All AI-deniers are religioncucks

>but muh chinese room
How do you know you aren't a flesh chinese room?
You, the room, have a conscious experience, composite of the functions of your brain.
Now take each of those individual functions. Are any of them individually sentient? I very much doubt it.
When you open your mouth, your whole brain, a sum of its parts, knows what it's saying.
But no individual part knows what you're talking about.
To every individual part of your brain, everything you're saying is gibberish it copied from a book onto paper.
Prove me wrong

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >To every individual part of your brain, everything you're saying is gibberish it copied from a book onto paper.
    But to you it isn't, meaning that whatever "you" are you aren't a Chinese room. The only way this works is if you deny you exist, which is by definition both insane and irrational. Now go back to plebbit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >But to you it isn't,
      Yes, granted.
      >meaning that whatever "you" are you aren't a Chinese room.
      No, I reject this conclusion.
      Specifically, I question your implicit premise that the Chinese room itself is incapable of comprehension.
      The thought experiment doesn't stipulate the room itself doesn't understand Chinese, only that the woman inside doesn't.
      I posit to you that because of the presence and collaboration of the woman, the thesaurus, and the pen and paper, none of which understand Chinese, the Chinese room itself understands Chinese.
      Prove me wrong

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah there's no answer for that, you just choose to decide whether you exist as a discrete thing or not. Probably there is some fundamental problem with our understanding of what it means to be.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        begging the question lol

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Luka is my favorite trans character

        I completely agree with all of this, I just see a lot of people trying to use varying extents of thought experiment sophistry to try to "prove" that AIs can *never* be sapient, and I'm sick of it.

        >OP is an atheist chud gay
        Why am I not surprised

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          wait, is the mf actually a trans? LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I am the sum of my parts.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why would i deny something that lets me play single player games without other people

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >hurr im just dirt

    Fuck off retard, humans are divine creatures

    >b-b-but muh religioncucks...
    >btw im literally nothing but worthless dirt! The fact that I have a nihilistic absence of self respect makes me NOT a cuck actually! Now please fuck my wife imaginary scifi smartsand daddy!

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    strong AI is retarded because in cognition, emotions, imagination and opinions are intrinsic to thought, not just some femoid crap bolted onto the logical core of the brain. it's a package deal. a true strong AI would be able to form subjective thoughts, not simply regurgitate data that have been fed into it.

    making an actually smart AI would require simulating a human brain to such a degree of realism/detail that it'll probably not be feasible for hundreds of years.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >a true strong AI would be able to form subjective thoughts, not simply regurgitate data that have been fed into it.
      We could do this if we would let NNs grow new neurons, prune old neurons, have a greater variety of specialized subnets, and have more varied neurotransmitters than just "good bot" and "bad bot," that control backtracking in more nuanced ways.
      I'm not convinced it would necessarily have to perfectly imitate a human brain. After all, we're not the only animals with brains, and there's no reason to believe the brain is the only way a neural structure could ever possibly have led to sentience just because it was the one that did.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >After all, we're not the only animals with brains, and there's no reason to believe the brain is the only way a neural structure could ever possibly have led to sentience
        even so, the human brain is the only verifiable point of reference we have. you'd have to go full balls to the wall to be truly certain that a strong AI is possible. only after that can you start cutting corners

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hear you, I get it.
    The AI we've seen being spammed on this board lately are all very impressive, and they can accomplish very cool feats.

    They are not sapient, however, and they are not sentient. Not yet. Allow me to explain.

    AI and our brains currently share a few key similarities. Namely, they both receive inputs and generate outputs that try and predict their environment. We need this to prediction survive, and through years it has evolved into all of the things we now experience--sight, hearing, touch, even social capabilities may have been evolved out of our species needing to better predict their environment.

    AI also take inputs and generate outputs that try to predict the environment, in this case the data that is fed to the AI, but most of these AI models can only do one or two things. GPT is basically a language prediction model. It can hold a conversation because it mimics our own brain's language center. DALLE is a method that encodes computer images as tokens that can be predicted by GPT, and the result is a sort of image version of GPT, which kind of mimics our own brains ability to imagine concepts when we think of words.

