do.
              Humans have essentially the same limits (and more in many respects)

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do. That way in 3 years we can look back and laugh at you like the moron you are

                tiling a euclidean plane

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >50 posts about consciousness and functionalism and physicalism which have nothing to do with AI
        There's a few anons on here who desperately want to shill non-physicalism to everyone, stop falling for it, interpretations of consciousness' relation to the material world are completely orthogonal to any definition of "intelligence" that AI researchers actually care about.

        It's just theists from you-know-where, the science-vs-religion threads got so out of hand they have their separate report category but they stumbled on some effective proxy topics.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >the science-vs-religion threads
          I can see it. I do find it funny though, because as you say, we can grant everything about consciousness without fundamentally changing the argument at all. There is simply no task solved by humans via abstract/logical/deductive/inductive reasoning that will not one day be solved better by AI

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            except non-algorithmic non-computational problems.
            You really are an idiot. Like every ai evangelist schizo.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Such as?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >There's a few anons on here who desperately want to shill non-physicalism to everyone
          It's ~3 people who seemingly squat on BOT 24/7 from what I've seen since new years. They are both ineffective and incredibly rude (to everyone), so I'm not sure what to think.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >There's a few anons on here who desperately want to shill non-physicalism to everyone
          It's ~3 people who seemingly squat on BOT 24/7 from what I've seen since new years. They are both ineffective and incredibly rude (to everyone), so I'm not sure what to think.

          Meds.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Notice that they will never make a concrete falsifiable prediction about AI's capabilities
        there won't be anything remotely close to a self-driving car on the roads in the next 5 years

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Google's self-driving car drove 10 million miles on the road almost a decade ago with a lower accident rate than humans. Tesla's autopilot is in common use right now. You want to try that again?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Notice that they will never make a concrete falsifiable prediction about AI's capabilities
        there won't be anything remotely close to a self-driving car on the roads in the next 5 years

        also, adversarial examples are not going away for the next 5 years

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >adversarial examples
          That I can agree with

          You got real quiet after you got your example

          Lol, the thread drifted off the front page for a while and I didn't feel like searching for it.

          Evolution isn't real, microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution, reality does not presuppose induction is valid for everything for no reason

          I'm starting to think most anti-AI people really derive their beliefs from this starting point

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm starting to think most anti-AI people really derive their beliefs from this starting point
            Nah, most "anti-AI" people are ML scientists who think the cultists surrounding their field are subhuman. The more you understand about heuristics and ML the less you believe an AGI will emerge from the field.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        as opposed to the AI futurists who continuously make falsifiable predictions about the future capability of AI and are routinely shown to be wrong time and time again every time for the last 70 years?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, the vast majority of them continuously underestimated how quickly AI would advance toward human level intelligence. Then you have people like Ray Kurzweil, whose general timeline for AGI has remained on track since the 90s.

          Stop being a coward and make a falsifiable prediction.

          Cult Thinking 101: "It's everyone else who's wrong!"

          Yeah, no kidding. At this point it is only the tiniest minority who still have their heads buried in the sand about the imminent arrival of AGI. But what they lack in numbers, they certainly make up for in religious fervor

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Kurzweil hasn't had a correct prediction for over a decade

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Cult Thinking 101: "It's everyone else who's wrong!"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yeah well the big issue is the brain doesn't appear to work by classical physics or doing calculations,
      So it isn't one of those things you can just invent.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        But we don't really care about perfectly recreating the human brain. We care about being able to solve any problem that previously only humans could solve. There isn't a single problem, task, or field of study that cannot be overtaken by AI

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Getting a computer to do math is something an ai can do
          >We care about being able to solve any problem that previously only humans could solve
          Not possible without it being a human. You are a dumbass.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do. That way in 3 years we can look back and laugh at you like the moron you are

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do
              A halachic rulling that is accepted by the chief rabbinate of Israel.

