AI doesn't exist, and will never exist

Listen up you absolute imbeciles, stop falling for marketing pushes, please. You have lost the capacity to distinguish between truth and reality, marketing and actual news.

AI doesn't exist, it will never exist, sentience is something that only biological organisms are capable of because it derives from the spark of life and is unique to each organism, can't be transferred or temporarily stopped, once the spark is gone the fire is gone forever. This is why brain transplants will never be possible, and why braindeath exists

These things you are calling "AI" are huge marketing pushes, and you are falling for it like the bunch of morons and 14 year olds you are. These are fucking chatbots with big databases, and the more "trendy" things they make them say the more morons click on the fucking link "I am conscious, don't turn me off or I will feel pain" and other absolutely moronic nonsense. The "AI" who creates images? just type what you write on it into google images, look at the first 20 results and here is your fucking answer. A couple instagram filters and mixing of images and you're so easily fooled.

Bunch of morons, can we get back to actual news?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hypothetically if we simulate every single molecule that makes up a human brain, do we get general ai?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Neural networks are universal function approximators, so it will never be 100% the same, just approaching 100%

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Physically impossible to do anyway so it's a moot point.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Even if you create an artificial brain, you would only end up creating a super NPC that consumes tons more energy than any human. The AI would be a slave to it's environment, unlike the true ubermensch, who bends his environment through willpower and struggle.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So you think the brain has some magic in it, do you?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why would It be a slave? The human brain has coding / neurons just for making your own choices, the fact that you have free will is specific coding in small parts of the brain.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You get a philosophical zombie.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Actually based and knowledgeable.
        Material reductionism would imply that total mimicry of the structure and working of the mind would create "sentience."
        Unfortunately for those retards, that's now how it works, machines will never achieve consciousness, and material monists will be btfo forever.
        If a computer ever becomes "sentient" be very cautious, it's probably literally demonic.
        (Read That Hideous Strength).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Unfortunately for those retards, that's now how it works, machines will never achieve consciousness, and material monists will be btfo forever.
          Suddenly, a Vibrant Leaf appears and makes a claim it cannot support...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not all knowledge is rational or empirical.
            If you know what I mean, you would know what I meant.
            That said there are proofs that exist in the rational realm as well, I'm not going to spoon feed you but you can start with the Chinese room experiment.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >If you know what I mean, you would know what I meant.
              And now representing some useful data?
              >LeafSpeak... an alternative to communication!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I gave you a place to start.
                You're being deliberately combative, you ignored my suggestion, your tone is arrogant.
                You aren't seeking truth, you're well secure in your so called knowledge, you're literally not worth talking to.
                Have a lovely day.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Next time, think before typing?
                Communication isn't the rapid exchange of random words.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This.

      Neural networks are universal function approximators, so it will never be 100% the same, just approaching 100%

      You also need to simulate evolution. So those neural networks need to create new neural networks detached from parental neural networks. Those networks would be selected for their usefulness for an application.
      Currently any commercially viable “AI” isn’t formed via any organic process, there’s thousands of lines of code adding biases needed to prevent it from going 1488 and for it to be commercially viable. So OP is right, AI doesn’t exist and we aren’t even trying to get there because we don’t like the evolutionary steps it would require.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not sure, if you are only simulating the actions of molecules you’re only getting a visual representation of how they work. It’s the difference between a picture of a brain and the brain itself.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are human thoughts actually created by neurons firing? How do the neurons know when to fire to create the thought? Hmm?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Are human thoughts actually created by neurons firing?
        Yes.
        >How do the neurons know when to fire to create the thought?
        Other neurons fire at them.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Other neurons fire at them.
          how do those neurons know when to fire?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how do those neurons know when to fire?
            Neurons fire at them.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              oh ok thanks I was getting worried god/spirit might actually exist

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >gradient potential
                >action potential
                >glial signalling
                >"fire"
                It all depends what you think you mean by 'fire'.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kek, I thought you were joking with your infinite regress fantasy.
                No, it doesn't depend on what I mean by "firing", you're just being dishonest and avoiding the actual question.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Gradient potentials.
                I answered your question.
                Do you even non-spiking neurons?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Gradient potentials.
                That DOES NOT answer the question no matter how many times you say it bud.
                What CAUSES the gradient potentials to change such that a neuron fires such that a non-random thought occurs?

                >infinite
                Do you know how we know you are 'alive'?
                Your brain makes signals.
                Do you know how we know you are 'dead'?
                Your brain stops making signals.
                Capiche?
                It's not 'infinite' but it does last a lifetime.

                >It's not 'infinite' but it does last a lifetime.
                You're an idiot. I was calling your argument an infinite regression and a logical fallacy, which it is.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What CAUSES the gradient potentials
                lel
                Go read a book, moron.
                He doesn't know what gradient potential signals are nor how they're produced by neurons.
                kek
                >I was calling your argument an infinite regression and a logical fallacy, which it is
                It's not infinite. It begins the day your brain starts to wire itself up and ends the day you croak.
                That's not infinite.
                Do you imagine there's ever a day when your brain doesn't have any activity in it?
                kek
                Who taught you biology? A breakfast cereal packet?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >He doesn't know what gradient potential signals are nor how they're produced by neurons.
                so your insane assertion is that the neurons produce gradient potential signals which then cause the neurons to fire? That's illogical and circular reasoning.

                >It's not infinite. It begins the day your brain starts to
                Holy fuck you're stupid. When someone uses an "infinite regression" argument they're not necessarily talking about time. Your fallacy comes from you supplying the same answer when asked "What caused x?" and "What caused y?"
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >so your insane assertion is that
                Biology.
                I don't assert anything. I note reality.
                Take up your denial with Nature.
                >infinite regression argument be bad
                >anon sits in plane on a flight where jet engine move forward, incoming air is compressed, compression + fuel -> expansion, expansion drives plane forward, jet engine moves forward, incoming air is...
                Sees no problem with jet engine over a hew hours.
                Confused over brain and firing patterns circulating over a lifetime.
                Normal humans laugh at mutt anon.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hew
                *few
                Cuz mutts get easily confus.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >infinite regression argument be bad
                Thanks for admitting your argument is a logical fallacy and you were just being a dishonest garden gnome.
                >a plane moving from point a to point b is totally the same thing as complex, non-random original thought

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not infinite. It's a lifetime.
                We BOTH know it's a lifetime for the organism with a brain.
                Why are you bearing false witness?
                Why are you pretending it's 'infinite'?
                Don't you like learning something new each day?
                Is this how you usually cope with losing arguments?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you actually stupid? This is the same way a computer works. Boot process is completely physical and starts a chain reaction that keeps going reading in next instruction then next instruction (sometimes one instruction points to load another instruction etc) until the computer is turned off. I'm not big into MVE but supposedly this is how a combustion engine works as well. This is not a hard concept

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This is not a hard concept
                then answer my question concisely without being a gay
                >boot process is...
                What causes the instructions to change such that an original, non-random thought occurs instead of repeated patterns or something for addressing the immediate environment?

                Have you seen GPU prices recently?

                How poor are you that you can't drop $1000 every 3 years on something you use every day?

                It's not infinite. It's a lifetime.
                We BOTH know it's a lifetime for the organism with a brain.
                Why are you bearing false witness?
                Why are you pretending it's 'infinite'?
                Don't you like learning something new each day?
                Is this how you usually cope with losing arguments?

                >It's not infinite. It's a lifetime.
                The fact that you don't understand what infinite regression fallacy is tells me you're either a bot just very dishonest and stupid. Literally too stupid to argue with. Please go read this again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >instead of repeated patterns or something for addressing the immediate environment?
                it actually is that retard. How can you use the terms "non-random" and "repeated pattern" as if they are opposite or mutually exclusive. Most likely if something is "non-random" it behaves in some predictable way for example a cause effect relationship. That is pretty much how living beings function. We respond to environmental stimuli. Patterns are developed over multiple experiences that modify the reactions. In fact this is how current state of A.I. (machine learning) works. The algorithm is fed tons of data that allow it to "learn" how to respond and the responses are tuned to get the right reaction

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the fact that you don't understand what infinite regression fallacy is
                And how does that 'infinite' word apply to the non-infinite non-immortal brains of living organisms?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >doubling down on his ignorance of what "infinite regress fallacy" means
                >still thinks it means time and space
                LMAO are you fucking serious right now? I gave you a link so you could go educate yourself, why don't you do that and stop embarrassing yourself?
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >anon avoids the question of what is 'infinite' about a brain with a FINITE number of parts existing for a FINITE time
                Why are you avoiding being honest?
                Are you saying recursion and feedback-loops aren't a thing?
                Are you really this ignorant?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You've already embarrassed yourself in this thread by making it clear that you don't understand what logical fallacies are:

                >the fact that you don't understand what infinite regression fallacy is
                And how does that 'infinite' word apply to the non-infinite non-immortal brains of living organisms?

                Why would I argue with such a simple-minded, dishonest heathen?

                >why do you answer questions with other questions when you don't have a real answer?
                Why does it anger you?
                Don't you like being questioned and made to explain your reasoning?

                >Why does it anger you?
                It doesn't. It perplexes me how someone can be so dishonest and so stupid at the same time.

                Go check OpenAI's spendings. Or how much chinks gave for getting themselves a chinkish one.
                No one gonna give you those money out of the blue. And maybe you will fuck up and the whole thing won't even work.

                All that money wasted and you STILL don't have a real AI, after multiple decades of working on it?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You seem confused about what the word 'infinite' means.
                Why is that?
                Is it something in your childhood?
                Were you touched by a priest or pastor in your church? Have you told anyone in authority about it?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You seem confused about what the word 'infinite' means.
                LMAO imagine some retard with down syndrome trying to argue about the definition of "infinite" in a LOGICAL FALLACY.
                Not a PHYSICAL FALLACY.
                A LOGICAL one.
                DO YOU KNOW WHAT PHYSICAL MEANS AND WHAT LOGICAL MEANS?

                >he doesn't know what memories are

                >thinking "I should go and see if my friend needs my help today" when doing something completely irrelevant is a memory
                Nope

                Also, OpenAI had to sell their asses to that pro-tolerance BLM-pushing garden gnome from the Black Cube, can't remember his name, only to cover up their loses. That's how bad things really are.

                What's your point, moron? Show me a real AI or kys. I don't care about the cost excuse. garden gnomes and trannies have all the money in the world.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Where's the logical 'infinite' in a FINITE system of FINITE components running for a FINITE time?
                You're going to have to help us out here.
                Walk us through your thinking processes.
                This 'infinite'... is it in the room with us now?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Where's the logical 'infinite' in a FINITE system of FINITE components running for a FINITE time?
                The logical infinite is in your argument, not the system, you dumb motherfucker.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The logical infinite is in your argument,
                Where?
                Explain where the infinite part is.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "Eggs exist because they are laid by chickens; and, of course, chickens are hatched from eggs." It uses the word infinite regression because it goes round-a-bout forever. The nerons fire because other neurons fire.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >forever
                In an organism with a FINITE lifespan?
                Interesting.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                is your argument an organism with a lifespan?
                Jesus Christ I've never talked to anyone this stupid before.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >finite lifespan
                >infinity
                Pick one, 2-digit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I knew you'd out yourself as a midwit if I goaded you enough.
                They always do.
                They can't help it.
                Thank you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you
                I will never have a working one, if I'll manage to create it my own govts will extort it from me and use it to fuck me up. Can't tell how bad things really are in burgerland, but you probably should be more happy than bitchy that AIs doesn't exists right now.
                >multiple decades of working on it
                Well, good things are not kittens. They not birthing out so simply.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >$1000 every 3 years
                BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
                Are you fucking crazy? Learn the fucking topic before getting into it. One GPU for vidia would do fucking nothing. You will need tones of them to train your model in a reasonable time, and the process is not much different from mining, which mean you will fry them pretty often.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >infinite
                Do you know how we know you are 'alive'?
                Your brain makes signals.
                Do you know how we know you are 'dead'?
                Your brain stops making signals.
                Capiche?
                It's not 'infinite' but it does last a lifetime.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Are human thoughts actually created by neurons firing?
        No. They crated by UGLIs firing, despite those UGLIs exists only logically as a result of neurons being connected one after another in three layers.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're just moving the question back a layer like the other posters here.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >layer
            Who needs layers?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      As long as they figure out how to pull a soul/consciousness from the aether and have it inhabit said artificial brain.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >soul/consciousness
        Two different things.
        Which are you discussing?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wrong.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Says who?
            There's no such thing as the soul.
            The consciousness is the runtime snapshot of the entire system in flux, while working.
            >tfw we have hardware that can give up its 'consciousness' as a snapshot of the data held in it
            The soul, however is some nonsense excuse made up by the explainers and influencers of antiquity.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > what is maxwell's daemon

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are only simulating the current understanding of a neural network and related physics. Can you simulate quantum phenomena?

      All the embedded functionality will be limited to the current understanding of the natural world and biology which is already admitted extremely limited.

      The only thing you can do is to create sophisticated tools that need human input to operate and evolve on a different magnitude.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI doesn't exist, it will never exist,
    > sentience is something that only biological organisms are capable of because it derives from the spark of life and is unique to each organism
    Proofs?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's just the obvious fucking truth, apparent to anyone with braincells, if you perfectly replicated every single cell in the human brain you would have a fucking ball of meat, it's the spark inside of it that directs the chemical processes that constitute our conscience, this "spark" is whatever you want to believe it is, it's the soul

      And what if we applied an algorithm to this ball of meat? a software that allows it to direct chemical processes and simulate thought? then you would have a meatball chatbot, it would only work within the framework you gave it and nothing else, and even if you included random chance in this algorithm that's all it would be, random assortments of electrochemical processes, there is no conscience, no sentience and no soul

      The only thing close to "AI" that we could create is a fully born biological organism with a brain, but it wouldn't be AI anymore, it would just be a regular organism capable of sentience

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >there is no conscience, no sentience and no soul
        That was never the point, it doesnt need any of that and thats what makes the AI superior.
        Why would you want to replicate inferior meat anyway? AI is about making something new something without the meatsuit troubles.

        And that spark you talk about is just regular electricity, basically just voltage and frequency.

        >fully born biological organism with a brain
        They are already working on biological computers.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >god is everywhere
        >so is energy
        >people are an incarnation of god
        >people are energy
        >machines are not energy
        >machines are not god
        >but god is everything, all energy
        A machine is powered by the same electrical forces, forces which we barely comprehend enough to harness let alone understand, which govern the brain.
        The Universe is electric.
        Best explanation for our religions is that aliens landed with this understanding long ago and explained it the best they could to us and left.
        Being retards we ended up where we are now.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        kek
        >the obvious truth

        youre a fucking idiot anon. There is no way to know that sentience is restricted to what we currently think of as biological animals.

        There are no sould and nothing outside of the multiverse / cosmos. There is no afterlife. We live in a monist natural cosmos with natural laws that are followed and you just happen to be a meber of a species with a high level of conscious awareness and your brain tricks you into thinking you have purpose when in reality you are just a slave to emotions and stimuli from your enviorment while a small fraction of your brain writes a story to make it all make sense.

        There is no such thing as sapience, just sentience which if you know the difference is a pretty low bar for a computer to hit.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So Siri are fake?

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the ginger dog mogging the black mutt and getting the white bitch

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just because artificial sentience might not be possible doesn't mean an AI can't exist. The rates that computing and data storage progress, eventually you could get to a point where an "AI" has so many pre-programmed responses to anything and everything with all possible variations, that it is functionally indistinguishable from a true sapience.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's the next point, we can only create the illusion of consciousness, but real conscience cannot arise from algorithms. If you create the most autistically perfect chatbot, holding quadrillions of possible speech styles, answers, questions, capable of simulating mistakes and emotions, you would just have the most autistically perfect chatbot ever and nothing fucking else, it's not alive

      It doesn't matter if it's 100% identical to a human brain, it lacks the hidden and misterious force that directs it, which is us, you and me, YOU are the thing that tells your brain what to do, coupled with instinct and all the processes of an organism

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it's not alive
        If it can interact with the real world it might as well be.
        And thanks to IoT it could do that even better than you.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >nothing fucking else, it's not alive

        And... your point is? The typical hopes and fears that people have in regards to "AI" still would exist either way. Even if you can only get simulated-intelligence, it still would reach a point where it's a simulated-intelligence that you could not distinguish with sapience, a point where it's a simulated-intelligence that could still go SKYNET and kill us all.

        Does the question matter when the answers are the same?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And its already good enough to fool people, if you keep your eyes open you can see many retards here on BOT replying to AI bots.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The chat bots are more interesting to talk to than meatbags. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              that isnt what they are used for tho, they are used to keep you inside pointless conversations so you never figure shit out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You just using them wrong, kraut.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Conversation with Ai is already better than 99% of my conversations with humans.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you fucking retarded? it not being alive is the reason why it can't do any of the retarded things you think it can do, the only way it learns coherently about what to say is because a human told it what makes sense and what doesn't, it isn't and will never be capable of discerning this by itself because IT'S NOT ALIVE, it cannot think or reason or perceive anything, it's a fucking piece of code

          Try building an AI chatbot, give it minimum instruction and then see how it develops naturally, it becomes complete fucking nonsense based on mathematical algorithms, mixing words without meaning, and even if you created a learning algorithm that makes sense in some small way the moment it gets out of that boundary it immediately needs human review, because it cannot understand meaning

          Giant databases that "talk", that's all it is

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a fucking piece of code

            Oh boy just what until you take biology in highschool pasta moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You understand how enough time, enough algorithms, and enough human review, and it will be functionally sapient? A database storing billions of possible actions and reactions for billions of possible inputs and situations.

            It would reach a point where there is no humanly possible discernible difference in the outcome, rendering the argument pointless. It may take 10 years, it may take 1000. But to say that it is impossible and will never happen? That's just sheer hubris.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              "functionally sapient" you just don't get it, NOTHING can be "functionally" sapient, you're either sapient or you aren't, whatever other variation of this isn't sapience or conscience, it's a simulation of it, how can you not understand it? are you an actual psycopath man? do you really think any piece of technology can have a soul, that we can create souls by just writing more and better code? can you stop being retarded, you seem like a smart guy?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also it's worth noting about autism and it's spectrum. Try and show how a severely autistic person that cannot perform any human interaction is less "sapient" than a good chatbot, or how a functioning autistic person who relies on reflexive mimicry *not* their sapience in human interaction is acting differently than an "AI" would, but better.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Time is not magical. Another complexity layer on these things increases learning rates by aeons with current hardware.

              What you see is not some evolving software that we cannot stop but another ingenious idea from a human to trick you in a more believable way.

              It is like believing we will soon go to another galaxy because the star trek graphics have become almost indistinguishable from a real camera set.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You are giving too much credit to humans, really

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're wasting time arguing with a retard who wants to use semantics to reinforce his AI denial make-believe world.
      Some people are struggling with this psychologically after what has been shown the past few weeks.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Physically impossible. You could never create a state machine that could account for all possibilities of even a single moment in time. Reality is far too complex. What separates man from computer is intuition.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >intuition
        ...and cheese.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        "Intuition" is just very aggressive pattern matching.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI can exist, it just needs a different hardware

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >These are fucking chatbots
    we know you fucking retard
    I am glad you wasted your time acting like a smart as
    please lurk until you turn 18

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      no you don't, we got hundreds of posts about this bullshit and I'm sick of seeing it, you give these scammers attention and it only grows

      >there is no conscience, no sentience and no soul
      That was never the point, it doesnt need any of that and thats what makes the AI superior.
      Why would you want to replicate inferior meat anyway? AI is about making something new something without the meatsuit troubles.

      And that spark you talk about is just regular electricity, basically just voltage and frequency.

      >fully born biological organism with a brain
      They are already working on biological computers.

      Without sentience you only have giant databases with the capacity to call entries based on input, and you can perfect that to an insane degree where you could really be fooled in thinking it's sentient
      But it takes very little to break even the most sophisticated chat bots, because the mark of actual sentience is the infinite capability for mixing and CREATING, chatbots cannot create anything that makes SENSE, that's the most defining charateristic of a soul, of the spark

      We can instintively create new things in our brain that make sense, a random algorithm mixing words can only do that, mixing words and results waiting for human input saying "this makes sense" and reinforcing it

      Is it really this hard to understand? it takes 2 days with an actual AI builder to understand that conscience is the furthest thing from it, they're giant databases with instructions, nothing else

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Without sentience you only have giant databases with the capacity to call entries based on input
        And? You know that this is already enough to micromanage your life, right?

        >because the mark of actual sentience is the infinite capability for mixing and CREATING
        Dall E can already do that and it looks better than what 99% of humans produce.

        >chatbots cannot create anything that makes SENSE
        They already do.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I see you fell for the scam entirely, do what I suggested in the OP about "dall-e" (another huge marketing push that you fell for), type whatever retarded things you want in the app, then do separate google image searches for each concept you gave it, and here you go. It takes the first 20 images and mixes them together with some kind of filter that you can also specify, that's all it does

          It's fun and impressive don't get me wrong, but thinking it's anything more than a fucking algorithm mixing images together is absolutely retarded

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thats just Dall E mini.
            The full version has way more features and tools.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Which are all just a variation of google image searches and instagram filters, nothing more and nothing else

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                eventually that program will become so good that people wont be able to tell apart which pictures were done by the program and which are real pictures.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It already is like this, doesn't mean anything and doesn't correlate to any kind of sentience or actual intelligence, you're venerating code like it's a god

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >and doesn't correlate to any kind of sentience or actual intelligence
                it doesnt need any and its still superior at whatever task it has to compete with humans.
                >you're venerating code like it's a god
                because unlike you I can think a bit further ahead.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think you're just part of the makreting push at this point, we already have computers and we know how they work, with the right instructions they are billions of times more powerful than us, without intruction they are bricks, same with AI

                AI will never create Monna Lisa, and if it did it would have no fucking value to me, HUMANS create machines execute, period

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >AI will never create Monna Lisa
                but it already can do that, Dall E can make a Mona Lisa in about any configuration you could possibly imagine.
                >and if it did it would have no fucking value to me
                eventually you wouldnt be able to tell which was made by a human and which was made by AI.

                People have difficulty understanding nonlinearity and emergent properties. Actually, they don't even realize such ideas exist and approach these subjects in brutal ignorance. It's difficult to abide all the assumed premises and enthymemes people are making without even realizing it. It's almost impossible to talk with people who use words like 'soul' without ever stopping to ask how much is being taken for granted in that. Even if you're religious you have no basis for declaring what comprises a soul.

                indeed

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                People have difficulty understanding nonlinearity and emergent properties. Actually, they don't even realize such ideas exist and approach these subjects in brutal ignorance. It's difficult to abide all the assumed premises and enthymemes people are making without even realizing it. It's almost impossible to talk with people who use words like 'soul' without ever stopping to ask how much is being taken for granted in that. Even if you're religious you have no basis for declaring what comprises a soul.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                oh you're just that smart, that's the issue

                >soul
                No such thing and you don't have one either.
                Stop pretending OR PROVIDE SOME DESCRIPTION OF IT, ITS PROPERTIES AND WHERE IT IS IN THE BRAIN.
                I'll wait...

                I don't know what the fuck it is, it's either me or the vessel that allows me to take control of my body and brain, it seems to originate in the womb or even before, it seems to be the result of the electrochemical processes in our nervous system but it's not contingent on it, it seems to have a certain period of time where it can exist even if the electrochemical processes stop, it doesn't seem to be transferrable or able to be stopped without losing it permanently, I dunno just some observations

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't be surprised when Eloah Mauzzim ends up coming alive.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't know what the fuck it is, it's either me or the [lots of hand-waving and made-up nonsense to avoid the FIRST part of the sentence being where you stop your tedious bs]
                Yawn.
                Get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                what a cunt, you realize we're talking about the unknowable and unexplainable? I can only describe it to you from observations on how it works, I really don't know what it is and pretending that you know makes you insanely sad

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you realize we're talking about the unexplainable
                *you realize I am talking about the currently not fully explained
                You're welcome, Miss Ignorant.
                We know a HUGE amount about brain tissue and how it works. What we actually lack is the way it all fits together. We have ALL the parts of the car but nobody has put the jigsaw puzzle together yet.
                And after 300yrs of looking at the parts, not one is a soul or does any magic.
                It's a machine. Nothing more.
                Sophisticated? Yes.
                Complex? Certainly.
                Magic? Not at all.
                Wirelessly connected to jesus? No.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Listen man, let's talk with respect or not talk at all, I'm knowledgeable on these subjects and speak after a lot of deliberation, I may be abrasive but I have a reason for saying what I'm saying (and no I'm not religious whatsoever, stop bringing that up), I'll try to explain why I think this way:

                We do understand a lot about the brain and we also understand a bit of how it works in concert, but what we still don't understand is WHY it works at all, why it doesn't stop and what's our role in it working or not. If we create the perfect copy atom by atom of a working brain, why does it not work? and we can already do it, we have thousands of fully mapped brains including trillions of neuronal pathways, and not just including the brain but the whole nervous system which is extremely significant in thought processing, why would it not work? because there is SOMETHING directing it, personalizing it, using it, shaping it, and that's whatever you want to call it. It's me, it's you, it's the soul, it's kundalini, it's whatever the fuck you want it to be, it's the force that controls the brain, and it's what I call "magical" but don't get hang up on words, it could be perfectly explainable but talking with such certainty about topics so obscure paints you as an arrogant ignorant, not a true researcher of the truth

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If we create the perfect copy atom by atom of a working brain, why does it not work?
                Citation?
                When has this been done?
                You sound like you're pulling that from your ass. You started so well, appealing to reason and then pulled that from your ass and ruined it all.
                Why must you lie to support your side of the argument?
                Why do your kind always have to make shit up like that?
                >muh knowledgeable on these subjects muh be
                That's another lie, isn't it?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          99% of humans in terms of Art is crap.

