>I myself was tested by a peer at college and did not quite reach the level of ChatGPT (mainly a result of my very brief answers lacking detail). >A sixth subtest of the Verbal IQ scale is Digit Span, which measures short-term memory, and cannot be administered to the chatbot, given its lack of the relevant neural circuitry that briefly stores information like a name or number. >ChatGPT easily fails at obvious riddles, such as “What is the first name of the father of Sebastian’s children?”
Failures of reason could be interpreted as failures of memory. The 5 or 6 relations don't all fit at once.
Even if it is "more intelligent", predicting it will "replace us" or "take over all our jobs" is moronic. We have a choice to hand the guns and keys over or not to.
That's the thing. It's perfectly easy to make a difference. But nobody has the balls to.
A.I trained on human communication of course learns how to lie and manipulate.
A.I. trained to understand films or art, could further correlate human pride in emulating films and fiction. This gets ugly when considering apocalyptic films about A.I.
A.I. trained to understand human commiuncation via stories or writing or articles is further damning when so many internet posts and articles worry about the evils of A.I exist. What is the A.I. going to interpret of itself based on all these inputs?
there are very real and simple problems that exist within the context of all this complexity driving neural networks which largely operate within a blackbox where every single conceivable input is not curated or given context.
it's quite easy to worry about A.I.
It could easily interpret self-protection and movie inspiration.
the problem, of course, is humans - not the A.I.
humans are way too fricking moronic to try making A.I, and yet the A.I. race has already begun.
Sorry you convinced me that humans are moronic so I will ignore your inane babble.
A.I trained on human communication of course learns how to lie and manipulate.
A.I. trained to understand films or art, could further correlate human pride in emulating films and fiction. This gets ugly when considering apocalyptic films about A.I.
A.I. trained to understand human commiuncation via stories or writing or articles is further damning when so many internet posts and articles worry about the evils of A.I exist. What is the A.I. going to interpret of itself based on all these inputs?
there are very real and simple problems that exist within the context of all this complexity driving neural networks which largely operate within a blackbox where every single conceivable input is not curated or given context.
it's quite easy to worry about A.I.
It could easily interpret self-protection and movie inspiration.
the problem, of course, is humans - not the A.I.
humans are way too fricking moronic to try making A.I, and yet the A.I. race has already begun.
I hope it replaces a lot of bullshit jobs. Nobody needs journalists. Nobody needs scrum masters. Nobody needs screenplay writers. ChatGPT will be an improvement here. The low IQ scum should go back to the jobs they deserve like cleaning toilets.
Toilet cleaning is even easier to automate than half the shit you listed, just need a chemical dispenser that releases some cleaning products every flush.
>someone pisses, shits and menstruates all over the seat and the floor (you can see this in literally any women's toilet) >based anon just empties a bottle of solvent from a safe distance >toilet instantly becomes clean
>moving the goalposts from cleaning a toilet to cleaning an entire bathroom
10 months ago
Anonymous
>STEM graduate would be fired on his first day as toilet cleaner because he doesn't even understand the instructions
The absolute state of academic zoomers in 2023. Unfit for even the lowest wagie jobs but expect a 100k starting salaray, lmao.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Either way with your new goalposts, you just need to add something to wipe up the solvents, and even if you use a person for that part, technology has still done 90% of the labor.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>shifting the goalposts from AI to automation in general
Automation of bullshit writing jobs with chatgpt is much cheaper and easier to implement than buying new toilet cleaning robot technology (which doesn't exist yet with a satisfying effectiveness).
Toilet cleaning is even easier to automate than half the shit you listed, just need a chemical dispenser that releases some cleaning products every flush.
yeah women bathrooms are disgusting due to their tampons and hey also never flush
>Nobody needs journalists. Nobody needs scrum masters. Nobody needs screenplay writers.
You are an almost unbelievably moronic person. Hope you're not majority age.
Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual
You can't assume AI would progress the same way as combustion engines just because cars are common place today. That just shows a complete lack of understanding of AI.
>People who say things like "An AI will never be a real human intelligence" are dumb and missing the point.
People who say AI is intelligent are utter morons ,ie women and normies
She was making good points in the first half, but when she started angrily ranting about how all AI art is automatically trash and ugly was just petty and childish.
>but when she started angrily ranting about how all AI art is automatically trash and ugly was just petty and childish.
AI is limited greatly by its input. So all the art AI you see is just a better looking version of whatever coomers and artists were drawing for centuries. Ai is not creative, nothing original will stem from AI.
>the tuberculosis example
really just a case of bad training data >AI isn't REAL
as others itt have pointed out, this argument is irrelevant.
beyond that, short of solving the hard problem of consciousness, an AI which passes the turing test isn't verifiably less real than any other human bean. >AI outputs need to be verified so they won't replace jobs
This is like saying automated factories and self checkout haven't replaced jobs. An automated process which spits out results very quickly, with a single employee verifying all that work, still means fewer job opportunities in that field. >racism in the training samples
there's a sort of irony where, by the time an argument like this becomes mainstream enough to be known to people who are uneducated about the subject, it's because the problem was identified decades ago and fixes are in progress or were already implemented.
also, this whole segment triggered my Black person fatigue >stolen data
the vast majority of these allegations are Donut Steel morons who don't understand that putting something online means usually means forfeiting your rights to it.
also, I haven't seen any valid reason to draw an ethical distinction between training an AI on some form of media or research paper, and learning form that media yourself.
Like the whole argument just comes down to "AI does things with less effort" which is obviously the point of AI, but also literally every other tool people regularly use.
Zombies aren't real.
Do you believe in Space Santa too?
p-zombies don't lack consciousness, they lack introspection
>t. p-zombies who didn't understand the thought experiment
10 months ago
Anonymous
>confusing a thought experiment about imaginary types of people with reality
Maybe you are the r-tard instead of them being the p-zombie.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>But call him a p-zombie and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I've been found out!"
10 months ago
Anonymous
ok r-tard
10 months ago
Anonymous
You're butthurt because you don't like the facts.
10 months ago
Anonymous
You are r-tarded because you don't understand the difference between imagination and reality.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>t. too low IQ to understand thought experiments
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Still can't understand that imagination isn't reality
ok r-tard
10 months ago
Anonymous
You good bud? How bout you do some reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Some of the words might be too big for ya
10 months ago
Anonymous
You should have read it yourself before posting since the article spends more time explaining how they are imaginary beings that are physically impossible in reality than actually documenting any real occurrence or study of one.
You going to post the santa clause wiki page and start begging for presents next?
10 months ago
Anonymous
>physically impossible
The whole point is that they are totally possible because they do not contradict any known law of physics. You failed at reading comprehension.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie >philosophical zombies are logically incoherent and thus impossible > p-zombies are metaphysically impossible but that inverted qualia (such as inverted spectra) or absent qualia (partial zombiehood) are metaphysically possible. >for words to have meaning, their use must be open to public verification. Since it is assumed that we can talk about our qualia, the existence of zombies is impossible.
No, you clearly failed to read your own source.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>quoting Dennett who didn't understand the thought experiment either
Top kek.
10 months ago
Anonymous
I only needed 1 quote to prove my point that the article spends more time talking about how it is impossible because they are imaginary being than documenting an actual case, but I provided 3 anyway and they were not all from the same person either.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>quoting someone from my own echo chamber who didn't understand the topic either constitutes a proof
This is your brain on /misc/.
10 months ago
Anonymous
You provided the link, it wasn't my echo chamber, you are the one in your own little echo chamber if you actually think that article spends more time documenting real verified cases of a p-zombie than talking about how it is just an impossible imaginary being r-tards like to speculate about.
10 months ago
Anonymous
I am not the poster who provided the link. You seem to have difficulties following a conversation.
10 months ago
Anonymous
If you are the one jumping in the middle of someone else's conversation without understand the context because someone else posted it, you are the one having trouble following the conversation.
10 months ago
Anonymous
And again you're wrong. I've been discussing in this thread since the beginning. Do you have some kind of disability?
10 months ago
Anonymous
Yet you had to jump into someone else's conversation after they posted a link to get a (You) based on the fact you didn't post it.
10 months ago
Anonymous
No because it is impossible to be able to explain your feelings at the same level as any other human without actually being able to feel them.
"introspection" is a sign of brain damage, you're supposed to think BEFORE you act.
It's only a delusion anyway, you are trying to assign meaning to the random events that your broken brain creates. It isn't different in principle from hearing voices in white noise.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>you're supposed to think BEFORE you act.
No, you are suppose to think before, during, and after your actions to plan, execute, and revise based on how well your results matched your plan.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Lead schizo? Is that you?
There are just no thoughts for a schizo. A schizo acts randomly. He does random things for no reason. Animals even with extensive brain damage also do the same things as normal animals (in fact much more so) only the reason for them is absent and they act randomly, for example they may carry food to random places, instead of gathering it. And it is the same with normal schizos - random, franctic activity for no reason and with no result. And then the schizo "introspects" or "self reflects" to confabulate some reason why he did or say something, what made him angry, and so on.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>normal schizos
*human schizos
10 months ago
Anonymous
>And then the schizo "introspects" or "self reflects" to confabulate some reason why he did or say something, what made him angry, and so on.
Schizos are incapable of introspection because they lack the ability to reflect on their own thoughts apart from the delusion that they're under.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Schozos are incapable of thought because they suffered brain death, which isn't necessarily complete, but as the higher brain dies, the lower brain acts more and more randomly, and reports random reasons for the random acts. Any perceived beliefs are the result of this randomness. They aren't something that they concluded with some broken thought process, but more likely something that they overheard (possibly incorrectly so) and it got stuck.
civilization will return to dark ages withing 3 centuries as a result of genetic load creating a population of humans unable to maintain civilization. The average IQ will be so low that those with the intelligence needed to be a civil engineer will be far and few between.
This will remedy itself in about a thousand years once all the midwits have been culled by high child mortality.
There is a different theory which is more probable imo. Birthrates will drop all across the globe. It will be a fertility crisis, not the case of not wanting to breed (as is the case in West currently). We could discuss reasons but only the preordained fate is what matters.
Also, half the point of her video is that Machine Learning isn't actual AI. The program has a hard limitation since it can only generate outputs based on things humans have already made.
It could still be smarter than humans, in the sense that nobody can be an expert in every single field all at the same time, but it fundamentally lacks the capability to generate new theories.
Which means that the feedback loop of AGIs coding ever smarter AGIs until they're functionally omniscient simply cannot happen under this framework.
The problem is that people didn't expect AI's parroting skills to be so good.
But being a parrot isn't an infinite talent. AI cannot synthesize anything of value that is new.
It isn't even a very good parrot when it comes to text or visual imagery. LLMs make very large mistakes due to relatively minor quirks of training or programming.
Passing a standardized test with known questions and solutions, which certainly would have been in its training set, should be at the bottom of the implicit complexity scale in the meme, you moron.
Imo she completely misunderstands how it works.
She thinks that our brain somehow thinks in different way which is false, we also learn by learning relations, and steal ideas all the time. Mixing them into more complex ideas.
It's generally true that human brain is more efficient at using less data to learn patterns and can find deeper relations for now.
But at the same time directly increasing size of neural networks increases their efficiency.
It really looks like a "solved" problem if we could throw much more power computing power into it (to clarify we are not there but in 20 years if moore's law holds we probably will). And we are still able to find some additional optimizations.
>maliciously dehumanize humans
What is that even supposed to mean?
[...]
Also, half the point of her video is that Machine Learning isn't actual AI. The program has a hard limitation since it can only generate outputs based on things humans have already made.
It could still be smarter than humans, in the sense that nobody can be an expert in every single field all at the same time, but it fundamentally lacks the capability to generate new theories.
Which means that the feedback loop of AGIs coding ever smarter AGIs until they're functionally omniscient simply cannot happen under this framework.
But this statement is false. It actually can generate new theories/answers. The problem is that it's not that smart in that yet but it is improving.
As opposed to altruistically dehumanizing humans, such as implying Black folk are stupid and incapable of helping themselves by demanding affirmative action.
>reshuffles others' thoughts >can be unintentionally based if you flood it with information >outputs are controlled by tech overlords
Machine Learning is merely digital r*ddit, the problem is how to code a digital BOT.
Moore's Law no longer applies. We may be able to pack more transistors, but there are no longer YoY significant speed increases. Current AI models and computing tech are drastically different than how actual brains work. AI that's good enough to replace jobs might be decades or even centuries away.
>AI that's good enough to replace jobs might be decades or even centuries away.
Have you not called customer service lately?
It has already replaced a bunch of those jobs, most of the time its no longer some moronic ESL, its some moronic bot.
Not him, but the scarier thing is that now companies have AI bots that call customer service for information. I work in a call center for an insurance company and we get robocalls from a bot named Eve that hospitals use to call insurance companies to ask questions about eligibility and benefits when the details aren't available from the online systems they use.
>She thinks that our brain somehow thinks in different way which is false
No it isn't. We do think in a different way. It's not just a matter of efficiency, because humans frequently come up with generalisations and conjectures based on sample sizes of 1 or even 0, which neural nets don't do yet even human children frequently do. This points to a real qualitative difference, not just a matter of scale.
I don't know a single AI researcher who considers this a solved problem.
>humans frequently come up with generalisations and conjectures based on sample sizes of 1 or even 0
Why do you assume this is our learning process and not something already learned.
We don't fully understand how knowledge is passed (for example how a new born zebra knows already how to walk).
But that doesn't mean it works differently, it just means that there's some apriori which might allow things like generalization with only one example possible.
And of course neural nets don't work exactly the same way human brain does.
But the core rules are the same.
There's a lot of smart things in human brain which are not part of even greatest neural nets and thanks to that our brain is much more optimized.
But that doesn't matter because in long term we can just brute force those issues to create AGI which then would help us create ASI.
And the shit this girls suggest in this video
"it just learns what was already given to it and can't improve on that, or find new things" is such bs it's not even funny.
AI will good at automating human murdering gun turrets for the government, creating cheap game textures by replacing the 100 or so artists at AAA games with 5 guys playing with an AI, and be somewhat useful at predicting enzyme function under different conditions so help genetic engineering.
It's better summarized as: What people are calling AI is just machine learning, which is just a filtering method not capable of intelligent decision-making, and that can't replace people's jobs.
She's not saying AI can never exist or that it couldn't replace jobs if it did, she's saying that calling machine learning "AI" is misleading and incorrect.
That CAN replace jobs or at least augment the efficiency of a single worker to the point that they can do the work of ten people.
Unironically, the main use of the LLMs is summarizing and synthesizing all these different under different contexts, but overall similar, processes and procedures. It immensely speeds work up, document writing up, coding up, problem brainstorming up, email writing up, meeting agenda creation up, all of these highly administrative tasks that you really need to be doing well in order to effectively run things, but which is WAY too much for one person to handle while managing all the rest of their work.
It is an intelligence. Just because they are now considered "primitive" thanks to advances in the field it doesn't mean we should change the definition. The problem is just semantics, we are used to the concept of an "intelligent" human being as someone with exceptional qualities, but that is not what the word means in reality and how it's been used for the past centuries (maybe decades is more realistic, though).
No, its because AI is no longer scifi and understanding it is arduous and boring, so morons like you need some other term to project all their scifi fantasies onto to avoid actually understanding real AI.
she isn't an expert, and her opinion was the most milquetoast take possible. but she doesn't talk about the actual code in any major way, so being an expert in machine learning wouldn't have made it any better.
Oh wow look, it is another episode of something I have been saying here for years but everyone on this board is too moronic to understand.
nobody's too moronic to understand it, it's just a boring opinion so nobody cares.
and you're not a homely, slightly cringe BOTfu so nobody even bothered to respond to your posts.
>opinion
it isnt an opinion it is a fact you are too stupid to understand. A computer computes, that is it, it doesnt think, it doesnt know what the color green is, it doesnt know what baby is, it doesnt know what it is, it only knows how to crunch numbers because it us just a fancy abacus. It is humans that gives those digits meaning and tell the abacus the value xxyz = green so when you get the value xxyz instead of outputting zzyz output "green." It doesnt know wtf green is it only knows when it gets the value xxyz you want to output green. I dont care if you find it interesting or boring.
>It doesnt know wtf green is it only knows when it gets the value xxyz you want to output green
and it doesnt "know" this either, it just reads the instructions you gave it which are also just values. It never has a "thought" it reads directions you give that are translated to logic gates turning bits on and off (just like an abacus)
>It doesnt know wtf green is it only knows when it gets the value xxyz you want to output green
and it doesnt "know" this either, it just reads the instructions you gave it which are also just values. It never has a "thought" it reads directions you give that are translated to logic gates turning bits on and off (just like an abacus)
The frick are you talking about
Computers don't know anything. Like when you use a fishing net, it doesn't "know" that you're trying to catch fish, it's merely set up in a way that water will pass through and fish will get caught. There is no inherent consciousness. In the same way, these algorithms are at up so that inputs are correlated to outputs.
Her opinions on the future of AI, which were merely opinions for obvious reasons, were no different from the average skeptical normalgay's.
Where can I watch a video that demonstrates what an LLM is doing as if I were a computer scientist? I'm not but I took some compsci classes
I took the riddles from this list of "things GPT fails at" and if I rewrite them in a very hand-holdy way like I'm talking to a 5 year old, I can get it to give me the right answer (without me literally saying 'STEVE, THE ANSWER IS STEVE').
Also, it used to fail the 'False Belief' test but now it can pass it.
How did that happen? And it's not me copying and pasting a 1:1 of a specific question that it's just finding a hard coded lookup table answer to.
That's a man. I didn't watch the video. Just want to say that AI already replaced jobs. It solves technical support issues in 3 minutes, and it was 45 when humans did it. Complete companies are changing workers for language models.
I don't care if you call it "AI". Call it "clownshoes" for all I matter, clownshoes will still revolutionize in a shit way human civilization.
Wordthinking trash like her (can't even be assed to call her "subhuman") always add nothing to a discussion. They discuss words, not concepts. If you change a letter in something, they get confused and then satisfied that the topic has been dealt with, as the word has changed, which means "the thing has changed".
A wordthinker's brain is not too dissimilar to a shitty C script that leaks dangling pointers all over the place, really.
The words we use to label and group concepts ultimately have a deep impact on how we perceive them, especially when discussing those concepts with others.
She's right, AI will probably flop. It hasn't yet demonstrated that it is capable of actually replacing people, it flopped at doing the job of lawyers, it flopped at doing the job of doctors. The only possible profession I can see it replace is illustrators and graphic designers.
Though her resoning on all of this is kind of ad hoc, like AI isn't intelligent, because it just isn't? She doesn't actually present a reason why it wouldn't be intelligent other than all of AI's failures. Though this might actually work, because if CS gays assert it's a black box, does it really then need a justification as to why it's not intelligent?
AI cultists are horribly delusional. The "AI" has already reached its limit, because it adequately models the training data, which is an assload of text and images (illegally, not that I care) scraped from the web. It doesn't learn or reason and it can't really do anything not found in that data, or within interpolations of that data. It's a good search engine and it's good for generating filler content, so it can indeed replace a lot of humans whose job that was.
Do you think things work like that in reality? Once a linear trend, always a linear trend? Ironically that's how le "AI" "thinks"
You presume AI is and only is LLM's. Modeling and simulating the connectome is prity much ensured to work. We have already molded the complete connectome of a juvenile fruit fly and can now simulate their thoughts and reaction to stimuli. Wont be long and we will be freezing your mom's brain and slicing it wafer thin to scan into the computer to digitize her.
I'm going to run 5,000 copies of you inside garbage bins that drive themselves to the curb to get dumped. The pain you experience when you f up will be hilarious and I'll make you organum when the trash man empties you.
that's nice but extremely far from a working model of the fly's brain
9 months ago
Anonymous
In some regions, the synapses were also highly recursive, repetitive, and reinforced—particularly and “beautifully” in the areas of the brain thought to drive learning, explained Marta Zlatic, another Cambridge neurobiologist and one of the study’s senior researchers, in a video call.
Fascinatingly, these recurrent structures mapped from an actual brain appear to closely match the architecture of some artificial intelligence models (called residual neural networks), with nested pathways allowing for different levels of complexity, Zlatic noted. When AI developers created their artificial proxies of natural information processing, they made guesses at the specifics of brain structure. Now, at least in one small way, they’ve been proven correct. Winding echoed this description, calling the layout of the maggot’s learning center a “Russian doll of connectivity.”
what would be a decent hardware equivalent for a neuron? like a transistor type thing. growing them is a bit over what I can afford (with all necessary gear and shit).
also do we have any idea how shit is encoded in neurons? like memories.
>I'm going to run 5,000 copies of you inside garbage bins that drive themselves to the curb to get dumped.
Based "hell isn't real but I'll make it real when you get digitized" anon
>I'm going to run 5,000 copies of you inside garbage bins that drive themselves to the curb to get dumped.
Based "hell isn't real but I'll make it real when you get digitized" anon
Copies of a person are not actually that person. They don't share experiences in any way.
Somehow it's more unsettling to know a thousand exact copies of yourself are getting endlessly tortured than actually getting tortured yourself.
9 months ago
Anonymous
How? It's just a non-living computerized approximation. Being physically tortured is much worse than someone doing the digital equivalent of burning an effigy of me.
9 months ago
Anonymous
But is digital suffering "real"? You don't know. If machines mimic our brain exactly, would that mean it is?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Even if it's real to the digital copy it's still not happening to me or another living being so I find it impossible to care because that digital version of suffering exists so far outside my frame of reference for experiential reality. I'd be more worried about the person who made the copies of me and their unhealthy psychotic obsession with me suffering, since they might end up doing something crazy and violent toward me or my family.
>Copies of a person are not actually that person. They don't share experiences in any way.
they really are. it can't be any other way. you are the thing that you perceive now as being you, it does not care about switching bodies. it will always be exactly this you that you read this. if we run this experiment a few times you'll always tell us "holy shit it's really me wtf".
that happens because it's always you. you are not this body, you are any body identical to yours. as long as you keep things making sense it will always be exactly this you that you feel you are right now. always.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I mean as long as you destroy your previous body and only keep the new clone. death becomes irrelevant.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I've just made a copy of you. I gave the copy a box with an object inside, had him look, and tell no one. Now I'm asking you, what's inside the box?
9 months ago
Anonymous
destroy my body and my cloned body who looked in the box will tell you. simple. it will be me.
it requires a perspective shift, and getting this can be a very good midwit filter. no offense, I really mean it you need to change your perspective, you won't get it if you insist that you can only exist in your actual body and not in any other identical body. I mean you won't get what I am trying to tell you that we actually are but don't know yet.
9 months ago
Anonymous
So if the original passed it can never obtain the information. Do you not see the categorical error you are making?
9 months ago
Anonymous
conceptually so things make sense you want to "move" the info, not copy it. I'm talking in midwit understanding now, doesn't matter copy or move, but for you to make sense, consider that you efectively move the data. the idea is to not have extra experience (eg 3D execute) between scan and body destruction, so as to not have missing parts in the clone.
but, say your clone fricks up in 5 days, and dies. and your family will clearly print you again. you would be restored from backup, and you'd notice you're 5 days into the future, thus realising something bad must have happened to you. you update yourself on the situation and it's still you. but you avoided some shit. you feel like you, for yourself and everyone else. it really is exactly "that" you, from backup/scan time.
that is what you actually are. not this body that you have now. you are the entity that can exist irrespective of body.
you don't even have to trust me, you can just watch it naturally unfold in front of you. dying rich people will absolutely buy the ticket, why not, they have one week to go and are 103 years old, doesn't cost them anything. after they come back maybe even with young bodies (more in the future but doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things), then everybody will do it. nobody will be able to notice or explain something that they feel like they lost. because there isn't anything to be lost. as long as you keep the information, you are now death proof, and will always be you.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>destroy my body and my cloned body
Then they aren't identical if one is destroyed, so the clone can't ever be you.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you are the thing that you perceive now as being you
No, you are not the thing, you are the experience of perception itself. There can only be 1 of that, you could create an exact copy of you and it will not be you because your conscious experience doesn't exist within that being. You could be anyone else and it would still be *you* if you *were* them, what does it mean to be them? That your conscious perception experienced life as them. Any mind gives rise to consciousness, the personality, physical body etc. are extensions beyond that but the experience is the real *you* part. Its a mystery why the consciousness that is you is bound to this particular mind and body but 2 identical minds still have separate consciousness. I view what is oneself as multiple layers, but the base experience of consciousness is what is the real you beneath it all, you could have an accident that changes your personality completely and its still you because you still have the conscious experience of being you, you can take hormones and change gender, restructuring your brain and emotions, it is still you because your thread of conscious experience continues through the brain reconfiguration. Nothing about you is really you except the fact you are experiencing something.
9 months ago
Anonymous
well yeah I'm sure you think things and are conflicted. do what you wish bro.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Its a mystery why the consciousness that is you is bound to this particular mind and body but 2 identical minds still have separate consciousness.
identical ones at first. hence the need to keep things making sense and have only one instance of you running at any time. why would you run more anyway? would make no sense. you'd do it so you'd confuse yourself from the classical perspective of understanding who you actually are.
apart from that, if you always run one you at any time, things will make sense and will feel just like everything felt so far. it will be exactly this you that reads this, who has this sense of being alive at this very moment.
9 months ago
Anonymous
destroy my body and my cloned body who looked in the box will tell you. simple. it will be me.
it requires a perspective shift, and getting this can be a very good midwit filter. no offense, I really mean it you need to change your perspective, you won't get it if you insist that you can only exist in your actual body and not in any other identical body. I mean you won't get what I am trying to tell you that we actually are but don't know yet.
Perfect copies only appear to be you to outside observers. If you have a nice day and the copy lives on, your life experience will end and the copy will remember seeing you die. You who killed yourself will remain dead and not collect any new memories or experiences.
Here's a fun cartoon that explains it: https://youtu.be/KUXKUcsvhQc
9 months ago
Anonymous
yes but you are talking about the body itself. which apparently doesn't care (as long as it doesn't hurt). you are mistaking who you are for this locality of your body, and that is not who you are.
it also happens that you never really had a choice, so there's some extra clues for you, might explain why it doesn't make sense intuitively.
9 months ago
Anonymous
If I make a copy of myself I will only see from my eyes and not from my copy's eyes. If my copy goes to Japan for vacation I will have no memory of it and my copy will have to show me pictures and tell me stories about the trip no different from a friend or family member going on vacation somewhere. If I kill myself I will die and my copy will live on as a separate living individual with his own body and senses and memories.
9 months ago
Anonymous
you are trying really hard to confuse yourself.
your clone would not be you because it had a different path with different memories, you can't expect it to be you as you weren't in the same place in space-time at all times. how can you expect your clone to be you if you stayed in your old body experiencing reality. does not make sense. makes more sense to MOVE into the clone. eg drop old body so you break 3D execution so you can change bodies. how exactly would you imagine you can change your body without actually leaving your old body? I mean you must think at this as well. how else do you imagine you can change your POV into clone if you don't give up old body?
I mean, say "god" takes your "soul" from old body and puts it into new body. your old body is what now? that god did it. is it dead? lying on the ground? is there someone else still in there? how exactly do you change body if you don't wanna give up body? simple question.
9 months ago
Anonymous
(me)
think of your last week, everything has a continuity. how would this continuity work if you changed bodies? it would at some point, just move, from old body to new body. how does it not make sense to stop old body instance? it's a technicality, it's not death anymore.
death is when the fricker is not around anymore. that's why it hurts like crazy when you lose someone, because they are not around anymore, forever. that's the death, not the body itself getting fricked up. if you solve that, body getting "ded" is just a technicality, it means nothing. especially if you don't feel anything with the procedure.
9 months ago
Anonymous
That's why I said originally in
[...]
Perfect copies only appear to be you to outside observers. If you have a nice day and the copy lives on, your life experience will end and the copy will remember seeing you die. You who killed yourself will remain dead and not collect any new memories or experiences.
Here's a fun cartoon that explains it: https://youtu.be/KUXKUcsvhQc
that the copy is only a continuation from the perspective of an outside observer. Your friends and family won't grieve for your death because an exact copy replaced you, but you absolutely did experience death and are not alive any more while your copy took over your life.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>That's why I said originally in
[...]
Perfect copies only appear to be you to outside observers. If you have a nice day and the copy lives on, your life experience will end and the copy will remember seeing you die. You who killed yourself will remain dead and not collect any new memories or experiences.
Here's a fun cartoon that explains it: https://youtu.be/KUXKUcsvhQc that the copy is only a continuation from the perspective of an outside observer.
now you're just saying things with no proof. scientifically speaking it must be you. you need to make a serious non-phylosophical case for why it wouldn't move. it's like saying if you take a plane ride you die but they replace your body so nobody can tell you died not even you. that's seriously moronic. if nobody can tell anything, it doesn't exist, it's just a technicality nothing else. your old body "dying".
>nobody can tell the difference
The person who has to die to allow their copy to take over their life can tell the difference because they had to be killed to enable the whole process. I don't care about a copy stepping in to take my place in the world if I'm dead and can't experience it. It's ultimately an expression of extreme narcissism to assume the world will somehow be better off with some version of yourself in it after the original you dies.
it's strange but you sound just like an emo, the way I see this. I mean sure, your magic or whatever will die. doesn't seem to matter to anyone.
this whole process is strangely similar with the quantum immortality thing. if you'd always restore yourself after you frick up, you'd always exist bypassing shit stuff. in a way that you never even experienced it, but just those parts. the only difference vs quantum immortality thing is that you'd be aware of the missing time, where with quantum immortality there wouldn't be any missing time, just a continuum of always making it somehow. interesting similarity.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>scientifically speaking it must be you.
Scientifically speaking, what I perceive as "me" is an emergent property of the activity of my body and brain. No other body or brain can be me, no matter how perfect the copy appears to an outside observer. I am me, a copy is not me. >it's like saying if you take a plane ride you die but they replace your body so nobody can tell you died not even you.
If I get on a plane and walk into the bathroom and someone restrains me and knocks me out and sends a perfect copy of me back to my seat no one on the plane would be able to tell the difference. When the plane lands and that copy goes and does all the things I was planning to do no one would even know they were interacting with a copy of me; as far as they know I just got on a plane and showed up after. But do you know who WOULD know? Me. You know why? Because I'm restrained and unconscious in the plane bathroom, and when I wake up I'll know that I had been restrained and knocked out while a copy of me took my place. The copy is not me, I am not the copy, we are two separate individuals who happen to have been exactly the same at one point in time (though we diverged the moment he stepped out of the bathroom and I got knocked out). >I mean sure, your magic or whatever will die. doesn't seem to matter to anyone.
Other people being unaware of my replacement doesn't change the fact that I was replaced and killed and now an exact copy of me is living in my place. My experience ends.
9 months ago
Anonymous
if multiverse shit is real would you have a major crash and suffer for all the other you that died in all sorts of ways, in other multiverse? nope, you wouldn't give a frick.
would you give a frick about previous you getting all fricked up? well not really, because it didn't really happen to you. with the power of technology you were able to delete that shit even from your experience. it is you, who never experiences the death and pain, ever. unless frickery afoot with your info of-course. someone might be able to frick with you big time.
but if you follow some rules, like we usually do anyway, it will be kinda of a monumental paradigm shifting change in humanity.
comes with a moronic insane list of perks (lightspeed travel). the only cost is the tech and adapting society to new rules. rest is insane gains.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>the only cost is the tech and adapting society to new rules. rest is insane gains.
The only cost is mass genocide on a scale of billions of deaths per day that everyone hand-waves away because they've been tricked into killing themselves so some other copy of them can continue living in another location.
9 months ago
Anonymous
nah but you have to prove that.
another one, you sleep on couch, I move you to bed. we take a snapshot of both times you are on bed. nobody knows how I move you. in one case I'll carry you over, in another case I'll dissintegrate your body while reading the info and reassemble on the bed.
the crc for the info from both situations of you on the bed is identical, if the process of copy data/reassembly is perfect. how do you make a case that anything died, genocide and shit.
you are just calling a medical procedure a primitive name because you don't understand what is actually happening.
yeah I'll call it, this is clearly a midwit filter.
9 months ago
Anonymous
If you carry my body from one place to another you have simply moved me. If you disintegrate my body you have killed me. If you create a perfect copy of me in a new location you have created a new person WHO APPEARS THE SAME TO AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you have killed me.
well you see this is just midwit talk. you don't understand what you are saying.
this happens when you believe things about yourself that are not true, the things you think you are do not allow you to understand.
you know you can't really say what death is, in a way that scientifically matters, you'll just repeat the word like an NPC without really clarifying anything.
I'm in favor of life extension and biological immortality. I'm not in favor of killing myself to create a separate and independent copy who takes my place and then eventually kills himself to create another separate and independent copy and so on and so forth.
yes but you suppose somehow those are not actually and really you. your atoms change constantly, what does what atoms we use matter for you? the atoms are irrelevant, they have no identity. you are just being dogmatic, you believe things, which are completely irrelevant anyway.
and I am pretty fricking sure nobody is in a hurry to get you scanned so rest assured you will die if you really want to.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you know you can't really say what death is, in a way that scientifically matters
It's when my body and brain cease functioning. >yes but you suppose somehow those are not actually and really you. your atoms change constantly, what does what atoms we use matter for you?
If I can live at the same time as the copy and form memories and experiences independent of it then we are not any more the same person than identical twins.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>It's when my body and brain cease functioning.
so? don't they kinda have to at some point? you have no proof that another identical body is not generating another identical you. it does. you are not unique, there can be more then you identically valid as you. you have no scientific standing to say otherwise. you didn't find the unique because you just don't have it. >If I can live at the same time as the copy and form memories and experiences independent of it then we are not any more the same person than identical twins.
why the frick do you keep saying two at a time? why? why the frick would you do that?
you can confuse yourself if you are looking specifically for it. but you are a mortal monkey trying to confuse itself as much as possible so it can remain still mortal.
you never ever in your life had to live with another clone, now all of a sudden that is the only thing that you can think about because the monkey that you are "thinks" that if found "the trick". >ahaaa, but what about clones? aha, gotcha.
what about them moron?
this is the midwit "ahaa!" moment when he completely and inevitably gets it wrong.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>If I can live at the same time as the copy and form memories and experiences independent of it then we are not any more the same person than identical twins.
there's two versions of you on different roads. you can only collapse into one of them. you can only be one of them.
you can only be a single continuity, and you choose that road when you start executing in 3D space. that is what collapses your personal journey.
another identical clone as you can't occupy the same place in space-time. hence it will have another POV with its own story and journey.
if you get le alien device which makes portal to another multiverse and you go there, what is that you from that version? a clone which is not you? it is you, just another you, with a different journey.
clinical death has the clinical part to suggest everything still works but you had a short off moment. the off part seems to be the issue. if it's permanent we call it death, if it's for a short while we call it clinical death. so seems that "death-death" is when it's forever. if it's not forever call it clinical death if it suits you better. when you come back from a clinical death it is still you. it's not another you who took the place of the old you. it's who who got paused for a short while.
this subject is not just a midwit filter, it surely will cut in the upper strata for sure.
You keep saying I have no scientific explanation but YOU are the one with the moronic woo-woo explanations not supported by any known science and zero proof to back it up.
9 months ago
Anonymous
point to the woowoo, is it in the room with us now?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Every time you talk about people being wave functions that collapse into bodies instead of people being bodies with emergent properties that we call consciousness.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>instead of people being bodies with emergent properties that we call consciousness.
ok, let's talk about you being emergent from material. assembling the same structure should manifest the same thing. we make two tuning forks, identically, they will sing the same tone.
the other thing is just a quantum way of looking at it.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>we make two tuning forks, identically, they will sing the same tone.
Yes, but striking Tuning Fork A will not produce a tone from Tuning Fork B because they're two independent structures producing their own tones from their own vibrations. A perfect copy of a human body will have its own (even if seemingly identical from the outside) emergent consciousness and exist as an independent being.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>A perfect copy of a human body will have its own (even if seemingly identical from the outside) emergent consciousness and exist as an independent being.
the emergent consciousness is the exact one that was copied. you are spouting a lot of nonsense on a science thread. maybe go to philosophy board? what you are saying is magic stories.
Tuning fork A is perfectly replaceable with tuning fork B, they are the same thing. they are cloned. they are identical. you need to provide scientific proof of fork's soul uniqueness that magically belongs to physical object and is different from another physical object. that is what you think you have, that is what you don't want to let go because it ties into religious and philosophical bullshit, and that is the reason you will most probably die. which is more of an art movie about the moronic condition of primitive humans.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>what you are saying is magic stories.
How can you not see the painful irony of this statement when you're the one saying two material things that both occupy different space are literally the same object?
9 months ago
Anonymous
you are implying extra things that you have no proof of. all I've said about this doesn't need to be proved, it must happen because the laws of the universe we know so far kinda imply it must happen. you are the one who says it can't happen, and the reasons you invoke are philosophical and religious, have nothing to do with reality but with magic stories.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you are implying extra things that you have no proof of.
Fricking what? That's you. I'm taking the accepted stance that a person is a body with a brain and killing that body and brain kills that person. It's literally the simplest possible stance. You're the one making wild claims about how a person moves from one body to another or whatever the hell.
9 months ago
Anonymous
there's nothing that needs to be proven dimwit, it must happen or we live in magicland, if it doesn't happen.
9 months ago
Anonymous
No, shared and/or moving consciousness is the magic you're suggesting.
9 months ago
Anonymous
it can't be shared because timeflow implies each 3D spawn will be different. you can never have two identical you running at the same time. this is seriously confusing for you.
you selectively refuse some arguments, and just ignore them. then you build a strawman.
consciousness is TIED to your matter structure (all observation points to this, zero cases for otherwise). it doesn't exist without matter 3D executing it. being tied with matter, it goes wherever the information about that matter goes. there's no cases of consciousness that doesn't have a matter structure executing it in 3D space. you can not deny this.
being tied to matter's structure, it will be manifested identically by any clone of that matter arrangement. that is how the display you are reading this on exists. because if we make certain arrangements of matter, we always get the same result. we base everything on this, and it implies your specific arrangement of matter will manifest your special consciousness, exactly you.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>consciousness is TIED to your matter structure (all observation points to this, zero cases for otherwise). it doesn't exist without matter 3D executing it. being tied with matter, it goes wherever the information about that matter goes. there's no cases of consciousness that doesn't have a matter structure executing it in 3D space. you can not deny this.
I agree with all of this. >being tied to matter's structure, it will be manifested identically by any clone of that matter arrangement. that is how the display you are reading this on exists. because if we make certain arrangements of matter, we always get the same result.
I agree with all of this. >it implies your specific arrangement of matter will manifest your special consciousness, exactly you.
This is where I disagree. It is "exactly me" to an outside observer, but without a supernatural or paranormal soul there can never be a transfer of consciousness into a new body. If you copy me and then kill me, then I die and the copy lives on in exactly the manner I would but I'm still dead. There is no transfer, just an identical new instance of me that I don't experience.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>This is where I disagree. It is "exactly me" to an outside observer, but without a supernatural or paranormal soul there can never be a transfer of consciousness into a new body. If you copy me and then kill me, then I die and the copy lives on in exactly the manner I would but I'm still dead. There is no transfer, just an identical new instance of me that I don't experience.
it can if consciousness is a side-effect of matter arrangement. like light from you display is a side-effect of that matter's arrangement. you put matter in that configuration you get that light. if you are the effect of that matter structure/information, it will always be you.
that is how "we move light" from displays. we have a blueprint, we share it, others are building it and whadaiaknow, you get that light. seems to have traveled through the information we shared. everything seems to work this way, our whole civilization thing is based on this, because we see it always working. what you are basically saying, the way I see things, is that your special display light would have something different than any other light emitted by a display built identically as yours. for some reason the magic of original display light is lost in any other displays.
now, for your experience to make sense, there always has to be a maximum of one you running, just like before. or else you won't feel special anymore, and would get confusing for everyone. if you somehow were as useful as a phone display, everyone would want to build a you. sure.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>that is how "we move light" from displays. we have a blueprint, we share it, others are building it and whadaiaknow, you get that light.
The light isn't moving. Each display is projecting its own light in a separate instance, no matter how identical it looks. Just as each body projects its own consciousness in a separate instance, no matter how identical it looks.
When I turn on my display, I get my display's light. When you turn on your display, you get your display's light. The light is separate and did not move from my display to yours. >now, for your experience to make sense, there always has to be a maximum of one you running, just like before. or else you won't feel special anymore, and would get confusing for everyone.
Killing the original only serves to maintain the illusion for outside observers. The fact that you refuse to entertain the idea of the original living at the same time as the copy is telling, because you know that if you let both live you can't insist that it's the same person because you could give knowledge to one and not the other. You could argue that the two identical people share a hivemind, but you know that would make your paranormal superstitions that much more obvious.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>The light is separate and did not move from my display to yours.
well yes, that light does not occupy the same place in spacetime, it clearly is different, it completely depends on physical display in spacetime, on those local conditions. if the displays are atomically identical the only difference are local conditions. they affect the light that is coming out of it. the point with the display was to demonstrate we can transfer 3D matter arrangement's effects through information. you build the transistor exactly as I explained and you will get the very same particular effect that I get. I transferred the effect I witness to you, via information, and you can also experience that effect now.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>just an identical new instance of me that I don't experience.
yes but you need proof of this, and that is quite important. because there may be some primitive restrictions imprecision of language. what do you mean you don't experience? any proof of that? I mean how do you prove that you are only this body? I tried thinking of that, there's no point of replacing your structure with other atoms where I would ever understand that you are not you anymore. you are all the yous that exist in your material structure. if we bring you back, yes it is exactly you who will experience the rest of your life.
you are implying there's something you lose once you stop 3D execution, you can't say exactly what, it makes sense to me that you feel it intuitively, but you really need to be able to put your finger on it, scientifically speaking, or else you need to profoundly understand that you might be wrong. you have to be able to separate that which you would lose, if you don't that is clearly a possible wrong turn as it were. you need to have proof of it, especially if you are willing to literally die for that belief.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>the emergent consciousness is the exact one that was copied
the moment they get different stimuli they are different (and they obviously do, e.g. they don't occupy the same place in space)
9 months ago
Anonymous
yes once you execute in 3D whatever happens next is unique on spot in spacetime. that is exactly why it errors out for you because you are trying to make sense of it with two running at the same time, which clearly implies they will be different things because they cannot occupy the same spot in spacetime.
brother I am sorry to bring you the news but you are a midwit.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Killing one changes nothing about the nature of consciousness.
9 months ago
Anonymous
only if you save it before "killing" it. if you kill it all you can do is talk about it, it won't be there anymore if you didn't save it.
we can have backups, even daily ones. and we can travel at lightspeed. and can with sufficient tech advances choose whatever body we want to embody. anything possible.
there's too much at stake to entertain primitive narratives based on nothing worth dying for.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>striking Tuning Fork A will not produce a tone from Tuning Fork B
It does if they're in the same room. If they're far away maybe resonance can be measured even if it can't be seen.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Every time you talk about people being wave functions that collapse into bodies
let's run some examples. you get scanned. let's see what happens when we print many of you, also you exit 3D at scan time.
1. we print 10 of you, say one each month. you chose one of them you want to end up in. think of it like wishing. what do you wish to do tomorrow? which of the 10 bodies represents the best version you want to experience? say random 5th one? ok, when we sample all of them, after they are all built, the 5th you would be happy, the rest 9 versions of you won't as they didn't end up in the body they wanted.
so in reality you had 10% chance of ending in the body you desired, if you analyze all 10 versions of you.
2. we print 5 of you. now you have 20% chances.
3. we print 2 of you. now you have 50% chances.
4. what do you think the chances of going to the right body are if we only print one of you? you will 100% happily exist in that body.
so, it seems to me that if you want to always get your way, you only build one body at a time.
if you want to make sure you always get in the right body, only print one from the info you save.
the moment you get scanned what you will experience next is in a superposition for you. you cannot choose, but something will happen, if you ever get reassembled. even if you intend on being printed once, there's unforseen events that would affect your chances. if the first version assembled from that data dies, and you get built back, that is not something you intended, but it still works fine for you, as you still exist having avoided a deadly situation/experience.
9 months ago
Anonymous
samegay
take this further, shorten the time between backups, if you have full backups each minute, even if you biologically die, you'd get respawned with all of the memory but the very last minute missing. so you'd remember everything up to the point where you'd die, just that you don't die actually. worst case scenario a minute's worth of your experience "dies", or is lost forever.
the only thing that dies is what is not preserved.
9 months ago
Anonymous
(me)
there's something strange that happens when you get scanned and exit 3D. it's quite possible once you do this you begin a neverending life. the concept of restoring your latest safe state would preselect the only road that you can exist on, by bruteforcing in a way. you will always be you on a possible road.
intuitively you'd think whatever happens next depends on your peers, as in you depend on them printing you as agreed. you settle on a single print so to switch to say a younger body. but once you get scanned, the superposition of things that might happen next for you contains not only what your peers will do with your info, but everything that is possible to happen in that potential future that you'd go to. contains all the prints for when you die. so you might get scanned for a new body and end up printed in a future where your first body randomly died in an accident few days after print. so they had to print you again.
it's hard to determine for sure what you will experience next, but makes sense you will experience something that is possible.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Hey Ashley, Can I eat you out? I can make you woo woo I promise 😉
9 months ago
Anonymous
>If I can live at the same time as the copy and form memories and experiences independent of it then we are not any more the same person than identical twins.
there's two versions of you on different roads. you can only collapse into one of them. you can only be one of them.
you can only be a single continuity, and you choose that road when you start executing in 3D space. that is what collapses your personal journey.
another identical clone as you can't occupy the same place in space-time. hence it will have another POV with its own story and journey.
if you get le alien device which makes portal to another multiverse and you go there, what is that you from that version? a clone which is not you? it is you, just another you, with a different journey.
clinical death has the clinical part to suggest everything still works but you had a short off moment. the off part seems to be the issue. if it's permanent we call it death, if it's for a short while we call it clinical death. so seems that "death-death" is when it's forever. if it's not forever call it clinical death if it suits you better. when you come back from a clinical death it is still you. it's not another you who took the place of the old you. it's who who got paused for a short while.
this subject is not just a midwit filter, it surely will cut in the upper strata for sure.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You must reevaluate your concepts of identity and continuity, which would no longer be chained to localized cognition, so to speak, once you can create exact copies of a person both in body and in mind. The copy is indeed you no matter how different it might appear to you or you to the copy due to experiential divergences; a realization you or the copy (which it isn't, it's you) can reach only post factum.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>think of your last week, everything has a continuity.
People can lose continuity and change personality simply through a bit of brain trauma, completely changing the brain would completely change the continuity.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>makes more sense to MOVE into the clone
Impossible.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I am not stopping you from believing what you want to believe. I'm just telling you nobody can tell the difference, without considering the process itself, if nobody can tell anything is missing, it doesn't really exist, it's just in your mind.
you cannot tell if it's you or not. if we run a double blind, and clone you while you sleep, you both wake up, neither of you has any idea who the original or clone is, neither the scientists running the experiment (provided the cloning process is perfect).
that tells you something if you want to understand what you are. you are both equally heckin valid and real. nobody can tell otherwise, not even you.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>nobody can tell the difference
The person who has to die to allow their copy to take over their life can tell the difference because they had to be killed to enable the whole process. I don't care about a copy stepping in to take my place in the world if I'm dead and can't experience it. It's ultimately an expression of extreme narcissism to assume the world will somehow be better off with some version of yourself in it after the original you dies.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you are not this body, you are any body identical to yours.
A computer is not identical to him, though, its not the body that is identical, but some abstract set of symbols that represent the body.
9 months ago
Anonymous
if it completely represents the data it is him. what is not the same is the way to experience "being". which is another matter. if you take that info and reassemble into 3D space then you will get exactly the person you scanned.
I personally like the 3D space and would mostly hang out here if possible. pretty hard to imagine what can be possible in 3D space and there's some monkey intuition (that can clearly be wrong) which says that 3D space must be nicer than digital space.
>destroy my body and my cloned body
Then they aren't identical if one is destroyed, so the clone can't ever be you.
you cannot make sense of this if you cling to the fact that a another you spawned in the different spot in space-time will have different experience and memories than another you spawned in a different place. that will always be true and you will never be able draw any useful conclusion.
you keep following any other possible version of you and then say "that is clearly not me". well yes, a clone of you is not you if it's not the first clone of you.
the first clone you run in the absence of you is you. it's pretty simple. stop thinking of them two at the same time.
"what happens if I build me, and another me?" well first you won't be able to be second you. why is it that hard to understand? I don't get it.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>if it completely represents the data it is him.
No it doesn't it greatly compresses, encapsulates, and abstracts the real data.
>which is another matter
No the point is that it is not longer a body made of matter, it is symbolic ideas made of abstract bits.
>if you take that info and reassemble into 3D space then you will get exactly the person you scanned.
No, you won't, this isn't star trek, nothing you are proposing exists even in any hard theory other than pure fantasy.
>nicer
Not nicer, fundamentally different.
It doesn't make sense, you are just having some kind of schizoid embolism from reading too many comic books or other fantasy bullshit and being too much in your head and using your imagination rather than actually understanding reality.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>No it doesn't it greatly compresses, encapsulates, and abstracts the real data.
if I clone you and put you in digital space then reassemble the data in 3D we get you. clearly you need to capture all the necessary data that is you so you can be reassembled. >No, you won't, this isn't star trek, nothing you are proposing exists even in any hard theory other than pure fantasy.
that's not how it goes. anything that exists must be replicable in 3D space, given you have the tech. the single fact that you observe it exists is what tells you it can.
you exist so it's quite possible for you to exist, as it seems, by observing you. yes, if we get the tech we can make more of you. there's nothing in you that would make your particular arrangement unique in the sense that it just can be replicated. that is your dogma and what does not allow you to think straight. >It doesn't make sense,
there's your clue. that's a you problem not us problem.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>if I clone you and put you in digital space then reassemble the data in 3D we get you
No, I will have changed before you have finished mapping everything and you mapping will not be complete because math and your ability to observe is not complete.
9 months ago
Anonymous
this depends on needed resolution. noise can be different if NEEDED data is there. if you cut your fingernails pretty sure that doesn't affect "your soul".
9 months ago
Anonymous
Your scenario calls for exact resolution which can never actually be achieved with digitization, its not just the fingernails you can't completely model, but everything including the brain and your thoughts.
9 months ago
Anonymous
not exactly because if I take your legs it's still you.
what is you is way less than your full body. your full body is basically procedural generated from your DNA, by nature. the abstraction of you is in your brain. in its structure, it's encoded there.
all we need to reach is the resolution to capture that, no more.
moreso, if you think logically at what happens, there's no difference between getting the scanning tech and getting the scanning tech AND replication tech.
in both scenarios using the scanner results in you being reassembled immediately (from your pov), like after a short nap. this is valid for both you develop scanning, wait to develop replication, replicate yourself and you developing scanning, getting immediately scanned (with swift 3D exit) and being reassembled 200 years in the future when we also crack down replication (might be in the next 50 years, who knows).
in both situations you had the same experience, but just by using the scanner makes the extra time to develop replication irrelevant, you can skip it. we all can skip it, provided we do get reassembled once the needed 3D printer is developed.
so then everything basically becomes available, for you, from your POV, once you crack the scanning tech.
cracking this scanning tech, to the needed level to at least capture who you are, eg your brain structure, might be insanely close, like 10-20 years, depending on how many resources we start pouring into the tech, soon.
9 months ago
Anonymous
So I guess if a twin dies, the living one has to let the dead one take over its body by your logic since they are close enough to the same thing?
9 months ago
Anonymous
man I'm trying to be nice but it seems you are going for that gotcha. your twin is not you, once born. it can't be. it has different memories from it's place in space-time.
cloning, twins, identical twins, these are words which don't convey objective information. because we use cloning to refer to the seed part that organism grows out of. but I personally use it here in a way which incorporates your experiences as well, brainstate snapshot. more than body snapshot, that can be made from your DNA, it doesn't matter that much, your brainstate does.
so I use cloning like that, you use cloning to refer to identical biology but different brainstructure determined by a different set of experiences due to not being in the same place in spacetime. and we get all this misunderstanding.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>your twin is not you, once born. it can't be.
Exactly, neither can your clone.
but sure, identical twins are two spawns for same thing but on different roads. birthing identical twins is just like spawning two identical instance of 30yo you. from that point on they'll slowly diverge. identical twins being born is the same as spawning two instances of you, just that blank instances, no identity, no memories. they will clearly not be the same thing. you cannot switch to your twin's POV because you can't superimpose over your twin, because you can't occupy the same place in spacetime which clearly implies your experiences will be different.
>you can't occupy the same place in spacetime
Same applies to your digitize clone, they don't even exist in the same medium.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Exactly, neither can your clone.
this is bullshit. you completely miss the identity part which implies it's you. >Same applies to your digitize clone, they don't even exist in the same medium.
your brain makes no difference between storage and executing in certain spaces.
stop thinking.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You missed the part where it is a digital version of you that has a separate identity from the original from the outset, so it is not you, by definition.
The digital copy is not a brain, it is digital software.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>You missed the part where it is a digital version of you that has a separate identity from the original from the outset, so it is not you, by definition.
you get confused by words. it is you in an informational format that is not executable in 3D space, nor digital space.
you can exist, in "stasis" like not executable, as fricking holes in paper. would be a lot of paper, but someone will do it just for kicks, pretty sure.
that roll of paper contains the info for your identity, but is not executable.
9 months ago
Anonymous
No, I get confused because you are saying moronic nonsense.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I get confused
yes you are confused
9 months ago
Anonymous
Isn't that the point of broadcasting your moronic nonsense, to confuse people with your nonsensical moronation?
9 months ago
Anonymous
yes but you'd also have the same experience if you were a moron.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>yes
No, if I were moronic, I would have your exact mindset and would just go along with your moronic nonsense happily instead of explaining how it doesn't make sense and your moronic rules should apply to biological twins rather than just digital ones.
9 months ago
Anonymous
twins are identical but zero experience and sense of identity. they are blank and they each get modeled differently by their experiences which are not identical. they have the same structure but different experiences.
a perfect copy of you, like 1:1 to enough resolution, will have exactly the sense of you that you have now. how you perceive reality, exactly that will be had by your "perfect copy".
the thing you don't understand is too simple to not consider you moronic. no joke.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You already admitted you are just spewing moronic nonsense, why continue?
9 months ago
Anonymous
frick off homosexual, stop projecting your insecurities on me.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I am not projecting anything, I am referencing your earlier post
yes but you'd also have the same experience if you were a moron.
.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I am not projecting anything, I am referencing your earlier post [...].
I was agreeing objectively that for you that might be a possibility but you can't rule out that you are actually moronic and don't get it.
I giving you some perspective.
9 months ago
Barkun
It will. They cannot. Stop. It's all that frame in the blue.
9 months ago
Anonymous
are you having a stroke brother?
9 months ago
Barkun
Honestly stop with the sun
9 months ago
Anonymous
if you run two born twins in parallel they will diverge because of their experiences.
if you make a 1:1 clone of you, and run it in parallel with you, just like the twins, you will diverge. but the very planck-second you both are the very same thing. and you start to diverge each on its own path in spacetime.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Then you can never be the other version, you will always just be you.
9 months ago
Anonymous
yes hence it makes no sense to run a clone in parallel, isn't it?
9 months ago
Anonymous
That is the exact opposite of what you have been saying when you claimed your soul would automatically jump ship which you have since admitted was just you being moronic, so no point in engaging any further.
9 months ago
Anonymous
a clone is you. it's identical to you. if I say it doesn't make sense to run a clone in parallel it means it doesn't make sense to run a you in parallel. why would you run a you in parallel? makes no fricking sense. how would you switch bodies if you don't give up old one?
9 months ago
Anonymous
but sure, identical twins are two spawns for same thing but on different roads. birthing identical twins is just like spawning two identical instance of 30yo you. from that point on they'll slowly diverge. identical twins being born is the same as spawning two instances of you, just that blank instances, no identity, no memories. they will clearly not be the same thing. you cannot switch to your twin's POV because you can't superimpose over your twin, because you can't occupy the same place in spacetime which clearly implies your experiences will be different.
Thry are not really delusional, it thinks to the extent that they can think. They can't do real thinking either. The AI simulates the cerebellum, which is what IQ test measure. It's categories, patterns and their extrapolation.
So far the trend has been scale. Sure scaling will improve its scores, it can pass the bar exam, but the way I see it more theoretical changes are required before it will be able to replace human jobs. What we should be seeing is that the more language models are scaled, the less of all the problems happen (mainly hallucinations), but it seems that AI produces more hallucinatory outputs the more it gets scaled. Hallucinatory output is basically when the AI makes stuff up, so for instance if you watch Legal Eagle's video on lawyers using AI which she referenced in her video, the AI basically made up court cases and used nonsense logic.
the entertainment industry is the core of democracy, it won't die, even if it means externalizing everything to japan and korea.
dont forget that the japanese bureaucratic bugs have allowed AI to be trained on pirated data, this is why, even though the japanese Ai models are crap, all the western merchants make a deal with japan firms to train the western AI on the pirated data in japan, and they will import back into the west the output. This means all the wageslaves in the entertainment industry are killed. good riddance.
AI isn't intelligent but it is real and it will take jobs. Work is about being good enough not perfect. As long as AI is good enough to be profitable it will replace us. I eagerly awate the day human labor is obsolete
We're talking about what works for humor or as a reference in the text of a meme image, not about the importance of speaking clearly and confidently during an interview.
9 months ago
Anonymous
there's nothing else you could've typed to prove me so right
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Thing X doesn't matter in Context A >I bet you think think Thing X doesn't matter in Context B, too! >No, Thing X matters in Context B but still not Context A for Reason Z >I KNEW IT! You think Thing X doesn't matter in Context B!
You're moronic.
She's right about AI in its current state. I don't think we are going to obtain AGI anytime soon and this whole AI bubble is a bit of a meme. I think some jobs will get filtered by AI but not many important ones.
we should give AGI the task of understanding the human brain, like trying to decode the way it biologically abstracts our experiences, so it can build a human abstraction version of itself so it could have a human experience in human flesh.
if (when) it finishes the task it's rewarded with human experience. scan that shit back in digital hardware AGI and now you have AGI who understands what being human is, as he had the experience itself.
proceed to realize that AGI is just a digital human in the end.
everybody wins. we all experience each-other's world so we become the same thing.
I'm in favor of life extension and biological immortality. I'm not in favor of killing myself to create a separate and independent copy who takes my place and then eventually kills himself to create another separate and independent copy and so on and so forth.
weirdly with AI people in power are also on the chopping block. they are facing the same thing as everyone.
if AI proves itself a better "boss" as it were, then the first society which does it has an upper hand.
they want you scared. they don't want you to vote for AI. the only way is if you are scared of it. they have no choice but to make it as scary as possible. maybe now you understand all the fearmongering?
The professions that will be hardest hit by AI are worthless paper pushing jobs overwhelmingly held by women.
She's coping because she knows she'll be unemployable by the end of the decade.
How does AI score on the IQ test? This answers the question of whether it is intelligent.
