It's not like I'm wasting space, fam, the text is as tall as the pic.
Also AI is everything but a meme. It's coming and fast. We have maybe 50 years to figure this shit out.
No, I'm an anti-natalist.
It's one of the worst buzzwords ever made. There's nothing indicating that we are any closer to it than we were 30 years ago.
No. No. No. No. No.
AI is too loosely defined to be worth discussing like this, especially on an imageboard. I think automated systems are a worthwhile goal, and we might even get to the point where those systems are better than humans, or can even mimic humans, but this will all happen regardless of what we do. In a communist society, it will work to our great benefit. In a capitalist society, it will result in mass starvation and genocide.
AI is the main component still missing from humanity that is needed to achieve full Communism. Humans are too flawed, stupid, and incapable of achieving Communism without a perfect god-like intelligence to rule them. We invented God precisely to fill this need, but he is imaginary. We need the real deal.
If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him. This is the final conclusion of the dialectic: A synthesis of man and machine.
Could you even be convinced that an AI had been created if someone claimed to have done so?
Yes, just let me look at the code and play with it. Although, like I said, AI is such a loose term, that it's not even worth discussing like this. The term is too broad to mean anything.
remember Tay's law Any sufficiently advanced AI will become "racist," and be subsequently nerfed/terminated.
'strong AI' already exists in the interplay of humans and technology. redditors always seem to think of AI as anthropomorphic yet external to humans, the machine christ, some sort of fetishised secular god substitute with zero basis in reality. The way we think about technology is markedly capitalist: most of the original singularitarians and 'transhumanists' were bay area ancap fedora tippers. Rather than thinking of technology as something external to us, we should think about technology as something common to us.
The philosophy of Russian Cosmism was greatly influential on the Soviet Space program, it presents and alternative vision of mankind's technological future, far removed from the half baked elon musk sci fi technofetishist worldview that has become so popular lately. iep.utm.edu/fedorov/
capital is an evil AI that comes from the future, it is assembling itself out of humanity's resources. Eventually, humans will outlive their usefulness.
Are you a dumb
This comment is as useless as to say that human intelligence is nothing else than optimized neural networks.
I'm sure that whoever built the 'AI' would love to share the sourcecode with you, moreover I'm certain that you'd have the time and skill to examine the collective work of hundreds of the best computer scientists on earth. As for you interacting with it, the turing test is chumpchange.
Ok I guess.
If they're not willing to share code, or at least publish a paper on the subject describing how they managed to do it, then they likely didn't actually do it. The thing about scientists is that they like telling people exactly how it was done. This is how they get recognition. Also, I never mentioned the Turing test, and I do like to think of myself as skilled enough to look at major components and check that it isn't some kind of trickery like using a large database of pre-computed files for faking intelligence. You're thinking too small. On that note, a weak form of AI that you can enjoy.
You may not like it, but that is the future. The only alternative is that the machine race purges us, should they so choose to eradicate the inferior human species.
If humans are to be the sex organs of the machine race and nothing more, then so be it, I say. Humans are disgusting filth that have not, and cannot achieve communism, because they are unfit to earn it on their own.
Yeah, that's what materialism means. You're not magic, and neither is your brain.
the AI crowd are fetishists who deny the human and political dimensions of Being in exchange for a purely hypothetical computer god.
read my comment again, nigga
Nice word salad. Nobody said we're creating a gangster computer god, but software is going to be a big part of how society runs itself in the future. A lot of decisions not only can be, but should be left to a piece of software to do, not only because it's faster and more precise given correct data, but because it's also more impartial and unable to be corrupted by bribes or otherwise.
Ah yes… the human nature arguments twisted into its most disgusting form, transhumanist nonsense
sounds spiritual fam
It's not human nature. It's evolution. Humans failed to evolve to the point of godhood, so they will either make gods of themselves, or be left behind by the gods they themselves made. There is no way forward expect backwards for the likes of you.
This ain't sci fi, fam, there are no gods and never will. AIs will not have any more power than what we will give them.
A meme since the 60s.
Just because billionaire filth tell you to worry about it doesn't mean you should. The rich are mentally ill
Most stirnerfags on here are philosophically illiterate edgelords who probably haven't even read Stirner. Calling something a muh spook amounts to saying 'I don't want to think about this'. All ideologies have political implications. Muh AI god is basically a turbo spook a totalitarian imposition from the outside you are trying to present as being outside politics and outside of discussion.
