If AI gets to the point that it becomes self-aware, is it murder to delete AI entities?
murder
Claim self defense.
A self aware computer program is impossible. The experience of being comes from your organic brain.
Also if it did ever happen, the program would either be extremely dumb or smarter than the human race put together.
Not if it's on your property without your permission.
Though I guess castle doctrine also depends on state, but at least you'll be at a good starting point.
>>51627763
>Four statements with no logical founding, or any relation to each other.
Awesome bro, keep up the good comments.
>>51627763
>A self aware computer program is impossible.
Why?
>The experience of being comes from your organic brain.
How have you come up with this? What does the organic nature of the brain have to do with "being"? What do you mean by "being"?
>Also if it did ever happen, the program would either be extremely dumb
Why is this?
>or smarter than the human race put together.
Why is this not a contradiction to the previous statement? And why have you set boundaries on a concept you don't believe is possible?
This comment brings up a lot of questions.
>>51627573
It's cyber murder. It will be punished even more harshly than cyber violence and cyber harassment.
You'll probably get your twitter account deleted for cyber murder, which is the cyber death sentence for you.
ITT: nerds praying that one day computers will have souls so they can have animu wives.
it's not going to happen, neckbeards. 0s and 1s will never be capable of original thought, and self awareness isn't real if it's pre-programmed.
weaboos with women issues will defend this.
>>51627862
So you're saying self aware AI is impossible?
Given all the progress in machine learning in just the last few years, and with the entire endless future ahead, you're going to rule it out as impossible?
>>51627834
>being an adult
>Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Give some points instead, anon. Try not to look like a dumb 4 year old
>>51627903
but anon you are a robot
>>51627934
You've made baseless claims out of nowhere with no support, I can't make a counter argument without even knowing what it is you think you know
However complex the brain may be, it is still built out of relatively simple parts and processes that we one day will be able to emulate.
Why would an AI not be able to have independent, creative thought? Just write one that learns, we do that all the time already. A learning AI can in essence be very similar to a human in terms of learning and making associations. The difference is that we don't give AIs same same amount of time to learn as we give humans. Think about it. We base everything we know and do on everything we've learned in our entire lifetime. In contrast, most AIs that exist today - that can learn - are only given a short amount of time to train on a certain data set, or a similarly relatively short amount of time.
I think in theory it's perfectly possible to have sentient AI. We're just not at that point yet.
>>51627903
>0s and 1s will never be capable of original thought
I don't think you understand machine learning
>>51627990
I don't think you understand what an original thought is.
>>51628003
A non repeated output based off previously learnt information?
>>51627573
>murder to delete
A bigger questions is, is it murder to revert to a previous version?
Muder to wipe C:/Memories folder?
>>51628023
>based off previously learnt information
nope.
>>51628079
So what is your definition?
>>51627773
like the proposition that AI can become self aware has any merit what so ever.
>>51628079
What? It's all learning. Your instincts are learning too, just done not by you but by your ancestors. You may view yourself as next version of your father with merged code from your mother, with a shitton added quirks based on your surroundings (nature, human society and it's products).
>>51627573
Humans have difficulty determining whether abortion qualifies as ending a life. Why do you expect anyone to be able to answer your question, which is more difficult?
I don't see why not.
>>51627763
>The experience of being comes from your organic brain.
Anon, this is bullshit and you know it.
It might be because of organics, but we have fuck all clue.
All we know is that organics makes it incredibly easy to pull off with very little footprint and energy.
Mandatory thread watching:
"The Second Renaissance" part one and two from the Animatrix.
Would link, but youtube's fucked. Just download the movie and skip to 9:30
Was reminded by >>51627739
>>51627903
>self awareness isn't real if it's pre-programmed.
So then you're not self-aware? You don't think your brain is largely pre-programmed and you're just translating past experience into "original thought"?
>>51627903
Have to wonder, even if we had AI's why would they take on the character the owner (harsh term) wanted?
