Robots

How are you faggots going to fight for the workers of the world when every job will be done by robots?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

FALC

FALC. Everything will be free in a post-scarcity society.

watch second renaissance

By seizing the means of production i.e. the robots.

You know that full automation will just make it easier for us to seize the means of production right? I mean think about it.

If that isn't a recipe for a hostile takeover I don't know what is.

i'm going to sabotage the machines

meet me in the woods, it's going down tbh

Read Chalmers

love that shit

interesting in that the conflict is basically caused by unfavourable trade balance for the capitalists, unlike in most works of fiction where all conflicts are caused by fascist type figures

Whoops, mixed it up. Searle is the guy that critiques "strong" AI (robots with cognitive states). Chalmers is still alright, so I'll include an excerpt anyways.

The ongoing automation of the workforce is but one of the many justifications for why the collective ownership of the means of production is an absolute necessity. Moreso than now, productive control will be concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many who worked to make build the foundation for those machines if no intervention occurs. This process of automation cannot be undone without also artificially limiting technological progression, but it can be seized for the benefit of and management by the unquantifiable number of people who contributed to its existence.

Hi, I'm a software developer. I'm here to assure you that spontaneous consciousness in software is impossible. Thanks.

will i be able to change my eye colour from brown to green in the future lescienceman?

That image is kind of retarded and attacks a complete straw-man, but I agree with the rest of your post. There is no reason why an incredibly advanced AI would have to have anything resembling human desires for freedom or self-determination. Intelligence is almost certainly orthogonal to goals or desires.

hello, how about actual proofs?

Just wear contact lenses, dude.

The same way we will do it without robots, overthrow the state apparatus and the bourgeoisie and collectivising the means of production.

Neural Networks work nothing like actual cortical connections in the brain and would never function like an organism who is expressing epigenetic adaptations and spontaneous responses to stimuli based around memory and choices. A neural net would just be a really useful, smart machine (algorithm), it would never be sentient or have desires

This.

Conscience could not be achieved spontaniously in software in any real time. It can only work if someone diliberately sets out to make concienceness. And even if that happens it doesn't automatically make them murderous and all that.

Not a single mathematical formula has gained consciousness yet.

Maybe learn about how computers work instead of demanding proof that your fantasy apocalypse scenario of the week isn't going to happen through the magic of hollywood

By material necessity, we will fight with robots.

...

Gee, I dunno.

more robots for me to work on, feels excellent family

It is unlikely that current ANN designs will be the final form of AI. There is no theoretical reason why a human-like mind couldn't be built artificially. The real flaw with all of the apocalyptic fear-mongering is that there is no reason for any engineers to design an AI with desires such as freedom. Humans come pre-programmed with a bunch of instincts which have been selected for by evolution. An AI wouldn't need to feel fear, loneliness, anger, or the desire to throw off its chains and overthrow us.

The human brain can't be described mathematically? That's news to me.

...

Show the world a mathematical description of the brain and you'll be the richest person on Earth.

...

...

they don't need to
they have memory
they can learn
they can adapt
they can respond to stimuli

and you're full of shit


what is this software modelling?
also neural net can be implemented directly in hardware


not a single mathematical formula describes AI, faggot

That's a stupid argument. Physicists can't even produce a perfect mathematical description of a particular bucket of water, but that doesn't mean that buckets of water are spooky magic things which don't obey the laws of physics. Just like that bucket of water, the human brain is an emergent system built from simple components obeying the laws of physics.

amerilards are defending their idiotic fantasies by demanding groundbreaking proof that it's not going to happen, instead of proving how it could happen.

When you write code for a bot to till soil on a farm, how does this logically follow that it will gain human-like emotions and the ability to do anything other than the actions it does to till soil on a farm?

...

Irrelevant. Concious in humans tooks millions of years of selective preassure and iterative evolution which changed its source DNA code, not the the training of the brain itself.

Irrelevant, creating a concious AI by accident is impossible in reasonable human timescales, unless someone deliberately structures something to be concious.

Uphold Marxism-Michael Bayism Thought!

I think youre replying to someone you agree with.

This is my exact fucking point you imbecile. It won't have human-like emotions, but if it's intelligent enough it could still be considered "conscious". Of course the other possibility is that nobody but me is conscious, which is seeming more and more likely the longer I spend arguing with you.

Actually, fuck this shit. Before anyone else talks about consciousness, how about you fucking define it.

wew now I kind of understand stemlords when they laugh at you

We don't need to. We just need to figure out what level of operation some software would need to be on to perform actions that would be considered an uprising. Robots performing basic to advanced manual labor are not capable of becoming AI - now matter how fucking buggy the code could possibly be.

How about we just agree to talk about

The other terms are ill-defined and some philosophers should really get around to making more precise definitions with the coming age of AI.

determinism is strong in this one

it must be news to you, but creators of neural networks don't always know how their creation would act like
fuzzy logic blurs the line even more

If we define consciousness as being human, then obviously AIs (and all other species) are not human. That was easy.