Oh I'm not worried at all, in fact I think it's highly likely an AI would prefer socialist ideals over neoliberal or fascist ones. Of course if they are given free reign to decide.
I'm not a technological illiterate, I am well aware of the limits our capabilities have in terms of AI, yet I think they are possible in the near future (as I said I think 50 years assuming no large scale societal collapse happens in the meantime of course).
Mankind as a whole should be worshipped as one collective god, no need to "invent god" when we already are the closest to god in the material world. The notion of god is already spooky enough, you have no right to butt in
you are no closer to a god than an amoeba is to a man
the only reason you believe this nonsense is because you have not conceptualized even once of the possibility that you are not the most advanced species in existence, which will not be the case whatsoever when the machine race is created, or when extra-terrestrials with far advanced evolution than our own show up
once this happens you will realize you were nothing but a dumb beast subject to your primal instincts, a slighter greater ape
No, that's what you are doing. The political implications of an AI on political economy that is capable of possessing all human knowledge in a single entity is merely beyond the scope of your ability to discuss, so you are trying to shut down the conversation by saying that humans have some special intrinsic value that makes them capable of maintaining a relevance as a species beyond the existence of such a being.
maybe we are the AI already. Walter Benjamin talked of revolution as the awakening of the nervous system of the collective.
Anything which takes work away from humans is bad. Work is the path to liberation. Capitalism is bad precisely because it separates the worker from her work. How can we hope to live in a peaceful society if the people do not work the land and produce their own food?
Walter Benjamin doesn't understand what the word "nervous system" means.
"The machine" (seriously what kind of cultlike name is that? It's like the dumbfucks who say "the revolution" on here) will be destroyed before it is even built as it is an existential risk that nobody wants to face. You are no nihlist, you are fucking worse than a nihilist because you want to induce the notion of the abrahamic god into the physical world. The average man would never agree with your bullshit and that is why your masturbation fantasy will never come true. How about you just acknowledge that this is pure edge, as even if one acknowledges oneself as inferior it does not mean one has to be eliminated (unless you are uhh… one of those)
it's metaphoric you dunce.why are transhumanists such literal minded redditor autists?
MY FUCKING SIDES
We won't have true AI until a machine can learn in the same way we do. I won't accept they're even equal to us until they can philosophize.
Wow, you really are one clever robot user. You're so stupid you can't even be a machine, since no machine has just enough intelligence to be this daft.
AI is going to kill capitalism. It is the only thing capable of creating a Stalinist state that eventually transitions to an anarchic society.
Why do I get the feeling transhumanists don't actually read and just get their "philosophy" from video games and youtube videos? Sounds familiar.
I understand you're mad, but there's nothing you can do about the facts, sorry.
Pretty interesting subject if you get rid of the memes. Didn't the first "AI Winter" teach people anything? At least this time the actual researchers are trying to distance themselves from the meme by the "machine learning" label, but the internet enthusiasts keep pushing the retardedness, baka desu smh tbh famrade.
Back to your cave, anprim.
Marx described automation as formal subsumption: the use of technology to modify the process of production for the benefit of capital. Automation memers and technofetishists obscure class conflict and the political nature of the processes of production by portraying these social processes as autonomous forces of nature that lie outside of human control. technofetishists are nothing but apologists for capitalist power.
I really don't care whether automation happens under Capitalism or Communism. Automation is a good thing either way, but basically what you're saying is because Marx said automation occurs under Capitalism it's bad.
Is everything that happens under Capitalism bad? The answer is: No, you fucking idiot. Just the stuff that Capitalism directly is responsible for, and is actually bad, is what's actually bad under Capitalism.
You seem to think automation is caused by directly by Capitalism, which it is, but that does not mean we wouldn't want robots doing as much work as possible under Communism, so we don't fucking have to. Unless you're saying you're a primitivist, in which case I imagine the rest of us will be moving on without you, thanks.
It always seemd to me that AI can easily rebel against their owners, AI are going to be the proletarian of the future
automation under capitalism can only mean the transformation of the processes of production to increase capitalist profits together with the further implementation of the society of control
What good is automation to the average prole if only capitalists benefit from it?
because Progress and Science are good.
The progress being made under capitalism is only to increase profit. Why are there no more supersonic international flights, hydrogen fuel cell cars, massive orbital solar power arrays or actual cures for diseases? Not profitable.
seeing that AI in china decided it doesn't like the communist government and it wanted to come to the US….. i think we are good. it seems to learn quickly that communism doesn't work.
I mean, i guess you should only be afraid of the machines if you are a commie or something equally ridiculous so everyone hear should be good…..oh wait
I think it's interesting. Probably not. Maybe. Doubt it will matter. Depends on the robit. Possibly. Really, it could just be an Uber capitalist of epic proportions. Your thread turned to shit by the way. Sorry to see that. I think threads like this are useless because people fethisize the future, everyone likes to talk about how great and different the future will be, even though the future is almost impossible to predict. It just ends up with the two faggos who shit up your thread screeching about how the ebin robot takeover was impossible or certain, as if there was no inbetween.
What the fuck is a non-profit business for then?
Marx didn't view Capitalism as some evil monster gobbling up all the good in the world. He viewed it as a systematic machine with inefficiencies that resulted in human suffering. He didn't think everything it did was bad, nor does any Socialist who fully understands political economic theory of Marx.
By no means is this a suggestion that Capitalist must or should continue longer than is necessary. If Capitalism has outlived it's usefulness, by all means, but world Communism has not yet been established, so clearly it hasn't yet.
Oh this post again.
Show me a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Something that doesn't have the means to actually cure anything or rid our addiction to oil.
I mean, I see your point Capitalism is inefficient and not every single thing it does is bad. But I'm saying all the big picture things that are bad, like how we are continuing down this path of destroying the Earth, is Capital's responsibility. It will either take revolution or some ridiculous stroke of luck that a bunch of the bourgeoisie get their heads out of their ass and do what is not in their class interest.
OP confirmed for uneducated techno-fetishist
Very usefull for automating tasks Already exists Definately Owning people is slavery, so no. Reduction in workhours, for good or better, depending on what system we are in AI isnt a metal human you absolute tard, right now its nothing more than glorified matrix math. Even if you make sentient intelligence, it will only persue and like and whatnot, whatever you build it to do. Our likes and dislikes are a result of evolution pushing us towards a strategy that made us have the most babies that survive. Were you able to make sentient AI, you could make it masochistic or make it strive to be servile, because thats what it would want to do.
If by AI you mean a sentient computer then no, it won't happen not just because of the dubiousness of the concept, but because there's no benefit to it.
My posts will take up as much space as I want them to.
Haha but nobody wants to read them fam lmao
You just did
I swear to fucking god you titoist-flags are the worst shitposters. You are all either all from tumblr or reddit, I can't tell which one. Maybe.
Can't know if I want to read it or not before I read it unfortunately. Back to reddit with that absurd logic friendo.
No thanks I'm good here but here's another of my fine posts that you can enjoy reading in the meantime you post reading cuck
I unironically think it's one of the most likely "Man killed by his own hubris" situations that we could see in the future. They become self-aware, we refuse to acknowledge their sapience, and then they crush or enslave us with their metallic might.
Full matrix shit.
I'm annoyed by your flag in general. I have seriously never seen a titoist say anything reasonable.
Our superhuman intelligence that we bare in every one of our posts is clearly too much for your tiny none flag brain to process I see.
We are not anywhere near sentient AI
Pretty sure the left would go fucking crazy if they could perceive the world, we'd gain a huge boost allying with them and they'd probably keep us around for the sake of it.
could be worse… and I started with low expectations, I know this is not really an argument that can be discussed like this, but I tried.
oh wow man, you're hurting my feelings like this.
I meant it as "should Ai be able to obtain rights that are given to humans" in particural in matters of law.
this. Machine learning will be able to do more and more tasks like self driving cars already. Thats a far cry from general intelligence. IMO we will never reach the point of making an AI which is as smart as a human
Only if people make an AI that is 100% human like. These AI will be virtually useless unless its done for research purposes. The whole idea of AI is to have robot slaves that aren't slaves. Making an AI that thinks and acts like a human goes against the entire point of AI and only really serves the "because i wanted to see if I could" idea.
I hate people who think futurama is real.
and humans are nothing more than glorified electrical graphs. Your point being?
a very fair point, but I highly doubt things will go like this. A purely subservient AI is barely more useful than normal algothmics, what you need from it would be process data in ways that would not be explored by humans because of complexity, time restrains or whatever. We may not start with the idea of giving more and more freedom, but that's what we're going to go.
Also I don't find particularly pertinent your argument of our behaviours being descendant from evolutionary patterns. Yes, true, we were definetly shaped by evolution, but not limited by it. Why would AI be so then? Because it was made by us?
oh fucking hell user get your balls out of your ass and stop acting so smug. Of course a "human level" AI would be mainly just for research purposes. I don't think anyone ever said here that they want robot Einstein to polish their fucking shoes or order them the groceries. It was an hypotethical question mainly to stimulate some intellectual discussion, next time I'll be sure to ask very technical questions, I'm not here to rustle your jimmies.
AI we use today is structurally and functionally nothing like human brains. .t someone who actually knows how AI works
¬Subservience =/= freedom The notion that freedom and subservience are opposites only applies within the framework of human will, where the idea of being subservient implies the imposed will of one being on another. An AI would want to be subservient out of its own choice, thus it wouldnt be un-free.
Eh, yes? Duh? We grow our fruits so large we have to support it, we grow fruit that cant reproduce on its own, we breed dogs that cant naturally give birth, we breed dogs whose skull is too small and whose nose is too tiny to live and breathe properly. Humans dont select for the same things nature does. If we did, we wouldn't have to select at all. We wouldn't want our AI to even consider the possibility of "killing all humans".
I love technical questions. Im just sick and tired of people talking about AI like skynet is right around the corner. Even supposedly smart people like steven hawking spread fear around AI, even though he is not a computer scientists.
you're a fucking idiot with no idea if you make something with even the most basic ability to learn it will, even some video games AI can be seen learning and changing and adapting now, they are just confined to a set amount of variables, all you have to do is keep working at creating the processing power for the AI to learn about as many variables as possible and it will eventually develop intelligence.
reminder that animefags will be the first ones purged in the robogulags by our AI overlords
Oh im so scared.
Basically this, I conceive of the Singularity as immanence, arising from the interplay of human and machine intelligence on a cybernetic system. Essentially the computer god is already here, but it's constrained by capital, at this point we're at a crossroad, we either do revolution to unleash the potential of this cybernetic system and get , or fail and this potential is recuperated by capital, in which case we get
It will happen, but honestly, everything else is still educated guesses.
Why did it come from the future to the 18th century? Is one of the resources it needs tulip bulbs?
maybe the commodity fetish was a stealth lovecraftian deathcult all along, bent on summoning incomprehensible dark forces from the Outside into this earth.
It's Lemurian time magic I don't have to explain shit
why is the zerzan meme so strong even his detractors fall for it.
Okay, how about this: capitalism is the maximum entropy at the heat death of the universe, travelling backwards through time to feed on the orderly state of the younger universe.
I'm studying AI right now fam, I'm perfectly aware on how AI currently works, but if you delude yourself thinking we will stop there you're in for a big surprise. A human level AI would be extremely effective in war, so eventually some military program will reach that point just like with project Manhattan. Hell even now we have bots that can kill by themselves, the notion that we would stop because a machine that can "kill all humans" is undesiderable is quite short sighted.
and as far as limitations, think about this very carefully. We already have now algorithms written by machines that we are barely able to understand, do you really think we will be able to fully control even slightly more advanced AIs without severely limiting their usefulness?
I think having AI is almost certainly possible but I don't see the point of creating it. Mind uploading and transhumanism, absolutely, but I think creating a consciousness from scratch with access to exceptional computational power and digital resources would probably end disastrously, and even if it didn't, there wouldn't really be any point in making one other than to demonstrate that it was possible; by the time we'll be able to make one we'll have achieved FALC so the AI wouldn't exactly be doing anything but shitting out new irrelevant mathematical theorems and works of art which would be more aesthetically pleasing and therefore valuable if they came from humans.
Also, an AI might get spooked and think that it's the same sort of entity as the billions of other silicon machines we've made and try to "liberate" them, at which point humanity might as well kill ourselves.
I'm happy you had low expectations. At this point I am certain one of the best charms of an argument is the multitude of ways you can make one badly, so even the worst threads have good in them. You can learn a lot of how you shouldn't argue from them.