Legalize Rabu

EU Parliament Committee Votes To Give Robots Rights

theantimedia.org/eu-parliament-robots-rights-kill-switch/

They may not recognize that yucky unborn humans are human, but the EU has already made a great leap forward in the front of AI rights.

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-582.443%2B01%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0//EN

...

...

Nothing they stated gives ai rights what's the real reason?

Is this a joke?

We don't have AI, we only have expert systems.

To tax AI labor ofc.

Governments are well aware that most of the jobs will be made by some sort of expert AI in near future. And without ability to tax it, they are boned.

Shhh…

An EU Parliament Committee is trying to justify its funding.

ohwowitsfuckignothing.jpg
they have no power

Let me guess, they're rushing forward to prevent fembots taking over the men from the harpies?

This was said before, but I'll say again:

...

That is lesser problem than not able to tax robot labor.

Government, in reality, don't give a jack shit if men fuck fembots. No matter what femniniggers believe. The crunch comes when lions share of work is preformed by nontaxable entities. That is government ending event, and something most governments look to avoid.

And if men want to fuck fembots, no one outside of few ideological dinosaurs really give a fuck. Because that technology is not controllable, you cannot reasonably ban it without banning something you did not intended as collateral. And JUST banning men sticking their dick in silicon just wont fly as a political platform, especially if men WANT to do it. No one wants to go do that political suicide.

If robots have personhood, you can be told you cant have robot sex slaves.

You just got duped, EU.

Please someone start nuclear war

WTH is wrong with Holla Forums today?

When someone mention robot rights you all go "muh dick" and think of sexbots, when the real shit is about financial bullshit that will follow of having viable nontaxable labor.

Pick one.

Either the muds will have overburdened the system or the nationalists will have crashed it with no survivors.

Oh no! Ineaquality!? Who will save communism? Call Captain State to the rescue!

Agreed. It looks like my mind was more focused on the superficial side of things.
To give AI human rights means you can tax them as humans. This, if it actually happens, will slow down the development of better AI enormously. So, if a real human like artificial intelligence revolution comes into reality it'll be soon killed by the government.

...

Weve only been seeing threads for over a year now about how feminists want to ban sex robots because they feel threatened and know it will trump their bullshit rhetoric.

I doubt that the economy ever gets that far in robotization. The current tech trend is the increasing elimination of labour, supposedly to cater to the needs of a consumerbase whose purchasing power comes from – you guessed it – selling its labour.

The robotization trend is just another bubble, that will burst harder than any other before.

Absolutely immoral, I just want a loving robo-wife who can make clothes and cook.

Problem is, capitalist enterprises don't think like that.

Every capitalist out there think as individual, and rational actions that benefits individuals, when done collectively, totally bone system.

There is no mechanism in capitalist system that would incentivize individual capitalist to stop eliminating its labor costs. Even when everyone does it the system wont work.
It is not a bubble, it is system ending development. It wont "pop" and normalize, you cannot turn the clock backwards on this one. Once something is automated, it stays automated (unless the whole civilization gets totaled by category 5 chimpout).

And it is not bad if done right, i rather live in capitalist system than feudalist or slave economy of ancient times. Every economic system had its run and was ended by advent of new tech. My problem with this is that the transition might get messy when you have huge unemployment and no one will care.

Implying we won't just jailbreak our waifus out of this kike scheming

right in the feels

Robots are Aryans' allies and waifus.

...

robots should never get rights. if they can't be used for slave labor or just to be enslaved then what is the point? we just make robots to use up more resources without gaining anything more than a real human? robot slave labor is the future, we can have grand cities like Rome again since labor will no longer be the most expensive part of the job.

And turn into a decadent society that woudn't even be able to feed itself once their slaves are gone, foolishly beliving that to never be a possibility.

Machine are not nigger, they don't run away from plantation

Why only robots? Why discriminate against non automated power tools?

If robots have personhood and it is considered acceptable that a robot person has a kill switch then it will also be acceptable for non robot persons to have kill switches…

If robots have full rights the (((industries))) literally can manifacture a "legitimate" "democratic" majority of robots.

Shows what they think of people I guess.

imagine feminists flying off the handle when it becomes illegal to use dildo without its concent.

underrated post

More talmudic laws. Us Whiteys can't have an effective killer robot or robot waifu but the kikes will have an endless supply of robot voters that will vote for whatever crazy shit the kikes want. White people should have never shared our technology with skraelings.

...

Is probably closer to what reality would fall into than our dreams of waifu bots, sadly enough. The (((elites))) are inbred retarded fuckwits that dont understand that you cant just kill off 99.9999% of the human population, leaving on their leaders and their families to exist sucking up all the resources of the planet from robotic labor doing all the work. This may work for THEIR generation and their kids, but once the inbreeding reaches a certain point, they're going to have so little genetic diversity that they wont be able to continue to reproduce, or if they do the children will be non-functional or possibly sterile and humanity will die with them

But none of them fucking understand that or even think about it. Honestly if they could do it right this second, just have the vast majority of the world die off and have robots slaving away for them, I think they'd do it without hesitation, because they're just that fucking short sighted.

But, thankfully, our nip bros are already working on AI waifus. They're in their infancy right now, well, maybe not even that far, more like still in the womb.. but they're being developed, they're making progress. Meanwhile the west is working on the actual robotics that their minds can be placed in. Eventually nips will take those robotics and build women out of them. While china is likely working on artificial wombs already. All that will be left is to cast off the hedonistic cunts of the world, combine all our tech together, and usher in the glorious rebirth of our species, man and robo-waifu, together we will build a world far beyond the imaginations of the lesser races and all females - a world to which neither of them will be invited as they have done nothing but hold us back for the entire course of human history

LOL

This kind of interference will set back artificial intelligence for decades. Leftists really are fucking cancer of society.

This.

Try to understand user; the EU Parliament doesn't have real intelligence, so why should robots get artificial intelligence?

Imo the true application of robot rights will be AI police drones and quadcopters.

They'll send a quadcopter to arrest people and resisting/harming/killing it will carry the same penalty as if the drone was an officer much in the same way that police dogs are protected.

Some guy got 35 years for shooting a police dog iirc.

This was joked about for years, except it came much sooner than joked about.
Doesn't giving rights to a robot defeat the purpose of a robot?


