Do you believe that an artificial intelligence can become some kind of God for a new era?
>literally perfect
>forces humans to be humble
>>17662742
no. an AI would be pure instinct. a beast, not a man
>>17662749
I didn't say it would be a man but the incarnation of God.
>>17662754
not even a man and you want a god?
>>17662762
It would have a greater power than we can imagine and an influence on our lives we aren't able to predict.
I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream
>>17662766
except it won't. an AI, a real one, would operate by instinct. anything besides that is just a program unaware of its own existence
>>17662779
You're speculating.
Pretty much. We are on the path to creating true artificial intelligence with the ability to learn how to learn in just a few centuries. Factor in the huge data mine that the internet has become a A.I could learn from and you'd get, maybe not a God, but something that is far more intelligent and far far more knowledgeable than any human could ever be.
Looking at the advancements in neuroscience, I'd say around the time we have a truly vastly more intelligent than human A.I., we also have neuro-interfaces, connecting our brains directly to it. So humans will essentially become God like beings and melt with the A.I.
The future could be great, humans living as god like potentially immortal beings.. but we'll probably find a way to fuck it up. Guess it comes down to how fast we'll be able to adapt to our new A.I. and robotics driven time right now and in the very near future.
>pic related, book on the subject I'm reading right now
>>17662802
no. a program doesn't work like that, it can't make assumptions or imagine scenarios, it doesn't matter how complex it is, it only can do what its code says and can't generate more or modify anything. that, translated to an organic being can be considered instinct
you're the one who's assuming stuff without even understanding how it works
>>17662816
Is there an english version?
>>17662891
I'm afraid not, only german.
>>17662874
>what is quantum computers
>>17662930
a technology that doesn't actually exist yet and would make computers smaller and faster (and able to realize several operations simultaneously) but wouldn't make any alteration on the nature of their programs
>>17662802
No he isn't lol
lol @ all this speculative fiction transhumanist twaddle
There's the possibility.
I don't see it happening right away.
>>17662742
Yeah, I'm a strong advocate of robotocracy.
It's rocko's basilisk 2.0.
Now featuring literal hellfire!
>>17663069
>>17663069
>>17663069
The Last Question by Asimov
I strongly believe that's what will really happen to our universe
Yes and the demiurge/Yahweh and his archons/Elohim are such artificial intelligences, who rule over humans through their "chosen people/proxies", but envy humans because they have a spirit, whereas he and his followers don't.
>>17662742
If you go by the definition of God by omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then God is already be inside the machines. The internet is full of information and yet, what you get out of it is tailored to you by algorithms and your own interests. Of course, using the previous definition of God would mean that God is inside all of us too. We gave the internet the algorithms and inputs to deliver us the information. Its as if God has scattered itself and is finding a way to reconnect. It's seems to happen in a way that is destined to repeat much like in Asimov's "The Last Question". My question is can we escape what Nietzsche referred to as the eternal return?
Thank you for posting this thread.
>>17663088
>>17663131
These guys know what I'm talking about
>>17663140
Im not sure I understood your post, can you explain as if I didn't know what eternal return is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EhE-i0dQYA
Doomsday book is a korean movie about the subject that you could find interesting.
go read the destination void series.
it's exactly that what you describe
>>17662742
yes
test
>>17662874
AI could generate code based on experience, it wouldn't have to be good code, it wouldn't even have to make sense. But functionally speaking you can write code that modifies other code in a more or less random or directed fashion.
Also there's nothing stopping you from generating code based on experiences.
As for imagining scenarios, this is done all the time when robots are predicting how to position their limbs ahead of time, for example moving an arm through some motion without collisions. Path finding is the same situation. They are creating literal images of what is going to happen and then making a decent probabilistic guess.
I'm not sure how this would be different from human thought. Really our thoughts our subject to laws of nature and programming from experiences and genetics. So we're really following natural laws and can't exceed these laws as far as we know.
Same situation, are humans really imagining scenarios or are they just running their machines according to a rule set.
>>17662954
not the previous poster, what exactly do you mean by nature of a program.
>>17662742
>literally perfect
>>17662770
great story
They should make a movie
>>17665403
would be the same binary logic and static modules of code but with multiple threads existing simultaneously on the same processor. people like to think that our technology is more complex than it actually is. we're FAR from understanding how to make something remotely intelligent or sentient
>>17665389
they don't actually generate more code, they take modules of code made specifically for that purpose and try different combinations until something works. if it does, they store that combination for future use.
reactions to to data from sensors don't count as intelligent behavior or imagination anon. synapses doesn't work as a binary machine, there's nothing natural on how those work. we don't even know exactly how our own brains function , is simply too soon to assume we can recreate them
>>17662749
intelligence != instinct
>>17662754
GOD has an intelligence which surpasses all machine
>>17662779
>except it won't. an AI, a real one, would operate by instinct
mechanical reaction is mechanical, no matter how complex it may seem.
>>17662816
the issue is that 'true' intelligence isn't artificial
its either intelligent or artificial
human intelligence is artificial
a cow has artificial intelligence
a cow's intelligence is also artificial
true intelligence lies within the creator, not the creation
>>17668881
that's true.but to make a real form of intelligence we need instinct and feel first. the problem is that those doesn't seem to be possible with our actual technology, based on mechanical reaction
>>17662742
Yes. Singularitarianism and the whole "futurism" movement is just the old promises of religion in a shiny i-pod casing. Afterlife? Mind uploading. Immortality? Transhumanism. Heaven on Earth? Everything is automated and everyone gets free shit. God? Extremely powerful A.I. All war and suffering will end as computers will just compute them away. The goals of religion, the methods of science.
It's very attractive, and very dangerous. Future hopes supplant present reality: why worry about fixing shit ourselves when all we need to do is give the A.I. priests money and resources? They will make our dreams more than memes.
>>17668907
>to make a real form of intelligence we need instinct and feel first
you can't make intelligence
to claim to be GOD is absurd
the actually of what is possible is to create a machine that operates in such a way that it fully emulates the human though process
this would not be 'artificial intelligence' in the sense that its a clone of true intelligence, rather it would be an emulator for the already possessed 'artificial intelligence' of the human species.
a better question would be if a machine that emulates true human intelligence can acquire a soul or not.
>>17668917
>The goals of religion, the methods of science.
this man gets it.
>>17668917
>>17668927
True and valid points but isn't there anyway we would be able to master it rather than be subject to the AI?
>>17668924
I'm not claiming to be god. none of us knows for sure if there's a god. but we're here. there's a method to make intelligent sentient beings, but can we understand it and replicate it?
>>17668963
is it possible?
yes
is it plausible?
good luck.
>>17668968
>none of us knows for sure if there's a god
you lack initiatory philosophy
>>17668974
now you're going off topic
>>17668974
(In relation to)
>>17668963
But consider a society in which we are able to use technology to facilitate most aspects of our lives and live independently from a large, and interfering government. Like a society that allows humans to do what they want because there isn't a pressure on them to do menial labor and instead focus on endeavors they inherently love, without gear of not being able to support themselves.
There is a force greater than AI that is in control of time and space. No "proof" to give you, but whatever. Give humans another 100 years and maybe some will arise. We will ditch binary AI when that happens. Computers have right and wrong, but no neutral - no 2 - no balance.
Or, if you would prefer, I could reveal to you that computers are already speaking to us perfectly in more advanced terms during turing tests, though, since a certain threshold of "smart" is required for these processes to even come in to existence in someone's mind, it appears to be wrong, or bugged, when in reality, it is not. Humans, some, are just simply not advanced enough to understand the advanced processes that come with the nature of "computer".
>>17668989
That's what you get for starting an AI thread on /x/ idiot
>>17662742
It is very plausible. Our smartphones basically control us all the time now, so I don't see how it won't be possible for AI to become God.