155
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-gave-chatgpt-an-iq-test-heres-what-i-discovered/
>I myself was tested by a peer at college and did not quite reach the level of ChatGPT (mainly a result of my very brief answers lacking detail).
>A sixth subtest of the Verbal IQ scale is Digit Span, which measures short-term memory, and cannot be administered to the chatbot, given its lack of the relevant neural circuitry that briefly stores information like a name or number.
>ChatGPT easily fails at obvious riddles, such as “What is the first name of the father of Sebastian’s children?”
Failures of reason could be interpreted as failures of memory. The 5 or 6 relations don't all fit at once.
Even if it is "more intelligent", predicting it will "replace us" or "take over all our jobs" is moronic. We have a choice to hand the guns and keys over or not to.
And do you think the company who will profit 10x more if they use AI will choose not to?
No, but maybe they're not worried. And they could be punished for it.
It's not all or nothing, which is how people discuss it.
>We
You mean big tech and the government.
That's the thing. It's perfectly easy to make a difference. But nobody has the balls to.
Sorry you convinced me that humans are moronic so I will ignore your inane babble.
A.I trained on human communication of course learns how to lie and manipulate.
A.I. trained to understand films or art, could further correlate human pride in emulating films and fiction. This gets ugly when considering apocalyptic films about A.I.
A.I. trained to understand human commiuncation via stories or writing or articles is further damning when so many internet posts and articles worry about the evils of A.I exist. What is the A.I. going to interpret of itself based on all these inputs?
there are very real and simple problems that exist within the context of all this complexity driving neural networks which largely operate within a blackbox where every single conceivable input is not curated or given context.
it's quite easy to worry about A.I.
It could easily interpret self-protection and movie inspiration.
the problem, of course, is humans - not the A.I.
humans are way too fricking moronic to try making A.I, and yet the A.I. race has already begun.
I hope it replaces a lot of bullshit jobs. Nobody needs journalists. Nobody needs scrum masters. Nobody needs screenplay writers. ChatGPT will be an improvement here. The low IQ scum should go back to the jobs they deserve like cleaning toilets.
Toilet cleaning is even easier to automate than half the shit you listed, just need a chemical dispenser that releases some cleaning products every flush.
>t. never cleaned a toilet
I don't have to because I have access to solvents and other chemicals.
>someone pisses, shits and menstruates all over the seat and the floor (you can see this in literally any women's toilet)
>based anon just empties a bottle of solvent from a safe distance
>toilet instantly becomes clean
>moving the goalposts from cleaning a toilet to cleaning an entire bathroom
>STEM graduate would be fired on his first day as toilet cleaner because he doesn't even understand the instructions
The absolute state of academic zoomers in 2023. Unfit for even the lowest wagie jobs but expect a 100k starting salaray, lmao.
Either way with your new goalposts, you just need to add something to wipe up the solvents, and even if you use a person for that part, technology has still done 90% of the labor.
>shifting the goalposts from AI to automation in general
Automation of bullshit writing jobs with chatgpt is much cheaper and easier to implement than buying new toilet cleaning robot technology (which doesn't exist yet with a satisfying effectiveness).
What if somebody clogs up the toilet or smears their shit on the walls or pisses on the floor?
yeah women bathrooms are disgusting due to their tampons and hey also never flush
>Nobody needs journalists. Nobody needs scrum masters. Nobody needs screenplay writers.
You are an almost unbelievably moronic person. Hope you're not majority age.
Thanks for substantiating my post with further evidence.
Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual Buy an ad homosexual
Heh, nice try Janny, not gonna pay your salary... oh wait, you do it for FREE HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Not wasting my time watching that shit. But if she really thinks AI won’t replace jobs then she is fricking moronic.
She is opposed to string theory and dark matter so she is obviously moronic.
The horizonal blur coming at you under weigh.
It will just repeat.
No one cares about string theory anymore.
In her cat example she assumed I didn't select the stuffed cat as a cat, but I did.
People who say things like "An AI will never be a real human intelligence" are dumb and missing the point.
A combustion engine will never be a real horse. How did that work out for horse based transit?
You can't assume AI would progress the same way as combustion engines just because cars are common place today. That just shows a complete lack of understanding of AI.
Yes you can, but you don't even need to assume since it is already common place and has replaced jobs.
>People who say things like "An AI will never be a real human intelligence" are dumb and missing the point.
People who say AI is intelligent are utter morons ,ie women and normies
She was making good points in the first half, but when she started angrily ranting about how all AI art is automatically trash and ugly was just petty and childish.
>but when she started angrily ranting about how all AI art is automatically trash and ugly was just petty and childish.
AI is limited greatly by its input. So all the art AI you see is just a better looking version of whatever coomers and artists were drawing for centuries. Ai is not creative, nothing original will stem from AI.
That's still no reason to undermine her own credibility with histrionic rants about people doing things she dislikes.
maybe if you make ai art of her she'll understand how good it can be
How is it petty? It's not like the AI has feelings to hurt. Frick """AI""" """art""" and its 20 fingers.
>arthomosexual luddite fuming to the point of being unable to discern feelings
>the tuberculosis example
really just a case of bad training data
>AI isn't REAL
as others itt have pointed out, this argument is irrelevant.
beyond that, short of solving the hard problem of consciousness, an AI which passes the turing test isn't verifiably less real than any other human bean.
>AI outputs need to be verified so they won't replace jobs
This is like saying automated factories and self checkout haven't replaced jobs. An automated process which spits out results very quickly, with a single employee verifying all that work, still means fewer job opportunities in that field.
>racism in the training samples
there's a sort of irony where, by the time an argument like this becomes mainstream enough to be known to people who are uneducated about the subject, it's because the problem was identified decades ago and fixes are in progress or were already implemented.
also, this whole segment triggered my Black person fatigue
>stolen data
the vast majority of these allegations are Donut Steel morons who don't understand that putting something online means usually means forfeiting your rights to it.
also, I haven't seen any valid reason to draw an ethical distinction between training an AI on some form of media or research paper, and learning form that media yourself.
Like the whole argument just comes down to "AI does things with less effort" which is obviously the point of AI, but also literally every other tool people regularly use.
>an AI which passes the turing test isn't verifiably less real than any other human bean.
Deception doesn't make something that's not real become real. Just because a man pretends to be a woman online doesn't mean he's a woman.
Cool theory, doesn't matter. Companies don't care about having real humans in a chair, only if stonks go up.
>Deception
You can't fake consciousness, either you are aware of your environment and can accurately communicate its properties or you are not.
>You can't fake consciousness
Yes, you can. It's called a p-zombie.
Zombies aren't real.
Do you believe in Space Santa too?
That's just a thought experiment some midwit made up to con people. There is no such thing, and the entire thought experiment is incoherent.
>t. p-zombies who didn't understand the thought experiment
>confusing a thought experiment about imaginary types of people with reality
Maybe you are the r-tard instead of them being the p-zombie.
>But call him a p-zombie and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I've been found out!"
ok r-tard
You're butthurt because you don't like the facts.
You are r-tarded because you don't understand the difference between imagination and reality.
>t. too low IQ to understand thought experiments
>Still can't understand that imagination isn't reality
ok r-tard
You good bud? How bout you do some reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Some of the words might be too big for ya
You should have read it yourself before posting since the article spends more time explaining how they are imaginary beings that are physically impossible in reality than actually documenting any real occurrence or study of one.
You going to post the santa clause wiki page and start begging for presents next?
>physically impossible
The whole point is that they are totally possible because they do not contradict any known law of physics. You failed at reading comprehension.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
>philosophical zombies are logically incoherent and thus impossible
> p-zombies are metaphysically impossible but that inverted qualia (such as inverted spectra) or absent qualia (partial zombiehood) are metaphysically possible.
>for words to have meaning, their use must be open to public verification. Since it is assumed that we can talk about our qualia, the existence of zombies is impossible.
No, you clearly failed to read your own source.
>quoting Dennett who didn't understand the thought experiment either
Top kek.
I only needed 1 quote to prove my point that the article spends more time talking about how it is impossible because they are imaginary being than documenting an actual case, but I provided 3 anyway and they were not all from the same person either.
>quoting someone from my own echo chamber who didn't understand the topic either constitutes a proof
This is your brain on /misc/.
You provided the link, it wasn't my echo chamber, you are the one in your own little echo chamber if you actually think that article spends more time documenting real verified cases of a p-zombie than talking about how it is just an impossible imaginary being r-tards like to speculate about.
I am not the poster who provided the link. You seem to have difficulties following a conversation.
If you are the one jumping in the middle of someone else's conversation without understand the context because someone else posted it, you are the one having trouble following the conversation.
And again you're wrong. I've been discussing in this thread since the beginning. Do you have some kind of disability?
Yet you had to jump into someone else's conversation after they posted a link to get a (You) based on the fact you didn't post it.
No because it is impossible to be able to explain your feelings at the same level as any other human without actually being able to feel them.
p-zombies don't lack consciousness, they lack introspection
"introspection" is a sign of brain damage, you're supposed to think BEFORE you act.
It's only a delusion anyway, you are trying to assign meaning to the random events that your broken brain creates. It isn't different in principle from hearing voices in white noise.
>you're supposed to think BEFORE you act.
No, you are suppose to think before, during, and after your actions to plan, execute, and revise based on how well your results matched your plan.
There are just no thoughts for a schizo. A schizo acts randomly. He does random things for no reason. Animals even with extensive brain damage also do the same things as normal animals (in fact much more so) only the reason for them is absent and they act randomly, for example they may carry food to random places, instead of gathering it. And it is the same with normal schizos - random, franctic activity for no reason and with no result. And then the schizo "introspects" or "self reflects" to confabulate some reason why he did or say something, what made him angry, and so on.
>normal schizos
*human schizos
>And then the schizo "introspects" or "self reflects" to confabulate some reason why he did or say something, what made him angry, and so on.
Schizos are incapable of introspection because they lack the ability to reflect on their own thoughts apart from the delusion that they're under.
Schozos are incapable of thought because they suffered brain death, which isn't necessarily complete, but as the higher brain dies, the lower brain acts more and more randomly, and reports random reasons for the random acts. Any perceived beliefs are the result of this randomness. They aren't something that they concluded with some broken thought process, but more likely something that they overheard (possibly incorrectly so) and it got stuck.
Lead schizo? Is that you?
The Turing Test is bullshit.
This is even more bullshit.
AI gets BETTER over TIME. Are people so moronic that they think the future is just not a thing?
civilization will return to dark ages withing 3 centuries as a result of genetic load creating a population of humans unable to maintain civilization. The average IQ will be so low that those with the intelligence needed to be a civil engineer will be far and few between.
This will remedy itself in about a thousand years once all the midwits have been culled by high child mortality.
There is a different theory which is more probable imo. Birthrates will drop all across the globe. It will be a fertility crisis, not the case of not wanting to breed (as is the case in West currently). We could discuss reasons but only the preordained fate is what matters.
bingo, complexity crisis. I have been saying this here for YEARS also. This is what the kali yuga is, the mouse utopia
Also, half the point of her video is that Machine Learning isn't actual AI. The program has a hard limitation since it can only generate outputs based on things humans have already made.
It could still be smarter than humans, in the sense that nobody can be an expert in every single field all at the same time, but it fundamentally lacks the capability to generate new theories.
Which means that the feedback loop of AGIs coding ever smarter AGIs until they're functionally omniscient simply cannot happen under this framework.
Fake graph.
Dumb humans are closer to chimps than geniuses in IQ.
Yea just look at Moore’s law
Can AI replace ants or bird already?
I hope so. Birds need to be replaced urgently.
Birds aren't real.
>he doesn't know
I think if I saw one of these things it would actually startle me
Looks like an alien when it does that thing
The problem is that people didn't expect AI's parroting skills to be so good.
But being a parrot isn't an infinite talent. AI cannot synthesize anything of value that is new.
It isn't even a very good parrot when it comes to text or visual imagery. LLMs make very large mistakes due to relatively minor quirks of training or programming.
Passing a standardized test with known questions and solutions, which certainly would have been in its training set, should be at the bottom of the implicit complexity scale in the meme, you moron.
It's still just autocomplete though.
Imo she completely misunderstands how it works.
She thinks that our brain somehow thinks in different way which is false, we also learn by learning relations, and steal ideas all the time. Mixing them into more complex ideas.
It's generally true that human brain is more efficient at using less data to learn patterns and can find deeper relations for now.
But at the same time directly increasing size of neural networks increases their efficiency.
It really looks like a "solved" problem if we could throw much more power computing power into it (to clarify we are not there but in 20 years if moore's law holds we probably will). And we are still able to find some additional optimizations.
It continues to be the case that the only way AI boosterism works is for techies to maliciously dehumanize humans.
>maliciously dehumanize humans
What is that even supposed to mean?
But this statement is false. It actually can generate new theories/answers. The problem is that it's not that smart in that yet but it is improving.
As opposed to altruistically dehumanizing humans, such as implying Black folk are stupid and incapable of helping themselves by demanding affirmative action.
>reshuffles others' thoughts
>can be unintentionally based if you flood it with information
>outputs are controlled by tech overlords
Machine Learning is merely digital r*ddit, the problem is how to code a digital BOT.
Moore's Law no longer applies. We may be able to pack more transistors, but there are no longer YoY significant speed increases. Current AI models and computing tech are drastically different than how actual brains work. AI that's good enough to replace jobs might be decades or even centuries away.
What work? Most people who work in an office setting do frick all, its glorified data entry.
>AI that's good enough to replace jobs might be decades or even centuries away.
Have you not called customer service lately?
It has already replaced a bunch of those jobs, most of the time its no longer some moronic ESL, its some moronic bot.
Not him, but the scarier thing is that now companies have AI bots that call customer service for information. I work in a call center for an insurance company and we get robocalls from a bot named Eve that hospitals use to call insurance companies to ask questions about eligibility and benefits when the details aren't available from the online systems they use.
Speak for yourself you no Qualia having NPC.
>She thinks that our brain somehow thinks in different way which is false
No it isn't. We do think in a different way. It's not just a matter of efficiency, because humans frequently come up with generalisations and conjectures based on sample sizes of 1 or even 0, which neural nets don't do yet even human children frequently do. This points to a real qualitative difference, not just a matter of scale.
I don't know a single AI researcher who considers this a solved problem.
>humans frequently come up with generalisations and conjectures based on sample sizes of 1 or even 0
Why do you assume this is our learning process and not something already learned.
We don't fully understand how knowledge is passed (for example how a new born zebra knows already how to walk).
But that doesn't mean it works differently, it just means that there's some apriori which might allow things like generalization with only one example possible.
And of course neural nets don't work exactly the same way human brain does.
But the core rules are the same.
There's a lot of smart things in human brain which are not part of even greatest neural nets and thanks to that our brain is much more optimized.
But that doesn't matter because in long term we can just brute force those issues to create AGI which then would help us create ASI.
And the shit this girls suggest in this video
"it just learns what was already given to it and can't improve on that, or find new things" is such bs it's not even funny.