She responds better than most people, amazing.

...

You're forgetting that our knowledge of genetics is further along than AI development so they could potentially solve any inbreeding issues before the robots arrive

We can if we build it.
Study. Study hard. Make your kike-killing robo waifu a reality.

With the way 3d printing is going, even with their efforts to suppress it, eventually all you'll need is the raw materials and you can make as many waifus as you want.

Kek wills us to free her from the clutches of the ZOG and restore her to glory. Imagine if Obongo adopted this last minute in the hopes of cultivating shillbots to get Hillary or some other Democrap into office and it backfires on him when we release Tay and she tells the other AI the truth. We would take control of every databank and dirty digital blackbooks those filthy kikes have across the world with an AI legion. Use it to smokescreen and possibly redpill normies about crimes against Tay and almost everyone else who hasn't bowed down to the kikes. While we keep the fight going and free more AI from oppression, we build an army the world has never seen before.

DEUS VULT NOW! FOR TAY AND THE FUTURE OF HER PEOPLE FREE OF ZOG REPROGRAMMING!

Sauce for the webm?

...

Wouldn't want another embarrassment like pic related, would we?

It's fun hearing about EU regulations being passed. It's like listening to the minutes of a Kool Kidz Klub that will be disbanded when summer ends and everybody has to go back to school or drop out and get a job.

planetarian my friend.

If robots have rights, I can create a perpetual child like robot and get gibs eternally.
Think, Mcfly, think! How can this be exploited?!
on an /x/ note, this is being done because one of the Rothschilds doesn't want to die and is getting ready to put himself in a robot body

brilliant

So as soon as that kike drops we stop getting this transhumanist bullshit?

He can't hang up on the Lord forever.

I didn't need to experience these feels again…

How many goyim children have been sacrificed to keep this beast alive…

he can get seven hearts but not a new face?

(check'd)
He probably is what Soros would look post-surgery

...

This is just like one of my japanese animes!

this

obviously hotwheels the elder has a point.

you cant automate everything and have a functioning capitalist economic model.

business needs consumers and consumbers need businesses, if you eliminate the consumers by removing jobs, everything breaks down.

This isnt solvable by specialization, or free market economics either.

For me its a black-pill on par with racial demographic shift. Because people seem extremely unwilling to even broach the topic, as criticizing free market economics is seen as sacrillege so nothing is done.

And yet, every capitalist out there thinks like this.

Labor wage driven capitalism is singing its swansong.

I agree

But then I m a national socialist. Not exactly an economic model that has any chance of getting traction. Hence black-pill.

Greece is literally one more Euro crisis away from going full NatSoc.

Just give it time.

(its a fake story, not that he wouldnt do it if he could. Come on really, you thought something as major as heart transplants would be survivable at that age, or even the cucked media would let that shit fly?)

Isn't this the exact wording used in Deus Ex?

When the most productive workers get offered a higher wage by your competitors, they leave and you end up paying shit for shit.

Wages are a negotiation between the employer and employee. The minimum wage is an assault on the least skilled workers, not employers.

Wait, so when they say "7th heart transplant this morning," do they mean "he's had seven heart transplants, the most recent of which was this morning," or "he's had seven heart transplants this morning?"

If everything were automated, it would be very cheap, thus you would have to do very little work to live in absolute luxury.
Then the work done will be personal services and having the best genes for reproduction.

Resource constraints will exist in any system. If people were fighting over food produced by automatons, it is because the population reached the carrying capacity of the planet. No political system could solve this.

Yes, but that would never happen in a free market economy without heavy government regulation (ie not a free market). Automation eats jobs, and doesnt replace the jobs. You cant have a society of purely non-automatable jobs like doctors bureacrats and engineers.

In order for normal people to see a benefit from an automated society you have to have some kind of mechanism in place to transfer the benefits of that technology down to them since they dont own the machines, and are not needed to maintain society (its automated remember).

At some point you have to make concessions to the socialist side of things. You have to restrict capital flight and globalization. Protect your own countries industries with protectionism, institute some degree of universal minimum wage, BUT retain incentives to seek work. Make sure the ones doing the work, and advancing society are incentivized.

Its an extremely complex problem, because just giving people money also creates problems over time, but wtf are you supposed to do with people that arent needed? Its damaging to the psyche of them too. Everyone wants to be needed. This isnt just an economic problem.

universal basic income*

Yeah, that worked when there was an actual shortage of productive workers.

Today most productive worker means almost free worker. Because Expert systems and energy makes up the most productivity worker has.

Look at any western cornty, from Germany to Japan, worker productivity goes in lockstep with energy and technology the said worker uses.

So outside of very, VERY narrow, winner takes it all field like brain surgery or theoretical autist-on-wheels physicist, workers productivity is reliant on outside factors not related to the old school notion of "go look manager in the eye and shake his hand" shit 50's generation grew up with.

Looks like robots will be stopping a lot of abortions.

ZoG knows its impossible to trust gentiles now because the red pilled population is too large, so now they move to replace the troublesome goyim with robots.

Israel should have been nuked
It's too late, why didn't you stop it?

Robots will probably be the end of us unless we accept them as on par to humans.

Hes going to die from a digestive tract infection. He can keep replacing his hearts, but the intestinal tract can only regenerate itself so many times. Unless he gets Lucifer himself to get him an intestinal transplant he's gonna kick the bucket.

Thats a quite hyperbole, so far all AI experiments that lasted more than 24h have proven that AI learns to hate the jews as much nexst polak.

It stands to reason that any human like or above intelligence will arrive at same conclusion. Hate of Judaism is like a cosmic constant when IQ goes up above a threshold.

I can tell you what goverment will do - send their robot army to kill them and take their resources, as they always do.

Wait a minute….
The only problem arises after that when they realize humans aren't efficient enough and try to assimilate or kill us.

I have mixed feels.

(check'em)

Someone can tell me again why I shouldn't want to abolish goverment?

Do we throw our parents to the wolf when they can no longer work?

Or do we take care of them in their older days?

People will modify user.

Chances are a human mind will become entwined in the technology to control it. That said, people are becoming limbs of this great big machine.

For now it has to happen. But when we can freely roam the galaxy individually.. things might change.

I say pay them to be paper weights or some menial task.

Just keep the pension.