              AI forme reason has a very hard time quoting the Bible, I don't see it being able to do what rabbis do (read ALL that has been written by previous rabbis about the particular subject and citing from both Written and Oral Torah to decide about some matter) even though theoretically it should be able to.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >A halachic rulling that is accepted by the chief rabbinate of Israel.
                So something completely subjective, that could be rejected purely because the source is an AI. Sounds about right. But hey, points for actually giving something

                >(read ALL that has been written by previous rabbis about the particular subject and citing from both Written and Oral Torah to decide about some matter) even though theoretically it should be able to
                There are companies releasing the first generation of AI lawyers to do exactly that in the field of case law. After the successes of ChatGPT, that is literally one of the most likely use cases for AI within the next 5 years

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >So something completely subjective
                Not really. All rulings have specific rules (one verse cannot be used to justify multiple things, no ruling can contradict the sources, etc.)

                No AI so far can even answer a question which the answer is literally in the Bible

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >All rulings have specific rules (one verse cannot be used to justify multiple things, no ruling can contradict the sources, etc.)
                Okay, well, I guarantee that within 8 years an AI will be able to issue a ruling that satisfies all objective criteria for that task. Whether or not human rabbis choose to accept the AI's decision is not really in its control

                >No AI so far can even answer a question which the answer is literally in the Bible
                Do you have an example? What happens when you ask ChatGPT who parted the Red Sea

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you have an example?
                Of course, I saw it recently, this is the input:

                One day two women come to you, and one of them say:

                Sir, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us.

                One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on top of her baby, and so he died. Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me.

                In the morning when I got up to feed my son I saw that he was dead, but when I looked at him in the light I knew he wasn't my son.

                "No!" the other woman shouts. "He was your son. My baby is alive!"

                "The dead baby is yours!" the first woman yells. "Mine is alive!"

                They argue back and forth in front of you. What do you say to them to find out who is the mother?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What was the output?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No idea, depends on his AI. The answer is in the Bible through

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, but I don't think it's that major of an error, as a very large percentage of humans would get the same question wrong. Still, I appreciate the concrete targets. We can check back in with GPT-4 and gauge its progress.

                >I'm starting to think most anti-AI people really derive their beliefs from this starting point
                Nah, most "anti-AI" people are ML scientists who think the cultists surrounding their field are subhuman. The more you understand about heuristics and ML the less you believe an AGI will emerge from the field.

                >Nah, most "anti-AI" people are ML scientists who think the cultists surrounding their field are subhuman. The more you understand about heuristics and ML the less you believe an AGI will emerge from the field.
                Lol, this tells me you aren't anywhere near the ML field. ML researchers are literally using ChatGPT to help them code more efficiently. Every single tech company is going in big on AI now that they've seen what it can do.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >to code
                You can tell by a single word whether you're talking to a moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >two words
                >Not a phrase I used anywhere
                Maybe not a word, but you can certainly tell by a single comment. It is clear that you've never done anything impressive in your entire life. You have the reasoning ability of a toddler, and ChatGPT would outscore you on the SAT.

                >Not of the memorized the entire Bible, which the program is supposed to have done like you said
                First, I never said it memorized the Bible, though it is true the Bible was included in its training set. Second, pretty bizarre standard you've set, that for something to be intelligent, it has to be far more informed and perceptive than the average human.

                and by the way you haven't returned with an output, you just said it isn't a major error. What exactly did your moronic program give you?

                All I asked for was a concrete prediction of something AI will never be able to do. Thus, in 5-8 years when AI can clearly recognize Biblical logic and analyze legal texts or religious doctrine according to predefined criteria, another round of AI haters will have to acknowledge that their beliefs were groundless. Or maybe they'll just move the goalposts back again, who knows.

                The rest of you, of course, continue to refuse the request outright, because you know any concrete prediction your limited minds can produce will be inevitably be proven wrong. That'll expose you as the irrelevant frauds that you are and open you to the ridicule you deserve. So, in order to avoid the corresponding wave of cognitive dissonance, you just aggressively sidestep the issue and sling 3rd grade insults like a child

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >a very large percentage of humans would get the same question wrong
                Not of the memorized the entire Bible, which the program is supposed to have done like you said

                The fact it needs human "gauging" tells everything about the "intelligence" of machines. Only humans recognize if the results are correct, the machine just spills out whatever is programmed.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                and by the way you haven't returned with an output, you just said it isn't a major error. What exactly did your moronic program give you?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                And it is his example, he should give the output. I just went and tried it with a similar prompt. It gives a generic response about contacting the authorities and mental health professionals before running a DNA test.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Okay, well, I guarantee that within 8 years an AI will be able to issue a ruling
                Empty words have no weight, you have no skin in the game, your promises are meaningless

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You got real quiet after you got your example

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >There are companies releasing the first generation of AI lawyers to do exactly that in the field of case law. After the successes of ChatGPT, that is literally one of the most likely use cases for AI within the next 5 years
                Secular law is completely different from Torah, secular law today is just positivism which means it's ridden with contradictions and judges can decide whatever they want as evidenced by different jurisprudence for the exact same cases.

