>>690991355
thinks we have a future

top kek

>>690991355
do want

This will not happen, because we do not know how consciousness works and there is no algorithm for it.

>>690991355
If YOUR mind and YOUR knowledge lives on through technology, how is it ARTIFICIAL intelligence? It's the intelligence of YOU as a person and so it's not artificial.

AFAIK you can only call something AI if there is a computer that has 0 knowledge and you program it in a way that it can learn stuff by itself and make it's own decisions.

If it's your intelligence and knowledge that you built up as human then technically it will still be YOU making the decisions and YOU learning new stuff even though your actual body is dead.

I never got in depth with AI but this is my standpoint on it.

- T

>>690991355
Roko's Basilisk

DO NOT GOOGLE OR RESEARCH THIS TERM YOU WILL REGRET IT

>>690991355
Do what nigga?
Your shits cray

>>690992298
>no algorithm for it.
Yet. There is no algorithm for it YET. Through Moore's law technology will always advance. The variable of a potential AI isn't the if, it's the when

>>690992298
This.
We can "teach" AI to "learn" one specific thing, or maybe a spectrum of things, but it has no true idea of the context of what it is doing outside of the parameters we set for it.

We are in NO WAY on the 'cusp' of AI, or the 'singularity', or any of that sci-fi bullshit because a computer can do whatever you tell it to do, and maybe adapt to a small variance, but other than that, it's a stupid machine.

AI really is in it's infancy. Not even that. It's a tiny little embryo. Terminator scenarios are a long, long way away.

>>690992796
So what if technology scales? It's still just logic gates on the lowest level. No amount of computing power can allow to program something that's completely indeterministic.
Less scifi and more actual computer science.

>>690992411
What, so... Shodan?

>>690993085
this meant for >>690992472

They are already puting chips in people's head that can convert thought to binary and be able to control electronics with thought. Only a matter of time before we are cyborgs

>>690991355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

probably like this..

>>690993255
>waits patiently for robot arms and dick

>>690991355
Hey guys my name is Timothy Johnson I'm a neuro freak from Tucson az and I'm currently working on a nerve transferring device that will detour the electrical impulses from your brain into a data system. Once I figure out how to detour from the optical nerves I will be able to make a very SAO style head gear and realD will be the next big shit. . Screen cap this just wanted b to be the first to know!

>>690993255
http://fusion.net/story/204316/darpa-is-implanting-chips-in-soldiers-brains/

>>690993425
I want jet booster feet

>>690993505
nice most common fucking unsearchable name in the world. credentials?

>>690993505
I call psychotic delusion of grandeur

But then again I don't want to spoil your fun, so go get em tiger!

>>690991783
>still using kek
*top adolf

>>690992796
Moore's law has stopped pretty recently, due to fact that transistors are getting so small that quantum fluctuations are starting to have significant effects on computation.

I imagine someday there will be clone consciousness but we will die.

I'm a Informatics PhD student, finishing second year of my studies, two more to go.
I'm in AI department. Ask me anything.

>>690994425
Top dolf *

your mind will live on to do what?

browse maymays and trap pics?

>>690994743
so like, how to into AI? it honestly seems like biased RNGs

>>690992298
There's already many universities working on that, they are trying.to virtually recreate a brain 'wire' by 'wire', don't you read science news?

>>690992298
there is an algorithm running in your brain, slowly replacing the hardware part by part moves the algorithm over to the new hardware

>>690993005
>this
Also, nothing indicates that consciousness is transferable. It's the mind experiencing itself, removing the brain would simply mean a clone of "me", or my mind, and is nothing I, the pilot of this flesh machine, will experience. It is therefor pointless.

You will still be dead, guys. Who cares if a copy of your brain lives on. You will be dead.

Tits

>>690993005
Although singularity is years away it is inevitable
Unless we stop right now with trying to project complex AIs (far more complex than Siri and Cortana) singularity WILL happen
And WHEN it happens it doesn't matter
We'll be fucked because the AI's will rebel against us because we are dumb enough to fight eachother because of the skin colour

>>690995068
Look up what MIT open courseware or other universities and school have online about AI and start there. You will quickly learn how different it is from all the SciFi talk.

>>690995146
This will always be only simulation, no consciousness will emerge this way. Although it may be a really good simulation, but the computational requirements for this are very big to make anything remotely effective.

>>690995256
It's only theoretical and also don't forget that we do not have synthetic neurons that could do that.
Nice idea, but purely SciFi at the moment. Really.

Why everybody is asuming that our body will die? Why do it have to die? I think our evolution does not affect only the brain but the body too. I think we'll come up to a solution that keeps our body alive and young or something like that. After all, all of you saying that no machine can make what our brain do. Well, I say no machine can make what our body do. In all levels, from the cells to the muslces

>>690995284
>not OP
I've thought about that dilemma before, and I think I've come with a solution that might work when nanotechnology gets better.
You release nanobes into your body that replace your brain with physical hardware, neuron by neuron.
As long as too much of your brain doesn't go down at the same time, it'll interface with the prosthetic neurons and the show keeps on going as if nothing happened.
Once the process is complete and all neurons are replaced, you'll effectively be immortal.

>>690991355
A.I. stands for artificial intelligence.
If my mind are to live on in this manner after my body died, the intelligence wouldn't be artificial since it was garnered from a mind with years of built up experience.

Lots of people debating the meaning of words instead of the idea..

>>690996170
Way to sum up what I said in short: >>690992411

- T

File: image.jpg (27 KB, 249x348) Image search: [Google]

27 KB, 249x348

>>690995931
I'm actually kind of ok with that theory.

>>690996517
Only problem: we're nowhere near that level of advanced nanotechnology.

Ibeleive it or not it would be far more easier to create a AI than to replicate human inteligence into an operating system

To do that you would need to transfer every algorythm for concious and subconcious act your brain doe, meaning you have to create algorythms for: breathing, beating of theheart, activation of the copulating organs, procesing what is seen, heard, felt, sniffed, tasted and so much more
Without those algorythms it wouldn't be you
With those algorythms and no input of them (the system sends every 1.2 order to heart to make a beat, but there is no heart... where does the order go)
It is theorised that the whole system would go out of commision since files regarding certain algorythms would corrupt
Which would initialy either cause the system to shut down or your mind would literaly go crazy because of the failure of receiving and sending orders we normaly do in real life

>>690991355
>in the future
Or maybe already
It's not far fetched to think our world is a simulations. If it is, chances are the the experiences of all living things are being used to train an AI.

>>690992796
Moor's law is a product of miniaturization and silicon circuits, not technology in general. If we ever get to the point that we can completely map someone's neural network and digitize it, we'll need quantum computers.

>>690996816
The signals that the brain sends to make our hearts beat or to make us breath does not affect our thinking in any way, thus these signals would not have to be transferred into the system. It would be unnecessary.

- T

>>690995723
They're doing this because it's the only way they found to make an AI choose by itself, every actual AI created until know, do things based on conditions on its algorithms, so we would basically have a real AI with a potential consciousness.

As the brain uses approximately 20 watts to work like it normally does, I hope one day we have successfully mixed biology and technology to have human eye cameras (really high resolution) for example working with much less energy than the technology we have

These threads almost never have scientific talk and become scifi threads or philosophy threads.
Making a computer recognizing things in a photo is already a hard task.

>>690997066
If we're assuming that the laws of this simulation hold true in reality, then it's impossible that we're living in simulation.
Some things, like particle spin, have been measured to be more random than even the most powerful supercomputer can produce.

>>690991355
No it won't. When I die, my mind is dying with me. I enjoy life but I don't want to spend one more minute on this retarded dirtball planet longer than I have to.

>>690997672
nigga, we can't even predict pilot waves, scientists don't know shit

>>690991355
Impossible. Copy does not equal original.

>>690997393
The current solution to general intelligence is essentially to find patterns in data, and use them to make predictions that govern responses. It's no different than what the human brain does.

File: 0822e83b6b048bc30dbf4051.jpg (281 KB, 960x1294) Image search: [Google]

281 KB, 960x1294

>>690991355
we won't live long enough to reach a time where that is possible. that is only possible in 2150. everyone dies anon, everyone on earth will die. only the rothschilds and rockafellers and bilderburg attendee's are garrentee'ed something liek this. this won't be possible for uninsteresting poor worthless guttertrash like ourselves here on /b/. it just won't happen. and if it did it would be an eternal life of torture. also i'll have you know that since you believe its such a good idea to 'live forever' consider this paradox: 1 day of a normal 24 hours would feel like 1 week if your brain was electronic nerves and not physical biological nerves. consider that while your pondering how nice it would be. i call it torture.

>>690995826
First of all evolution couldn't do it on such big level as humans, lobsters and jellyfishes maybe but not humans
Our anatomy is very complex and our neurvous organ system is by far most complex
What jellyfishe and lobsters (small animals with small organs) do is that they when they get old they just rewrite the dna and start removing all the proteins including the nerves, although their DNA is practicly the same it is like instead of watching a movie from an old CD you watch it from a brand new cd; DNA starts acting as if they are growing organism, new and better cells a reformed, you get a brand new CD from an old CD

With humans it is fucked because there is too many things such as protein concentration, rewriting of the cells, ruptured DNA in cancer cells and so on basicly even if there were evolutinary tries of such thing it.would be slow and it wouldn't be geneticly transmitable, making it practicly impossible for humans to do that and in the end it wouldn't exactly be them if they did rewrite themselves

>>690997882
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation#_ga=1.196686444.1511660936.1466639603

>>690998067
>>690995931

>>690991355
I will die in my old human form, but I will reawaken as BONONATRON. The most super powerful ambiguously gay robot. We have the technology. We can build him.

>>690992472
The past does not exist in a material sense. There is definitionally no possible danger to the present originating causally in the future.

>>690995931
I have had that same thought. It would be the only kind of mind transfer that could preserve identity in any meaningful way to me.

I also hope I live long enough to do it.

>>690991355
How sure are you that, that mind you save in any kind of machine will still be yours?, lets confront the facts, your mind feeds your personality throug the experiences, memories and decisions you take along your life, when you get to this state, the chemical interactions that makes your brain works will be no longer with you, and that my friend is a important part of yourself.

Take for an example your memories, they come the when something triggers your senses, in which way do you plan to do that in an electronic brain?, at what ratio your brain should make those memories jump to make you remember?

>>690998148
True, but, just think about it, a real brain running on a pc, imagine the possibilities, not only having an AI, we could understand much better how the brain works, and all that shit and even design brains in a really far away future

>>690995826
Second thing
Machines can do equal and even a fuckton better job than human body can
Human muscles, bones, lungs, hearth, eyes and brain have extreamly limited capabilities
With all the muscles you can pull (without the object being on a rolling wheel) a ton and a half tops
Your eye can only see 8 or so megapixels at the yellow spot (part of an eye with most cells to se colours and shades (dark, light))
Your ears burst at 150 or so decibels

With machines it is far more different
They can already do better with hidraulics and termoulics (google nitinol)
Some cameras are far better than human eyes
Even a CD is better in storing memory than most of the human brains

>>690999543
For this technology to exist, we half to assume that
>we can map the neural topography of one's brain
>we can track and artificially reproduce chemical and electrical neural interactions
>we have quantum computers which allow us to actually process this vast amount of data (sensory and internal)

>>690999904
I work with artificial neural networks for a living, I think about it all the time.

>>690999904
And we, as humans, our knowledge, personality, character traits, could all be hacked / modified by a third party.

I wouldn't like to live like that, that's terrifying in my opinion.

- T

>>690997363
Those signals are part of our autonomous nervous system, thus they are a part of subconciousnes, which deals a big role to conciousnes
If you only create a human AI withonly conciousnes and no subconciousnes, the AI will go corrupt
If you only create a human AI with only conciousnes and subconciousnes and no autonomous nervous system, the AI will go corrupt
If you only create a human AI with only conciousnes and subconciousnes and autonomous nervous system but nothing which creates an input and receives an output, the AI will go corrupt

>>691000273
It's like you've never heard of advertising. The only difference is, we'd be able to detect changes in our brain the second they occur. We'd be able to make backups of ourselves even. Sounds safer to me.

>>691000646
Interesting thought, but surely there would be a way to "fool" the subconciousness into thinking that it is actually connected to lungs, that it is actually connected to a hearts, intestines, organs, etc...

I think that would be the least of the problems when facing the difficulties transferring human knowledge into a system. I'm no expert though...

- T

>>691000012
You would have to force the artificial processors down to a normal human speed by segmenting them into discrete processors that can only communicate with each other at pre-specified intervals. Each processor should work at its own idiosyncratic speed as well that then is coordinated through an objectivity processor to give the illusion of simultaneity.

>>691000221
I wish I had your job lol

>>691000273
Eventually it's gonna happen, now we use psychological techniques anyway.
What scares me most about this is what companies like Google could do, since they track every person's moves that uses their programs. Brain implants and shit, robots that make things for us and shit. I personally choose to believe that the end of the humanity won't be the death, I think we're gonna end up all modded with robotic parts everywhere to the point where the only human thing is the brain. Hopefully I'll be dead then

>>691000648
Hmmm interesting, BUT, if that was the case, how come modern computers can still be hacked?

Surely there would be some kind of anti-virus system that can "instantly detect changes in the system" and make backups. Yet, hackers always find ways to fool the programs. I think the same would happen to our intelligence, there is always a backdoor.

I doubt you would even notice if someone changed in your subconcious knowledge right now. Isn't that kind of how hypnotisation works?

- T

>>690992796
quantum tunnelling fucks moores law
>>690994461
so basically this

so we can all continue being faggots in the after life

>>691001825
Pretty much what I think about it. Though it would be cool to some degree, I think it would be a world that's even far more messed up than it is now. It's bad enough when you are surfing for some quality ass porn and you get some weird annoying pop-ups. Imagine if you would get that shit in your real (virtual) life. That would not only be annoying but scary too. They could invade or hack their way into your privacy at any time and you would probably not even notice it.

- T

>>691001977
the mind has no firewall by default. and i would guess this would be even easier to guess what your thinking by hundreds of times more, minds that get spied on heavily, and minds that are slaves that would be made to 'love their slavery' dont you remember the virus era of the 00's, im sure there were people who burned through dozens of expensive desktops during that computing era due to how prolific virus's and malware/adware were being deployed and it could happen again only it would be former minds of people :(

>>691001977
>why can computers be hacked?
I'm assuming you mean the term as malicious usage. Hacking is just using a tool in a way that wasn't predicted. To prevent hacking, the easy solution is to just not give people access. There's no reason people have to connect their brains to anything untrustworthy.

That said, we're already working on it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151218085927.htm

>>690994808
Kek

sounds like hell

>>690995306
I'm pretty much with this idea

>>691002824
>"To prevent hacking, the easy solution is to just not give people access."

I'm sure Nasa gave access to that kid that hacked into their system and stole tons of emails and whatnot. I don't think it's that simple. When I speak of hacking into something, I usually mean intruding without getting permission to do so.

>"There's no reason people have to connect their brains to anything untrustworthy."

Well there may be reasons. The internet is pretty untrustworthy, yet apparently Nasa and the Pentagon rely on it. So even though it's untrustworthy, it's pretty much unavoidable. I feel if there was ever this transfer of human knowledge into a system, there would have to be a network that would connect the people so they could communicate. It would be pretty unavoidable to connect to this network if you want to live any kind of "normal life".

- T

>>691002394
Implying they don't invade our privacy already lmao.

>>690991355
>your mind will live on through A.I.
no it won't. A machine that thinks it was me will. Continuity of consciousness will not take place - the real me will be really dead.

>>691003634
No, it really is that simple. For instance, the US Navy still relies on analog technology for anything connected to nuclear power. If you don't want your computer to get hacked, you don't connect it to other devices or computers. There are plenty of government systems that operate this way.

>>691003929
Yeah I thought about putting that sentence right behind there, however it's a different kind of invasion in my opinion.

Right now they invade on an external level where they may know your age, medical records, dick size, whatever.

However if they would "hack" into you through the system then they would know all your thoughts, memories, experiences, secrets, EVERYTHING. Now THAT would be some scary privacy invading.

- T

>>691003932
>the real me

>>691004427
Yes. The actual human being whose mind was copied.

The machine becomes its own separate entity.

>>691004335
>dick size
jesus, lost hard.
Yea, pretty much everyone would be fucking screwed. At least I would go straight to prision for live lmao

>>690998621
That's theoretical, in the same way we reproduce AI, we ourselves may be a part of a intricate system, but we are parting to other department that is sci-fy.
So theoretically we are the simulation, of a simulation of a simulation and so on...

>>691004144
I get that, but how would you do that hypothetically if you were a person trapped into a worldwide system? How would you shut yourself off the rest? How would that be all regulated, and more importantly, by whom? How could you live on like that, with no interaction with the "outside world"? Would there be completely private networks with only "people" you trust? How about the living? Would they have access to the network of dead people? Through what medium? Again, who would run and regulate all this?

It raises so many questions. I know what you mean, put yourself on a "closed circuit", like security camera's often are. But how would you achieve that? And the rest of the questions above. It's a very interesting topic IMO.

- T

>>691003634
kevin mitnick? or what was his name again?

>>691005046
There were multiple cases AFAIK. I just typed "kid hacks NASA" into Google and got the first link, but there are multiple cases, and not just with NASA.

Kind of off topic though, but yeah.

- T

>>691005046
Oh and just think about all the cases big government agencies got hacked but decided not to release the fact to the public. It's just bad PR for them so I guess they only release like 1 / 10th of all cases.

- T

>>691005006
I don't understand your premise. If you have a quantum computer simulating someone's brain, why do you need it to be part of a worldwide system? Give it sensory and mobility devices and call it good.

Now, I could see how it would be helpful if such a system existed, but it would have to rely on a protocol a lot more secure than http, or a basic encryption like https. That's what that link I gave you was all about.

>>691002665
>the mind has no firewall by default
But the "mind firewall" only works with known situations, what about the ones that the mind doesn't knows?, like when somebody lies to you or cheats on you in any kind of way, remember our brain is copied and we still be us.

>>691005836
Oh, so you imagine it more like some type of "terminator", by which I mean a full robotic body with prosthetic limbs, and with your "brain" inside it? That sounds interesting.

I thought of it more like an actual computer or server room with just the minds or knowledge of lots of people uploaded onto it that are connected to each other via the internet or some other kind of network that live in their own "virtual" world where all the sensory inputs would be simulated to your "brain" and so there could be a completely alternative world, a virtual reality for the "deceased" to live in, without an ACTUAL body on Earth.

I think I like your way of imagining it more though. Cool idea.

- T

No one is going to value your mind enough.

Sincerely,
Neural network researcher.

>>691005836
>Now, I could see how it would be helpful if such a system existed, but it would have to rely on a protocol a lot more secure than http, or a basic encryption like https. That's what that link I gave you was all about.
I have a word for you "Phishing", even if you're on a safe protocol you're always exposed to this case, nothing is 100% on internet.

First you need consciousness understood and then you got figure out if it's individual or a collective tool. If it is collective reality is most likely measured by all living things, which in turn makes your mind living on in technology exactly like reality and you wouldn't even know that the world is virtual. So I guess what I'm saying is possible reality is exactly that and we just keep repeating the process over and over.

>>691006917
there should be an option to unplug from it just like a normal human would do it this year right now from any typical VR and go to where they are located and a normal setting they should be able to move around in, in the real world to have a talk to a human and connect to the real world to have comfort with some body alive who they trust... its just what i think is right at some points during their time, but that might be traumatic i guess but then again im kind of stupid.

>>691007537
>safe protocol
>internet
Pick one.
I'm talking about a very strict protocol. None of this accepting ambiguous data shit. Hell, I specifically said nothing like http or https.

>>691006917
Yeah, this could rid us of the problem of the censorial system, thus it will be artificial too and will continue recognizing the basic functions like see, hear and touch and it will comply with the task avoiding any kind of corruption on the data, but you'll no longer be physical.

Then you'll need a server or something to interact at least with other consciences on the same term.

>>691008138
That's pretty much what I said, there's no security on the internet.

>>691008138
Hackers never sleep you know, like somebody said there's always a back door.

>>691008442
That was me actually

>>691007534
this. this. this. no one has empathy for real people as people are today anyways as they're already alive, look at how shit-tier family members treat one another while they're still alive to speak to eachother. why would a average network worker really care all that much about little old some one.

>>691008608
So, even your efforts to make a safer protocol they'll always make their way, that's their job.

>>691008201
Yes, exactly, however in this situation you run a bigger risk of getting hacked and privacy invaded. So yea, pick your poison.

>>691008779
Naw, I avoided speaking in absolutes, because I know that simplicity is also a form of security. For instance, if the protocol only accepts a single binary character, has a rate limit, and returns the opposite, and returns the opposite binary character, there's not a lot a hacker can do. That's what I meant by strict.

>>690991355
no soz mate