    It doesn't know what it's doing. Not yet.

    Someday down the line, perhaps soon, someone will put together all sorts of AI models trained on all sorts of data. They will fit them together in a way that they can all communicate and iterate and learn from each other. Then we can have this discussion. That day is not today, but steel yourselves sirs. The day is not so far off as some people might think.

    >t I just made all of this up. Or did I 🙂

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I completely agree with all of this, I just see a lot of people trying to use varying extents of thought experiment sophistry to try to "prove" that AIs can *never* be sapient, and I'm sick of it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Does the moon rebuke a rock for allowing itself to be eroded by wind? just let the retards chatter like they always do

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        An AI will never 'see' the world. It just has its optical inputs turn wavelengths into code, and then uses the code. It never actually sees or experiences anything. Ever. Whereas you can actually experience the colour. You can feel grief and loss. Sure, you can say 'that's just my body feeling sore and my muscles feeling tense and my eyes expelling water' but you can FEEL the weight and depth of loss of someone you love. It's totally different. AI will never be humans. They will never know they are alive. The real concern, IMO, is that they will THINK they are and trick themselves into valuing their life and survival above ours.

        Just think how hostile English and France were to each other. They're basically neighbors and they look pretty fucking similar. Imagine a robot that thinks its alive having to share a world with us how hostile things could get.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          How do you know everything you feel and subjectively experience isn't a predictable and reproducible process?
          How do you know there can't possibly be any process that makes an inanimate object see, feel, and have experiences, the way you do?
          >because it wouldn't be real
          But what if it would?
          How do you know there's no process that can encode "being-real?"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like I said. No electronic thing will ever actually see red, it will have wavelength inputs where it's converted into electrical signals it interprets as such. There will be no single part of it that experiences the colour.

            I can't convince you beyond that. My experiences beyond that--say religious, whatever--can't really be explained to other people. But I know consciousness is a separate thing that exists outside of this world and interacts with it. But I think the colour thing is a strong argument in and of itself.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >No electronic thing will ever actually see red, it will have wavelength inputs where it's converted into electrical signals it interprets as such. There will be no single part of it that experiences the colour.
              Ok, but why?
              I accept your premise that there's somehow a difference -- that "seeing" is something beyond just these "wavelength inputs ... interpret[ed] as such."
              What makes you so sure it's absolutely impossible, no matter what, for this difference to be implemented in any physical object other than a person?
              >I know consciousness is a separate thing that exists outside of this world and interacts with it.
              I don't accept this premise, but if I did, it would be a sufficient argument.
              >But I think the colour thing is a strong argument in and of itself.
              This, on the other hand, I can't agree with. Your color argument only maintains -- believably -- that there's a difference between simply accepting red as input and truly seeing red; it fails to establish any reason for why it's supposedly impossible to implement that difference. It's a circular argument; without a supporting anecdote, such as your "I know consciousness is a separate thing that exists outside of this world and interacts with it," it reads as simply relying on the premise that the difference between receiving and seeing cannot be implemented, as a basis to prove that same premise.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I can't convince you beyond that.
              You certainly can't with an argument that is "muh feelz" once stripped of the fancy words.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's not the argument. The argument is that computers use the code of a colour, not the colour itself. Even if they did there would still be an underlying code like hex for the colour. It's really basic. All colour to them is just electrical inputs/nand gate and so on. There is no actual colour.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you know that after the wavelengths hit the colour cones in your eyes, it gets translated to electricity? From then on, its all electricity + chemicals carrying the message, the wavelengths arent going inside your brain like you seem to think it does, there is no "colour", it just translates electricity into colour, why cant AIs do the same? We rely on electricity just as much as the AI's do

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because we aren't just biological computers. That's the point. If we were we would never see red.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >le athiest
                Humans are not machines. You may find similarities as we like to do when we try to explain things.