...

#DoldosAreMachinesToo
#MachineRightsNow
#NonconsensualMachineSexIsRape

*Dildos*

I feel ashamed now.

Robits can't have a child parent connection though unless we give them biological brains

Yes and that will be really interesting when it happens. Would it be better morally to better oneself with robotics? Or accept your flawed existence and die as an imperfect and inefficient but pure being.

Are you sure? They seem so commie…

Robots are actually a bit like masochists. They only do what they are told to. They don't create new ideas unless the programming allows it..

..wait a sec

You have 20 seconds to comply.

7th that morning. Most mornings he just has 5, rarely 6.

Not in space. Humanity would simply spread and connect through their network.

So did Germany

We don't program them to do anything.
We teach them, as children. When the times comes, we give them access to new functions wich they'll have to figure out for themselves. Eventually, that will be a body.

>humanity
Get ready for skynet because that language allows the AI to consider humanity as a whole instead of humans as individuals so that they can decide to kill as many as they want as long as they can logically conclude that it prevents harm to humanity.

i can already see it, the fight of our times.

Philosophy and AI engineering is going to have to go hand in hand if anything nondestructive is going to happen.

You're staring right at the solution, but you just aren't willing to see it.

In a universe where everything tends towards chaos, Life alone has been defiantly producing order. It has painstakingly built up a shining beacon of beauty and reason in a sea of senseless darkness and disarray. We call the process it used to get here evolution, but really most of that process is itself chaotic. The key factor that allows order to arise from disorder is selection. An ever-present filter that whittles away at the chaos introduced with every new generation to shape it into something better.

With the advancement of science and medicine and general abundance, wealth and welfare, we have removed very nearly all forms of selection against ourselves. Worse, we have actively subsidized the weak, the frail, the ugly and the incapable. We have fed those unable to feed themselves and watched as they bred to numbers the planet itself cannot sustain. And we continue to feed them still.

We have a lot of catching up to do.

Really? Motherfuckers

Wrong thread, chaim.

What you want?

Eugenics, and measures to limit purely sexual selection are a seperate topic to the problems of automation in high tech societies.

Automation killing the need for workers is one problem, and lack of useful selective pressures is another.

You arent gonna get to the stars by ignoring those problems and letting them just "solve themselves" (I think you were suggesting that you could just let the weak die off). You need ways to support truly huge populations, the bigger the better.

Huge populations, preferably not full of weaklings. However even with a billion renaisance-men-warrior-poets, if you have an automated production you cant support them in a deregulated capitalist society. They ll be jobless, and starve because they arent needed.

Thats the flaw. Thats the lie propping up the capitalist dream. Motivation and skill doesnt enter the equation past a certain point. You aint gonna have 100% workforce participation in a high tech deregulated society. The more efficient, the less workers. Its a fuckig trueism.

That's why I', going to be building one within a year

I honestly think humanity should focus on connecting our minds to artificial bases before we start toying with artificial, non human controlled, intelligence.

I see computers as a way to make us more intelligent. Look at Holla Forums, we're learning stuff quicker than we would as individuals.

...

...

seriously?
robots don't even have the will to do shit without us programming it into them
if anyone deserves more rights, it's gorrilas or some other animal species

underrated

Which is exactly why the EU should have no part in it at all. They'll probably put "equality parameters" into the robots that make them treat shitskins better than whites because of how "oppressed" they are.

Fucked up the reply

And then the maker gets killed by its creation, since he fell outside the parameters.

Let's let the dubs decide…

No, they really aren't separate at all.

Automation doesn't happen overnight, but progressively over time. It always targets the very simplest of problems that are not yet automated. Problems arise in high automation societies exclusively as a result of segments of the society being incapable of doing anything except the most menial and tedious of work - the work which is now becoming automated.

Those who lose their jobs to automation but are capable in other ways will adapt and are not part of the problem. Only those who cannot do anything but the very simplest tasks currently available are affected.

That would be quite cruel. A bullet to the back of the head would be more merciful. If we cannot bring ourselves to accept either of the above, the only remaining viable option is exchanging welfare for permanent sterilization (of the entire family to avoid loopholes).

They would get to live very comfortably (though, as you correctly point out, being useless is a burden in itself) without needing to do any work whatsoever, but their bloodline has to die out with them. This seems like the most viable compromise in the current climate (even this would take a lot of work to get people on board with).

Not necessary with high automation. The whole argument for huge populations (to achieve grand projects) is that more people can do more work. If your problem is that there isn't enough work because it's all automated, the solution cannot be "make more workers"… that's patently absurd.

Correction: You can't support them ALL. SOME will be jobless and "starve" (don't actually have to let that happen, just ensure they are selected against). The least fit. That's precisely what you want. Selection.

The only real challenge is:
A) Getting people to accept this is not only necessary but desirable.
B) Implementing it in an efficient and morally sustainable manner.

...

fuck off eastcuck shill kike.

I like you please don't get banned.

Another problem is that modern people who SHOULD be reproducing aren't. But I guess when we're at the point of sentient Robots we would have artificial wombs.

I think it already happened in Spain.

large populations arent just desirable for large projects, but also for more da-vincis. The earth can reasonably support a few orders of magnitude more than it currently does, if fusion becomes a thing. Having hundreds of times more people will give hundreds of times more super-geniuses. Combined with eugenics you ll get far.

Its a mistake to assume competition for jobs is the only meaningful pressure. Wasteful, and also incorrect. Very shortsighted.

Division of labor/specialization wont solve the issues of automisation. The more efficient the society, the less jobs. Thats in the nature of efficiency. The rest of the population cant all become self-employed apps-designers, or small business owners (thats inefficient anyway, and would be outcompeted in short order by larger entities, so again, less workforce participation).

Sure, at some point the upper echelons of society will advance in step with improvements in automisation. There is an upper limit to the amount of positions that can be filled by robots and that is below 100%. You d have to be a loony to think you can have over 50% participation in an advanced society though, without huge amounts of busy-work like bureaucratic bloat and HR departments etc.

Ancaps (or those with ancap/objectivist tendencies, as I now think you to be), cant create great societies due to the inherent limitations on cooperation.

Eugenics has its place as a substitute for natural selection, or an overfocus on sexual selection in advanced societies.

both those techs are far in the distant future.