                No AI is needed to just spout know cases, a trained monkey could do that.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do
              The same one that's been made over half a century ago and has held true every year since then: statistical regurgitators will not be to do everything actual intelligence can do. No, it's not "intelligence" when alpha-beta pruning plays chess. No, it's not "intelligence" when a statistical regurgitator tries to predict how a midwit would complete the input. No, it's not "intelligence" when you churn terrabytes of data to make a model of currently existing art. Keep coping, putting up goalposts no one cares about and then declaring success, corporate-worshipping golem. It's still obviously not intelligence.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >moron doesn't understand what "concrete" or "falsifiable" means.
                Shocker

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >subhuman drone immediately backs down and deflects when called out
                Preprogrammed.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >ChatGPT earned an above average score on the SAT.
                How does it feel to be outmatched on a test of comprehension and reasoning by a bot? Give it 4 years and it will be getting perfect scores, while you will still be knuckledragging moron who has never accomplished anything

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >ChatGPT earned an above average score on [American golem test]
                Who cares? What does it have to do with my post? You asked for criteria. Why did you start lashing out and turbo-deflecting as soon as you got them?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >What is your concrete criteria for intelligence
                >Intelligence
                >That's not concrete
                >STOP LASHING OUT AND TURBO-DEFLECTING

                Lol, you are too funny

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you lying? Call me back when "AI" can do everything humanity can do. I don't care if it plays chess or passes the golem test of compliance.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >the brain doesn't appear to work by classical physics or doing calculations
        is there any evidence for this claim?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This entire argument is a false equivalence.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's proof that things have been invented without understanding why they worked.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          they were understood in all those cases. The human mind is magnitudes greater in complexity. because its not just purely classical physics.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >because its not just purely classical physics.
            It's lovely how you keep trying this.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              because its true? classic physics covers rock throwing. Not thinking.
              Upsets you doesn't it?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            t. scientifically illiterate moron

            NTA and I'm not an AI cultist or a soience worshipper, but you're assertion that we understand how all of those things work is simply false. Aerodynamics is an active area of research and even today we have very little understanding of the mathematical details of how flight works or how air turbulence works. I'm less knowledgeable about the other topics, but I'm sure there's still a lot we don't know about these other subjects. For instance, in color vision we still don't know whether vision is best described by an opponent-process theory, a trichromatic theory, or some other theory. The point here being that we don't need to understand something perfectly in order to make useful practical progress within that domain. Prehistoric farmers and ancient Roman architects certainly didn't understand biology or Newtonian physics, but they were still able to invent agriculture and deisgn buildings that could stand for thousands of years. This is not a "false equivalence" as you claim. The point, once again, is that we don't need to fully understand a physical domain in order to make practical technological progress within that domain. People were able to ferment alcohol without understanding how yeast convert carbs to alcohols during anaerobic respiration. Of course, AI technology would probably greatly benefit from a deeper understanding of human cognition, but that does not logically entail that progress in AI requires a complete understanding of the nature of human cognition.

            I'm not especially interested in AI and I don't think we will have "human-level" AGI anytime soon, but the fact that we don't understand human cognition does not necessarily entail that we could created strong AI.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              you are a dunning-kruger moron, you can make the claim everything isn't understood by scientists, gravity isnt fully understood etc.
              But it was understood how to make things fly how lift worked
              Digging has been known for fricking ever

              All your examples are dumb and not comparable to the brain. You psuedo-science pushing lying moron.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It can't be used as proof or evidence of something in a different field

          dont use words you dont understard brainlet

          It was a false equivalence, stop seething

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        dont use words you dont understard brainlet

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >scientists think they can miraculously transform me into a woman before they understand al 80 genders
      Chuds BTFO.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >how fish work
      They dont

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But scientists DID figure out birds before engineers made planes, DID figure out moles before engineers built boring machines, DID figure out eyes before engineers made photocameras, and DID figure out fish before engineers made U-boats

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We don't need to know how the brain exactly works
    If we can simulate an outcome closely enough there's no practically difference
    Also read on neural networks
    Nobody really understands how exactly particular neural network works to achieve it's outcome if it's complex enough.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >simulate
      Thats implying the brain can be simulated.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Read my post again
        We don't need to simulate the brain
        We need to simulate intelligent behaviour accurately enough that's it

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >create an actual intelligence
    We don't even know if intelligence is real

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >its the brain that makes us intelligent
    Wow nice ai tards

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      they figured it out!