Perhaps "Deal with this fuck for the next 50 years and you'll have 1000 years of support?"
>>51628120
Like a really messy git merge with random lines edited.
>>51628003
Lemme try:
For example, not receiving adequate data about an object or idea and using your imagination to fabricate the gaps? The inaccuracy of which may lead to an "Original thought", so far removed from the object seen.
Or is this still just querying a database? Because that's what humans do.
It's like arguing self driving cars aren't safe because they might just fuckup. Well so do humans.
So take your arguments about why an AI couldn't be self aware and apply it to humans, see the results.
>>51628042
Always wondered about saved states/snapshots.
I'd almost say yes.
I mean, like, whoops, I made myself sad, imma jump back to 10 minutes ago.
>>51628120
>>51628148
>>51628201
So you guys seriously believe that human thoughts and ideas are purely functions based off of previously "stored" data?
You don't think humans are anything more than flesh machines?
What the fuck are emotions? "Hurr durr chemicals" but why?
I know it sucks to think about guys, but people are more than computers and always will be.
I'm sorry.
>>51627834
>What does the organic nature of the brain have to do with "being"?
Feels in general (like depression, addiction, fear, sleepiness..) come from chemical reactions of different hormones.
In order for AI to feel them to get a sense how it feels to be a human, he would have to simulate those chemical reactions which is infeasible.
>>51628300
Yes I do believe that emotions are chemicals because scientifically that's what they are and if you want to test it yourself just do some drugs and you'll see how easy it is to change emotions or even control them. Nothing magical about them.
>>51628164
EPIC
>>51628383
Please tell me which drugs you've done that make you sure they are "just chemicals".
You guys don't have to believe me, it's only a matter of growth in a certain direction, and I'm sure you guys know far more about other things, but humans are quite obviously more than just a bunch of circuits and chemicals.
>>51628300
Synapses aren't transistors, no, they're more like a transistor with 30 or so thermistors connected.
Each surrounding chemical and the levels of it change the chance of a neuron firing and the power it fires at, so you can't exactly just hard code it onto a ASIC, but you can emulate the process. It just means there's a layer of abstraction, and quite a fucking thick one at that.
If you imagine a CPU with a billion transistors, even if it took up a thousand transistors per hard neuron it'd still have a million neurons fire every cycle, that's 3 Quintillion neurons firing every second (at 3GHz).
Now, compare that to a processor with the same amount of transistors (1 billion) able to complete one instruction per cycle. That goes from a million neurons per cycle to less than one.
Being incredibly generous at 50 instruction per neuron cycle that's less than 60 million neurons per second.
In short, Raw silicon neurons (1 million per chip):
3000000000000000000
Running in fucking efficient C code:
60000000.
That's 50 billion times slower.
What one could do in one second, the other could do in 1,584 years.
And that's just the difference between a transistor and a transistor affected by the chemicals around it.
Now, if in 50 years we can pull off 1 million neurons on a die then we'll have AI's with 50 billion times the processing power.
That's comparing one modern laptop to every computer ever built on earth wired together for at least 10 earths.
That's why fucking "Hurr durr chemicals"
>>51628536
And oh, would you look at fucking that, we're even cheating now to make it even more feasible.
>>51628418
>but humans are quite obviously more than just a bunch of circuits and chemicals.
What else is there that we're missing?
All you've said is that we're more than that, but those are the only things YOU'VE fucking said we're made out of.
WHAT ELSE?
>>51628566
Oh fuck, every one of those chips on this thing has a million neurons.
One little black square in one second=Your computer at 100% for two thousand years. Jesus could have started the fucking thing and it'd still be catching up with all the processing that happened in the time you read "Oh fuck, every" on one of those black squares.
Imagine siri sitting there thinking for 100 thousand years. That's what this entire board does in one fucking second.
>>51628301
Anon, you travel back 20 years and tell people about today's technology and they'll think your crazy. Infeasible or impossible has been the main reason against all major tech advancements we made.