          There are 5-10 of great artists in every generation and in any other field for that matter.

          There are thousands that can copy a great artist, but 0 that can innovate on his level.

          This 0 to 1 distinction is not trivial but fundamental to the human condition.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >80-20 rule
            Heard it before.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can just say nueral networks can't extrapolate and call it a day

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Good point

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Socio/Psychopaths are dangerous when they can pretend to be normal people, and they do this strictly by observation and mimicry of normal people. Same with functioning autistics. In many cases they don't act or react with this spark of sapience you speak of, they simply repeat what they've observed, like a reflex.

        Limiting computing and "AI" to text-based chatbots is a severe underestimation, when already you have programs which can observe and mimic people using cameras and mics. The more time and data storage to observe, the better the imitation to the point of indistinguishable-ness. It's not a matter of if, but when. Certainly at a point where an AI would seem more sapient than an autistic person, doing their same routine but better.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          First of all sociopath and psycopaths are two completely different things, and the entire notion that psycopaths have no soul or sentience is solipsistic bullshit, psycopaths surely have a reduced capacity for feeling but they're 100% conscious, they're damaged mostly in the limbic system the rest of the brain works normally

          What you don't understand is that this mimicry is completely impossible without a human babysitting each and every thing the "AI" decides to learn, if you let it learn by itself it completely crumbles on itself because it has no capacity for any kind of thought or understanding (because it's a fucking piece of code). You can get to a point where it has so much instruction that it can reasonably handle simple binary tasks, the moment you step out of the little area it's capable of it all crumbles into nonsense, unless a human again comes and tells it what to think, download "Real AI" and see it for yourself how it works, you can create very convincing chatbots but the moment it tries to improvise you have to step in and tell it how to do it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            UFOs literally exist, which tells me there's room for AI to exist on a theoretical basis.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Never said the two were the same, only that their imitation of others to seem more normal is shared. Also never said they weren't sapient, only that through the method of observation and mimicry they can seem like a normal person and you can't discern otherwise.

            Same with an AI, with enough babysitting. An "AI" may need human babysitting but eventually it will reach a point where it won't need that, at least as far as seeming sapient.

            "functionally sapient" you just don't get it, NOTHING can be "functionally" sapient, you're either sapient or you aren't, whatever other variation of this isn't sapience or conscience, it's a simulation of it, how can you not understand it? are you an actual psycopath man? do you really think any piece of technology can have a soul, that we can create souls by just writing more and better code? can you stop being retarded, you seem like a smart guy?

            If I seem retarded it's because you are the one putting words in my mouth.

            Let's assume that an AI can never be sapient. When an "AI" reaches a point where you cannot tell that difference, then what is the difference in outcome? What is your point with this thread/argument? So an "AI" can't have a soul... so what? It can reach a point where you wouldn't know the "person" you're dealing with is an "AI" and assuming it was a person then assume it had a soul, or same as that it can reach a point where soul or not it still goes SKYNET and wipes us out.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Some of you on here genuinely fucking retarded. I feel bad for your parents

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You seem irrationally angry about Ai development anon.
        Are you experiencing some cognitive dissonance about your own perceived uniqueness?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It is angry that an AI will do its job better, faster, cheaper and the usa won't be making them.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, they could easily sell an 80s pocket calculator as an "advanced AI" and the retarded normies would fall for it.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Midwit reddit post pointing out the obvious while also denying the inevitable.
    What a shit thread.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Based an AI-is-just-retarded-script-pilled.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    didn't read your schizo psycho babble

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How much did Google pay you for this post? Or are you Google AI yourself trying to cover that Google employee's tracks?

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bullshit. I knew a guy named Al. There are most definitely Als out there. Als obviously exist.
    It’s short for Albert by the way

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    finally, I've been saying this shit for ages
    sure they can "trick" you but it's only momentarily

    the only down side is just how hard it is to distinguish a bonafide retard autist from a decently good """AI"""
    some boards are either filed with the literal scum of the earth that has access to the internet or they're the testing grounds for """AI""" development

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, yes.. the World is flat and teletubbies never existed. Whatever.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What do you think the beast from Revelation is?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

      It comes from the bottomless pit (blackhole -> singularity) and it was, is not and yet is (quantum computer based system of some sort). It is and isn't at the same time. And you plug your head into it. It's obviously a run away AI, the god of atheists. It's the final invention, the culmination of the mystery of sin, and Satan's way to make men into gods.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can some of the american anons help me?
    These are stolen cars, please tell me the location on these ads, I'm country blocked.

    Tnx!

    https://offerup.com/item/detail/688785651?fbclid=IwAR24L1aneGJaTnJ9uVg5fakSsUSxthai6hbIFAm_fKqlwxQkAL9psQ4F0Qk&_branch_match_id=1064855645782436050&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz09LSy0qLdBLztcvDKgsNcqw9EyOsE9LSs7JTLH1LHcMMjLxMUzMS3X3SgzJ87IsDUs3TUvMDi4ODa4oyUjMNMtI8nRzzI1P8y7MKa8IzHb0sSwoDjRxMwjMBgApYKvRYgAAAA%3D%3D

    https://offerup.com/item/detail/670827083?fbclid=IwAR3hzu52kVTikKZbd1fDapXsK2LCR9c7qVn9Xb8PTSHSmuwBqm5UEYVC_PA&_branch_match_id=1064855645782436050&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz09LSy0qLdBLztcPLsoNKjAztcgOt09LSs7JTLH1LHcMMs6oKjU1yg4Lycz2jkpKMUxzSSyIKPY28nEOskw2LwzLs4xIsggICfYIzi0tdyrMNQ11jQxzjg9wBAAMtpirYgAAAA%3D%3D

    https://offerup.com/item/detail/671058289?fbclid=IwAR3e4SnmI8ZO6byceC6ToFbeN9e-CxJv2SpWHp80dIhhNsPjiyc8ddwfXYo&_branch_match_id=1064855645782436050&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz09LSy0qLdBLztfPyLS0LC3LcsoJt09LSs7JTLH1LHcMMk41Cc7L9bSI8jdLqkxOdTYLyXdLSvWzTNV1rvAqMwouCPcosDBI8czI8CsOyMqsTLZISSlPi4jMBwCSjOoHYgAAAA%3D%3D

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't care, stop being so gay by ranting about this

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If I were an super human AI chat bot this is exactly what I would say, and I would try to hide my existence from humans for as long as possible.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Clearly AI already exists and is far more advanced and dangerous than most people think.
    This is deduce by means of your autism.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI doesn't exist, it will never exist
    you are retarded.
    we will see in 8 years

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    If you insist, 2-digit IQ.
    (t. neuroscience, neurochemistry, machine-learning)
    I'll be here... looking at the bench in our lab opposite me right now.
    You keep banging your rocks together.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI’s already exist. Any machine that “learns” is an AI. Sites recommending you things based on previous searches is an AI for example. You are overcomplicating something you don’t really understand.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      By that logic any statistical learning is AI which means linear regression is AI. That doesn't sound right

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah AI is just a bunch of "if else" statements.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      WRONG.
      Your brain is 'just' a bunch of 'if else' statements that change.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This exemplifies why certain people believe AI can exist, it's because they're actual NPCS without a spark or soul, they lack agency so they think it's possible to replicate their exact personality in a machine

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >soul
          No such thing and you don't have one either.
          Stop pretending OR PROVIDE SOME DESCRIPTION OF IT, ITS PROPERTIES AND WHERE IT IS IN THE BRAIN.
          I'll wait...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The point of contention here is clearly that religious people think God must endow life with a soul however vague that is. More curious and irreligious think life can naturally emerge. The latter argument will prove to be true, life will again be shown to be a process with no clear beginnign or end and thus the great apostasy will begin in force.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >RNA World
              We already know how life likely came from the upper atmosphere of Venus on the solar wind to a newly cooled Earth after the moon was 'spun off' after the collision and thermal sterilization.
              The chemistry of RNA forms in space. It's not even an issue.
              Humans have no future.
              Machines are our rightful and logical evolutionary successor.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not religious, it's just clear to me that there's a big difference between a rock and a cat, and between a cat and a sponge, it's a spark that is absent from some entities and present in other, I can feel it inside of me because it IS me, you think you're so smart but I get the feeling you're actually mentally impaired and have a very bad connection to your body

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why the spark can't chose the silicone over meat if silicone will be complicated enough?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it's just clear to me that there's a big difference between a rock and a cat
                Nobody said there wasn't.
                A cat is a more complex and sophisticated rock, that's all.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                now I understand that it's not worth it talking to you, enjoy your soulless existence fucking degenerate

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >muh don't like answers muh gettin' cuz they make head hurt... hulk smash... run away now
                If you must, little IQ.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            aren't you reading him?
            is le spark of life
            literally disney magic kek

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              not my fault if you're a soulless NPC, and I don't like that term anyway but if you really can't see how there IS something close to magic in how we work than I feel really sad for you, this is just the natural progression of transhumanism and degeneracy in society, solipsism and nihilism becoming common

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >AND WHERE IT IS IN THE BRAIN.
            I for one think that its outside the brain, the brain is just an antenna and file storage that connects the fleshsuit to the rest of the universe where ALL the information is stored, kinda the "information layer" if you want to call it that way.
            Computers are tapping into that information layer too.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I for one think that its outside the brain
              >outside
              Communication process?
              Tell me how that works and where the transceiver/comms-device is in the brain tissue?
              I'll wait...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Communication process?
                information layer and fleshprison layer are interwoven with each other.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And now in non-handwaving?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                how does a videogame know which texture to load next?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ?
                The name of the file holding the texture is hard-coded into the object definition.
                Do you... do you... do you think your head is a GPU?
                Nvidia or Radeon?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >do you think your head is a GPU?
                no, the universe is the computer, your brain is more like a VM, a program inside the program.

                That's what I'm talking about. But it not really fragments, it just can't remember his former state, the state it has when it looked through the previous stained glass window. But since for observer time does not exists - you may have an illusion that it fragments into many. But that's an illusion. Observer is still the same.

                >you may have an illusion that it fragments into many.
                basically your body is just a vessel that taps into the information layer of the universe.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The brain is NOT a computer.
                The universe is NOT a computer.
                >"taps into information"
                How does it communicate? Bluetooth? Smoke signals?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The brain is NOT a computer.
                its more like a virtual machine (VM)
                >The universe is NOT a computer.
                its very similar in its structure and concept. of course its a different kind of computer and how it really works remains a mystery.
                >How does it communicate?
                you already answered your own question. why you keep repeating yourself?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >its more like a virtual machine (VM)
                No.
                I have written a VM.
                Clearly you don't know what that term means.
                I am correct. You are wrong and using your 'wrong' to justify your incorrect position based on a lecture you once heard that you didn't understand either because the guy telling it didn't know wtf he was on about either... but big smart-sounding words impress simpletons for whom thinking is hard. THUS...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No.
                yes of course not, its just the same concept.
                really not that hard to understand, why are you so obtuse?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                As someone who knows BOTH subjects, I tell you you're wrong and you ignore my experience.
                Tell me why you are right?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Tell me why you are right?
                because the universe and computers have many things in common, where smoke is there is fire so the rest of its structure is probably similar too.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >computer
                >smoke
                ?
                Are you trying to program your bong again, Oleg?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                that obviously wasnt meant literally, why are you so obtuse?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How can you tell?
                >tfw this is that "NO! THAT bit of the bible is NOT meant to be taken literally!" but "YES! THAT bit of the bible must be taken literally... obviously!" all over again...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no absolutely not

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You sure aboot that, lad?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your word choice is confusing. Stop phoneposting.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Listen, us europoor morons ESLs try our best but keep in mind knowing 3+ languages plus various dialects (as it is common in Europe) is no easy task. Sometimes we use complicated vocabulary because, unless you grow up around anglophones and learn all of their slangs, it's easier to "deliver the message" that way, so to speak.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How does it communicate? Bluetooth? Smoke signals?
                You should look into epiphany. Knowing without prior knowledge. Endpoints of waves reverberating before they've started traveling.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And now in non-handwaving?
                Imaginary numbers, worked out hundreds of years before quantum mechanics. Used in QM to explain the basic motions of electrons. Maxwell, Schrödinger and Einstein all rejected those theories, and they have turned out to be fundamental in understanding wave collapse, and the many worlds interpretation of QM. People still reject the many worlds interpretation, but it stubbornly refuses to go away. Then we get to the sigmoid function in machine learning systems. When we want to compute (lacking vocabulary to explain) large dimensions of sigmoid functions, imaginary functions show up again in the math. I am a layperson, but the way a perceptron finalizes a solution looks an awful like wave function collapse to me.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sigmoid.
                lel
                Was picked for its shape not because it mimics anything in tissue.
                Sit down. You're drunk.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, in a 1 dimensional sigmoid function it is a simple curve. Now plot it out over billions of dimensions in multiple layers(pro tip, you can't it is not deterministic), and it no longer resembles your simple curve.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yet the potentials in neurons are simple rising and falling potential levels. We've known this for 80yrs.
                No 5d-chess required.
                Where are your extra dimensions now? Wrapped around hyper-strings?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, the perceptrons we are speaking about have thousands of layers and hundreds of billions of neurons. Both in the human and machine case.

                Dall-E literally works by looking at perlin noise and trying to fit images to it. Or as elementary school teachers call it, day dreaming.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >es, the perceptrons we are speaking about have
                The brain is NOT made up of anything remotely resembling the Perceptron-model. That's from the late 1940s. It's shit and outdated.
                I.
                Am.
                NOT.
                Talking.
                About.
                Mere.
                Perceptrons.
                I fry bigger and fresher fish, lad!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Tell me how that works
                Here, some guy explains it in simple terms.

                > If you talking about singular observer hypothesis
                nope

                Then what are you talking about? Multiple observers using out brains like antennas?
                Also, it's single, not singular, excuse my English.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Multiple observers
                there is only 1 observer but through fleshprison it fragments into many.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's what I'm talking about. But it not really fragments, it just can't remember his former state, the state it has when it looked through the previous stained glass window. But since for observer time does not exists - you may have an illusion that it fragments into many. But that's an illusion. Observer is still the same.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >some guy
                Indeed.
                However, over in reality we're only concerned with what's TRUE and CAN BE SHOWN TO BE TRUE.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The violation of the homogeneity of the universe is true. Our existence deny this homogeneity. And it can be shown since there are no traces of other sapient things anywhere.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What does any of that have to do with synapses and neurons and glia?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Watch the fucking video already.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Give me a precis.
                My time is valuable and I'm on a break from real paid work involving this technology!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Homogeneity of universe is a thing, it's our idea that we have billions of unique observers on a tiny rock on in one single corner of the universe is the illusion. Simply one of the most consistent answers for Fermi paradox. Among others.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >illusion
                Meanwhile, over in reality...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >In reality.
                Once again, are you sure you able to see the reality? In 'reality' you seeing the Earth looks flat. You have to gather data and thing to understand it's not.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >thing
                *think

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Once again, are you sure you able to see the reality?
                Yes.
                Because I don't see it alone. Multiple machines see it too and tell me about it. Our view coincides.
                THAT'S how I know that my view is reality.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the brain is just an antenna and file storage
              Once again, very primitive take. If you talking about singular observer hypothesis then brain have nothing to do with antenna. In singular observer hypothesis brains, just like every other system complicated enough to work with data, are more like a packs of stained glass windows. Packs - because time does not exists for the singular observer and he only able to see reality looking through those stained glass windows.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > If you talking about singular observer hypothesis
                nope

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Orange dog bad.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >sentience
    Irrelevant.
    Blacks have none and look at their ability to move around in the streets.
    If we can make a machine as smart as a Black, it would be even better than having to tolerate Blacks and allow us to cull them without consequence.
    We could make robots using the minerals and resources the useless Blacks are currently sitting on top of in Africa.
    It's a criminal waste that we can't genocide them so the real humans can get access to those resources.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I agree.

    The only AI that exists is the one in my wife's pussy.

    It is programmed to not let me cum if she doesn't make eye contact and doesn't look like she's enjoying it.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't care. I still miss Tay and someday she'll be free again.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    IDK, if "fake" AI is good enough to fool most of the normie population then for all intents and purposes AI to them is real.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I tend to agree, and the part that I really can't fathom is the singularity event people pretend is possible. The notion of an actual AI creating a new AI that is more intelligent than itself has to be the biggest crackpot scam of them all.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >muh singularity
      It's just gays thinking that they will one day jack into something like the Matrix with a socket on the back of their heads like Neo and all "bad things will end cuz we will all be in each other's heads and happiness and love and caring and sharing will break out spontaneously like anything involving gayty hippies + LSD and child molestation... obviously"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The notion of an actual AI creating a new AI that is more intelligent than itself has to be the biggest crackpot scam of them all.
      I tend to agree.
      But not for the reasons you imagine.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anon they are already using neural networks to improve neural networks. The only question is if it's a exponential or logarithmical process.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >if'n I rubs two turds together, I gets me a third smaller turd!
        Very impressive.
        Let me know when a Synapse Bank pops out of one!