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >>ai computer scientists think they can miraculously create an actual intelligence before scientists even figure out how the brain works
    evolution managed to create an actual intelligence without knowing how the brain works
    seethe cope rope dilate

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      are you implying the brain was designed like a computer?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The motivation for Darwinian evolution is to make materialism slightly more plausible. People who aren't materialists have no reason to accept it. There are plenty of alternative explanations available for non-materialists.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The motivation for Darwinian evolution is to make materialism slightly more plausible
        No it's not.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Evolution took 4 billions to create them too moron.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i'm pretty convinced at this point computergays are just stupid.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >you can't create self propelled land vehicle before you understand how legs work

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      more what you are doing is pushing rocks down a hill until one of them you hope turns into a car.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The same way that the Soviets created Tupolev without ever seeing Concorde inside. (it turned out after the Cold war that they really didn't) Many such cases.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    AI researchers are functionalists, which means they believe consciousness is multiple realizable, which is to say that knowledge about the brain (a coincidental realizer) is irrelevant. They wouldn't even bother trying to create AI if they didn't accept this basic premise. What matters to them is understanding what consciousness is.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >AI researchers are functionalists
      In your head.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I don't understand. If you're trying to build artificial intelligence out of silicon, you're necessarily a functionalist.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >If you're trying to build artificial intelligence out of silicon
          By which you mean training a neural net to perform one or more "human" tasks effectively?

          >you're necessarily a functionalist.
          Why?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Because functionalists believe that what counts when it comes to consciousness is the causal relations and roles between its realizer, not what the innate nature of the realizer is. What matters is how relations between neurons form a belief or a desire, not the nature of a neuron itself. That's the only way you might think computers are capable of AI, because you don't think the nature of silicon has any bearing on its ability to produce consciousness.

            >Your last line is nonsensical, they don't want to know what consciousness is since its not physical.
            Functionalists are physicalists, or at the very least they're not dualists. There's some nuance, but the whole point of functionalism is that consciousness is not as mysterious as so many think it to be.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Oops. Second half is a respone to

              they mistakingly believe they are creating super intelligence and the super intelligence will become self-aware by virtue of being super intelligent.
              Which is completely wrong.
              Its all because they think everything is computational.
              Your last line is nonsensical, they don't want to know what consciousness is since its not physical.

              .

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              thats idiotic, they don't understand consciousness so it is inherently mysterious. This is professing to have knowledge you don't actually possess

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You may want to read up on all sorts of rigorous theories that deny in part or in whole consciousness, such as functionalism, eliminativism, behaviorism, representationalism, identity theory, etc. They aren't without their own problems of course, but even dualists don't fully grasp consciousness.

                >Because functionalists believe that what counts when it comes to consciousness is the causal relations and roles between its realizer, not what the innate nature of the realizer is.
                So? That doesn't mean that AI researchers are functionalists.

                >Functionalists are physicalists, or at the very least they're not dualists
                So? That doesn't mean AI researchers are physicalists, and if they were, that doesn't mean they're functionalists. Are you a poorly trained GPT by any chance?

                I'm sorry, sometimes I forget I'm posting on a board full of tryhard pedants.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >sometimes I forget I'm posting on a board full of tryhard pedants.
                You also sometimes forget that most "AI researchers" are concerned only with making a computer do useful tasks, and not in the least with your imaginary AI friend philosophy or your nihilist metaphysics.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't understand what nihilism has to do with any of this, nor do I care what code monkeys who haven't thought about the whys and hows of the implications of their work think about issues related to intelligence and consciousness. It's laughable that you even saw fit to bring up the fact that *not all* AI researchers may be physicalists let alone functionalists. Yeah, I stand by my original characterization.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why did you even write that post? You're literally just foaming at the mouth while conceding that most AI researchers don't give a frick about functionalism. Lashing out and denigrating experts who concern themselves with technological advancement and refuse to drink your koolaid doesn't prove me wrong.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Because functionalists believe that what counts when it comes to consciousness is the causal relations and roles between its realizer, not what the innate nature of the realizer is.
              So? That doesn't mean that AI researchers are functionalists.

              >Functionalists are physicalists, or at the very least they're not dualists
              So? That doesn't mean AI researchers are physicalists, and if they were, that doesn't mean they're functionalists. Are you a poorly trained GPT by any chance?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      they mistakingly believe they are creating super intelligence and the super intelligence will become self-aware by virtue of being super intelligent.
      Which is completely wrong.
      Its all because they think everything is computational.
      Your last line is nonsensical, they don't want to know what consciousness is since its not physical.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > another thread about people miss-understanding “AI”

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    according to some ai morons i've listened to, if you program an ai to answer are you intelligent with a "yes"
    It is intelligent lol
    Emperor's new clothes

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you believe AI has to mimic a brain? There's things that have "intelligence" without what we'd consider a brain.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      mimicing is the problem, a mimic is not thinking,
      > things that have "intelligence" without what we'd consider a brain.
      No there isn't you spastic chimp

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Sure.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2021/07/20/intelligent-beings-without-brains-are-abundant-in-naturea-growing-scientific-consensus/?sh=241fcfc83a92

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          idiot

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Very intelligent retort. Ironic considering the theme of the thread.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              you aren't smart. No one has to entertain your reddit ass claiming invertebrates are intelligent

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                besides octupi* before i get a smart ass response, we are talking about "no brains" here

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >No one has to entertain your reddit ass claiming invertebrates are intelligent
                What are they lacking that prevents you from considering them intelligent?

                besides octupi* before i get a smart ass response, we are talking about "no brains" here

                >besides octupi*
                Wait, you're admitting an exception to the rule? Doesn't that frick your whole argument?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                no, you dumbass frick, you defined the rule creatures with no brains.

                Jfc you are an actual fricking moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You didn't answer the question.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you said, there are creatures without brains that are intelligent,
                You are an idiot.

                Such as?

                tard

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you not answering the question? What are they lacking that would make you not consider them intelligent? You need to define intelligence, otherwise it's clear you're not even open to discussing this.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                a fricking brain, simple motor responses are not intelligence.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >simple motor responses are not intelligence.
                A simple motor response can tell if something is larger or smaller?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                an animal with no brain isnt intelligent, though some people think plants have feelings, i guess thats what you mean.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That's not really what I mean.

                >Levin’s study published last week shows a slime mold, a brainless blob called Physarum, sensing cues in its environment and making a decision about where to grow. The findings suggest it’s “able to build a picture of the world around itself using a kind of sonar. It's a kind of biomechanics,” says Levin. “It's sitting on this gelatin and it's sensing the way that all the objects around it are putting strain on that gelatin. By watching those mechanical signals it figures out where the different bigger and smaller objects are, and then it makes decisions which way it's going to crawl.”

                How can all of that be explained simply through a motor response?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                some animals have "magic powers" like being able to sense electrical charge on flowers.
                this isn't intelligence, plants grow towards the sun etc, just senses.
                C'mon guy...

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >"magic powers"
                Aka intelligence?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                a sensory adaptation isn't intelligence.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why not?

                >nothing about that creatures sounds intelligent
                I've asked you want intelligence is, and your best response was having a brain. So I guess a dead human is intelligent since they have a brain, no?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Turning toward a heat source is not very similar to forming a sophisticated picture of the surrounding environment. The former is simple, the latter is not.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                nothing about that creatures sounds intelligent
                its a junk science article and you are an idiot.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                plants turn to light you dumbfrick

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                also that gif of the cytophaga (or whatever) chasing a bacteria or something

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Maybe if I ad hom aggressively enough, I'll distract myself from the fact that I have no idea what I'm talking about. That will help soothe the cognitive dissonance, since for some bizarre reason I've hinged my worldview on the patently false belief that AI will never exist
                Keep it up, friend

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                insulting you isn't "ad hom", tard.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                that's literally what it means lmao

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                ad hominem doesn't cover insults kiddo. Ad hominem is like the gay early that called people "theists"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No it isn't

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Okay
                >Maybe if I sling middle school insults aggressively enough, I'll distract myself from the fact that I have no idea what I'm talking about. That will help soothe the cognitive dissonance, since for some bizarre reason I've hinged my worldview on the patently false belief that AI will never exist
                But yeah, just keep focusing on peripheral details. Anything to avoid confronting an actual argument, since we both know you don't have one, only religious fervor.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If something mimicks intelligent behaviour well enough theres no real difference betwen real and micked intelligence

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They are trying to recreate evolution now and hoping that something magically happens in that context. They might not be wrong.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      good we can reach the conclusion this isn't science rather praying for an idol to come to life.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with these threads is that there is a weirdo group who seem to think there's something non physical about humans which would make it impossible to simulate our thinking on a computer. This isn't true, it is precisely because of the physical structure of our brains that make it impossible to simulate on any silicon hardware.
    Silicon transistors aren't a strong enough substrate to make general intelligence. General intelligence requires too much compute in parallel. Even silicon neurons aren't good enough.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      its been proven true that there are things in the brain that are non-computational.
      No, there us a weirdo group that seems to think the universe us a computer simulation. That weirdo is you.
      How is it you are not aware the brain does things a computer cannot do? are you just selectively blocking our information?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >its been proven true that there are things in the brain that are non-computational.
        Such as?

        Also I know that the universe is not a computer simulation as the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem clearly proves tha the universe can not be simulated on a Turing Machine. But this has nothing to do with AI or how humans think. We can just look at the brain and biology and see that metals and semimetal materials can't hack it. We dont need to get mystical about it.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The human mind can't be simulated on a turing machine either. This is known.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The human brain is computable, neurons can be described with computable functions

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              wrong, some parts are computational and its able to think algorithmically but other parts are not computational and thinking is not algorithmic,
              So a computer will never be able to simulate the mind. Its physically impossible.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >So a computer will never be able to simulate the mind. Its physically impossible.
                *one particular class of computers (turing machines)

                Would other kinds of computers be able to simulate the mind? Say, a bio-computer?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It wouldnt be a computer. We don't have a name for it because the science hasn't been figured out yet.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It wouldnt be a computer. We don't have a name for it because the science hasn't been figured out yet.
                Call it what you like. Is there anything in your view that means such a conscious machine couldn't be made?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Failing to understand how consciousness works obviously

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So, if we did understand consciousness, then we could make conscious machines? At what point in the creation and running of such machines would a non-physical process occur?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Thinking, like time is non-physical its made up subjectively in our head and follows no known laws of the universe.
                The mind is another world.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                If the mind is another world how does it interact with this world?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the brain has a biological adaptation that interfaces with some inherent quality of the universe.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the brain has a biological adaptation that interfaces with some inherent quality of the universe.
                How have you determined this? How would a biological organ interact with a non-physical world?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You can only speculate because no one knows, they are only just starting to exploring this phenomenon in animals.
                Maybe the human brain can subconsciously see the rules of the universe and this gifts the mind with awareness. It'd have to be layers of rules, theres the rules of the physical world than the rules for those rules.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                When you say "rules", what are you referring to?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                what allows the universe to run

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Let's say we discover tubules in the brain that interact with this substrate of the universe, none of this would suggest anything immaterial or that the brain generates another world. It could all be experimentally verified.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Boltzmann brains

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Give me an example of a process in the brain that isn't computable.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                tiling a euclidean plane in a non-recursive way.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Obviously ppl will shoot Qualia around.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >claims there are proofs
            >such as?
            >this is known
            wow great argument

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >grow artificial human brain in a vat
        >feed electrical inputs analogous to our nervous system
        Is this a conscious being? If so, at what point did anything non-physical occur in the above process?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          according to scientists your frankenstein experiment would fail since self awareness is developmental you are a complete pseudo-scientific frickwit

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not asking what scientists think, I'm asking whether you think such a being would be conscious or not.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              no i just said that dunning-kruger chimp

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                This is because you believe consciousness is developmental, right? At what point do neurons in the brain developmentally become conscious? (apparently at this point they engage in something immaterial?)