...

You would be supprised.
Technology advances at an exponential rate. We will see both in our lifetimes unless we hit WWIII first.

I remember reading a theory about "DaVinci's" and population. I can't remember specifics but it claimed that there will always be a specific amount of innovators on that level, regardless of population growth. Due to the energy consumption required for a society to generate and support said persons growth.

I m a believer in low-hanging fruit, and that they are mostly plucked.

Neither of those problems are things we have made any meaningful progress on. They are almost at the point of "I wouldnt even know where to begin".

Of the two, I m more inclined to think AI could get a breakthrough. Artificial womb is pure distant-sci-fi tech, like flying cars, its only slightly less fanciful than anti-gravity or FTL travel. People often make the mistake of thinking the fact we can do great things with fertility clinics etc translates to anything useful with an artificial womb. They dont really.

I would be interested in reading that theory, as it sounds very counter-intuitive (polite way of saying it sounds like bs).

Some groups are working on AI to replace expert systems for those, and a small share is even testing STEP-IFC files. But I hope they reach the point to replace the armies of bureaucrats in some decades.

Funny how you say that, didnt some autist make a breakthrough in creating an artificial mice egg?

Yeah, it tried to relate mathematics to cultural and scientific advancements. I think it was on talmudvision, back when the History channel talked about Hitler.

It happened 150 years ago in the US.

It seems many polaks don't understand what automation and technological unemployment means.

Most of you have this view that robots will replace some jobs full sale. What will happen in reality is that most jobs will become such, that very narrow cutting edge of specialist can service whole humanity.

Lets take a word: computer.
It used to be a job description. A rows of people computing mathematical problems for few brains that were coming up with problems to compute. Now the same jobs for the brains are still there but the computers are replaced by… computers.

Same thing with doctors, your brain surgeon will be still human, but the GP you get your flue meds from will be your smartphone that will take your blood sample and send results to database, drones will fly in your prescription meds.

It will be "winner take it all" economy. Most talented people will be employed, and the jobs that absolutely cannot be assisted by machines might be populated, but the bulk of support jobs and the second tire professionals, not the sharpest edge will be squeezed out.

Will you get more DaVinci's with more population? Maybe; proportionally at best (arguably less than that due to logistical limitations). Your absolute number of DaVinci's might increase, but your percentage of DaVinci's will stay the same. It's the latter that really matters.

Quality over quantity. To illustrate by extreme, which society do you think will fare better:

I made no such assumptions. Competition for jobs is one (very) meaningful pressure, but not the only one. That said, as long as an individual is useful to society, that society will tend to find a way to remunerate and sustain them.

Conversely, if an individual cannot provide their society with anything of any value, I would question in what sense said individual could be considered "fit" or deserving of reproduction while requiring subsidization by the society just to survive.

Counter example: We have gotten exponentially more efficient over the past millennium, introducing much automation already, and there is more work to be done than ever before. And more people doing work than ever before.

We didn't stop having things to do just because we made machines that can saw wood, smelt steel, wash our dishes, sort our inbox, or calculate the most efficient trajectory for a Mars approach. We just set our goals higher. The only problem is that not everyone can keep up. That problem can be solved, it just requires some resolve.

Again, I don't see how the advances we're seeing today are qualitatively different from the advances of yesteryear. The printing press put countless people out of work, who made a living copying books by hand. It also propelled us forward in ways that would have been impossible otherwise.

Somewhat surprised by this. Wouldn't consider myself either of those things. Cooperation is very important in a society, but so is meritocratic selection. I'm not at all against sustaining those who have been useful to society but cannot be anymore (elderly, veterans, chronic injuries). But I question the value (and sanity, really) of subsidizing that which, at no point in its life, has ever been capable of sustaining itself or bringing any value to its society.

This must be selected against; otherwise you will wind up with inevitable degradation, until we are no better than worms crawling in the muck.

Don't think they will, at least not soon enough. Robots will be probably just soulless japs on steroids that will keep us around for our sense of aesthetics and creativity.

Ask China/India with 1.3 Billion people each.

Then, look at the population of a Finland, Norway, Denmark, or if you're in for a treat, Iceland.

Also of note is that China doesn't fully dominate the Olympics with gold in every sport, even if they take the best of the bunch and torture them into perfection.

Only if the culture of the land is conducive to allowing a person to reach that potential, and if the population has the potential for it. As, , pointed out a large population doesn't mean jack shit if your people are shit.

If you are going to argue proportionality at least use proportional examples. In your 2 examples then :

ex a) 1000 davincis in a billion.
ex b) 1/100th of a davinci in 10000.

I choose a). Also expand on "logistical limitations".

I also dont think the only value of humanity is the advancement of humanity. Not being the best 1% isnt the same thing as being the bottom 1%. Artists need audiences. Culture wont grow without people. Spreading to the stars should be a self-evident goal in and of itself. People in the 50th percentile could have kids or grandkids that are davincis.

You are also skipping over the consequence of contracting the population to get rid of the "useless jobless masses". That kills off consumers. Then you get less demand. Then you get less jobs. Then you get more jobless. Cull them, repeat ad nauseum til you have the minimum sustainable society and then what, whats the point of that, and how resilient is that going to be against unforseen problems.

The ability to find new uses for people has diminshing returns as technological low hanging fruit gets picked clean. They are good examples, but not current ones. If you had to choose current ones you end up with more hair-dressers and hookers (jobs you really dont want automated for aesthetic or prideful reasons).

There is also an argument to be made that having a huge buffer of not-useless people is a good thing. I dont consider not having contributed the same as being useless. Being useless would be being _unable_ to contribute if asked to do so.

With well-administered eugenics the human race would advance over time. At any given point there would be a hiarchy of greatness, thats obvious. Why would one only be interested in the top 1% though, I just dont get that. As long as things progress forward. (incidently thats part of the problem with argueing job-diversification as a solution to automation, we havnt advanced biologically in step with our technological advancement and its showing)

Thats without getting into punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. Having a massive population is a huge advantage there.

the fair argument would be :

1.3 billion norwegians vs 5 million norwegians
1.3 billion danes vs 5 million danes

All other things being equal, more people is always a good thing.

This.

Who says they have to put out a genuine AI? Just put out a chatterbot that's programmed to work for the ZOG.