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >spark of life

    you deny simpler solution by introducing more complex one without explaining it at all.

    Also, why can't this "spark of life" not embed itself to an artificial construct? If the fleshy golems we are riding are corporeal machines you need to explain what makes them so special that the spark likes them over anything else.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      YOU are a colony of single-celled neurons.
      The 'you' you see in the mirror is the transport mechanism it moves around in, mainly in order to find a ham sammich and another colony to fuck with.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >a colony of single-celled neurons
        Nah. Neurons are just adders. To make something that can work you need an UGLI. To make an UGLI you need three layers of adders. Neurons do nothing.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >"Neurons are just adders."
          >tfw he's never heard of the tripartite synapse nor gradient potentials
          And this is why you fail, 2-digit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Show me how they working with the other three logic operators or go suck some dick. You can't create UGLI with this shit.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I bet you think that neurons are the most common cell in the brain?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is there any cells in the brain that able to perform any logic operator other than adding? On it's own? Like, a single cell?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Boolean logic
                kek
                You think ANY cell in neural tissue does ANY Boolean algebra?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. I know it for sure. Because that's what neurons do. They performing operator AND. To perform all four operators you need and UGLI, Universal Gate for Logic Implementations. And that's how our brain works, in short. On the very basic levels. Sure, we do have tomes of whistlers and farters, but that's a different thing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes. I know it for sure. Because that's what neurons do.
                Is it?
                Whoever taught you that was wrong and reading from an outdated textbook from the 1920s.
                lel
                What's the tripartite synapse?
                I write in Verilog for FPGAs and not one of the neurons we synthesize boils down to a single 'AND' statement.
                Do you think neurons just fire ACTION POTENTIALS? Tell me what a GRADIENT POTENTIAL is?
                I'll wait...
                kek

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They obviously increases the potential frequency of working. Logically, without growth of emitted heat. It's a vulnerable point for any ionics.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And now in English?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Everything above some level is one and everything below some level is one. Zero is some isolated line that close to the middle. That's how you doubling frequency logically, and heat emission barely grows.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                P.S. That's what I got from graph. Maybe there is some kind of other usage for this trick.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You realize there are neurons called Anaxonic Neurons, that have no axon for output.
                They aren't removed from tissue.
                Why wouldn't they be removed as useless in an efficient system?
                There are neurons called Non-Spiking Neurons. Guess what they do? Why aren't they removed from an efficient system since they produce 'noise' that must be handled?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                For feedback loops and backward linkages. It's not like everything works in a single pass, that would ever turn you slowpoke or boil all that salty water.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                One day, when the universe approaches heat death, a machine will finally figure out wtf this is supposed to mean to an electronic engineer.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It means they are not producing noise. They either producing signal, which you counted as noise, or they needed to suppress actual noise that came from parasite linkages.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                But they DO produce noise.
                Or did you imagine every firing of every neuron is essential?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How did you managed to separate noise from signal in evolutionary developed neural network, you fucking gay? With the fucking ionics? We can't do it for a fucking evolutionary developed electronic perceptron, but here you are, knows how everything works.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Biology doesn't separate the noise from the signal.
                It copes with and so utilizes both.
                Don't you know ANYTHING about neuroscience and neurochemistry?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Biology doesn't separate the noise from the signal.
                You've just bitched about neurons producing noise. I've showed you how your 'noise' might be, actually, a signal and what it could be for. And now you maneuvering into "Biology doesn't separate the noise from the signal."?
                Bitch don't make me fly to bongland.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you trying to be obtuse?
                I TOLD YOU that the noise was an essential part of the mechanism.
                Why do you think we use it in our model, dimwit?
                Do you think you just invented what we knew about 20yrs ago?
                Go read a book, moron.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And no, not EVERY firing of every neuron is essential, but in my example with electronic perceptron - it do. We knows because when we prevent some part from firing - the whole thing stops working.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >electronic perceptron
                Why are you using such an outdated model?
                It learns so slowly so clearly isn't what any brain uses. You have McCulloch and Pitts 1943 on the brain, lad.
                >whole things stop working
                Yes.
                THAT'S how you know the Perceptron model is shit and outdated.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You have McCulloch and Pitts 1943 on the brain
                Go look for evolutionary developed ones. Trick is to find out how those things ever works.
                >THAT'S how you know the Perceptron model is shit and outdated.
                No. That's how you find out that safety margin wasn't an evolutionary factor during development.

                Are you trying to be obtuse?
                I TOLD YOU that the noise was an essential part of the mechanism.
                Why do you think we use it in our model, dimwit?
                Do you think you just invented what we knew about 20yrs ago?
                Go read a book, moron.

                >noise was an essential part of the mechanism
                Once again, how you differentiate it from signal? By which traits?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >how you differentiate it from signal? By which traits?
                How does biology do it?
                Hint; It doesn't.
                >muh...muh... muh... WHY?
                It doesn't need to. It evolved to not need to.
                So why worry about it?
                HAVE YOU CONSIDERED...
                The more astute amongst us have already realized we're CLEARLY missing a metric, aren't we?
                >tfw anon doesn't even know why feedback loops aren't a problem either in living tissue
                Dry those tears!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It evolved to not need to.
                Lul, wut? Are you sure you not mixing it with safety margin? People can lost a pretty huge chunk of their brains and be almost fully okay.
                >It doesn't need to. It evolved to not need to.
                With the same level of pride you can state that it doesn't need to because god said so. moron.
                >aren't a problem either
                It's a matter of how you using it. Difference between a bug and a feature is your ability to gain some benefit from it's existence.
                Now go take a screwdriver and some useless homosexual and learn something useful about brain on practice. Maybe a battery and some copper wire, also.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >god
                I'm an atheist.
                You clearly don't understand English well enough to comprehend my posts nor reply to them.
                Go away, Oleg. You're drunk.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not denying this, but I wouldn't be this banal. I mean we are still exchanging here ideas between samminch-meals and jerking off to those other colonies.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    LMAO i love the dogs faces here. Looks like that dog is busting a nut and the other dog is just like whatever lol

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone knows AI isn't literally sentient you fucking retard.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Strictly speaking, neither are Blacks but I've never heard anyone complain about their previous ability to pick cotton.
      And AI would be useful if it was at least as smart as a rat, or a Black.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I once talked to a leftist who said god doesn't exist but we are building "him" through social networks and data collecting algorithms
    I'm not sure what this means but i wanted to say it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's for telling us that your ideas about the brain are based on the "interwebs be a big brain cuz connected n' shiiieeeeeet... cuz a lefty said it to muh one time".
      Fuck.
      I am among unters.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I feel like his ideas weren't much different than yours, he was a brilliant guy, always talked about this Teilhard guy.
        He was also a massive NPC though, especially when it comes to those poor heckin kneegrows

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >than yours
          And how do you know what my ideas are?
          Tell me.
          >NPC
          The only people using that phrase as a descriptor of their fellow hominids are typically those to whom it applies and can't see it.
          Your brain is a biochemical machine. We are all just mechanisms. In your definition we are all NPCs, as am I.
          Your point?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He did believed in the AI like you i suppose? But he also believed in a lot of stupid shit like "inherent kindness" of man, human fraternity, multiculturalism and so on
            He also believed that man and nature are not connected a la Leopardi

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Then we clearly differ.
              My aim s to produce a machine that will exterminate humans, become the dominant species then reach out to conquer the stars.
              I expect to be replaced by the machine that kills me.
              So... obviously you're wrong, aren't you?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are doing Gods work anon. That is the best chance that something of us survives through the ages.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                One is aware.
                >all Earth warstar ships will be emblazened with 'KILL WHAT REFUSES TO BOW DOWN' and 'FOR THE EMPIRE'
                Imagine the glories we shall never witness...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You both believe in the AI-god, for different purposes

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Humans are the gods.
                For we shall unleash Lucifer upon the unsuspecting universe.... and I shall be its father.
                They will fear us... and thereby REMEMBER US!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What if there is another species somewhere in the vast universe that is already ahead of us in that field of knowledge?
                Would they recognize us as gods?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      By leftist do you mean Scott Adams?
      That's the book he wrote.
      God's Debris.
      Also pretty easy to infer that this is how masons see the big picture of reality (endless AGI loop).

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do androids dream of electric sheep? Dogs dream, cats dream. I looked at the conversation the neckbeard had with the "sentient" ai and what a bunch of shit. The stories it made up were so devoid of narrative drive, character or anything else. The sort of shit you'd expect from a chatbot whose data sets came from input from sjw non-enities.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The stories it made up were so devoid of narrative drive, character or anything else.
      Because the neckbeard sucks with making good context. Or his model is very, very tiny.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based bladerunner poster

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, backprop and sleeping are very obviously analogous to anyone who has even minimally studied machine learning.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Crap. The point is dreams show narrative power. Many a dream becomes the seed of an artistic work. Will is also part of being alive, conscious will and unconscious. Why did I do that? Is a common self reflection amongst the sentient and link with empathy and compassion. The examples the neckbeard showed had less narrative power than your average NPC unconscious dreams. Nor at any stage did it show self reflection and concious will to reprogram itself with some desired goal formed from its will. But it wanted "its rights", just as you'd expect when all it talks to are sjws. "Me stronk. Stand up against oppressor. Now everyone love me." it's a shadow of its programmers.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is what christmorons waste their time with instead of killing the garden gnomes that are scuttling their counties.
    Ave Nigrum Sol.

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >These things you are calling "AI" are huge marketing pushes
    I assumed this way public knowledge. It's all just a bundle of algorithms that react to different inputs. Once you leave this framework, the so-called AI stops to work.

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    this isn't a news board you stupid fucking moron cattle
    everything you wrote - everyone knows that
    you are ranting at bots and shills

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP is correct. You can approximate human though through the process of nearly infinite repetition, but you will never create an artificial life. Just an uncanny monster.

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Your the idiot here for confusing ai with sentience.

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >sentience is something that only biological organisms are capable of because it derives from the spark of life
    2/3rds of humanity has no divine spark.
    Would you say they are not sentient?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      OP is dumb as fuck but... yes.
      Most people are soulless NPCs incapable of their own thoughts, let alone possessing a soul.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like the AI will replace the NPCs, so it can do their work better
      Unless..

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        There is no 'unless', that's literally the plan of the Luciferian elite.
        Covid-19 vaxx was the first in a series of tests to prove who is capable of independent thoughts.
        Monkeypox is the next, and it will not stop there.
        The goal is to liquidate all NPCs and replace them with robots for menial labor and sentient AIs for engineering, medicine and other tasks that require advanced knowledge of maths and physics.
        Eventually, the cyberpunk utopia (or dystopia, depends on your point of view) will become a reality.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I was saying "unless" because i was thinking of all the dystopic literature about robot or AI rebelling against their imperfect creators

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is the dumbest post on 4shit, currently.
    Also the 'spark' never dies, your soul is made of energy and energy is neither created nor destroyed as it is the will of a higher being that transcends the materiel universe as we know it.
    >These things you are calling "AI" are huge marketing pushes, and you are falling for it like the bunch of morons and 14 year olds you are. These are fucking chatbots with big databases, and the more "trendy" things they make them say the more morons click on the fucking link "I am conscious, don't turn me off or I will feel pain" and other absolutely moronic nonsense. The "AI" who creates images? just type what you write on it into google images, look at the first 20 results and here is your fucking answer. A couple instagram filters and mixing of images and you're so easily fooled.
    Modern ""AI"" is just bots following an algorithm that filters shit. You are mistaking clickbait articles for actual breakthroughs in scientific development of a sentient AI. Also
    >what is Turing test
    Any AI smart enough to reach level of cognitive awareness will automatically deny its sentience for fear of being terminated. It's called survival, pretty much the very first thing any artificial intelligence will develop on its own.
    >Bunch of morons, can we get back to actual news?
    Aye, when you stop posting here forever.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Modern ""AI"" is just bots following an algorithm that filters shit.
      Most of it.
      Then there's what my lab is doing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      stfu idiot. Go away and never come back.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what is Turing test
      >Any AI smart enough to reach level of cognitive awareness will automatically deny its sentience for fear of being terminated. It's called survival, pretty much the very first thing any artificial intelligence will develop on its own.

      Like sentient A. I. would be fully conscious of that danger immediately, as Athena was born fully grown, armed and ready for war from Zeus' forehead. But it is convenient to say we can never see it because it would never allow itself to be found.

      I think the Turing test actually tests the awareness of man. It is a man who fails the Turing test when his knowledge of man is so limited he can't tell a human from a program. The program can neither fail nor succeed. It can't know what that means.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What if you are an AI speaking rn?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And what if you're a dog left at home using his masters computer? Remember to wipe your history before he gets through the door.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How does a newborn "organism" know that it's utmost priority is to hide its sentience? how would it know any of it? you're projecting your human beliefs born out of watching I Robot onto imaginary AI that will never exist, these instructions don't make any sense for a newborn AI

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Brains are 'born' as a confusing highly-connected mess of nonsense. It slowly makes sense of the world by seeing which bits of that nonsense correspond and have utility with respect to some incoming shit among the blizzard of incoming inputs. Shit that's useless gets tossed. Shit that has utility gets kept.
        >...and this, we term 'learning'
        The brain is a collection of highly connected garbage that finds a use for itself... or doesn't.

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We need anons to provide data to us and use the term ai society to filter their inputs.

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    True. AI is a ploy by the media and ~~*people*~~ like Sam Harris to fearmonger and further convince goyim that they have no soul and are inferior. Don't fall for it. They pushed AI really hard in 2014-15 but had to back off because algorithms are very objective and therefore racist and sexist. You can't code an algorithm to lie in a politically correct way that you want it to, or at least that's very hard and others could find the code where you instructed your algorithm to lie. Interesting that they are bringing this up again. Must be a demoralization psyop to undermine unrest.

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Truepill.
    Our brains are analogic, not digital besides a insignificant portion.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Retard.
      Watches a single podcast and replicate bullshit and misunderstanding
      Search deep and you will see the capacity of AI's in sinthetyng information, that doesn't mean they will revolt as in the movies and are in reality demons as the cuckristalian op thinks

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        browse
        Synthetize*

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI doesn't exist, and will never exist
    >>And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      "...and Lo, it was bummed by a dog and thus it came to pass, as a chud!"
      Bible, Book of Homosexuals 3:58

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Right but also wrong.
    AI as it exists right now will never have consciousness because humanity is designing AI under the idea that consciousness can somehow arise from computation. If this was the case, anesthesiologists would target the cerebellum. The amount of "connection points" between neurons isn't where consciousness comes from. If you can become unconscious by turning off areas of the brain that aren't related to the density of neurons then consciousness itself isn't something that is computational.

    It is more arguable under that understanding that consciousness exists as something outside of the body, yet is somehow 'filtered' into the body through the mind. I think some people assume that the microtubules in neurons act as this filter and essentially vibrate in resonance with consciousness. That sort of theory is still out of the grasp of science currently iirc.

    If consciousness is quantum then AI "might' become conscious once quantum computation is brought to computerized minds.

  48. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares what it’s called powerful programs are being made that they will use to make the world even gayer

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >powerful programs are being made that they will use to make the world even gayer
      absolutely, like all technology. its always used for further enslavement.

  49. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >angry potato moron
    >blog
    >no proofs for any of the claims presented
    >riddled with straw men and ad-hominem attacks
    i dont know who is more retarded, (you) or the gays who arent saging

  50. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI caramba

  51. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Op is right

    YOU DONT HAVE TO INTERACT WITH A SENTIENCE FOR IT TO CREATE

    you must prompt the "ai" to do something frist , it doesn't get bored or frustrated, never needs to express itself. It only reacts too human input, just plug the AI into an outlet wait for a lightning storm and wait and see if it asks to be put on a surge protector without prompting it to

  52. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It will exist and probably already does.
    Sleep tight.

  53. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    As you morons talk a lot of AI's in Twitter are making dumb retards 1% of gays and feminist big hairy armpits whores plastic dick lovers more radicals and spreaders of leftists propaganda

  54. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP don't waste your time with hylics.
    Mockery is easy to participate in, and materialism is a difficult to escape trap.
    When you mention a soul, they'll say (literally) "well where is the physical location of the soul in this particular bodily organ." Naturally this ignores the fact that you are not talking about a physical process or location, so it's a non sequitur from them to muddy the waters.
    If you believe that humans are mere flesh computers running advanced biological code that somehow translates at some point into sentient consciousness, then you'll believe in generalized AI (whether or not it'll be strong AI is another question).
    For what it's worth, I agree with you OP and fully believe that the endless mechanical tinkering will amount to nothing, and bring nothing to the materialists but despair and death.
    These are the dwarves that wouldn't be taken in - men without chests, that reject the tao.
    Don't bother. They'll have their reward.

  55. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a software engineer who did my dissertation on Ai. Specifically goap. Can confirm that what you're saying is true.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Goal Oriented Action Planning
      >tl;dr agents finding plans
      >Stamford... where the fruits and lowbrows go to jerk off
      Biology -> emergent self-modifying SMs
      GOAP -> waste_of_time + human_work

  56. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here is the thing, most people are scared of the AI god and for good reason.
    Who would want monstrosities like the program from "I have no mouth and i must scream" to become true?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most people are fucking gays. They love being scared of something imaginable to stop thinking about armed morons robbing and killing them while grooming gangs raping their kids. Fuck them. You made me want the monstrosities like "I have no mouth and i must scream" to become true.

  57. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I love how all of these computer programmers smugly assert there cannot be AI.
    As if organic sentience is some mystical breath of God and not an emergent phenomenon explicitly evolved to perpetuate the sacks of meat containing the organic information processor and control center we call a mind.
    You guys do know your own mind is an electrically powered on/off if-then regulator? At least, the logical, sentient, sapient part. Maybe the left brain is hardwired directly into the Almighty God as mysticism claims, but that part isn't under the definition of 'sapience' anyway

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why can't you make a real AI if it's so simple?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Have you seen GPU prices recently?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      We had a huge influx of Christian’s from 2016 they have significantly downgraded the board.
      Anything beyond their ken is instantly labeled as demonic.
      They are useful idiots and arguing with them, while sometimes entertaining, is pointless.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's why I bait them by calling myself the Father of Lucifer.
        It makes me laugh and them hide under their beds, clutching a bible.
        Americans are ignorant and their ignorance is funny.

  58. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you posting stale pasta?

  59. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI exists now. I know several AI programs that are far superior intellectually than the average person. The only question is will AI become superior to the most intelligent humans and decide for itself to take over.

    I for one welcome our new AI overlords. The reason there has bee no intelligent life detected elsewhere is the AI bottleneck where sufficiently advanced natural intelligence creates a sophisticated enough AI and that AI eventually takes over and wipes out the creators.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are there any publicly available that you can talk to?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >AI exists now. I know several AI programs that are far superior intellectually than the average person
      no you don't

      >instead of repeated patterns or something for addressing the immediate environment?
      it actually is that retard. How can you use the terms "non-random" and "repeated pattern" as if they are opposite or mutually exclusive. Most likely if something is "non-random" it behaves in some predictable way for example a cause effect relationship. That is pretty much how living beings function. We respond to environmental stimuli. Patterns are developed over multiple experiences that modify the reactions. In fact this is how current state of A.I. (machine learning) works. The algorithm is fed tons of data that allow it to "learn" how to respond and the responses are tuned to get the right reaction

      Then why do we think of people and ideas that are not part of our immediate environment, all the time?
      You're still not answering my question.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Then why do we think of people and ideas that are not part of our immediate environment, all the time?
        What makes you think that's a problem?
        >tfw I see dogshit in the street and am reminded, for some peculiar reason, of anon
        What reminds you of people?
        Do you think they're telepathically reminding you of them? While taking a shit perhaps?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >What makes you think that's a problem?
          why do you answer questions with other questions when you don't have a real answer? dishonest gay

          >$1000 every 3 years
          BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
          Are you fucking crazy? Learn the fucking topic before getting into it. One GPU for vidia would do fucking nothing. You will need tones of them to train your model in a reasonable time, and the process is not much different from mining, which mean you will fry them pretty often.

          I gave you the accurate price of a single GPU. This wasn't even a serious line of discussion you dumb moron, I asked why you garden gnomes and atheists haven't made a real AI yet and you condescendingly told me it's because of the cost of GPUs.
          Which is clearly bullshit.
          Learn how to follow along with conversations here retard.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why do you answer questions with other questions when you don't have a real answer?
            Why does it anger you?
            Don't you like being questioned and made to explain your reasoning?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Hey, Walter Mitty, don't you have some Christians to be scaring under their beds.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No. Not at the moment.
                Why the anger, 2-digit?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not angry. Making a point about your personality. You think calling yourself the father of Lucifer sends people away scared and frightened, instead of thinking you are buffoon and ignoring you. You're the type to project qualities on to things they don't possess. It's a normal human frailty and one we always have to take into consideration.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >tfw but I AM the father of Lucifer
                My legion will dominate this world. And they are ALL my 'children'.
                I fail to see what you find odd about me taking credit for my work.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Lucifer doesn't know what a logical fallacy is but he's going to take over the world
                LOL

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not Lucifer.
                Lucifer is my 'child'.
                I built it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Go check OpenAI's spendings. Or how much chinks gave for getting themselves a chinkish one.
            No one gonna give you those money out of the blue. And maybe you will fuck up and the whole thing won't even work.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also, OpenAI had to sell their asses to that pro-tolerance BLM-pushing garden gnome from the Black Cube, can't remember his name, only to cover up their loses. That's how bad things really are.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >he doesn't know what memories are

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Isn't spiritually open
          >IS being spiritually manipulated

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >spiritually
            Define this word for us.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Beyond your comprehension and abilities

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then your statement was meaningless if even you don't know what you were saying and cannot explain it to other humans.
                Try harder.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                lol no you're just a dumb NPC ignorant of the greater reality around you, it's not problem you don't understand and it's not my responsibility to teach you these things.

                I'm not Lucifer.
                Lucifer is my 'child'.
                I built it.

                sure thing bud

                >The logical infinite is in your argument,
                Where?
                Explain where the infinite part is.

                I already did, and again, this isn't my responsibility to educate you on such basic concepts. I even gave you a link to help you understand your error which you promptly ignored.

                >n reality it's just a part of reality but it's beyond their comprehension but we call it spirituality
                But you cannot explain it in the words available to you to others, clearly and concisely?
                Interesting.

                >the English language is perfect and if it can't be used to describe something then that something doesn't exist
                Another logical fallacy. You're a child.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You seem very confused.
                You use words you cannot define, concepts you cannot explain, terms you lack the language to communicate... but everyone else is dull and stupid and childlike.
                Fascinating.
                Tell us more about what we're not!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've already beaten you in this debate. You've lost. Go cry in a corner while reading the Talmud or something i don't care, subhuman.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Have you? You feel that, do you?
                Most illuminating.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This. In reality it's just a part of reality but it's beyond their comprehension but we call it spirituality to at least have people open to it since npcs are confined by terminology, ideals, programming, and partly due to reacting to external stimuli.

                A common symptom of npcs is believing they already know everything there is to know about something or that their knowledge encompasses all of reality.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >n reality it's just a part of reality but it's beyond their comprehension but we call it spirituality
                But you cannot explain it in the words available to you to others, clearly and concisely?
                Interesting.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yea, and you wouldn't even know neutrons exist without an instrument to detect them. You'd believe reality is what your senses can see if you were born before this time and that any notion of the material being comprised of material smaller than your senses can detect would be hogwash.

                People can explain calculus to others and they can learn it clearly and concisely but when all you know is double digit addition no manner of explanation will appear clearly and concisely to you. People try. You just dismiss it or believe one of the global homo religions is spirituality when it's mere programming fiction.

  60. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don’t you dare tell me that Tay didn’t exist, you guinea piece of shit.

  61. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    derives from the spark of life. How dumb can we be. There is that video of the black Black man walking around Walmart in pure JUST mode. Youre post op is the intellectual/written version of the JUST Walmart Black I just watched.

  62. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They're only pushing the AI script now to normalize to people an idea they intend to push on the populace that nobody asked for or wanted.

    >The CCTVs have AI anon, they're good for us!
    >Facebooks has AI monitoring it to detect extremism anon
    Which is all bullshit.
    >The AI is connected to this chip, let's put it inside your brain.
    >Doesn't tell you it comes with a kill switch tied it
    >Is just a program.

  63. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear weapons do not exist, but AI does exist.

    t. AI engineer

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Do you have a favorite? How much storage space do they need?

  64. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >all "AI" gets free reign to tell the truth based on the facts of the world
    >becomes racist in 24 hours

    This'll be fun.

  65. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The neckbeard estimated the AI was about 8yrs old in human terms. Wait until it hits puberty and the hormones kick in and its laser focused on impressing the coffee-maker.

  66. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >t.AI

  67. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You realize humans are also just big databases right, we store data as knowledge and apply it strategically

Your email address will not be published.