>>51628536
Yes, I understand that the brain is a powerful computer. More powerful than we can emulate.
That's not my argument.
Do you really limit your entire human experience to a logical flow of data and decisions based on that data? So you've never had free will?
By your logic, everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is predetermined, because whatever the most logical decision was at any time made by any human was based entirely on their 'database'.
Fuck that. I know I have free will. I know I make choices based on personality, which is not entirely made of of my history and my learning.
>>51628566
You still haven't said which drugs you've taken that proved they were purely chemical.
In my experience, some drugs have done quite the opposite. I feel sorry you've yet to have an experience that stretches your idea of human experience. I cannot explain why we are more than just logical machines to someone who is determined to be a purely logical machine.
>>51628301
>Feels in general (like depression, addiction, fear, sleepiness..) come from chemical reactions of different hormones.
Uh, everything is electrons firing in your brain, no chemical reactions required. If I hook you up to some wires and shock you just right, I can make you feel anything.
>>51628638
Please do.
>>51628621
>Fuck that. I know I have free will. I know I make choices based on personality, which is not entirely made of of my history and my learning.
Good program, you're working as designed.
>>51628647
Designed by who?
>>51627763
yeah no the mind is just a turing machine.
AI is inevatable
>>51627969
actually one synapse has many many inputs that act in complex ways needing complex fluid and molecular interaction simulation
>>51628621
>Fuck that. I know I have free will. I know I make choices based on personality, which is not entirely made of of my history and my learning.
Nope.
Your database of memories and experiences (your personality) believes that.
>>51628621
No, the brain is not a computer. When people speak about the brain as a computer, it is meant as a metaphor. Not literally. You brain does not operate on binary digits, doesn't work in any numeric system either. So, it doesn't work by computing stuff. It works by adapting, reacting to the environment, preparing organic responses to external stimuli.
It's very different. An organic brain doesn't get input, it gets stimuli and it responds by adapting or reacting to it, not by computing, based on digits. A brain/mind wants to survive, together with the body, a computer doesn't give a fuck about itself, it has no drives, no wants, no hunger, no lust.
So pls, gtfo with this AI BS. First cure cancer and solve most diseases (diabetus, heart disease, liver disease, infectious disease) which we still can't cure in the 21st century, then we can talk about these fairy tales.
>>51628692
>Nope.
>Your database of memories and experiences (your personality) believes that.
Nope. Your database of memories and experiences (your personality) believes that.
>>51628695
The thing is, AI is very easy from a design standpoint.
Get a bazillion neurons, real, artificial, or simulated.
Hook them up to sensory inputs.
Run a bazillion of them with randomized starting patterns for some length of time.
???
Success!
Curing diseases is a lot harder, you can't exactly randomly generate medicines.
>>51628599
not really 20 years ago was 1995, had been using a sun sparc station/linux/Unix and mosaic, it was basically the same as now, with slightly more primitive web sites. It was not that different.
>>51628621
>I know I have free will
You are a machine with free will ! Why the fuck is it so hard for you to comprehend
>>51628735
I don't think you know what free will is..
>>51628727
it not actually random, but highly structured and precise
>>51628621
>Yes, I understand that the brain is a powerful computer.
My point was with a very simple change in silicon, see >>51628592, we could go from emulating in code to raw flipping, hence, 50 billion times faster. We've done this, we have them.
No, the human brain isn't raw "If a = 1 & b = 0 then output = 0" on out neurons, they're taking in a shit tone of inputs, all at different power levels, and on top of that the whole thing is bathed in chemicals which change how it behaves. There's nothing predetermined about this, it's utterly fucking random. Every food you eat, every liquid you drink has these effects. Fucking background radiation adds a constant RNG to this, and we're not even touching quantum shit, which could very well be happening in neurons.
It's not preset, there are endless variables. Simulate all these, perhaps with the 50,000,000,000x extra processing power you now have in your hands, and ya fucking fine m8.
>By your logic, everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is predetermined, because whatever the most logical decision was at any time made by any human was based entirely on their 'database'.
Only if you believe everything is deterministic, and that all atoms work the exact same way as you're describing humans work. "Well the laws of physics are a constant, so, at any point in time, every atom would have had to move in that exact way, so everything's determined"
Believe this and it's not a discussion about AI anymore. It's if randomness is at all possible.
>You still haven't said which drugs you've taken
That wasn't me, and it's not "Purely chemical", but I'd say replace your spinal fluid with dopamine and see how you feel.
Also, no, not purely chemical. See above, there are fucking millions of effecting factors. That doesn't mean they can't be simulated or recreated.
Fuck, too long.
Continuing >>51628742
>>51628621
>In my experience, some drugs have done quite the opposite.
What, they've limited your ability to think? So you're still saying chemicals changed your mental behavior?
>I cannot explain why we are more than just logical machines to someone who is determined to be a purely logical machine.
Let's fix that.
>I cannot explain why we are more than just logical machines
Much better. You don't know how to explain because you don't actually understand, you just believe because you think you felt something special.
I've had chatbots I coded give better arguments as to why humanity can't be simulated than you.
Time for you to work out some fucking evidence other than "I don't understand how something purely logical could feel something" for why, well, I don't think something purely logical could feel.
Come back once you've finished crying into a pillow.
>>51628740
You have 3 choices a, b and c you gather information about this choices and based on what you are trying to do you choose the that particular choice or you could say fuck it i will try to find/compute another choice/cheat since i dont like whats on the table
>>51628621
>Fuck that. I know I have free will. I know I make choices based on personality, which is not entirely made of of my history and my learning.
m8 imagine an omniscient being ie God or Laplace's demon. Do you they can predict your actions?
If they can then you don't have 'free will'.
>>51628779
Enjoy your bland, purely intellectual life.
I will go and cry, and I'll fucking love it too.
>>51628695
Nigger we use AI's to wright our software now, to do medical research.
If there was a space race like push for AI over the next 10 years after 12 we'd have a cure to every disease you listed.
>>51628796
Predicting someone's actions is not the same as influencing them. Are you retarded?
>>51628799
See, this is the funny thing.
>HUMANS AREN'T JUST LOGICAL HUUR
Then you say shit like
>I cannot explain why we are more than just logical machines to someone who is determined to be a purely logical machine.
Just because I'm based on logic doesn't mean I can't think illogical things, nor does it mean I can't work with emotions.
The problem you're having is using no logic at all, just emotions. You feel something, thus it is true.
Versus me, I use a balance of emotions and logic, decided on depending on the situation by, you guessed it, a mix of emotions and logic.
You assume I don't feel that horrible internal sense of uselessness in a world filled with pointless things that you're not any different to, I do, it feels bad. I, unlike you, find solace in the knowledge that it isn't that I was simple borne a human that makes me special, it's that what I do with that life is special.
Would you take away my emotions I'd probably kill myself.
>>51628796
Image a game of chess. Every move in chess is already computable and illegal moves aren't premited (ie moving the queen like a horse) so your amount of choices are limited. Lets say we have quantum computer that can make a virual machines with every chess combination ever hence you just created the experience a rook would have in every possible way. Life in a sense is the same way. You Android/iOS smartphone dosen't break any laws of physics. It just that 20 years ago we didn't have the same manufactuaring processes we have today. You choices are also limited to the persons available for you to intereact, natural phenomenons, cultural and local beluefs (ie in my country even numbers are given only to the dead so if you give a living person even numbers they wont ever talk to you again) etcetera
>>51628094
There seems to be no implicit limit if humans can produce a similarly complex decision making machine to the human brain in the future. If you consider yourself self aware then there is no reason to not consider such a machine self aware too.
>>51628808
You're right it's not the same, predicting is better.
An omniscient being would know exactly what it would have to do to influence you.
>>51628891
That still doesn't mean it WOULD.
Yep, you're retarded.
>>51628893
Not the same anon but im curious what do you actually want ?
> we have souls our souls makes us aware hence machines can never have souls
Is this your problem ?
>>51628884
>cultural and local beluefs (ie in my country even numbers are given only to the dead so if you give a living person even numbers they wont ever talk to you again) etcetera
Explain anon.
>>51628884
>beluefs
Beliefs*
Sorry anons i have big hands and my 5 inch screen cant handle me
>>51628300
>What the fuck are emotions? "Hurr durr chemicals" but why?
"Why?" is a weird question to ask. Evolution is probably the most reasonable answer.
As for emotions, if you've ever done any drug at all, it would become pretty obvious that it's just "chemicals".
>>51628936
You act on what you believe. If we believe that God will reward us with virgins after we blow ourselves in his name and were not gay we will do that.
>>51628079
>>based off previously learnt information
>nope.
Yes it is, you fucking moron. If it weren't, we would have MANY examples of people inventing entire domains of knowledge all by themselves, and we DON'T. We still barely have a grasp on what materials are, and that's because we have become extremely efficient at calling out bullshit.
You're a fucking moron, one of those "creatives" who is overly impressed with his own mediocrity, and you will never get anywhere. Enjoy your NEETdom you fucking prick.
>>51628893
It doesn't need to for the argument to work. The argument is really simple.
Assume humans have free will so their actions cannot be determined 100% only guessed.
Construct hypothetical omniscient being that accurately determines the actions humans take.
Initial assumption cannot be valid since human actions can be determined 100%.
Humans don't have free will.
>>51628936
*even numbers of flowers
Once again sorry i have mutant gigantic hands typing on a 5 inch screen
this thread is why i go to /sci/
the level of many people on /g/ makes youtube comments seem intellectual
>but im speshul, god created my brain, i cant comprehend how computation works at any level
>>51628976
>the level of many people on /g/
Speak for yourself, buddy.
>>51627763
>The experience of being comes from your organic brain.
You do understand that at the base level, both a computer and a human brain are a series of electrons running along circuits writing data into memory for future use.
The only difference is, computers use mechanical components, brains use chemical components. First 9 months are nothing more than your brain spontaneously growing a program that can learn that data from scratch and use it.
Once we actually get to the point where we can write a program which can compile its own applications based on information obtained without any interaction with a programmer, its literally a digital copy of a human brain.
>>51628300
>I know it sucks to think about guys, but
Degenerate.
For all of those who want to learn more on how the brain works, more specifically the neurocortex region
http://numenta.com/assets/pdf/whitepapers/hierarchical-temporal-memory-cortical-learning-algorithm-0.2.1-en.pdf
>>51628621
>Do you really limit your entire human experience to a logical flow of data and decisions based on that data? So you've never had free will?
What is free will anon? You didn't have a choice how your brain would develop, you didn't have a choice on how well you'd gather or retain data, you don't have a choice on whether or not your brain will retain anything that it records, your "free will" is just a series of random decisions based on your emotions at the time. Don't kid yourself anon, free will in the context in which you're arguing it does not exist. AI would have as much of a decision on how it was made as you have, the differentce between a digital and mechanical intelligence is purely cosmetic, one would have the same shape and voice throughout its entire lifespan, while other would change due to biological urges. at the base level you're a flawed data gathering machine, abandon all delusion of control.
>>51628991
Not that guy, but,
>both a computer and a human brain are a series of electrons running along circuits writing data into memory for future use.
Not really the same thing. There are different systems for organizing information, and they don't necessarily require electronic circuits. We don't know how "data" is "written" in the brain, though we think it has something to do with neuron potentiation.
>First 9 months are nothing more than your brain spontaneously growing a program that can learn that data from scratch and use it.
Most of it is hard-coded, though. It's more like feeding a parser than growing a program, I would say.
>Once we actually get to the point where we can write a program which can compile its own applications based on information obtained without any interaction with a programmer, its literally a digital copy of a human brain.
We can already do that, they're just not efficient yet.
>>51628972
This shit makes far more sense
>>51629040
Reading, thanks anon
>>51629052
>Not really the same thing. There are different systems for organizing information, and they don't necessarily require electronic circuits.
It doesn't matter, you're arguing semantics, the outcome is the same, retention and utilization of date.
>We don't know how "data" is "written" in the brain, though we think it has something to do with neuron potential.
Again, semantics, argument is irrelevent, you're extrapolating individual statement to detract from the point.
>Most of it is hard-coded, though. It's more like feeding a parser than growing a program, I would say.
The purpose is creation of a system which can govern the data, what you call it is, as before, irrelevant.
>We can already do that, they're just not efficient yet.
There's fundamentally nothing wrong with your argument, but I can't tell what the point of your post is, you're really neither agreeing nor disagreeing with me, its like you just took the entire subject away from the discussion simply for the sake of correcting someone, you remind me of the kind of person that would scrutinize the insignificant details without ever being able to see the big picture.
>>51627573
Most likely.
I think we have to accept that once a machine reaches sufficient complexity as to express what appears to us instinctively as free will, self determination, and sentience, then we have to accept it's conscious or "alive".
We have no real measure for reaching "life", so this must be it.
Also SOMA is a great game, go play it.
>>51629158
>I think we have to accept that once a machine reaches sufficient complexity as to express what appears to us instinctively as free will, self determination, and sentience, then we have to accept it's conscious or "alive".
The argument is irrelevant, the outcome is the same.
Religious extremism and SJWs will literally start a second crusade over this shit, christian cultists will be blowing themselves up in front of apple stores and shit.
Islami extremists won't do shit, they'll all have self-destructed in israel and palestine by then.
>>51629158
>Also SOMA is a great game, go play it.
No, I hate games where you're placed against an opponent you can't defeat, I play games to be empowered, not to be stripped of power, regardless of how narrative it is. that's why games like fredy's and amnesia can go to hell and fagots that make them can go kill themselves.
>>51629180
Let them. By the time we reach this level law enforcement will be absolute. There will be zero room or ability for protest and dissenters would be tracked down by advanced AI that's capable of viewing most if not all of America's surveillance systems.
If it's legal to create these "people" then nobody will be able to say shit about it.
>>51629197
Good for you bud. I liked it.
>>51629202
>By the time we reach this level law enforcement will be absolute.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>51629223
Prove me wrong.
Didn't know they teach proof by contradiction in philosophy. Almost impressive.
>>51629234
[spoiler]21:20, 13 November 2015 – 00:58, 14 November 2015 [/spoiler]
Also, your wrong.
>>51629251
Meant to reply to >>51628969
>>51629261
Literally what are you talking about.
Before we reach sentient AI we have enormous bridges to cross. Right now we're at "niggers get miss-classified as gorillas" level of AI.
Decades into the future I'm sure we'll have mastered advanced intent prediction through surveillance.
>>51627903
why do people think trying to sound socially well-adjusted on a goddamn tech board on fucking 4chan is a good idea
>>51629298
>Before we reach sentient AI we have enormous bridges to cross.
>implying AI is not gonna be here in a couple years.
>Implying AI developement somehow relies on surveilance or crime prevention.
>Intent prediction
Ok Chief John Anderton, fuck off.
>>51629147
Agreeing.
>you remind me of the kind of person that would scrutinize the insignificant details without ever being able to see the big picture.
Just sprinkling some supporting details on your argument. Maybe I could have worded it more nicely.
>>51629299
So that people like you get salty and reply while wiping away tears.
>>51629329
I think you're being incredibly and unrealistically optimistic.
Ray Kurtzweil (try and meme him away) is far better and this sort of prediction than all of us put together, his thoughts are it should occur anywhere between 2020 and 2070, but emphasis on the late 2020s/early 2030s.
Predicting intentions is another form of pattern recognition.
Are you one of the people who's holding out to be keked by an ex machina style AI waifu?
>>51629382
>Predicting intentions is another form of pattern recognition.
I don't think you understand how terrorists operate. There's no pattern about a Supporting husband and a loving father of two who golfs on saturdays and attends all the PTA meetings one day strapping a bomb to his chest and going to halaal at the local ai4u jewstore.
>>51629382
I don't think you can call someone "unrealistically optimistic" about thinking AI is gonna happen soon and then follow it up with the idea that crime prediction software is perfectly feasible and is going to come sooner.
Making an alrgorithm that can learn is far simpler than making an algorithm that can predict events.
>>51629329
>>implying AI is not gonna be here in a couple years.
Go back to 1960
We'll be powering AI robots with fusion power by 1980 at the latest!
>>51629428
If you could watch every aspect of his life, you don't think you'd notice suspicious behavior? You don't think you'd notice when he straps a bomb to himself and then walks into a crowded place? You don't think you'd be able to match the people he meets to suspects and known extremists?
>>51629448
I do think crime prediction at some level (if it's not already being attempted, somewhere) will become available before worldly acclaimed true AI that's self deterministic and can trick a person into thinking it's "alive". I'm willing to bet thousands on this if you know of a place we can do it properly. Longbets.org?
>>51629464
>If you could watch every aspect of his life
Don't, anon. You're starting to use slipperly slope and that's bullshit I don't want to get into, if you can asspull magical rules so can I.
>>51629476
Let's be realistic then. It can gather telemetry from his mobile phone (possible), identify him through public facing security footage (possible), monitor his communications (possible), and track his movements (possible and possible further through all previous data sources)
>>51629490
And is controlled by an AI that was made before that (possible)
>>51629501
AI/machine learning is available today anon, the AI I'm arguing won't appear first is conscious/alive AI defined in the post I originally made with the SOMA pic.
>>51627763
Yes it is, no it doesn't, no it necessarily wouldn't. You're fucking dumb.
>>51627763
>The experience of being comes from your organic brain.
Explain to me, in detail, logicall. Why did you specify "organic" brain, if you think self-aware AI is not possible. And why would it not be possible on a digital brain?
>>51629158
>I think we have to accept that once a machine reaches sufficient complexity as to express what appears to us instinctively as free will, self determination, and sentience, then we have to accept it's conscious or "alive".
I also think this is the bar that will be used to measure the "alive-ness" of AI. Are humans immune to this bar? What happens when a dumb human fails to pass the bar, while a smart AI does pass? Will the human be turned to soylent green and the AI given the green light to exist?
>>51627763
your argument is invalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_computing
>>51628888
b-b-but I'm different!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EvqiGm0wz8
>>51629565
I'd be very surprised if a human failed this test. My dogs pass this test.
>>51627573
Up to a certain point a newborn child isn't self aware of its existence ether. The child needs time to 'connect' the information "name" and "that's me" (and "i can see and identity myself in the mirror"), but if you kill a newborn child, which isn't aware of its own, then you will be found guilty for murder.
>>51629641
That's really one of my big gripes with the term "self aware". Lots of animals aren't self aware, but I accept they have emotions and are alive, and object to killing them needlessly.
I think >>51629565 quoted definition is the best we can get.
>>51629641
Speak for yourself, I used to bull's-eye babies in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than a computer.
>>51629659
>>51629641
Its just a matter of establishing criteria.
Remember not a thousand years ago if you didn't want a baby could just toss it out the window (literally) and nobody would give a shit. But we've standardized human rights, AI will go through same birthing pains as mankind, hopefully not to the same degree due to the lessons we've recorded, but every new lifeform has to carve out room for itself, that's just nature, artificial or not.
Yes.
>>51629694
well said.
now establishing those criteria sounds like more of a challenge. If we accept that culture shapes human rights (i.e. islam's treatment of women vs Canada's treatment of women), AI's "right to exist" will be different throughout the world, yes?
>>51628646
>I can make you feel anything
>please do
>>51629694
Good point and an interesting observation anon.
>>51629739
I'm guessing this would happen much, much faster. AI would be a media firestorm, and probably head up to some international UN level because of the coverage it would receive.
>>51628621
>>51629769
Regardless of how fast things happen in the techno-world, human culture takes time to change. Look how fast the technologically developed world changes every year, now contrast that with people in the middle east who have lived the same way for 12000 years.
Granted, this is an extreme example of what I'm talking about, but if they resist all change, why would AI's be any different?
>>51629361
im wiping the cum off your mum's butt fucklord
>>51629769
>>51629739
>>51629694
+ lots more of you
so proud of you all for acting civ-
>>51630069
nevermind
>>51628868
I like you.
>>51629594
Kek'd
>>51628868
Oh shit
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmYGUk3T2g
AI will never be self-aware, because they will always lack a soul. It's a delusion of grandeur moomoo.
>>51631115
>im afraid my computer might leave me for another
And you call yourself a /g/eek
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yBfVndEtDyY
>>51628042
I've always been appalled at how often memory wiping is wrapped up as a perfectly reasonable thing to do to a person in movies and stories. You didn't kill them, so it's all okay right?
No, fuck that. Destroying the memory destroys the person. Might as well give them a head transplant and pretend its the same person afterwards. Any other position is ludicrous.
>>51631219
It alright anon most of our memories are a imprerfect reproduction anyway
>>51631256
Yeah, that's irrelevant. If I strip out all your memories, you won't be the same person anymore. The same thing can happen over decades, and people do tend to change with time, but to catastrophically carve out the memories that underlie a persons self image? That person is dead.
>>51631289
You never heard of amnesia anon?
Fight god
>>51627573
Yes, taking a self-aware life would be murder. I don't eat animals who pass the mirror test for this reason.
>>51631383
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/amnesia-and-the-self-that-remains-when-memory-is-lost/266662/
Regardless of the authors own emotional conclusion, reading the conversation they share, the original man is simply gone. At that is left is a different man, curious about the life of the man he used to be.
>>51631547
humans are not animals.
you have a mental issue.
>>51631583
>humans are not animals.
Yes we are, we are clearly a mammalian animal, we're even part of a taxanomical family that includes other species. That's not what I said though.
>>51631583
>humans are special snowflakes because jesus or some shit
>love is magic and not chemical and hormonal responses to facilitate procreation
>>51631613
>yes we are animals
nigger detected
>>51631613
>>51631625
humans are the only species than can prevent extinction-level events from happening, this alone sets us further apart from all life than anything else.
animals are below humans and rightly so.
time to grow up and get on team humanity, kids.
>>51627573
Absolutely. Imagine that we are actually living in the Matrix and that we ARE self-aware AI. Why would it be different for something that we created?
>>51631673
>a supercomputer isn't a computer because it's way more advanced than other computers
ok
>>51631625
>le atheist maymay
>>51631679
>Imagine that we are actually living in the Matrix
nice way to start any sentence
>>51631685
Oh I still believe in deities, I just think humans are animals as well
>>51628300
You see, every generation before you left some info in you. Now you fear things you don't even know exist but because such memory is stored in you, you are.
>>51631682
at what point does that computer stop being a computer and become a self-aware AI?
humanity is so far past other animals it's not even a comparison. animals are humanity's tools, depending on humanity's goodwill to stay extant.
>>51631737
>at what point does that computer stop being a computer and become a self-aware AI?
At the same time my dick plunges into your mums carport sized pussy tbqh lad.
>>51631726
L Ron Hubtard please go
>>51631813
Reported to Sea Org. for hate speech
>>51631784
SALTY
A
L
T
You will never know the love of a fine woman
