|
Cingulate posted:We've been making massive gains in AI recently - the most noteworthy developments being multilayer networks running on GPUs. If you scale this linearly (from 2010 to 2015), we're basically looking at superhuman AI within a decade or 3. The question is, does linear hold? We're observing problem solving capability so far does not scale linearly, but more something like exponentially. This actually leaves open the possibility that we can build a near-human level AI running on a massive supercomputer in 2030, but won't be able to build a 2x human level AI with all the world's ressources in 2040 still, not to speak of Skynet-level orders-of-magnitude-beyond-any-humans. What do you mean by "massive gains"? How do you quantify how close an AI is to becoming superhuman (as you pointed out, giving the AI an arbitrary number of extra processors doesn't make it superhuman by itself)? How do you define superhuman?
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 22:54
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It seems perfectly fine to claim different designs for information processing are better or worse at different things.And no design is just usable for everything. Well, the idea is to have a general and very versatile AI that can do everything somewhat worse than specialised AI and then just have it run on a higher-clocked CPU to make it work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:There's no reason to suppose that a "human-level AI" will have emotions or opinions or empathy or ethics. It could have motivations, but those motivations could be utterly alien to us.  please don't tell this to robutt ethicists who are already calling for the protection of
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Considering that AI requires so much computational power to tackle the problem of, say, stairs and even then fucks it up with enough regularity to be practically useless unless, for example, you devote 100% of its effort for it to incredibly slowly tackle the problem. How advanced are the state of the art stair climbing robots anyway (basically how many hundred sensors and negative feedback loops depending on those sensors)? Biologically speaking, climbing stairs isn't just a stereotyped motion but additionally needs to constantly adjust for minor imbalances in the inherently unstable human body as well as minor changes in the flatness and elasticity of the ground and poo poo. Anything that can measure only things like the angle between the femur and tibia and the overall body tilt, but not the forces acting on each segment of the leg and foot would be expected to fail miserably. I won't say no amount of AI can control a robot with dumb legs, but I definitely expect that putting a literal bucketload of cheap stretch sensors and poo poo into the leg makes the job orders of magnitude easier. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I can't say I've ever met anybody like this to tell them. Do they really exist? The mainstream of AI ethics right now seems to be debating how big of a threat to humanity a general intelligence could be, rather than the ethical implications of loving one. Eh. I expect they're probably not actually representative of all AI ethics as a field, but much like the well known loudmouths in other fields they're very busy writing terrible guest articles and being interviewed for news website sci/tech and culture sections to the point where they drown out everything else.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I honestly think "AI" is more of a looks thing than anything meaningful. If you had a truly aware creature but it responded via database queries no one would ever rank it as AI even if it could do literally every single thing a human could but I bet if you stuck a 1990s chatbot in a realistic looking robot with a nice voice you'd have people arguing it deserves rights. People already are.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Industrial scale cloning is becoming a thing, genetically engineered crops are a fact of life rather than a terrifying novelty, We have had a continually manned outpost in orbit for fifteen years. While manned spaceflight has regressed beyond the space station, in terms of probes technology has made a leap forward. Rather than short lived landers there are mobile robotic rovers on Mars, one of which has been operating continuously for over a decade. Dismissing tablets and cellphones like that is a mistake, in the first world almost every individual has easy and cheap access to the sum total of human knowledge. However, because the western middle class is becoming relatively poorer compared to the western upper class, people feel like they are getting the same poo poo as in 1980 except slightly smaller/faster and made in China.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
ShredsYouSay posted:Can't this question best be answered by that great scholarly monograph "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"?  well played
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, but my argument has never been that computers can't generate good or entertaining things. they just can't generate anything with meaning without a human behind them. Define meaning it's a meaningless concept  
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:about what, its work having meaning? well, it would have purpose (to deceive foolish humans into thinking it created a meaningful work) and therefore meaning. Does a screwdriver have meaning?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm getting huffy because it's annoying to argue against people who are misrepresenting your argument. why again did you say i was pretending that meaning was some physical property? If meaning depends solely on the creator and has no physical effect on the product, then it is meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:27
|
|