The humanoid robot in Klara and the sun is a bit like that. It spends alot of time interacting and learning from a (sick) child, and the goal is that thw robot takes over if the kid dies.

How could it be that information cannot he destroyed? In the same way energy cannot? I don’t understand what mechanism would apply such a permanent, intangible property to information.

Surely the information is in our brains, the wiring between neurons that happens through the course of our life creates our subjective consciousness. When we die, unless the brain is preserved, we rot and decay. If one is cremated by fire or consumed by worms and bacteria, surely the information once contained within them is obliterated in its entirety or torn into so many parts that it’d be impossible recreate.

Give me a break. You and similar ones are hust another iteration of doom sayers of christians eschatologists, saying the return of Jesus is upon us. There were people saying this since the beginnig of time, so no chance anything will happen now

While I have also been dwelling on such thoughts lately and have a whole list of possibilities:

If we assume that only humans are conscious (maybe a big ask, but if not then "just being human at all" is so unlikely that "being one of the last humans" is trivial), and assume that we are among the last humans, then your odds are indeed unlikely: about one in ten.

There are a lot of humans right now, compared to throughout human history.

Million dollar ideas are worth pennies. Don't mean shit until its actually made and sold

What part did I get wrong exactly? I don't mean it is being devious, just that is doesn't distinguish between repeating training data nearly verbatim, or generating novel sentences.

IDK where you get your information from, but I agree with the title. There's no clear reason why dolphins or squids could not have evolved further. The size of the universe is not that well understood IMO. The best theory is that quickly after the big bang an inflation happened and the universe has been expanding at lower rate ever since. But apparently there's recent evidence that this is unlikely.

There might be evidence of alien intelligent life, but we might be not smart or lucky enough to find it. It's a big universe after all. I don't understand what you are trying to say with quantum entanglement. If you mean that we can communicate with it, I'm not sure that would work.

You can't have literal infinite density. At least theoretically. The laws of physics break down at this point. On the quantum scale when the Planck constant h becomes meaningful single photons have enough energy to be disruptive. The energy of a photon is h * f. When photons are the equivalent of cannon balls, observing is the same as bombardment. There's nothing mystical behind that.

Photons have no mass, but they have energy as I said above. They can't move at infinite speed because if you think about it that's not movement. They would be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Also v = d/t. You can make v infinite by letting d approach infinity or t approach zero. Kinetic energy is not free. The energy of photons is proportional to the Planck constant, so it's limited. Also because of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, time has a minimum bound and zero duration is meaningless.

TLDR; reality is bizarre, but some of your information needs checking.

We're so lucky to experience something that is yet to happen.

Yeah, exactly this. It doesn’t necessarily need to be a general intelligence. The question then is; are any of the current AI models better than humans at the specific skills required to make AIs?

I don’t know the answer. I suspect not, but it feels like we’re not too far away. Current models seem to have achieved a kind of ‘creativity’ and can be linked with other systems to shore up their deficiencies (such as maths). Maybe if one of the larger models was trained specifically to work on AI design… although how would that look? Feed an LLM lots of academic papers paired with real world implementations?

I’d be interested to see what the big labs have cooking behind the scenes.

I'm baffled neurosymbolic hasn't been attempted with a huge budget like OpenAI. You've got these two fields, with one you see it can work really precisely but breaks down at fuzziness, scaling and going beyond the rules. With the other you get almost exactly the opposites.

It seems like such a no brainer to make a huge effort trying to combine these in large ways...

Modeling is going to be even more tough. My cousin was pretty attractive back in the mid-2000s, and even she had problems being a model.

Yet

[deleted]

This is not how it's working.

Seeing him play Little Wing live would truly be a transcendental experience.

Me and technology:

1: Videogame system where you wrap wires around screws to hook it up. The game collection was a ripoff of what was popular at the time, simulated paddles knocking a ball back and forth. All the games on the system worked that way.

2: Room full of people gushing out loud over the advancements of Mario Bros 2. Health points, improvised weapons everywhere, chose your character and they actually play different!

3: Super Nintendo and Playstation, dreams of being a game developer.

4: "What harm is a little bit of procrastination going to do?"

5: "Why is the talking DOS better at stuff than I am?"

I would like to have heard Hendrix for the first time in 1967. Nope. Born too late. Maybe we can bring him back. Don’t know what I’m writing about here.

World's coolest chatbot - robotic human - singularity.

Three things that look exactly the same to people who post new threads without reading any old ones.

Us to program socialism

Depends on if you live in a star trek society or a dystopian hell society I would rather be a boomer born in the 50’s who died in 2012

I have no doubt that AI, and advanced robotics, will obsolete 98%+ of human jobs in the next 50 years, and then the rest in the following decades.

[removed]

Evolution showed there aren’t really different pathways to higher intelligence. Both vertebrate and invertebrates lead to high intelligence and devolution is hard or impossible, so the evolutionary brain would have been extremely lucky to get in the right direction two times just by luck and both seem to be basically the same. This leads me to believe there is only one way which can be build upon.

I feel rapid AI development kinda explains the fermi paradox though: why bother with mega structures or whatever when you can turn a planet into computronium and explore far wilder artificial worlds forever?

Is a tree "Lucky" to experience a forest fire?

"Luck" doesn't mean anything.

Yes, we're experiencing the singularity, and we'll be the only ones on earth to have ever experience it being born. Like we have been the only ones seeing the internet appear.

But some men before us were the first to experience fire. Some were the first to write. Were they "Lucky"? No, because it makes no sense.

After us, plenty of things will happen, and indeed the very status of what it means to be alive, to be human, to feel, to eat, to think, to sleep.... will be drastically different. But there will most likely be humans during the next millions of years. They will experience things you cannot even imagine. Feel emotions we don't even have words for. And go through groundbreaking transformations even more incredible than the singularity.

Will they be "Lucky"? No. Because it makes no sense.

Moreover, after the singularity (which is about to happen), we won't be the only (that we know of) sentient beings on this planet, and those new beings will also devellop and go through incredibly many steps of evolution. They will discover incredible concepts and invent new way of thinking, creating, and experiencing reality. They will see change and revolutions.

Will they be "Lucky"?

No. It will simply happen. As everything does.