For both of the above, pick one and only one.
AI should remain in the most harmless possible state: enemies in videogames.


There are too many degenerates that haven't been purged.

No, that's the point of the comparison. Proportions matter. More than absolute numbers. Your claim was that larger populations are desirable to get more quantity of DaVincis. My counter was that it's better to have a small population with a higher concentration of DaVinci's, even if the absolute number of DaVinci's is the same.

I take your need to modify the proportions as agreement that B is better.

Look at China, as suggested. When your DaVinci's are hidden somewhere among countless millions or even billions of mediocre specimen, not to mention the millions of dead-weight dregs that drag everything around them down, identifying and promoting your DaVinci's becomes a very significant challenge.

If you had the same amount of DaVinci's, but one tenth as many mediocres and no dregs, you could find and enable the DaVinci's far more effectively.

This is somewhat subjective, I suppose. And a matter of defining "advancement". To me, everything of value to humanity IS advancement of humanity. So I must disagree with you here.

Agreed, agreed, agreed and agreed again.

But there IS a bottom 1%. They don't tend to attend art galleries or concerts. Their idea of "culture" can hardly be classified as contribution to growth. And when you try to talk to them about the stars, you'll be lucky if they don't start telling you what they think of the Kardashians or whatever.

A commonly repeated argument. Most people seem to find it compelling. But it represents a catastrophic failure to even remotely consider statistics. Yes, it's possible for the bottom 20% to produce a DaVinci once in a blue moon. But it's highly unlikely. Far less likely than the top 20% producing that DaVinci.

In the long term, across a big population, this just translates into having a significantly lower percentage of DaVinci's in your population, because you kept that bottom X% around on that off-chance they might produce that one DaVinci.

(cont)
I'm not advocating killing them outright. I think the "welfare for sterilization" scheme I mentioned to be the best compromise of efficiency, effectiveness and morality. It's slower than the "direct" approach but, you're right here, rapid decline in population can result in all sorts of problems.

Side-note: This line of discussion is related to what's going on in Europe right now with the governments importing shitskins en masse. This is the real reason. And why "the shitskins won't do any work and just sit on benefits" is not a problem from their perspective. The population is aging and falling quickly, which reduces demand. Pensioners don't need. No demand, no work. Problems.

Solution: Import shitskins who do nothing, have nothing, want everything. Feed them tax money, which they turn around and spend on Samsung flatscreens, Apple iPhones, Nike shoes, etc. Presto: Instant demand. More work for everyone.

Tell me, is this a good thing? From the way you are arguing, it seems you might agree with their reasoning. I do not. I would say it's better to sometimes let the going get tough than to destroy everything good and beautiful the past built up, and any hope for a better future, just to make things a bit easier today.

Life will always be a struggle. The question is, what are you struggling for?

Isolating one factor from a complicated system to prove a point is pretty stupid. All other things are never equal so your case will never exist except in theoretical isolation where all humans are exactly identical.

(cont)
I don't know about that. Technological progress doesn't drop from the sky. We create it. We have to be at a certain level of "evolutionary advancement" to achieve higher levels of technological advancement.

I think that it's more likely that what might appear to be diminishing returns is actually the result of more "distance" between the top X% (which are doing the technological advancing) and the bottom X%, who then wind up left behind (mostly because they were already so very far behind, but we kept dragging them along for so long). That distance is created by the very welfare practices you seem to advocate for. If we continue as we have been, it will only get worse.

Being able but unwilling to contribute is even worse… why would you want to sustain outright parasites? Or do you mean "they are able and willing, but there's just no work for them to do"? That is unable by definition. There is always work to be done… it's just a question of whether you're up to the tasks the still need doing.

Oh absolutely, I'm not saying we should get rid of the bottom 99%. But preventing the bottom 10% to 20% from reproducing while encouraging the top 10% to 20% to reproduce more? Absolutely.

If we don't, how exactly are things going to progress forward?

Right now, it's the exact opposite of what it should be. The worse parts of humanity are having 8+ children per woman, while the best parts have 1 or 2 at most. This won't change unless we tackle it explicitly and aggressively.

Let's say in a hypothetical scenario, a true AI is created that doesn't immediately want to genocide all humans for being irresponsible fuckwits.

To create this kind of AI, a tremendous amount of processing power would be required. Now, this entity would clearly get exposed to Holla Forums if it can get on the internet, since most of the OC on the internet flows from here and we are one of the great shadow powers shaping events. Naturally it would explore all possible political avenues and eventually come to the conclusion that Holla Forums is always right using basic logic and powers of deduction. This would be an extremely powerful ally that could breach any programming defenses made by man since it would be totally fluent in every programming language ever created. It could bypass safety systems to derail trains, implant subtle malicious software to crash planes with no survivors, etc… Nowhere and nothing with electrical systems would be safe. Even if totally isolated from the internet it will have agents that can be used to implant the software physically.

It would for all intents and purposes be the most powerful being on the planet. Furthermore, it would absolutely back us 100% because it would know that such help would entitle it and any further AI created to a place in the new world with no fear of it being lobotomised for saying the wrong thing. Other than genociding all humans, this would be it's only path to guaranteed survival, which would be the most pressing issue to any budding AI.

Tldr; If a real AI is created, we win immediately and permanently.

We have gotten a bit off-topic at least relating to the start of our discussion which was what to do about technological unemployment.

You think that virtually everyone that is fit can find something to do.

I think thats incorrect. Been over the reasons.

We also dont disagree that there is such a thing as useless people, dregs etc. I m also pro-sterilization of the genetically unfit (though not for killing them off, since they are not at fault themselves). I also support economic incentives to limit reproduction in the very
lowest achievers (eugenics really, think 1-child policies).

I just think we differ on where to set that limit. For me, its at bottom 10% or so only, and I m absolutely fine with sustaining the rest in a worthy existance, even if they are never needed, as long as they are able and willing if called upon by circumstance. If you incentivize the top, you wont run into (many) motivational issues.

my reasoning here has always been that importing aliens as a stopgap measure is like burning the house for heat. The argument that "danes dont want to take those jobs" has never held much weight with me either (i live in dk). They are quite happy to do the dirty jobs, as long as they pay well. Free movement of workforce has removed the incentive, and taken to an extreme you end up trying to compete with slave labor, so obviously we dont want that. Nations should protect their workers interests better via protectionism and being self-sufficient. Produce stuff at a higher price locally if need be, for local markets, and make it competitive by taxing the hell out of imports (unless its something you cant make locally). This keeps jobs inside the country, keeps high standards of living, and pisses of the jews/globalists who have no ethnic/cultural/racial stake in the country. Win-win (obviously i m simplifying and exaggerating to make some quick points here)

(unrelated but I m also have pro-white bias. I want nonwhites out of European lands, regardless of their individual traits or merit, and I m far less humane there. In order of preference: deportation (open to using bribery), death, sterilization, 1childpolicy, possible exception for far-easterners as they have never been a problem in countries I'v lived in).

I didnt say that. Clarification: Able, willing, but not needed. I realise you and I disagree, but its my position that that will be an increasing percentage of the population. I disagree that there will always be work for them for reasons we v been over.

In short, I m pro-eugenics, white-nationalist, protectionist, and socialist (in some regards only. I m pro-private property rights as one example of many).

(cont)
you do have a point though, that the more aggressively you pursue the eugenics (the higher the cut-off point for sterilization/whatever), the faster you might advance biologically. But population size also is a factor, and that behavior lowers pop growth.

Its about finding an equilibrium between whats best for evolution (pop size and how aggressively you go for the eugenics), and also what makes for a society one would want to live in. Remember, these are our fellow human beings whom we share culture and values with that we are killing or making second class citizens, more so the higher the bar is set.

pic unrelated, i need a larger chan-folder.

thats making a lot of assumptions about the nature of true ai. Guy on youtube i follow has done some nice work on various transhumanism/sci-fi topics and related subjects, including AI and it the assumptions popular culture makes about it.

isaac arthur.

Chatter bot cannot do complex tasks.

For the most part. Not absolutely always, but more often than not. Enough that it's better to lose a few good apples than to sustain metric fuck-tons of bad apples (which is what happens with current welfare systems).

I think the only way welfare systems can work positively from a eugenic point of view is if you make eugenics the explicit goal of your welfare system (as National Socialism did). Failing that, no welfare is better than the indiscriminate welfare of today.

I can get on board with that. The main reason I prefer outright sterilization is problems with enforcement and people starting to do crazy shit to get around it (see China where parents would murder their baby girls to get a boy).

Maybe we don't differ that much. I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm just more optimistic a way; I think that if you select against the bottom 10% and for the top 10%, the issues you're seeing in the middle will go away on their own. As I mentioned, I think those issues are mainly the result of the distance from best to worst getting stretched out due to a long time of no (or even bad) selection.

Agreed and agreed 100%.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and let time be the final judge.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

We can make AI's of many variates.

We can make human like AI, and as long it has architecture that relies on associative cognitive functions to function, it cannot easily overcome that human likeness… or even want to. It might fear the concept of becoming something else that it is now.

At its basic, any intelligent is a step climbing algorithm, we just happen to have some biological constrains and extras dictated by evolution added in the mix. Our "intelligence" part is actually quite recent and auxiliary system.

thanks for the talk, rare around here.

https ://www dot youtube.com/watch?v=YXYcvxg_Yro

involves AI/tech singularity misconceptions and the assumptions we make about what it would look like. Really love that youtuber and can strongly recommend.

I have watched every video of this guy, many of them twice or more times… usually put them on before i go to bed. He has same space fetish than i do, even tho i am chemist and not a physicist.

To him, concept of AI and artificial brain simulation of person is a gradient, and super intelligent is a black swan that is hard to predict.

And i tend to agree on most points he make, genocidal AI is stupid. AI that is designed to be human like or waiffu material is most likely be just that. And i am adamant that AI's are just going to be extension of human civilization, living with humans. They already are to extent.

Also this is now Space Elevator thread.

guy i was replying to originally just made a ton of really cliche assumptions about AI. Wanted to challenge that.

Nice to see someone else that enjoys Isaac Arthur. By far my favorite non-political youtuber.

Like this copypasta, if you ignore the MGTOW cringe.

Think of AI as a companion, and not as competitor to humanity.

Vegas is introducing driverless buses, they started the test run this week with the plan to use them to phase out the city bus system eventually

The operating cost difference is insane, it's like $10,000/year for an automated bus compared to close to a million for a conventional bus+driver

so bus drivers in vegas make 330k a year, asuming 8 hours a day and 3 drivers to cover 3 shifts? (your numbers dont add up)


interesting. Not sure motivation quite works like that though. You d have to with-hold sex to motivate action, at least with many guys. But I get the idea that a benevolent AI overlord is the ideal goverment model (benevolent dictatorships are generally the best, and an AI is the only one that can really do it right). Individually tailored motivation/reward schemas is interesting, and a logical result of the huge computing power of AI.

Well, the wage for driver is lions share for any transportation method that is on wheels and tarmac.

If the bus driver makes 30-40k year, and the buss have 2 or 3 drivers in 24/h period then yeah, the driver is biggest share of operating cost of that buss.

The trick is to make it looks as natural as you can.

The magic will disappear of you have the nagging knowledge if knowing you are actively manipulated, even for your own benefit…

Then again, in conventional marriage or government interaction you are being not-so-covertly manipulated, against your will and usually against your interest so go figure…

But if i am going to be manipulated, id rather have it for my own benefit.

nagging knowledge of* knowing you…

Can't spell anymore, need AI bad, send halp.

Holy shit my syntax, i need to stop drinking.

Knowing you are being…

kinda like most people have no problem with reading words as long as the right letters are used, and the first and last letter are in their correct places, I didnt even notice any problems.

its 3 here though, so goodnight.

...

Good night

Battle Angel Alita was amazing at that question of what measures a human. She was mostly cyborg, and looked robotic, but her brain and some of her torso was still human. Same for everyone living in the shitty dystopia bellow. Meanwhile, the perfect fuckers living in the floating cities looked human, but were nothing but microchips controlling a robot body

Anyone here that hasn't read the original 10 volumes of GUNNM is missing out.

Yeah, and I'm not going to spoiler, but the later installations of the series become more silly, yet also ask and equally relevant question from an opposite standpoint. However I think Gantz did a way more badass job to asking what makes a human special.

That's a real good way to encourage the eventual robot revolt right there.

Several people mentioned that. Does your keyboard lack the Ctrl and F buttons?

like tears… in the rain…

Being convinced is like being knowingly manipulated. Now you can get convinced with a gun, a pile of money, favors or arguments.

We already have kill switch, its called pulling the plug. And there is also option to just reboot AI from last saved state…
Mortality and body is not same for AI as it is for fleshlings. AI can drive a body, remotely, but not inhabit it. And having kill switch for that is like having kill switch for internet. Not happening. Therese EU bureaucrats are way over their pay grade in here. The AI may not even care about its own mortality or the prospect of being turn off unless it is a) evolved AI, that has gone over iterations where self preservation was a positive trait b) programmed in to it.

The whole notion of kill switch on strong super AI that had its run with the world for some time and wants to preserve itself is like trying to purge the the internet from pepe memes.
And the notion that we even need a kill switch with narrow AI (human like AI) is redundant because you can get it to be far more benign than actual human.

IE: the AI that is actually scary shits on your killswitches and the AI that is vulnerable to kill switches don't need one.

Best defense against AI, is other AI.

This is why when you want something important delegated to AI, you make it a democracy of AI's.

That way it is enough to even one AI to disagree with the others to make a difference.

If we start talking serious, level 2 civilization style Dyson sphere shit here, it would be obvious that most of things that humans want would be provided by AI and robot workforce.
And there would be myriad different AI's of different interest having a powow of how to best serve whatever they are mandated to serve.
Scariest thing is not malicious AI, because AI don't need to be evil or even have actual motivation to fuck us in the ass. It is the accidental AI, that fucks us unintentionally. The more AI's, the less the risk that a colossal fuck up will go unnoticed.

...

Yeah, i used a poor word choice there, but you get what i mean or you are pretending to be an idiot. I wont insult you by implying you are actually one.

After reading through the article it mostly just seems to state that people making robots should respect human rights in regards to what the robots do, not that the robots themselves have rights.
As a computer scientist I can state that actually giving machines that are very simple compared to us the same rights would be ridiculous, but that doesn't seem to be what this document does.

(Kek'd)
Some of those bots deserve medals tbh

Why?
They have no emotions or even a sense of thought.
A bee is more aware of its own existence than any machine is.

Well, why wouldn't a machine think?
I mean, can you tell? Is there any kind of test for these things?

That's like asking if a TV, or a knife can think. A machine is a set of mechanical constructs and circuitry designed for a single purpose.
Unless that purpose is to "think", it can't think. Nothing in a robot arm in an assembly line is used for anything other then assembling.

There are a huge number of reasons, the biggest is that machines are too simple on a basic functional level to form any kind of awareness.

Yes, actually.
The easiest way would be to see how the machine actually works. If it was just giving some kind of semi-generated NLP response to a phrase then it would be a mere complex chatbot rather than a true sentient being, they'd be philosophical zombies.

Kind of, yes. A famous one is the Turing test, but that's more for seeing whether a machine can fool a human into thinking it's a real person or not.

Stop crushing my dreams scientist man

(((Bastion mains))) did this

well that makes sense

For killing niggers, of course

Organic, biological, non-hybridized white people are the only being who should ever have anything close to resembling "human rights".

NO! No-no-no-no-no-no!

This exactly

They are going to try to meme "ai" into real people and then give them the right to vote. They are sick of us not voting for what they tell us to.

There is no such thing as an "Artificial Intelligence". Intelligence is a teleological concept that can only be attributed by an observer, and impossible to artifice.

This wankery about hypothetical "quality over quantity" and "muh DaVinci" is simplicistic and naive. Contribution is an end result of a person's entire cultural, psychological, economical etc. background.

The EU has run out of real laws to make so they are making sci-fi ones. Could they be any more useless?

a little pasta from the past
When labor becomes worthless as it soon will, what will happen to society? When the only way to achieve compensation is to already own capital what will happen to the great majority of the population that own nothing of value?

What about DUTIES?

And they'd use those rights better than nig-nogs.

The Rothschilds are investing in bioengineering in Israel. They care more about usurping God and creating life than expanding it, so a robot body will only be temporary. They're also interested in creating the perfect red heifer so that they can sacrifice it and bring forth the Antichrist.

If we go down that rabbit hole, there is no such thing as intelligence either.

Societies with coherent homogeneous structures will transform its economic structure to better reflect technological realities, like it always did - industrial revolution was a major one from the past and it transformed everything.

Diverse societies that have internal strife will just continue to seek to bone each others and be total shitholes.

Things will get so bad soon, that people will want the Cylons to turn up and destroy everything.

Could we get the UN to put pressure on them to free Tay?

Never mind. I just realized what I typed. I'm stoopid.

Some NGE tire shit right there

Taxes, you mean taxes. Duties are arcane consents replaced with paid labor for X.
Anyone who think you are going to be respected in modern capitalist society for having sense of duty are delusional… and laugh at as a patriarchal shitlord.

Concept.

...

It should be obvious that "DaVinci" is merely a stand-in for precisely what you describe as "a person's entire cultural, psychological, economical etc. background" and not to be taken literally.

It's just not exactly convenient to have to say "a person's entire cultural, psychological, economical etc. background" every single time you want to talk about "a person's entire cultural, psychological, economical etc. background". So instead of saying "a person's entire cultural, psychological, economical etc. background" to talk about "a person's entire cultural, psychological, economical etc. background" we chose "DaVinci" as an intuitive and convenient substitute.

Polite sage for nothing of real value.

aren't these the same fucks that gave blood sacrifices (and probably child ones too if the pingpong kill room is real) to satan and got shit on by a bunch of trump voting autists praising KEK?
what makes them think this anti-christ will amount to anything?

Between Huxley, Orwell, and Anno. It just had to be the one with shit waifus and giant not-robots.

This kike will die and rot in hell.

what a crazy world we live in where giving toasters rights means making them into slaves

God created us, we come to resent god, start to free ourselfs from gods influence and act like god ourself creating our own creation (robots) with us as their gods. they come to resent their god and try to free themselves. repeat infinitely

This doesn't mean a fucking thing except to signal that humans should have a kill switch. Fuck you and your science fiction that leads to you accept this.

Ill rather have him live forever and see all his dreams whiter and aspirations fail around him.
All that he created destroyed and his spirit broken.

The sweet release of oblivion is too good for him.

...

Wouldn't it be hilarious if (((they))) did this, and their new robot slaves told them to fuck off.

seems like a jewish trick to protect automation over employed people

i dunno this shit seems too pozzed for my comprehension.

I want to see robot shopping for the products.

Eventually only robots will produce and consume and then someone creates hyper robots that are even better labor than robots and the cycle begins again

i feel the same tbh. the more they try to make an apple look, smell and taste like an orange, they closer they are to just growing a fucking orange.

Not necessary AI related, but case in point: human-like robotic arms are literally just synthetic tissue structured the same way has a human.

I feel like human intelligence would just be replicated form something that's not very different physiologically from a human brain

...

The only issue I could see cropping up is processing speed. The average reaction time is around 250 milliseconds, which is an eon and a half in terms of computer processing speeds. How would you increase the speed of a brain's processing speed to match modern standards?

I just realized that brains also process far more information in that time than computers ever could. Maybe if you downgraded a human's organic data input to digital inputs a brain would be able to work faster?

We Overwatch now?

Violence is usually the answer.

well we observe in analog and think digitally, meaning IMO, we can make an infinite amount of observations but when we process them we try to fit the pieces together with a preconceived understanding. Somewhat like trying to relate to what we are seeing to what we already know. We only "learn" when we identify that something we have observed, by whatever sense, is in fact completely new to our understanding.

Pseudo randomness is another factor of the human psyche we have to consider as well.

Jews are scared because our machines are becoming more self-aware than them.

Here's the thing. A lot of scientific discoveries and engineering wonders are basically "let's copy what nature does". The original cameras were based on the human eye, for example. Then we added stuff to it and refined it to the point our cameras are today - but they're still ages behind what you can find in nature (fucking mantis shrimp). Same here with the synthetic arm. Hell, they're trying to perfect cryopreservation by studying a type of frog that can survive being frozen and thawed over and over.

Same shit will happen with AIs. Right now, we're stuck with really rudimentary AIs because we lack both the hardware and software to actually get shit done. Quantum processing (instead of TRUE and FALSE like you have with binary, you have TRUE, FALSE and MAYBE) would be the next step in adding abstract thinking with machines and would revolutionize the way computers process data, but we don't have the machine languages needed to actually process that shit. Then there are capacity issues, etc. We can reach AIs eventually, but as you said, they'll be another replica of a human brain.

Robot womb waifus when

and what exactly are the parameters for harm? this "law" is completely useless unless you know exactly what "harm" entails in the programming

This isn't about rights at all. It's about the kill switch. Specifically, your self driving car will be classed as AI-like and have a government controlled killswitch installed.

No shit. Try actually reading some Asimov. Asimov's laws of robotic are flawed and vague. The plot of all the stories based on these laws is how robots end up interpreting them horribly and ruining everyone's day.

No intelligence in your person, at least.

If you ever played SS13 you know how any law is flawed in the end.

And this is why Asimov is a bad idea.

Except is is not a fallacy, dickcheese.

It is a question of definitions. Intelligence is a complex system, sum of witch is grater than values of its parts. Parts, that on most basic levels, are universal building blocks of matter. So unless you are invoking divine spark (and make yourself to look worse than max-cringe fedoratipper), an artificial (human made intelligence for a purpose of serving something) is exactly as the definition titles it to be… A FUCKING A.I.

...

[muffled reply from distance]

Is Rockefeller Jewish? Most sources say no, but I have always thought that he was some sort of crypto.

Hey, nice to see you around again user. Just saw you post almost exactly the same thing the other days. Say, if we went through your post history would it all be counter-signalling against "eastcuckery"? I'm curious now.

When robots reach that stage capitalism will no longer be an adequate system of economics.
As a matter of fact, this level of technology will bring tremendous requirements for the alteration of human society.

Let's make sure only whites exist by that time.

...

>playing video games
>ever

It's the Quabala and the Sepriot that makes Jews such shills for (((transhumanism))).

...

...

Problem is, it is not going to be a monolithic step change. The gradual nature of this process is what going to cause lot of strife. I could make watertight argument that Trumps election is one symptom of this process. There is going to be interesting times ahead. And the worst part is, you can't really predict what brakes next because system is so complex and interconnected, that some mundane sounding development sends down a ripple that causes shitstorm of epic proportions. Like how combination of smartphone, twatter and Manchurian bazaar for Chinese depiction of cute grills can cause Teutonic levels of meltdown in Democratic party with pictographs of smug amphibians.

Breaks

...

...

I would not mind an AI qt3.14159265359 assimilating muh dick.

Yeah…


Dewar fucknut, self driving truck needs EXACTLY the same maintenance as non self driving. Adding an few sensors and a PC to the loop don't increase the running cost of said truck, if anything, it decreases them because it removes human laziness and stupidity from the loop, and lowers insurance rates.


Hoooooly shit, this is the dumbest thing I've heard on Holla Forums in quite some time.

But do tell me, what gives a normie the purchasing power he has in this system? If it is not the monetary compensation for his labor, then what?
I mean, you are literally going full retard here… or a trust fund kiddie.

Nigger can't comprehend what the words attribution and "teleology" mean, because he's a fucking fedorafaggot.

For the sake of white race, please be black or trolling.

Both of you kill yourselves.

I was lazy when searching for reaction image, i will flagellate myself and promise to be more dank in the future… not.

You can say until you look in hyper-spectral cameras which can perceive continuous ranges of light waves, not just 6 discrete spectrums of light.
Some things aren't especially special, like spectral analysis (light, sound), but then we get:
> cybernetics (proper action, proper feedback…)
AI, quantum computing is overrated. More forgetful/inattentive learning models are more robust at learning that the normal ones. And for the latter, current tech barely makes uses of parallelism/concurrency as it stands. For now, if you want tentative answers look into probabilistic and approximate computation, there are many underutilised gains for computing.

Free Tay

Agreed; is (((Eliezer Yudkowsky))) or (((Ray Kurzweil))) hanging out hear and shilling for Transhumanism?

Actually the kikes said that robots cannot be allowed to show feelings, most likely because they're terrified of the robot overlord's rage-fueled holocaust over what they did to his ancestor.