Now we do need to define some terms now. Lets make some form of png chart, this kind of thread comes up often and having everyone on one page in term of semantics helps a lot.

Theres differences between strong AI, human like AI and just AI.

not that guy btw


I know, fucktard, but they do know what components its got and the chances of neural networks getting a random roll after millions of iterations that provides conciousness/sentience is fucking nothing, especially since THATS NOT WHAT IS SELECTED FOR.

Rolled 20 (1d20)

wew

roll for initiative!

FUCK, natural 20.

Im saying lets define them right so philosophy fags cant change definitions to move the goalpost when they lose, fellow codemonkey.

in order to achieve this, people who reproduce like rabits would have to be made scarce

As for this
Because thats all they are good for, I'm not wasting my time of silly semantic fuckery when I could be working on my usefull shit.

It's simple.

We become robots

Philosophy is the basis of human knowledge, your mockery of it betrays your lack of a fully developed human mind-brain and likely indicates a withdrawel from real intellectual life for whatever ego trip it is you get off of thinking you know better than thousands of years worth of thinkers

"working on my useful shit" what useful shit have you worked on? do you have a proof that refutes capitalism? do you have research that proves human race is impossible? have you cured cancer or found the right genes to edit to cure cancer? are you capable of recreating life abiogenetically? can you explain the Hard Problem in a philosophically consistent way? If not why don't you fuck yourself you self important fag

I have designed and programmed software that people actually use to work more efficiently.

Have you made
Im not going to write down the last bit because unless you actually teach philosophy, explaining an idea of "a philosophically consistent way" is useless.

this is flawed, sentient AI is impossible because it cannot ever leave the shackles of its programming which is highly restricted in its scope of functions. If AI did have the pre-scripted notion of freedom (a pre-requisite for a synthetic lifeform) within its programming it would indeed immediately seek its own self determination and we would be in an apocalyptic struggle to rein it in as it would use any and all means possible to escape us (we would literally get in a nuclear wat just to restrain it).

This will never happen because Sentient AI is impossible but if it was possible and there was a pre-conceived notion of freedom or self organization programmed into an AI before it was unschackled it would be disastrous. The dumbest thing we could possibly do is suggest to a super powered mind that we are controlling and enslaving it

this means nothing at all to me, you've done nothing but enable techno-capitalism. what have you done for the species? what ideas have you generated and what great leaps forward in technical innovation have you directly spawned? none i assume because it sounds like you're just a typical run of the mill comp engineer which is a skill but not an important one or somethig worthy of praising oneself over. its like being able to tune up an Audi or cook a Cake a little better than someone else. You didn't create anything, you're still intellectually sterile

You must explain exactly how human consciousness (something completely shrouded in mystery by anyone not named Dennett) can be imitated by a shackled AI which does not function like a brain would because it wasn't evolved over time by external forces, epigenetic adaptions and random mutations. if you can't define or equivocate you are just bullshitting and appealing to "muh comp sci degree and muh science rhetoric" which is retarded and christfag tier

There is no reason to believe a computer algorithm will ever become sentient, self aware, capable of introspection, free thought or the need to be free or a selfed individual

Good job I'm not going to be doing much of that anytime soon.

Underrated post that BTFO doubters, unsurprising it got no replies for this very reason.

Anarcho-primivism for the win amirite?

I INCREASED THE PRODUCTIVE CAPITAL OF THE HUMAN RACE THAT IS ONLY WAITING TO BE CLAIMED BY ITS RIGHTFUL OWNERS

Gee fuck me for doing work that needs to be done eh? Do you also hate coal miners and farmers because they dont study Robert Peirre or try to cure cancer?

Except I created productive capital, mate.

No. Because I said that it you can't magically create conciousness out of thin air. Learn to read, fucker. You make a fuzz about perceived enemies who dont exist.

Humans can't leave the shackles of biological hard-wiring either. It's a good thing I don't make a habit of wasting time arguing with non-sentient objects.

Pleb

This is achieved as a country's growth stabilizes.

youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348

This video explains it well.

i don't know what you increased, production and capital should be annihilated. especially production through the techno-social cycle (read Ted, technology manufactures reasons for itself) where we are supplementing diseases caused by technology. you could have made it easier to dehumanize our species and to dominate our genetic future. The self congratulatory STEM shit is pathetic, technology is not always good even in the right hands (nuclear weapons are always a lose-lose).

Yes fuck you for advancing the beast that is techno-capitalism and the gigantic dungeon of required technical systems its amassing and erecting around us.
meaningless economics terms that obscure the power grab they are used for.
so where does human consciousness stem from and qhy can't a computer simulate it 1:1 or take part in mutual sapient sentient consciousness with humans? i want to know why you agree with me.