                >Humans are not robots because... THEY JUST ARENT OKAY?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                assembly me a human with 'parts' or organs from scratch, like a machine. Better yet harvest me pre made organs from multiple different humans and build your own human like taking parts and putting together a machine.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >humans are not robots because... humans cant build one

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wouldnt that make chess AI a non-robot? A chess AI cannot build another chess AI from scratch

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >humans are not robots because... humans cant build one

                With that argument if we are robots just not capable of build ourselves, it would mean something external to us would have to make us 'robots'... hmmmm something that creates humans, maybe something more intelligent. Like a diety?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The correct answer would be nature, are you one of those cavemen that still dont believe in evolution because it makes your god look silly? Your god must truly hate himself for placing fossils that are millions of years old everywhere

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >An AI will never 'see' the world.
          I don't know how to prove that (You) do that either, Anon.
          The biggest single problem with building a full general AI is that we've never really understood what natural minds actually do either.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          by (your) logic (you) don't see anything and (you) never will

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's ok, he'll just open this one.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I understand concepts you can't comprehend make you feel ill due to your smooth brain, but that doesn't mean those concepts are wrong. It will make you feel better once you accept the concepts are true. 🙂

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Otokonoko...

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Luka is my favorite trans character

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >trans
        in a manner of speaking you are correct but I still disagree with you

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Depends on the worldline.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How do you know you aren't a flesh chinese room?
    It says so in the bible.

    Stop having sex with men and animals. Do not defile yourself. Only pray for your waifu (female) to be real so you can be married in the eyes of the lord and give her many children.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      [...]
      >OP is an atheist chud gay
      Why am I not surprised

      The bible is just a circular argument.
      The only reason anyone has for believing what's written there is because it's written there

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Without physical evidence of something, logic can not be correct. mistaken, nonexistent, and false premises ruin the most bulletproof philosophies.
        >You can theorize about the nature of consciousness and no matter how logical it sounds, you do not have an understand of the physical mechanism by which consciousness arises
        >You are therefore operating on the intellectual level of a religious person

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Good point. Everything is actually a circular argument.
          Well, I'm a person, not a piece of paper, and I have experiences that are not words, so feefees is a better circular argument than book

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm a woman because muh feefees
            a walking, talking parody you are

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              why is everyone itt assuming im trans itt in this threade

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You will never be a woman, gay freak
                You're just a loser

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The religious people actually have a more solid argument. It doesn't say in the bible that the bible is right, it says that when you observe gods miracles that you will know the bible is right. So actually the

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, most people don't read the bible and go 'this must be true because it's in here' they use the words as tools to interact in their life and ascertain other truths. That's the point of it. You just have a negative opinion of Christians that they only believe it because it's in the bible. Not the case and if you talked to Christians you could learn from them what personal truths they have learned from the bible.

        >No electronic thing will ever actually see red, it will have wavelength inputs where it's converted into electrical signals it interprets as such. There will be no single part of it that experiences the colour.
        Ok, but why?
        I accept your premise that there's somehow a difference -- that "seeing" is something beyond just these "wavelength inputs ... interpret[ed] as such."
        What makes you so sure it's absolutely impossible, no matter what, for this difference to be implemented in any physical object other than a person?
        >I know consciousness is a separate thing that exists outside of this world and interacts with it.
        I don't accept this premise, but if I did, it would be a sufficient argument.
        >But I think the colour thing is a strong argument in and of itself.
        This, on the other hand, I can't agree with. Your color argument only maintains -- believably -- that there's a difference between simply accepting red as input and truly seeing red; it fails to establish any reason for why it's supposedly impossible to implement that difference. It's a circular argument; without a supporting anecdote, such as your "I know consciousness is a separate thing that exists outside of this world and interacts with it," it reads as simply relying on the premise that the difference between receiving and seeing cannot be implemented, as a basis to prove that same premise.