AI will good at automating human murdering gun turrets for the government, creating cheap game textures by replacing the 100 or so artists at AAA games with 5 guys playing with an AI, and be somewhat useful at predicting enzyme function under different conditions so help genetic engineering.
ummm sorry that's not AI. that's pattern recognition :^)
>AI is not real
Meaningless statement
>AI isn't intelligent
Meaningless statement
>AI won't replace jobs
False
It's better summarized as: What people are calling AI is just machine learning, which is just a filtering method not capable of intelligent decision-making, and that can't replace people's jobs.
She's not saying AI can never exist or that it couldn't replace jobs if it did, she's saying that calling machine learning "AI" is misleading and incorrect.
That CAN replace jobs or at least augment the efficiency of a single worker to the point that they can do the work of ten people.
Unironically, the main use of the LLMs is summarizing and synthesizing all these different under different contexts, but overall similar, processes and procedures. It immensely speeds work up, document writing up, coding up, problem brainstorming up, email writing up, meeting agenda creation up, all of these highly administrative tasks that you really need to be doing well in order to effectively run things, but which is WAY too much for one person to handle while managing all the rest of their work.
machine learning = AI
It's not really and that's literally why the term AGI had to be invented because AI as a term became tainted by things that aren't actually AI.
It is an intelligence. Just because they are now considered "primitive" thanks to advances in the field it doesn't mean we should change the definition. The problem is just semantics, we are used to the concept of an "intelligent" human being as someone with exceptional qualities, but that is not what the word means in reality and how it's been used for the past centuries (maybe decades is more realistic, though).
No, its because AI is no longer scifi and understanding it is arduous and boring, so morons like you need some other term to project all their scifi fantasies onto to avoid actually understanding real AI.
Why the frick are her videos so fricking long?
Milking youtube money. If you extend it that long with filler you get an extra ad impression.
I don't even notice since I have adblock on all my devices
For me to fap
Is she even an expert in the field? Why the frick should anyone care about what she has to say especially for 63 fricking minutes?
she isn't an expert, and her opinion was the most milquetoast take possible. but she doesn't talk about the actual code in any major way, so being an expert in machine learning wouldn't have made it any better.
nobody's too moronic to understand it, it's just a boring opinion so nobody cares.
and you're not a homely, slightly cringe BOTfu so nobody even bothered to respond to your posts.
>opinion
it isnt an opinion it is a fact you are too stupid to understand. A computer computes, that is it, it doesnt think, it doesnt know what the color green is, it doesnt know what baby is, it doesnt know what it is, it only knows how to crunch numbers because it us just a fancy abacus. It is humans that gives those digits meaning and tell the abacus the value xxyz = green so when you get the value xxyz instead of outputting zzyz output "green." It doesnt know wtf green is it only knows when it gets the value xxyz you want to output green. I dont care if you find it interesting or boring.
>It doesnt know wtf green is it only knows when it gets the value xxyz you want to output green
and it doesnt "know" this either, it just reads the instructions you gave it which are also just values. It never has a "thought" it reads directions you give that are translated to logic gates turning bits on and off (just like an abacus)
The frick are you talking about
Computers don't know anything. Like when you use a fishing net, it doesn't "know" that you're trying to catch fish, it's merely set up in a way that water will pass through and fish will get caught. There is no inherent consciousness. In the same way, these algorithms are at up so that inputs are correlated to outputs.
Her opinions on the future of AI, which were merely opinions for obvious reasons, were no different from the average skeptical normalgay's.
the frick are you taking about dipshit? yah, thanks for regurgitating my point that I have posted on this board scores of times
she is looking at a picture of my dick. : )
So she's a microbiologist?
no
ha ha ha
She's shocked because she didn't know dicks could even be that tiny.
>implying AI "experts" actually know what's going on any better than a layman
kek
Oh wow look, it is another episode of something I have been saying here for years but everyone on this board is too moronic to understand.
Glad to see the Youtube algorithm has brought us all together again 🙂
Fantano on estrogen
also Wrong board
I hate her stupid, self-righteous face. It is just begging for a good punching
She's hot.
I don't take anything women say seriously.
Sure, the Cotton Gin was incredibly intelligent that is why it replaced so many jobs.
The horseless carriage, which can be largely mastered in less than a day, will NOT replace skilled riders which take a life time to develop.
Where can I watch a video that demonstrates what an LLM is doing as if I were a computer scientist? I'm not but I took some compsci classes
I took the riddles from this list of "things GPT fails at" and if I rewrite them in a very hand-holdy way like I'm talking to a 5 year old, I can get it to give me the right answer (without me literally saying 'STEVE, THE ANSWER IS STEVE').
Also, it used to fail the 'False Belief' test but now it can pass it.
How did that happen? And it's not me copying and pasting a 1:1 of a specific question that it's just finding a hard coded lookup table answer to.
Pretty interesting video and also I violently fell in love with her and want to marry her and have anal sex with her?
That's a man. I didn't watch the video. Just want to say that AI already replaced jobs. It solves technical support issues in 3 minutes, and it was 45 when humans did it. Complete companies are changing workers for language models.
>her
>a women
opinion discarded
She got one out of three correct.
most jobs are bullshit jobs
I don't care if you call it "AI". Call it "clownshoes" for all I matter, clownshoes will still revolutionize in a shit way human civilization.
Wordthinking trash like her (can't even be assed to call her "subhuman") always add nothing to a discussion. They discuss words, not concepts. If you change a letter in something, they get confused and then satisfied that the topic has been dealt with, as the word has changed, which means "the thing has changed".
A wordthinker's brain is not too dissimilar to a shitty C script that leaks dangling pointers all over the place, really.
The words we use to label and group concepts ultimately have a deep impact on how we perceive them, especially when discussing those concepts with others.
She's right, AI will probably flop. It hasn't yet demonstrated that it is capable of actually replacing people, it flopped at doing the job of lawyers, it flopped at doing the job of doctors. The only possible profession I can see it replace is illustrators and graphic designers.
Though her resoning on all of this is kind of ad hoc, like AI isn't intelligent, because it just isn't? She doesn't actually present a reason why it wouldn't be intelligent other than all of AI's failures. Though this might actually work, because if CS gays assert it's a black box, does it really then need a justification as to why it's not intelligent?
Why do you believe AI will not ever be improved even though the current trend is a constant improvement?
AI cultists are horribly delusional. The "AI" has already reached its limit, because it adequately models the training data, which is an assload of text and images (illegally, not that I care) scraped from the web. It doesn't learn or reason and it can't really do anything not found in that data, or within interpolations of that data. It's a good search engine and it's good for generating filler content, so it can indeed replace a lot of humans whose job that was.
Do you think things work like that in reality? Once a linear trend, always a linear trend? Ironically that's how le "AI" "thinks"
You presume AI is and only is LLM's. Modeling and simulating the connectome is prity much ensured to work. We have already molded the complete connectome of a juvenile fruit fly and can now simulate their thoughts and reaction to stimuli. Wont be long and we will be freezing your mom's brain and slicing it wafer thin to scan into the computer to digitize her.
I'm going to run 5,000 copies of you inside garbage bins that drive themselves to the curb to get dumped. The pain you experience when you f up will be hilarious and I'll make you organum when the trash man empties you.
>You presume AI is and only is LLM's.
It is. Real AI is called AGI now.
kek
keep me posted bro
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add9330
Sure fing bro
that's nice but extremely far from a working model of the fly's brain
In some regions, the synapses were also highly recursive, repetitive, and reinforced—particularly and “beautifully” in the areas of the brain thought to drive learning, explained Marta Zlatic, another Cambridge neurobiologist and one of the study’s senior researchers, in a video call.
Fascinatingly, these recurrent structures mapped from an actual brain appear to closely match the architecture of some artificial intelligence models (called residual neural networks), with nested pathways allowing for different levels of complexity, Zlatic noted. When AI developers created their artificial proxies of natural information processing, they made guesses at the specifics of brain structure. Now, at least in one small way, they’ve been proven correct. Winding echoed this description, calling the layout of the maggot’s learning center a “Russian doll of connectivity.”
https://openworm.org/
what would be a decent hardware equivalent for a neuron? like a transistor type thing. growing them is a bit over what I can afford (with all necessary gear and shit).
also do we have any idea how shit is encoded in neurons? like memories.
>We
always funny when atheists keep saying there is a ''we''
>I'm going to run 5,000 copies of you inside garbage bins that drive themselves to the curb to get dumped.
Based "hell isn't real but I'll make it real when you get digitized" anon
Copies of a person are not actually that person. They don't share experiences in any way.
Somehow it's more unsettling to know a thousand exact copies of yourself are getting endlessly tortured than actually getting tortured yourself.
How? It's just a non-living computerized approximation. Being physically tortured is much worse than someone doing the digital equivalent of burning an effigy of me.
But is digital suffering "real"? You don't know. If machines mimic our brain exactly, would that mean it is?
Even if it's real to the digital copy it's still not happening to me or another living being so I find it impossible to care because that digital version of suffering exists so far outside my frame of reference for experiential reality. I'd be more worried about the person who made the copies of me and their unhealthy psychotic obsession with me suffering, since they might end up doing something crazy and violent toward me or my family.
>Copies of a person are not actually that person. They don't share experiences in any way.
they really are. it can't be any other way. you are the thing that you perceive now as being you, it does not care about switching bodies. it will always be exactly this you that you read this. if we run this experiment a few times you'll always tell us "holy shit it's really me wtf".
that happens because it's always you. you are not this body, you are any body identical to yours. as long as you keep things making sense it will always be exactly this you that you feel you are right now. always.
I mean as long as you destroy your previous body and only keep the new clone. death becomes irrelevant.
I've just made a copy of you. I gave the copy a box with an object inside, had him look, and tell no one. Now I'm asking you, what's inside the box?
destroy my body and my cloned body who looked in the box will tell you. simple. it will be me.
it requires a perspective shift, and getting this can be a very good midwit filter. no offense, I really mean it you need to change your perspective, you won't get it if you insist that you can only exist in your actual body and not in any other identical body. I mean you won't get what I am trying to tell you that we actually are but don't know yet.
So if the original passed it can never obtain the information. Do you not see the categorical error you are making?
conceptually so things make sense you want to "move" the info, not copy it. I'm talking in midwit understanding now, doesn't matter copy or move, but for you to make sense, consider that you efectively move the data. the idea is to not have extra experience (eg 3D execute) between scan and body destruction, so as to not have missing parts in the clone.
but, say your clone fricks up in 5 days, and dies. and your family will clearly print you again. you would be restored from backup, and you'd notice you're 5 days into the future, thus realising something bad must have happened to you. you update yourself on the situation and it's still you. but you avoided some shit. you feel like you, for yourself and everyone else. it really is exactly "that" you, from backup/scan time.
that is what you actually are. not this body that you have now. you are the entity that can exist irrespective of body.
you don't even have to trust me, you can just watch it naturally unfold in front of you. dying rich people will absolutely buy the ticket, why not, they have one week to go and are 103 years old, doesn't cost them anything. after they come back maybe even with young bodies (more in the future but doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things), then everybody will do it. nobody will be able to notice or explain something that they feel like they lost. because there isn't anything to be lost. as long as you keep the information, you are now death proof, and will always be you.
>destroy my body and my cloned body
Then they aren't identical if one is destroyed, so the clone can't ever be you.
>you are the thing that you perceive now as being you
No, you are not the thing, you are the experience of perception itself. There can only be 1 of that, you could create an exact copy of you and it will not be you because your conscious experience doesn't exist within that being. You could be anyone else and it would still be *you* if you *were* them, what does it mean to be them? That your conscious perception experienced life as them. Any mind gives rise to consciousness, the personality, physical body etc. are extensions beyond that but the experience is the real *you* part. Its a mystery why the consciousness that is you is bound to this particular mind and body but 2 identical minds still have separate consciousness. I view what is oneself as multiple layers, but the base experience of consciousness is what is the real you beneath it all, you could have an accident that changes your personality completely and its still you because you still have the conscious experience of being you, you can take hormones and change gender, restructuring your brain and emotions, it is still you because your thread of conscious experience continues through the brain reconfiguration. Nothing about you is really you except the fact you are experiencing something.
well yeah I'm sure you think things and are conflicted. do what you wish bro.
>Its a mystery why the consciousness that is you is bound to this particular mind and body but 2 identical minds still have separate consciousness.
identical ones at first. hence the need to keep things making sense and have only one instance of you running at any time. why would you run more anyway? would make no sense. you'd do it so you'd confuse yourself from the classical perspective of understanding who you actually are.
apart from that, if you always run one you at any time, things will make sense and will feel just like everything felt so far. it will be exactly this you that reads this, who has this sense of being alive at this very moment.
Perfect copies only appear to be you to outside observers. If you have a nice day and the copy lives on, your life experience will end and the copy will remember seeing you die. You who killed yourself will remain dead and not collect any new memories or experiences.
Here's a fun cartoon that explains it: https://youtu.be/KUXKUcsvhQc
yes but you are talking about the body itself. which apparently doesn't care (as long as it doesn't hurt). you are mistaking who you are for this locality of your body, and that is not who you are.
it also happens that you never really had a choice, so there's some extra clues for you, might explain why it doesn't make sense intuitively.
If I make a copy of myself I will only see from my eyes and not from my copy's eyes. If my copy goes to Japan for vacation I will have no memory of it and my copy will have to show me pictures and tell me stories about the trip no different from a friend or family member going on vacation somewhere. If I kill myself I will die and my copy will live on as a separate living individual with his own body and senses and memories.
you are trying really hard to confuse yourself.
your clone would not be you because it had a different path with different memories, you can't expect it to be you as you weren't in the same place in space-time at all times. how can you expect your clone to be you if you stayed in your old body experiencing reality. does not make sense. makes more sense to MOVE into the clone. eg drop old body so you break 3D execution so you can change bodies. how exactly would you imagine you can change your body without actually leaving your old body? I mean you must think at this as well. how else do you imagine you can change your POV into clone if you don't give up old body?
I mean, say "god" takes your "soul" from old body and puts it into new body. your old body is what now? that god did it. is it dead? lying on the ground? is there someone else still in there? how exactly do you change body if you don't wanna give up body? simple question.
(me)
think of your last week, everything has a continuity. how would this continuity work if you changed bodies? it would at some point, just move, from old body to new body. how does it not make sense to stop old body instance? it's a technicality, it's not death anymore.
death is when the fricker is not around anymore. that's why it hurts like crazy when you lose someone, because they are not around anymore, forever. that's the death, not the body itself getting fricked up. if you solve that, body getting "ded" is just a technicality, it means nothing. especially if you don't feel anything with the procedure.
That's why I said originally in
that the copy is only a continuation from the perspective of an outside observer. Your friends and family won't grieve for your death because an exact copy replaced you, but you absolutely did experience death and are not alive any more while your copy took over your life.
>That's why I said originally in
Perfect copies only appear to be you to outside observers. If you have a nice day and the copy lives on, your life experience will end and the copy will remember seeing you die. You who killed yourself will remain dead and not collect any new memories or experiences.
