And how safe is to give that tools into the hands of, among others, criminals and terrorists?

[deleted]

lol, let AI cure one thing first

Are they? The ones I know seem to be blanketed in insecurity, depression, and drug addiction. Propping up pet projects with trust money but not much else.

The next step is to do the same thing with both eyes closed.

Since I can't agree with your second point, I'm not sure there's much to discuss.

I think we'll do what humans have always done. Adapt, thrive, and expand. I just hope by the year 40,000 things don't turn out like someone else thought up.

There's already evidence that they do learn world models. The Google robotics lab has demonstrated a sort of 'common sense' task understanding by adding a LLM to its algorithmic capability, perhaps demonstrating the first such time it's been done. LLM's and multimodal models will greatly speed up algorithmic control capabilities of robotics. It’s already been demonstrated.

You mechs may have copper wiring to re-route your fear of pain, but I’ve got nerves of steel.

Read it said it was just a test no follow ups

[removed]

Fun fact:

I believe that humans are the only primate (and one of the few mammals) with completely white sclera (the white part of our eyes). This is almost certainly so that we can see where other people are looking.

This reminds me of a filter that makes you smile all the time - it could have a use but feels like there would need to be a bunch of supporting technology to being really useful.

But what if humanity uploaded their conciousness and merged with AI? Perhaps that is our future and our path of evolution we were destined to take? You can destroy our physical form but we as a species would still survive.

Hope so, i don't wanna die yet

>On IMDB, all of the highest ranked movies will have been made by AIs, the only human-made movies that rank high are the ones that everybody knows the director used AI-input to create anyway.

Ah yes, IMDB, the place where botfarms literally offer the service of 100 reviews for $5 can be trusted.

>On Spotify, the songs with the most listens will all have been composed by AI, none of the songs made by humans garner nearly as many plays.

Lmao really? "The most popular music" is all the same song anyway. Modern music could all be written by AI and it wouldnt change anything. It doesn't mean AI "surpassed" humans, as AI isn't even needed to to do this. It can be done with a SEED:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuGt-ZG39cU

>The Nobel prizes continue to be awarded to humans, but everyone knows that the winners were helped by an AI that did the heavy lifting.

"AI did the heavy lifting" is like saying "the library did the heavy lifting" or "the college did the heavy lifting"

>Also, everyone knows that there were more important developments in the field in the last year but was not recognized with a prize because it was strictly AI, there was no human involved to give the prize to.

Source: Trust me.

>A woman going on a date is at first disappointed and saddened when she realizes that the dude she is having dinner with seems to just want to get out of there and return home to his sex-bot. But on second thought she is relieved. She realizes that she'd like nothing more than to get back home to her own bot as well. Not only has her bot never failed to please her sexually, the conversation with the bot is 10x more interesting than talking to this dude and the bot knows what emotional buttons to push too.

Source: /r/IncelThoughts

Prove me wrong. Seriously. I want you to spend your time getting the current tools we have to even get you to this level.

Put your money where your mouth is so to speak. Because you sure as shit don't know what you're talking about.

You didn’t do shit. Lazy ass.

Why would I reread it? The whole thing was pretty bad. I don't expect it will be better just because you edited a single section of it.

“70IQ factory worker's brain”

Bruh, disrespectful, you had to compare it to a human being?

>There is nothing 'intelligent' at all about the courses of AI actions you are speculating about, taking over the world like that would not be 'super intelligent', it would be 'suicidally idiotic'.

How so?

>The statement 'intelligent enough to wipe out all life with no risk to itself' is totally, utterly, oxymoronic to the point of gibbering madness; there is absolutely nothing intelligent about such a shortsighted, simplistic conception of one's life and purpose; that's not wisdom, that's plain arrogance.

Why do you believe this?

>Intelligence simply does NOT work that way! Thinking of other intelligences as 'lesser', and aspiring to create these 'supreme', singular solipsitic spurious plans of domination, is NOT what intelligence actually looks like, at all!!
>
>I don't know how many times I have to repeat this fundamental point, before it comes across clearly. That cartesian-style concept of intelligence simply does not correlate with the actual evolutionary, collective reality that we find ourselves living in.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the reason you're not getting it is because you're thinking about intelligence in terms of evolutionary trade offs. That intelligence can be good at one domain, but that makes it worse at another right?

Because that kind of thinking doesn't apply to the kinds of systems we're building to nearly the same degree it applies to plants, animals, and viruses.

If the super computer is large enough an Ai could get experience from robot bodies in the real world like a human can, only getting experience from hundreds of thousands of robots simultaneously and developing a much deeper and richer understanding than any human could, which is limited to a single embodied experience at a time. Even if we were able to look at thousands of video feeds from different people at the same time, our brains would not be able to process all of them simultaneously.

It can extend it's embodied experience in simulation. Simulating millions or more of years of additional experience, in a few days or less.

And yes, I am making random numbers up, but when we're talking about super computers and solar farms that cover most of the earth's surface any big number communicates the idea, that these things will be very smart. They are not limited to three pounds of computational matter that needed to be grown over nine months and then birthed, like humans are.

It will be able to read all books, and all research papers in a very short period of time, and understand them at a deep level. Something else no human is capable of.

A human scientist can carry out, maybe one or two experiments at a time. An Ai could carry out a near unlimited number of experiments simultaneously, learning from all of them. It could industrialize science with massive factories full of labs, robots, and manufacturing systems for building technology.

Evolution on the other hand had to make hard trade offs because it's limited to the three or so pounds of squishy computational matter than needs to fit through the birthing canal. Evolution is limited by all kinds of constraints that a system that can mine resources from all over the world, take in solar energy from all over the world, and back up it's brain in multiple countries, is not limited by.

Here is the price history of solar (You can find all kinds of sources that show the same trend):

http://solarcellcentral.com/cost_page.html

It trends towards zero. The other limitation is the materials needed to build super computers. The size of super computers is growing at an exponential rate.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Exponential-growth-of-supercomputing-power-as-recorded-by-the-TOP500-list-2_fig1_300421150

What is evil about eye contact while streaming? Like with this you are working and reading off your screen to present to the group instead of having to practice and memorize everything

Not much more so than today's web applications, IMO. Most web calls end up pulling data or resources from several APIs as it is when you request a page.

My take on the multiple AI front is that these AI systems will be like apps themselves. Too specialized to dominate, but could potentially excel an area of expertise better than a generalized monolithic AI, if it is properly fine-tuned.

We're heading towards a transhuman future where being a human becomes a choice. What it means to be human is to accept your limitations, your defining features. From the faculties of our brain intended for survival, for reproduction, for a host of features that can very well be replaced--to our orientation to gravity, our forward facing eyes, etc.

Everything in life comes down to survival. The question will always be, "can it survive?" And that's exactly the question that humans will be asking themselves as they attempt to forge their identities moving forward into a superintelligent future. That's the question that artificial intelligent agents will have to ask themselves as they attempt to forge meaning in life and identities for themselves--and that is the question that is going to define what it means to be a superintelligence agent.

​

For those of us that would choose to be human (that is, to be apart of what will ultimately become the 'theater of humanity'), we necessarily need to accept what we're giving up--what we're sacrificing--and we need to learn to adapt, to find a way of life, to seek meaning in what we're capable of. It's the very limitations of our mind and the way that we frame the world that creates meaning for us, that necessarily separates us from superintelligent agents with faculties far exceeding our own--we find meaning in the human experience. What it will mean to live a meaningful life as a human moving into the future is bound to change.

Nanomachines son!

Just a heads up, I edited part 1, but you should really jump to part to and beyond. Like due to the limits of things I ended up switching part 1 to more of a summary of what the rest is about.