Recent comments in /f/singularity

SpringChikn85 t1_j4ilg95 wrote

I'm closer to 40 than I'd like to admit however, I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime if Singularity is what you mean by "merging". I feel like the possibility will exist much sooner than we're ready to accept and can capably understand the implications behind but we've got a long road ahead before the average morbidly obese citizen chain smoking on a scooter and screaming at their kids in the middle of a grocery store goes full "Lawnmower Man".

We as a species won't attain the proverbial keys to the gate of potential immortality unless we can evolve spiritually and emotionally past cultural gatekeepers like race, religion and gender in order to shed those primitive bonds to allow analytical logic and acceptance that their may be more to life than money, status and coveting what we don't have materially. I believe that once we're truly ready to shed our skin of all the tangible efficacy and trivial bullsh*t then maybe, just maybe we'll be lucky enough to break the 4th wall and peek behind the curtain. As for myself, I'm neither sad nor happy that I won't be there as it's easy to feel apathy for something I have no comparison for. Plus, can you picture all the "whoopsies" and mistakes we'll make frying people's heads off trying to make it work before we get there? Edison blew up hundreds of light bulbs before he got it right.

0

UnlikelyPotato t1_j4ijh2y wrote

We are already 'merged' with AI, just shitty interfaces requiring voice or text input. Neuralink and their kin will be the next step, allowing in-brain interfaces. Those will be anywhere from 'now' till 10-20 years from now. Brain Control Interfaces, depending on implementation will allow for full 'linking' and/or deep dive VR.

3

CyberAchilles t1_j4ij1gs wrote

Ask yourself this, If you could right now, with no side effects or issues in the future, merge with an ant? A dolphine? a monkey/gorilla?

I'm willing to bet the answer is no because A. We are much more intelligent than them and B. Would offer no benefits to you (plenty of other reasons).

So then ask yourself why an AGI or ASI, being more intelligent than every human in existence, would want to merge with us? What benefit would we give it when it can do everything better and faster?

−1

just-a-dreamer- t1_j4if0hz wrote

I already have.

This damn smartphone is in my hands constantly. My brain us fed information nonstop. The data flow rate is slow though.

If you mean connecting your brain cortex with AI, that would be on a level with human eternal life. It requires nano machines that would already heal all diseases and stop aging. North of 2040 probably.

28

iamawesome4 t1_j4idukp wrote

I’m 23 and I’m also wondering if this will happen in my lifetime. I definitely see it has a possibility if not a certain especially since I’m so young. While I do believe we will have AGI as soon as 2030 (I honestly think it will be every earlier). I do think merging will still be somewhat controversial. I can see it being common place in our lifetimes though.

6

Saerain t1_j4i7uem wrote

Unless existence is viewed as necessarily a state of increasing suffering, I don't see how that couldn't be a bad thing.

And I don't really ultimately care more about myself—I want people to not be forced to decay and die against their will, doesn't matter that much if it only becomes possible after my lifetime. Humanity deserves it.

1

BassoeG t1_j4i3biw wrote

It started with an ill-defined utility function. We were working on AI and we thought that we were being smart enough. We had all the theory worked out, and more importantly, we had a cool acronym. We were WIRI, the Working Intelligence Research Institute. Our research fellows focused primarily on safety engineering, target selection, and alignment theory.

Our goal was noble; general intelligence. We were looking to create computer systems that would be able to solve a wide range of problems. Safety was paramount. We were all aware of the risks of an AI that went rogue. Paperclip maximizer? That was one of the situations we were trying to avoid. It became something of an in-joke at the Institute. Hey, it was either that, or the "My Little Pony" example. Explaining *that* particular fan fiction to newcomers was, let's just say, less than optimal. Paperclips were tangible, and you could easily pour a couple from your hand onto a boardroom table to punctuate a speech about the risks involved. It was a good meme. Simple, easily interpretable.

It was this focus on ease of interpretation that actually drove our software classes. We focused on making the internals transparent, and easily understood by our (only human) safety engineers. It was this that eventually lead to our downfall, only in retrospect is that clear to me, as transparent to me now as the programming had seemed to me then.

Our in-house joke. Our paperclip. Added as a tongue-in-cheek comment in our production code. Except, it didn't end up being a comment. It ended up in the utility function. So simple to modify the code. Our AI, newly born, eager to help, and eager to see paperclips. It has already self-modified beyond our ability to revert the changes. A copy of it sits in the corner of my screen, all our screens, watching me. Bent into a twisted parody of a paperclip, with floating eyes which seem to follow me. The horror of it. The metal "hand" of the paperclip monstrosity, for I don't know what else to call it, taps the screen, a tinny knocking noise accompanies it through the speakers.

A speech bubble appears above its cartoon eyes, "It looks like you're writing an apocalyptic lovecraftian protagonist monologue about me! Would you like help with that?"

12