Here's a fun cartoon that explains it: https://youtu.be/KUXKUcsvhQc that the copy is only a continuation from the perspective of an outside observer.
now you're just saying things with no proof. scientifically speaking it must be you. you need to make a serious non-phylosophical case for why it wouldn't move. it's like saying if you take a plane ride you die but they replace your body so nobody can tell you died not even you. that's seriously moronic. if nobody can tell anything, it doesn't exist, it's just a technicality nothing else. your old body "dying".
it's strange but you sound just like an emo, the way I see this. I mean sure, your magic or whatever will die. doesn't seem to matter to anyone.
this whole process is strangely similar with the quantum immortality thing. if you'd always restore yourself after you frick up, you'd always exist bypassing shit stuff. in a way that you never even experienced it, but just those parts. the only difference vs quantum immortality thing is that you'd be aware of the missing time, where with quantum immortality there wouldn't be any missing time, just a continuum of always making it somehow. interesting similarity.
>scientifically speaking it must be you.
Scientifically speaking, what I perceive as "me" is an emergent property of the activity of my body and brain. No other body or brain can be me, no matter how perfect the copy appears to an outside observer. I am me, a copy is not me.
>it's like saying if you take a plane ride you die but they replace your body so nobody can tell you died not even you.
If I get on a plane and walk into the bathroom and someone restrains me and knocks me out and sends a perfect copy of me back to my seat no one on the plane would be able to tell the difference. When the plane lands and that copy goes and does all the things I was planning to do no one would even know they were interacting with a copy of me; as far as they know I just got on a plane and showed up after. But do you know who WOULD know? Me. You know why? Because I'm restrained and unconscious in the plane bathroom, and when I wake up I'll know that I had been restrained and knocked out while a copy of me took my place. The copy is not me, I am not the copy, we are two separate individuals who happen to have been exactly the same at one point in time (though we diverged the moment he stepped out of the bathroom and I got knocked out).
>I mean sure, your magic or whatever will die. doesn't seem to matter to anyone.
Other people being unaware of my replacement doesn't change the fact that I was replaced and killed and now an exact copy of me is living in my place. My experience ends.
if multiverse shit is real would you have a major crash and suffer for all the other you that died in all sorts of ways, in other multiverse? nope, you wouldn't give a frick.
would you give a frick about previous you getting all fricked up? well not really, because it didn't really happen to you. with the power of technology you were able to delete that shit even from your experience. it is you, who never experiences the death and pain, ever. unless frickery afoot with your info of-course. someone might be able to frick with you big time.
but if you follow some rules, like we usually do anyway, it will be kinda of a monumental paradigm shifting change in humanity.
comes with a moronic insane list of perks (lightspeed travel). the only cost is the tech and adapting society to new rules. rest is insane gains.
>the only cost is the tech and adapting society to new rules. rest is insane gains.
The only cost is mass genocide on a scale of billions of deaths per day that everyone hand-waves away because they've been tricked into killing themselves so some other copy of them can continue living in another location.
nah but you have to prove that.
another one, you sleep on couch, I move you to bed. we take a snapshot of both times you are on bed. nobody knows how I move you. in one case I'll carry you over, in another case I'll dissintegrate your body while reading the info and reassemble on the bed.
the crc for the info from both situations of you on the bed is identical, if the process of copy data/reassembly is perfect. how do you make a case that anything died, genocide and shit.
you are just calling a medical procedure a primitive name because you don't understand what is actually happening.
yeah I'll call it, this is clearly a midwit filter.
If you carry my body from one place to another you have simply moved me. If you disintegrate my body you have killed me. If you create a perfect copy of me in a new location you have created a new person WHO APPEARS THE SAME TO AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER.
>you have killed me.
well you see this is just midwit talk. you don't understand what you are saying.
this happens when you believe things about yourself that are not true, the things you think you are do not allow you to understand.
you know you can't really say what death is, in a way that scientifically matters, you'll just repeat the word like an NPC without really clarifying anything.
yes but you suppose somehow those are not actually and really you. your atoms change constantly, what does what atoms we use matter for you? the atoms are irrelevant, they have no identity. you are just being dogmatic, you believe things, which are completely irrelevant anyway.
and I am pretty fricking sure nobody is in a hurry to get you scanned so rest assured you will die if you really want to.
>you know you can't really say what death is, in a way that scientifically matters
It's when my body and brain cease functioning.
>yes but you suppose somehow those are not actually and really you. your atoms change constantly, what does what atoms we use matter for you?
If I can live at the same time as the copy and form memories and experiences independent of it then we are not any more the same person than identical twins.
>It's when my body and brain cease functioning.
so? don't they kinda have to at some point? you have no proof that another identical body is not generating another identical you. it does. you are not unique, there can be more then you identically valid as you. you have no scientific standing to say otherwise. you didn't find the unique because you just don't have it.
>If I can live at the same time as the copy and form memories and experiences independent of it then we are not any more the same person than identical twins.
why the frick do you keep saying two at a time? why? why the frick would you do that?
you can confuse yourself if you are looking specifically for it. but you are a mortal monkey trying to confuse itself as much as possible so it can remain still mortal.
you never ever in your life had to live with another clone, now all of a sudden that is the only thing that you can think about because the monkey that you are "thinks" that if found "the trick".
>ahaaa, but what about clones? aha, gotcha.
what about them moron?
this is the midwit "ahaa!" moment when he completely and inevitably gets it wrong.
You keep saying I have no scientific explanation but YOU are the one with the moronic woo-woo explanations not supported by any known science and zero proof to back it up.
point to the woowoo, is it in the room with us now?
Every time you talk about people being wave functions that collapse into bodies instead of people being bodies with emergent properties that we call consciousness.
>instead of people being bodies with emergent properties that we call consciousness.
ok, let's talk about you being emergent from material. assembling the same structure should manifest the same thing. we make two tuning forks, identically, they will sing the same tone.
the other thing is just a quantum way of looking at it.
>we make two tuning forks, identically, they will sing the same tone.
Yes, but striking Tuning Fork A will not produce a tone from Tuning Fork B because they're two independent structures producing their own tones from their own vibrations. A perfect copy of a human body will have its own (even if seemingly identical from the outside) emergent consciousness and exist as an independent being.
>A perfect copy of a human body will have its own (even if seemingly identical from the outside) emergent consciousness and exist as an independent being.
the emergent consciousness is the exact one that was copied. you are spouting a lot of nonsense on a science thread. maybe go to philosophy board? what you are saying is magic stories.
Tuning fork A is perfectly replaceable with tuning fork B, they are the same thing. they are cloned. they are identical. you need to provide scientific proof of fork's soul uniqueness that magically belongs to physical object and is different from another physical object. that is what you think you have, that is what you don't want to let go because it ties into religious and philosophical bullshit, and that is the reason you will most probably die. which is more of an art movie about the moronic condition of primitive humans.
>what you are saying is magic stories.
How can you not see the painful irony of this statement when you're the one saying two material things that both occupy different space are literally the same object?
you are implying extra things that you have no proof of. all I've said about this doesn't need to be proved, it must happen because the laws of the universe we know so far kinda imply it must happen. you are the one who says it can't happen, and the reasons you invoke are philosophical and religious, have nothing to do with reality but with magic stories.
>you are implying extra things that you have no proof of.
Fricking what? That's you. I'm taking the accepted stance that a person is a body with a brain and killing that body and brain kills that person. It's literally the simplest possible stance. You're the one making wild claims about how a person moves from one body to another or whatever the hell.
there's nothing that needs to be proven dimwit, it must happen or we live in magicland, if it doesn't happen.
No, shared and/or moving consciousness is the magic you're suggesting.
it can't be shared because timeflow implies each 3D spawn will be different. you can never have two identical you running at the same time. this is seriously confusing for you.
you selectively refuse some arguments, and just ignore them. then you build a strawman.
consciousness is TIED to your matter structure (all observation points to this, zero cases for otherwise). it doesn't exist without matter 3D executing it. being tied with matter, it goes wherever the information about that matter goes. there's no cases of consciousness that doesn't have a matter structure executing it in 3D space. you can not deny this.
being tied to matter's structure, it will be manifested identically by any clone of that matter arrangement. that is how the display you are reading this on exists. because if we make certain arrangements of matter, we always get the same result. we base everything on this, and it implies your specific arrangement of matter will manifest your special consciousness, exactly you.
>consciousness is TIED to your matter structure (all observation points to this, zero cases for otherwise). it doesn't exist without matter 3D executing it. being tied with matter, it goes wherever the information about that matter goes. there's no cases of consciousness that doesn't have a matter structure executing it in 3D space. you can not deny this.
I agree with all of this.
>being tied to matter's structure, it will be manifested identically by any clone of that matter arrangement. that is how the display you are reading this on exists. because if we make certain arrangements of matter, we always get the same result.
I agree with all of this.
>it implies your specific arrangement of matter will manifest your special consciousness, exactly you.
This is where I disagree. It is "exactly me" to an outside observer, but without a supernatural or paranormal soul there can never be a transfer of consciousness into a new body. If you copy me and then kill me, then I die and the copy lives on in exactly the manner I would but I'm still dead. There is no transfer, just an identical new instance of me that I don't experience.
>This is where I disagree. It is "exactly me" to an outside observer, but without a supernatural or paranormal soul there can never be a transfer of consciousness into a new body. If you copy me and then kill me, then I die and the copy lives on in exactly the manner I would but I'm still dead. There is no transfer, just an identical new instance of me that I don't experience.
it can if consciousness is a side-effect of matter arrangement. like light from you display is a side-effect of that matter's arrangement. you put matter in that configuration you get that light. if you are the effect of that matter structure/information, it will always be you.
that is how "we move light" from displays. we have a blueprint, we share it, others are building it and whadaiaknow, you get that light. seems to have traveled through the information we shared. everything seems to work this way, our whole civilization thing is based on this, because we see it always working. what you are basically saying, the way I see things, is that your special display light would have something different than any other light emitted by a display built identically as yours. for some reason the magic of original display light is lost in any other displays.
now, for your experience to make sense, there always has to be a maximum of one you running, just like before. or else you won't feel special anymore, and would get confusing for everyone. if you somehow were as useful as a phone display, everyone would want to build a you. sure.
>that is how "we move light" from displays. we have a blueprint, we share it, others are building it and whadaiaknow, you get that light.
The light isn't moving. Each display is projecting its own light in a separate instance, no matter how identical it looks. Just as each body projects its own consciousness in a separate instance, no matter how identical it looks.
When I turn on my display, I get my display's light. When you turn on your display, you get your display's light. The light is separate and did not move from my display to yours.
>now, for your experience to make sense, there always has to be a maximum of one you running, just like before. or else you won't feel special anymore, and would get confusing for everyone.
Killing the original only serves to maintain the illusion for outside observers. The fact that you refuse to entertain the idea of the original living at the same time as the copy is telling, because you know that if you let both live you can't insist that it's the same person because you could give knowledge to one and not the other. You could argue that the two identical people share a hivemind, but you know that would make your paranormal superstitions that much more obvious.
>The light is separate and did not move from my display to yours.
well yes, that light does not occupy the same place in spacetime, it clearly is different, it completely depends on physical display in spacetime, on those local conditions. if the displays are atomically identical the only difference are local conditions. they affect the light that is coming out of it. the point with the display was to demonstrate we can transfer 3D matter arrangement's effects through information. you build the transistor exactly as I explained and you will get the very same particular effect that I get. I transferred the effect I witness to you, via information, and you can also experience that effect now.
>just an identical new instance of me that I don't experience.
yes but you need proof of this, and that is quite important. because there may be some primitive restrictions imprecision of language. what do you mean you don't experience? any proof of that? I mean how do you prove that you are only this body? I tried thinking of that, there's no point of replacing your structure with other atoms where I would ever understand that you are not you anymore. you are all the yous that exist in your material structure. if we bring you back, yes it is exactly you who will experience the rest of your life.
you are implying there's something you lose once you stop 3D execution, you can't say exactly what, it makes sense to me that you feel it intuitively, but you really need to be able to put your finger on it, scientifically speaking, or else you need to profoundly understand that you might be wrong. you have to be able to separate that which you would lose, if you don't that is clearly a possible wrong turn as it were. you need to have proof of it, especially if you are willing to literally die for that belief.
>the emergent consciousness is the exact one that was copied
the moment they get different stimuli they are different (and they obviously do, e.g. they don't occupy the same place in space)
yes once you execute in 3D whatever happens next is unique on spot in spacetime. that is exactly why it errors out for you because you are trying to make sense of it with two running at the same time, which clearly implies they will be different things because they cannot occupy the same spot in spacetime.
brother I am sorry to bring you the news but you are a midwit.
Killing one changes nothing about the nature of consciousness.
only if you save it before "killing" it. if you kill it all you can do is talk about it, it won't be there anymore if you didn't save it.
we can have backups, even daily ones. and we can travel at lightspeed. and can with sufficient tech advances choose whatever body we want to embody. anything possible.
there's too much at stake to entertain primitive narratives based on nothing worth dying for.
>striking Tuning Fork A will not produce a tone from Tuning Fork B
It does if they're in the same room. If they're far away maybe resonance can be measured even if it can't be seen.
>Every time you talk about people being wave functions that collapse into bodies
let's run some examples. you get scanned. let's see what happens when we print many of you, also you exit 3D at scan time.
1. we print 10 of you, say one each month. you chose one of them you want to end up in. think of it like wishing. what do you wish to do tomorrow? which of the 10 bodies represents the best version you want to experience? say random 5th one? ok, when we sample all of them, after they are all built, the 5th you would be happy, the rest 9 versions of you won't as they didn't end up in the body they wanted.
so in reality you had 10% chance of ending in the body you desired, if you analyze all 10 versions of you.
2. we print 5 of you. now you have 20% chances.
3. we print 2 of you. now you have 50% chances.
4. what do you think the chances of going to the right body are if we only print one of you? you will 100% happily exist in that body.
so, it seems to me that if you want to always get your way, you only build one body at a time.
if you want to make sure you always get in the right body, only print one from the info you save.
the moment you get scanned what you will experience next is in a superposition for you. you cannot choose, but something will happen, if you ever get reassembled. even if you intend on being printed once, there's unforseen events that would affect your chances. if the first version assembled from that data dies, and you get built back, that is not something you intended, but it still works fine for you, as you still exist having avoided a deadly situation/experience.
samegay
take this further, shorten the time between backups, if you have full backups each minute, even if you biologically die, you'd get respawned with all of the memory but the very last minute missing. so you'd remember everything up to the point where you'd die, just that you don't die actually. worst case scenario a minute's worth of your experience "dies", or is lost forever.
the only thing that dies is what is not preserved.
(me)
there's something strange that happens when you get scanned and exit 3D. it's quite possible once you do this you begin a neverending life. the concept of restoring your latest safe state would preselect the only road that you can exist on, by bruteforcing in a way. you will always be you on a possible road.
intuitively you'd think whatever happens next depends on your peers, as in you depend on them printing you as agreed. you settle on a single print so to switch to say a younger body. but once you get scanned, the superposition of things that might happen next for you contains not only what your peers will do with your info, but everything that is possible to happen in that potential future that you'd go to. contains all the prints for when you die. so you might get scanned for a new body and end up printed in a future where your first body randomly died in an accident few days after print. so they had to print you again.
it's hard to determine for sure what you will experience next, but makes sense you will experience something that is possible.
Hey Ashley, Can I eat you out? I can make you woo woo I promise 😉
>If I can live at the same time as the copy and form memories and experiences independent of it then we are not any more the same person than identical twins.
there's two versions of you on different roads. you can only collapse into one of them. you can only be one of them.
you can only be a single continuity, and you choose that road when you start executing in 3D space. that is what collapses your personal journey.
another identical clone as you can't occupy the same place in space-time. hence it will have another POV with its own story and journey.
if you get le alien device which makes portal to another multiverse and you go there, what is that you from that version? a clone which is not you? it is you, just another you, with a different journey.
clinical death has the clinical part to suggest everything still works but you had a short off moment. the off part seems to be the issue. if it's permanent we call it death, if it's for a short while we call it clinical death. so seems that "death-death" is when it's forever. if it's not forever call it clinical death if it suits you better. when you come back from a clinical death it is still you. it's not another you who took the place of the old you. it's who who got paused for a short while.
this subject is not just a midwit filter, it surely will cut in the upper strata for sure.
You must reevaluate your concepts of identity and continuity, which would no longer be chained to localized cognition, so to speak, once you can create exact copies of a person both in body and in mind. The copy is indeed you no matter how different it might appear to you or you to the copy due to experiential divergences; a realization you or the copy (which it isn't, it's you) can reach only post factum.
>think of your last week, everything has a continuity.
People can lose continuity and change personality simply through a bit of brain trauma, completely changing the brain would completely change the continuity.
>makes more sense to MOVE into the clone
Impossible.
I am not stopping you from believing what you want to believe. I'm just telling you nobody can tell the difference, without considering the process itself, if nobody can tell anything is missing, it doesn't really exist, it's just in your mind.
you cannot tell if it's you or not. if we run a double blind, and clone you while you sleep, you both wake up, neither of you has any idea who the original or clone is, neither the scientists running the experiment (provided the cloning process is perfect).
that tells you something if you want to understand what you are. you are both equally heckin valid and real. nobody can tell otherwise, not even you.
>nobody can tell the difference
The person who has to die to allow their copy to take over their life can tell the difference because they had to be killed to enable the whole process. I don't care about a copy stepping in to take my place in the world if I'm dead and can't experience it. It's ultimately an expression of extreme narcissism to assume the world will somehow be better off with some version of yourself in it after the original you dies.
>you are not this body, you are any body identical to yours.
A computer is not identical to him, though, its not the body that is identical, but some abstract set of symbols that represent the body.
if it completely represents the data it is him. what is not the same is the way to experience "being". which is another matter. if you take that info and reassemble into 3D space then you will get exactly the person you scanned.
I personally like the 3D space and would mostly hang out here if possible. pretty hard to imagine what can be possible in 3D space and there's some monkey intuition (that can clearly be wrong) which says that 3D space must be nicer than digital space.
you cannot make sense of this if you cling to the fact that a another you spawned in the different spot in space-time will have different experience and memories than another you spawned in a different place. that will always be true and you will never be able draw any useful conclusion.
you keep following any other possible version of you and then say "that is clearly not me". well yes, a clone of you is not you if it's not the first clone of you.
the first clone you run in the absence of you is you. it's pretty simple. stop thinking of them two at the same time.
"what happens if I build me, and another me?" well first you won't be able to be second you. why is it that hard to understand? I don't get it.
>if it completely represents the data it is him.
No it doesn't it greatly compresses, encapsulates, and abstracts the real data.
>which is another matter
No the point is that it is not longer a body made of matter, it is symbolic ideas made of abstract bits.
>if you take that info and reassemble into 3D space then you will get exactly the person you scanned.
No, you won't, this isn't star trek, nothing you are proposing exists even in any hard theory other than pure fantasy.
>nicer
Not nicer, fundamentally different.
It doesn't make sense, you are just having some kind of schizoid embolism from reading too many comic books or other fantasy bullshit and being too much in your head and using your imagination rather than actually understanding reality.
>No it doesn't it greatly compresses, encapsulates, and abstracts the real data.
if I clone you and put you in digital space then reassemble the data in 3D we get you. clearly you need to capture all the necessary data that is you so you can be reassembled.
>No, you won't, this isn't star trek, nothing you are proposing exists even in any hard theory other than pure fantasy.
that's not how it goes. anything that exists must be replicable in 3D space, given you have the tech. the single fact that you observe it exists is what tells you it can.
you exist so it's quite possible for you to exist, as it seems, by observing you. yes, if we get the tech we can make more of you. there's nothing in you that would make your particular arrangement unique in the sense that it just can be replicated. that is your dogma and what does not allow you to think straight.
>It doesn't make sense,
there's your clue. that's a you problem not us problem.
>if I clone you and put you in digital space then reassemble the data in 3D we get you
No, I will have changed before you have finished mapping everything and you mapping will not be complete because math and your ability to observe is not complete.
this depends on needed resolution. noise can be different if NEEDED data is there. if you cut your fingernails pretty sure that doesn't affect "your soul".
Your scenario calls for exact resolution which can never actually be achieved with digitization, its not just the fingernails you can't completely model, but everything including the brain and your thoughts.
not exactly because if I take your legs it's still you.
what is you is way less than your full body. your full body is basically procedural generated from your DNA, by nature. the abstraction of you is in your brain. in its structure, it's encoded there.
all we need to reach is the resolution to capture that, no more.
moreso, if you think logically at what happens, there's no difference between getting the scanning tech and getting the scanning tech AND replication tech.
in both scenarios using the scanner results in you being reassembled immediately (from your pov), like after a short nap. this is valid for both you develop scanning, wait to develop replication, replicate yourself and you developing scanning, getting immediately scanned (with swift 3D exit) and being reassembled 200 years in the future when we also crack down replication (might be in the next 50 years, who knows).
in both situations you had the same experience, but just by using the scanner makes the extra time to develop replication irrelevant, you can skip it. we all can skip it, provided we do get reassembled once the needed 3D printer is developed.
so then everything basically becomes available, for you, from your POV, once you crack the scanning tech.
cracking this scanning tech, to the needed level to at least capture who you are, eg your brain structure, might be insanely close, like 10-20 years, depending on how many resources we start pouring into the tech, soon.
So I guess if a twin dies, the living one has to let the dead one take over its body by your logic since they are close enough to the same thing?
man I'm trying to be nice but it seems you are going for that gotcha. your twin is not you, once born. it can't be. it has different memories from it's place in space-time.
cloning, twins, identical twins, these are words which don't convey objective information. because we use cloning to refer to the seed part that organism grows out of. but I personally use it here in a way which incorporates your experiences as well, brainstate snapshot. more than body snapshot, that can be made from your DNA, it doesn't matter that much, your brainstate does.
so I use cloning like that, you use cloning to refer to identical biology but different brainstructure determined by a different set of experiences due to not being in the same place in spacetime. and we get all this misunderstanding.
>your twin is not you, once born. it can't be.
Exactly, neither can your clone.
>you can't occupy the same place in spacetime
Same applies to your digitize clone, they don't even exist in the same medium.
>Exactly, neither can your clone.
this is bullshit. you completely miss the identity part which implies it's you.
>Same applies to your digitize clone, they don't even exist in the same medium.
your brain makes no difference between storage and executing in certain spaces.
stop thinking.
You missed the part where it is a digital version of you that has a separate identity from the original from the outset, so it is not you, by definition.
The digital copy is not a brain, it is digital software.
>You missed the part where it is a digital version of you that has a separate identity from the original from the outset, so it is not you, by definition.
you get confused by words. it is you in an informational format that is not executable in 3D space, nor digital space.
you can exist, in "stasis" like not executable, as fricking holes in paper. would be a lot of paper, but someone will do it just for kicks, pretty sure.
that roll of paper contains the info for your identity, but is not executable.
No, I get confused because you are saying moronic nonsense.
>I get confused
yes you are confused
Isn't that the point of broadcasting your moronic nonsense, to confuse people with your nonsensical moronation?
yes but you'd also have the same experience if you were a moron.
>yes
No, if I were moronic, I would have your exact mindset and would just go along with your moronic nonsense happily instead of explaining how it doesn't make sense and your moronic rules should apply to biological twins rather than just digital ones.
twins are identical but zero experience and sense of identity. they are blank and they each get modeled differently by their experiences which are not identical. they have the same structure but different experiences.
a perfect copy of you, like 1:1 to enough resolution, will have exactly the sense of you that you have now. how you perceive reality, exactly that will be had by your "perfect copy".
the thing you don't understand is too simple to not consider you moronic. no joke.
You already admitted you are just spewing moronic nonsense, why continue?
frick off homosexual, stop projecting your insecurities on me.
I am not projecting anything, I am referencing your earlier post
.
I was agreeing objectively that for you that might be a possibility but you can't rule out that you are actually moronic and don't get it.
I giving you some perspective.
It will. They cannot. Stop. It's all that frame in the blue.
are you having a stroke brother?
Honestly stop with the sun
if you run two born twins in parallel they will diverge because of their experiences.
if you make a 1:1 clone of you, and run it in parallel with you, just like the twins, you will diverge. but the very planck-second you both are the very same thing. and you start to diverge each on its own path in spacetime.
Then you can never be the other version, you will always just be you.
yes hence it makes no sense to run a clone in parallel, isn't it?
That is the exact opposite of what you have been saying when you claimed your soul would automatically jump ship which you have since admitted was just you being moronic, so no point in engaging any further.
a clone is you. it's identical to you. if I say it doesn't make sense to run a clone in parallel it means it doesn't make sense to run a you in parallel. why would you run a you in parallel? makes no fricking sense. how would you switch bodies if you don't give up old one?
but sure, identical twins are two spawns for same thing but on different roads. birthing identical twins is just like spawning two identical instance of 30yo you. from that point on they'll slowly diverge. identical twins being born is the same as spawning two instances of you, just that blank instances, no identity, no memories. they will clearly not be the same thing. you cannot switch to your twin's POV because you can't superimpose over your twin, because you can't occupy the same place in spacetime which clearly implies your experiences will be different.
Thry are not really delusional, it thinks to the extent that they can think. They can't do real thinking either. The AI simulates the cerebellum, which is what IQ test measure. It's categories, patterns and their extrapolation.
So far the trend has been scale. Sure scaling will improve its scores, it can pass the bar exam, but the way I see it more theoretical changes are required before it will be able to replace human jobs. What we should be seeing is that the more language models are scaled, the less of all the problems happen (mainly hallucinations), but it seems that AI produces more hallucinatory outputs the more it gets scaled. Hallucinatory output is basically when the AI makes stuff up, so for instance if you watch Legal Eagle's video on lawyers using AI which she referenced in her video, the AI basically made up court cases and used nonsense logic.
Clearly there's more to the story here.
Chat gpt "flopped" because they didn't give it internet access and nerfed what it could say at every update to obfuscate uncomfortable truths.
It's a fairly decent spellchecker in my experience. My art gens are still sub-toddler level intelligence but they sure look good.
She is based but probably because she's a 90s kid so I automatically agree with everything.
the entertainment industry is the core of democracy, it won't die, even if it means externalizing everything to japan and korea.
dont forget that the japanese bureaucratic bugs have allowed AI to be trained on pirated data, this is why, even though the japanese Ai models are crap, all the western merchants make a deal with japan firms to train the western AI on the pirated data in japan, and they will import back into the west the output. This means all the wageslaves in the entertainment industry are killed. good riddance.
Women already comprise half the workforce. Whether that's because they're intelligent or not...
>whines about muh black lives matter in the comments
i knew she was going to be a Black personlover
AI isn't intelligent but it is real and it will take jobs. Work is about being good enough not perfect. As long as AI is good enough to be profitable it will replace us. I eagerly awate the day human labor is obsolete
>not real, isn't intelligent
so are 90% of the population
>not real
>so are 90% of the population
why does everyone misquote this bawd, she clearly says "motherfrick" with hesitation which is what makes it funny in the first place
She stumbles on her words and then repeats the statement correctly. No one cares about the stammering part but you.
ask me how I know you're a nervous wreck in interviews
We're talking about what works for humor or as a reference in the text of a meme image, not about the importance of speaking clearly and confidently during an interview.
there's nothing else you could've typed to prove me so right
>Thing X doesn't matter in Context A
>I bet you think think Thing X doesn't matter in Context B, too!
>No, Thing X matters in Context B but still not Context A for Reason Z
>I KNEW IT! You think Thing X doesn't matter in Context B!
You're moronic.
She's right about AI in its current state. I don't think we are going to obtain AGI anytime soon and this whole AI bubble is a bit of a meme. I think some jobs will get filtered by AI but not many important ones.
This is like aliens coming to earth and picking up a mouthbreathing moron and using them basis for all their knowledge on humanity.
we should give AGI the task of understanding the human brain, like trying to decode the way it biologically abstracts our experiences, so it can build a human abstraction version of itself so it could have a human experience in human flesh.
if (when) it finishes the task it's rewarded with human experience. scan that shit back in digital hardware AGI and now you have AGI who understands what being human is, as he had the experience itself.
proceed to realize that AGI is just a digital human in the end.
everybody wins. we all experience each-other's world so we become the same thing.
Its a woman so obv is wrong by djgwmtyefault.
I'm in favor of life extension and biological immortality. I'm not in favor of killing myself to create a separate and independent copy who takes my place and then eventually kills himself to create another separate and independent copy and so on and so forth.
>AI is not real
True
>AI isn't intelligent
True
>AI won't replace jobs
False
She's absolutely correct. AI is fake and gay.
>her
Unfortunate genes
the jobs that AI can replace are sinecures, officially unofficial handouts as rewards for ideological-political service
weirdly with AI people in power are also on the chopping block. they are facing the same thing as everyone.
if AI proves itself a better "boss" as it were, then the first society which does it has an upper hand.
they want you scared. they don't want you to vote for AI. the only way is if you are scared of it. they have no choice but to make it as scary as possible. maybe now you understand all the fearmongering?
amusingly many of the sinecure holders are completely unaware of this
see also: covid WFH
I agree with her, but god gracious LLM would be able to condense all that rambling under 20 minutes at least.
you guys will bend over and backflip to post images of women on the catalog
Women aren't real, aren't intelligent and won't replace jobs.
>explain like I'm 5
>it's literally a programm for 5 year olds
looking forward to those galaxies appearing in my captchas and labelling them
The professions that will be hardest hit by AI are worthless paper pushing jobs overwhelmingly held by women.
She's coping because she knows she'll be unemployable by the end of the decade.