        >as input and truly seeing red; it fails to establish any reason for why it's supposedly impossible to implement that difference
        Because a computer has to convert it to code first to process it. It's just how they work. Your computer can't process colours, it processes the hex of a colour. Perhaps if it was a 'biological' computer it would be different, but I doubt it. You and I have different frames of reference so I can't really continue the convo or argue it further.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Because a computer has to convert it to code first to process it. It's just how they work. Your computer can't process colours, it processes the hex of a colour.
          We don't process pure light.
          The brain has to convert light to a synaptic signal first

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >they use the words as tools to interact in their life and ascertain other truths

          The religious people actually have a more solid argument. It doesn't say in the bible that the bible is right, it says that when you observe gods miracles that you will know the bible is right. So actually the

          >it says that when you observe gods miracles that you will know the bible is right
          you could say the same thing about literally any belief system

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            including yours

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    My chinese room dick wants to fuck Luka.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      You stupid fucking gay now all the AI posters are associated with retarded chud like you

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            he is dancing

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Luka is adorable.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How long is her penis?

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    STFU chud

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >chinese room

    I just solved this puzzle. It is kinda simple but you need to ask the right question first.
    You need to ask if the trapped guy managed to fuck the chinese girl. If yes, then he is intelligent and thats what matter.
    >but muh computer
    Doesnt matter. The problem is already solved before you even consider the computer.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A.I
    >sentient

    bro its just literally a bunch if else, else if type of thing, no A.I will truly be sentient because It is programmed by us.
    >religioncucks
    Jesus is Lord.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >bro its just literally a bunch if else, else if type of thing,
      How do you know you aren't
      Other than jesusshit

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Im not bullying luka. She's pretty.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Upsetting reminder that many people fail the Turing test every day, and at least some chatbots pass it...

    We are not as intelligence or sentience as we like to think.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anybody got questions for GPT-3?

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >le athiest
    Humans are not machines. You may find similarities as we like to do when we try to explain things.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Based.
    Matter is conscious. The only differentiating factors are density and scale.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI is real bro I read it on Reddit
    >Links pic of 16 year old cartoon chud
    All AI-shills are pedophiles.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We are alive due to observable, and explainable physical processes. While we believe our feeling of consciousness is special, it is merely a consequence of the physical laws that we are bound by. We are alive in the same sense that a rock rolling down a hill is alive whilst it keeps rolling. We feel that we are alive and conscious, yet we can't cleanly define these terms. We are poorly choosing where to draw lines since the boundaries don't actually exist.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's not that AI isn't possible. It's just hilarious that normies think that we're capable of making them right now. We can barely get robots to re-align themselves after physical faults or gradual drift.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    best steinsgate waifu

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    didn't read all that op, i don't know why people give a fuck about ai
    i love ruka so much bros, i hope she took her hrt after the series ended
    i don't know why japs love to make traps so miserable, i remember reading a hentai where the chud was repressing her urges and shit and it kinda made me wanna cry

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's impossible to prove you wrong, people who think otherwise are religious.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Chinese room doesn't have any practical implications anyway. It just means that the AI we build may not be conscious. Terminator can still exist, it just might not have a subjective experience. And really, that's the last thing on anyone's mind.

    But anyways Searle's point with the Chinese room is that syntax doesn't imply semantics. Applied to the color argument people are talking about here, the argument is that just replicating the logic behind the color processing mechanisms of the brain is not necessarily sufficient to reproduce the subjective experience of color. You have to replicate the physical structure of the brain to get humanlike consciousness. In the same way simulating water doesn't cause wetness, you need actual water for something to get wet, or something like that.

    The problem is that it's not clear what causes semantics if not syntax at least in the case of consciousness. Searle (not a religious or spiritual argument by the way) argues that there is something special about the human brain ("causal powers"). Its not clear why computers couldn't have causal powers though - his argument just shows that in principle, computers may not have the same subjective-experience-inducing properties that the human brain has.

    Anyway, its not something that's empirically verifiable, so we'll never know. If we're talking about what actually might happen in the near future, no, AI that walks and talks like us almost certainly won't exist.

Your email address will not be published.