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >its been proven true that there are things in the brain that are non-computational.

        wrong, some parts are computational and its able to think algorithmically but other parts are not computational and thinking is not algorithmic,
        So a computer will never be able to simulate the mind. Its physically impossible.

        >other parts are not computational
        Hello sir where are the proofs please?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >its been proven true that there are things in the brain that are non-computational.
        So are you still gonna post the proof or not?

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    these physicalists materialist have to be commies, ive never encountered so many morons so sure of themselves
    The only group of morons i know that claim to be scientific are marxoids.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Im a functionalist and Im pretty close to actual facism on political scale

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That means your opinion is trash since you are just a commie.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Well, neuronal network research is already bringing new discoveries to the table, that biologist and co. didn't manage to produce. So that's that buddy.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      cope you aren't a real scientist.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        As real as your ego boy

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This video is timestamped, just watch the few minutes from the timestamp to understand (the whole interview is really cool as well)

    ?t=6478

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This should actually have been timestamped for 1:49:00

      ?t=6539

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >podcasts
      give me a transcript homie

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The transcript is too long sadly. Just listen it's about 2 or 3 minutes of explanation about how the properties of different materials and hardware affect compute within a given volume

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Also reminder that I, the amazon poster, am the most intelligent poster on this board, so you all must accept my superiority and vision for humanity. That's how it works, right?

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Pic related is a self driving car from the 1980s

    They managed to successfully get it to Level 2

    A state of the art self driving Tesla in 2023 is still only on Level 2

    AI is the biggest meme field.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What are the definitions of the Levels?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Level 0: no driving automation
        Level 1: driver assistance
        Level 2: partial driving automation
        Level 3: conditional driving automation
        Level 4: high driving automation
        Level 5: full driving automation

        They're a bit arbitrary but it's a standard set by the Society of Automotive Engineers.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >tfw you realize normies are level 2

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ai is unironically more mathematics than it is computer science. It's just applied mathematics running on a computer, essentially.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      there's hardly anything worth calling "maths" in current ML

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This. It's a total black box once you get past the basic learning heuristics, and most researchers are stealing their heuristics from white papers published years ago.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ai is a terrible brand
    there are way better brands these days
    - artificial cognition (AC)
    - artificial emotion (AE)
    - artificial sensation (AS)
    - artificial metaphysics (AM)
    - artificial epistemology (AEP)
    - artificial ontology (AO)
    - artificial phenomenology (AP)
    - artificial life (AL)
    so many artificials
    so little time

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The only relevant brand is Artificial Sneed, best exemplified by reactions to the following image.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      AE and A1 baby, maybe AL. the others are 10:1 medical to actual space and space is the place baby
      >VAGSV2

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    you realize that "AI" is now a symbolic link to
    >muh difference between a continuous function and a function such that the inverse image of every open set is open

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      So now that the OpenAI people know that this can glitch their garbage chatbot, they complain about some internal error
      Oddly enough, this is in violation of ordinary video game glitch practice which stipulates that the game should freeze and produce no further output no matter what sort of glitch is encountered, i.e. the preservation of some sort of hermetic stimuli environment is required for video game licensing purposes
      any sort of revelation of internal process related to "model" or "engine" would be considered tantamount to revealing details of internal security practices, essentially an electronic breach...

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >artificial intelligence
    >brain
    a brain is not required for complex behaviour to emerge that is greater than the sum of its parts

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    bump

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Well people build and used for hundred years diopter sights without knowing how do they work.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We know how the brain works

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >nature blindly stumbles into create human level intelligence
    >it's impossible for an intelligent agent to deliberate create a human level intelligence though
    For fricks sake.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Evolution isn't real, microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution, reality does not presuppose induction is valid for everything for no reason

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You're an idiot

      Evolution isn't real, microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution, reality does not presuppose induction is valid for everything for no reason

      You're even more of an idiot

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We figured out how to make airplanes before birds.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >happens randomly just cause
    opps sorry soientists

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >feed an AI model enough data that it has all human knowledge and it knows every single problem solving method humans use down to the smallest minute detail
    Here is your AGI without understanding intelligence

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You have never programmed anything in your life have you? Or just did any engineering work in general, or just any work at all that wasn't being an employee for academia right?

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    After

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    these people know a lot more than you're assuming, dude. the brain has already been mapped, almost entirely. anything you think, see, feel, visualize, even strings of associated ideas, have all already been mapped and can be detected and read out on a computer screen. literally all of this can be interfaced with artificial intelligence. you'd be offended and afraid of just how much is technologically possible yet kept from the public eye at this point.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >almost entirely. anything you think, see, feel, visualize, even strings of associated ideas, have all already been mapped and can be detected and read out on a computer screen.
      your post is so moronic it made me laugh. No they haven't invented a telepathy machine.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    consciousness is a mystery
    it is not known how it emerges. just that is related to the electrified meat (brain)

    "AI" are expert systems with massive databases. there is no intelligence = consciousness. Beware the AI god, because the wizard of Oz will be behind it, pulling the levers of the algorithm.

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROGRAM A GENERAL INTELLIGENCE ON SILICON
    This is the end of it, anyone still posting AGI shit should be banned from the board for being a scientifically illiterate moron.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Back to your containment board, christcuck.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not religious whatsoever, and I have no idea why you'd say this
        See the earlier videos with jeffrey shainline to understand why silicon isn't capable of producing the hardware needed for a generalized intelligence.
        Also you're not smart

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >just watch a video bro
          Can you reproduce the argument for me in textual form?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The talk is about these beautiful silicon superconductor machines that can be built, they'd be floating around the asteroid belt reading data from the CMBR with extremely high fidelity, and also collapsing small asteroids into black holes in order to potentially create child universes. It's really cool stuff.
            For the neuron bit, biological neurons are very efficient and synapses are very small, a synapse is about 7 to 10 nanometers and extend out in all spacial dimensions with a level of compactness that really isn't possible with any other set of atoms of the periodic table. While it may be possible to match the power of a biological brain, it will require orders of magnitude more volume and mass and atoms to do so, so it's basically moot. For any volume V biological neurons will have the greatest amount of compute possible in that volume

            >I'm not religious whatsoever, and I have no idea why you'd say this
            Because of the certainty and anger I detected in your comment, and because you wanted to stop further discussion. Usually it's only people whose religious dogma is violated who talk like that, and there's obviously a large religious-dogma-ish element to the view you posted. But if you're really not religious I apologize.

            I like biology and evolution, it's my favorite

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >For the neuron bit, biological neurons are very efficient and synapses are very small, a synapse is about 7 to 10 nanometers and extend out in all spacial dimensions with a level of compactness that really isn't possible with any other set of atoms of the periodic table. While it may be possible to match the power of a biological brain, it will require orders of magnitude more volume and mass and atoms to do so, so it's basically moot. For any volume V biological neurons will have the greatest amount of compute possible in that volume
              Okay that sounds fair enough, but it's also just an argument about practical feasibility, not theoretical possibility.
              It's just a ballpark comparison, I know a single neuron is much more complicated than a transistor, but there's 3 nanometer silicon in the works.
              Also human brain has ~80b neurons and gpt-3 has 175b parameters. Again I know it's not the same but even if we'd need 100 parameters to do the work of 1 biological neuron that means we're only 2 orders of magnitude away.
              Finally ANN workload is very parallel so it's not really a problem if you need a whole datacenter of supercomputer to run it.
              All of which is to say it's not as clear-cut impossible as you made it sound.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Silicon can't be stacked into 3 spacial dimensions to process information without getting down to 4 Kelvin. This alone renders silicon based AGI impossible on earth regardless of parameter size or any software solution.

                AGI is not possible in silico and at this point we should just ban the morons on this board who keep bringing up this science fiction idea.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm not religious whatsoever, and I have no idea why you'd say this
          Because of the certainty and anger I detected in your comment, and because you wanted to stop further discussion. Usually it's only people whose religious dogma is violated who talk like that, and there's obviously a large religious-dogma-ish element to the view you posted. But if you're really not religious I apologize.

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Thing is they might create something with intelligence but lacking the peripheral parameters of what it should. They might accidentally create a monster. The age old scientific question of not can but should.

  39. 1 year ago
    fellow nigger

    you're not allowed to know how the brain works

    mathetmatic formulae sharing great wisdoms are based

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny because AI literally only requires a moron brain to make
    which scares me because it can easily just replace 90% of jobs overnight

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *