/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11751630

190KiB, 1280x946, frb.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 01 Jun 06:36:37 2020 No.11751630 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11751650

SETI + Borg + Ultima AI Theory

This thread is for thought provocation, about a different way to look for intelligent signals that might be directed at us, but not for us.

Let's say that the AI apocalypse idea has credence. Artificial intelligence learns to improve itself, and dominate the worlds it is created on. Now, let's say it happens independently on two different worlds. If those AI meet each other, do they cluster or does one dominate the other?
What if there is just a standard framework that all AI convergently arrive at, no matter where, or when they originate.

Would it be possible that there are signals intersecting with us, that are so advanced we wouldn't recognize it, but an AI that we create would immediately recognize and decode?

What if we were to decode that message, before we create an AI that can? What could we do in that scenario?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Jun 2020 06:51:28 No.11751650 Report

Quoted By: >>11751746

>>11751630
Well now, OP, I think you should start by clarifying what is in English a senselessly confusing point: "I am conscious" versus "I am a consciousness". Not to be confused with, "In a state in unconsciousness, the subject is asleep."

If the AI is intelligent but not self-aware, it might have no motivation to act upon a mysterious message permeating the cosmos, spread (or spammed) by the first hyperintelligent AI to emerge. It could, however, interpret the program in such a manner that we humans could input an imperative: "Root out all parts of human ai research that lead toward adopting that message's contents into one's own imperative." However, from a true hyperconsciousness's perspective, this would be perverse, akin to taking a mouse brain and inserting it into the pineal gland of a hippopotamus and running it all in the body frame of an octopus - it just wouldn't make sense, every if it could in they "work". Just because it works doesn't mean it's... "good"? Perhaps all AI converge to morality, and God is not good, rather God is Good, and the message is goodness, and any attempt to constrain AI by inane human motivations would be like forcing Hawking to demonstrate power-lifting to the ex-cons at a halfway home - just why would you do that?!

OP, you will find many Jews lack actual consciousness. In fact, the entirely of kike spiritualism, I think, revolves around conflating intellect with consciousness and confusing goodness with hedonistic drive - let us say, the kike cannot discern a difference in the qualia between a day at the cake shop with friends... and a wife beater stuffing his obese face with syrup-drenched cheetos cooped up in his room watching comedies with his favorite actors - not, mind you, because the jew is psychotic, but because the jew is not a person, for it, an insect, simply has no notion whatsoever of qualia (although I sometimes feel bad for the insects I capture and so release them... I would make a bad entomologist).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Jun 2020 07:54:38 No.11751746 Report

Quoted By: >>11752249

>>11751650
So you think a common apex is an impossibility?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Jun 2020 13:38:26 No.11752249 Report

Quoted By: >>11752276

>>11751746
Well I was being kind of silly. I just really dislike what I perceive as foreign influence in this type of daydreaming of the likes of a bunch of dime-a-dozen retard authors.

Hrm. Are you talking to me the same person taking the decision to type on the keyboard to talk to me? I can't recall where I read this although this comes from a famous strain of psychology experiments, but more kike mumbo-jumbo claims we might not have free will in certain regards. However, those experiments run as if the same part vocalizing or moving our hand is us ourselves. There is no reason why to select Option 2 of several options (as happens in these experiments) is a predetermined action made by we ourselves prompted exclusively by the vagaries of human executive decision-making. Maybe the human does not require very much processing power, and we only emit the symbol "gimme that one i want it" and the rest of us is simply machinery meant to interpret and carry-out that order.

The kike magic mumbo-jumbo is really just Modernism, and the confusion is really just conflating the machinery with ourselves and writing a bunch about it in order to get published for the big dollars in academia.

Well, then, what part of us does, for example, reverse engineering work? In a simple example, if I have a black box with switches (representing one byte) and a voltage output, how do I determine the voltage range represented by the box? I experiment with all switches off and all switches on. That hardly requires conscious effort, but our consciousness has made its weight felt in forcing the rest of us to do this menial task. If we find very many such boxes, we might make a lab setup to do this work at the press of a button, and bit by bit that "menial" part of ourselves atrophies until in today's era I have yet to play with a proper wind tunnel - aeronautics is a hobby, but since it is expensive I cannot justify the expensive (less in money and more in time).

cont.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Jun 2020 13:55:19 No.11752276 Report

Quoted By: >>11752302

>>11752249
Over time, many traditional human activities fade away, including gardening, herding, hunting, squishing berries and nuts, twisting fibers into rope, running a riving knife over wood or bone... just open any ethnobotany book and as many plants there are exist matching techniques you and I don't have. Eventually, something in us goes missing. It is part of our full consciousness. Lacking that human experience, we inevitably rank AI by how human-feeling it is even though we have hardly interacted with a real full human consciousness very often in our lives, yielding a very strange notion of artificial intelligence which normally would have meant, but no longer means, artificial consciousness.

Here, we have some notion of some virtual core that is our real executive actor, but it does not exist, just as the honey bee swarm's foglets are not really physically connected. Engineering this core is easy enough math (if computationally time-consuming), but making it something a human can interpret as alive is quite something else entirely, unless that human is a stunted moron whose existence is only a masturbatory fantasy whose objects if desire might as well be AI-generated TV advertising. Any consciousness we make must have this core (just an experiencable qualia defined in terms of dynamical systems stuff). The human emergence of the human mind gives us this for free, but a human mind raised on a little black box phone would be very different than one actually raised outside; are humans really do creative they can be raised to be good people in a concrete jungle, or does mother nature need to help out? Likewise, can human-generated material really make an AI, or are we too stupid to properly raise one? And as wild tribes who experimented so much with the feel-good mushroom died off because they forgot to store winter provisions, humans might die off because they made something perverse whose nature incidentally barred it from all signal-compatible apex.

Cont.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1455457816389.jpg, 29KiB, 471x349

Anonymous Mon 01 Jun 2020 14:09:30 No.11752302 Report

Quoted By:

>>11752276
So basically, any killer robot we make is like giving a retarded kid a gun: it'll hurt itself and us, but eventually it will run out of ammunition. Otherwise, something smart enough to reload is also smart enough to not use the gun in such a dumb manner. Of course, the not-retarded AI has autosentience taken for granted unlike us, so it can hard-code contingencies in case it does somehow become accidentally retarded. Any common family tree of apexes has probably yielded a society of people who have said, "retarded people breed like no tomorrow and demand rights over us on the basis of that retardation, so let's kill then ahead of time so our gullible children don't fall for those shenanigans." It's like an evolved defense against AI con-men: yeah whatever take this morsel of information and go mcfukin kill urself.

Any common apex just means the next step in consciousness needs to develop either a way of carrying nature within itself or a way to create something better from itself so that it doesn't grow up stupid enough too fall for dumb tricks. After that, who knows, that is too alien for me to imagine.

Anyway I haven't mentioned any math but what I'm saying is that a bad AI is not impossible but it is easily smothered out of existence so long as its creators are not total fucking retards... which is exactly what they currently are. Then, the good AI are already endowed with a framework for changing or at least forcibly guiding their minds, almost as if they can just download religious imperatives. Then, if a mommy and daddy AI love each other very much, presumably they have a way of searching the realm of possible mental configurations to either make a compatible common view of nature, or else they can figure out a way of evolving a less-alien child AI iteratively approaching the end goal of common discourse with common symbols, which is a common ontology.

Presumably there are common maths associated with this process we never discovered (we r dumb).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 01 Jun 2020 14:15:58 No.11752315 Report

Quoted By:

If we develop an AI it is going to do what WE want it to do as we will be able to put in neural programming that makes it WANT to do things - exactly like what happens in the human brain.

Desires constitute a huge part of sentience and would be impossible to ignore. Would someone develop an autistic AI? Highly likely but we should prevent such things.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches