[QUOTE=Miskav;28134605]Not necessarily AI, though exponential growth leading to an overhaul of our society and culture, and in turn, our species, is pretty much a given.[/QUOTE]
Exponential growth in how fast a machine can crunch numbers has nothing to do with intelligence at all.
Like I said earlier, if AI was possible you could do it on a 386. It'd be slow as balls, but the capabilities of processors haven't changed at all since then. They're only faster than they used to be, they don't have some magical fairy dust that suddenly makes them capable of doing anything different.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;28134761]Exponential growth in how fast a machine can crunch numbers has nothing to do with intelligence at all.
Like I said earlier, if AI was possible you could do it on a 386. It'd be slow as balls, but the capabilities of processors haven't changed at all since then. They're only faster than they used to be, they don't have some magical fairy dust that suddenly makes them capable of doing anything different.[/QUOTE]
A 386 couldn't do it! We need the sheer power of the processors because there are a lot of things that need to be simulated at once, that all affect each either.
[QUOTE=Andokool12;28133627]People need to stop under-estimating how powerful the human brain is. The amount of power that clump of flesh in your head has is nearly inconceivable to our conscious self. It's just the way we consciously use it that makes it seem so limited.
The brain is fucking light years ahead of computers, [i][b]and don't you forget it, damn it.[/i][/b][/QUOTE]
a light year isn't a measurement of time, [i][b]and don't you forget it, damn it.[/i][/b]
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;28134761]Exponential growth in how fast a machine can crunch numbers has nothing to do with intelligence at all.
Like I said earlier, if AI was possible you could do it on a 386. It'd be slow as balls, but the capabilities of processors haven't changed at all since then. They're only faster than they used to be, they don't have some magical fairy dust that suddenly makes them capable of doing anything different.[/QUOTE]
. . .What retarded research group would put money into designing AI that can't be interacted with or used in any practical way?
That's like saying why didn't people design Rapiers before the advent of metal.
So this is after the year we make contact, right?
[QUOTE=blazingfly;28134787]A 386 couldn't do it! We need the sheer power of the processors because there are a lot of things that need to be simulated at once, that all affect each either.[/QUOTE]
Pft, you're just making excuses. Why wouldn't you just design it to store the relevant data and process everything one at a time? I mean it wouldn't be useful because it would take decades for it to process anything, but I mean if you can do it it's worth putting tens of millions of dollars into it right?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28134875]Pft, you're just making excuses. Why wouldn't you just design it to store the relevant data and process everything one at a time? I mean it wouldn't be useful because it would take decades for it to process anything, but I mean if you can do it it's worth putting tens of millions of dollars into it right?[/QUOTE]
Oh, sorry.
Okay, we technically want AI that doesn't take longer than the age of the universe to answer a question. :v:
[QUOTE=blazingfly;28134787]A 386 couldn't do it! We need the sheer power of the processors because there are a lot of things that need to be simulated at once, that all affect each either.[/QUOTE]
Computers can only crunch numbers, you don't have to do it very fast. Having speed is nice, but not required.
If you're saying that AI takes more than crunching numbers, then computers can't do it at all.
[QUOTE=blazingfly;28134982]Oh, sorry.
Okay, we technically want AI that doesn't take longer than the age of the universe to answer a question. :v:[/QUOTE]
Well if you aren't doing right now if you have to capability of doing it with what you have, then it obviously can't be done.
Tomorrow I plan on disproving the existence of submarines.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;28134278]Jesus Christ. Every cell in your body is getting replaced within a week.
Consciousness is not in the matter. Not even in the matter of the brain. Especially not in the cells.
Consciousness is not in matter.
Consciousness is not in matter, for the love of fuck: Consciousness is the result of the processing of information from one neuron to the other. It is not or in the neurons themselves: It is in the events, not in what carries them.
Even if you uploaded your consciousness to a Silicon/nanomechanical/whatever substrate, it WOULD be you. The matter would be different but the 'flow' if you want to use New Agey terms, would still be the same.[/QUOTE]
Somehow in my mind this sounds like causality then? If the brain is just reacting to the previous firing of neurons, then it's just cause and effect of the entire brain then?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;28135003]Computers can only crunch numbers, you don't have to do it very fast. Having speed is nice, but not required.
If you're saying that AI takes more than crunching numbers, then computers can't do it at all.[/QUOTE]
Well, to quote a friend: "You want something that works like a brain. But it won't be a computer. Guess what you will be building?"
I'm all for trans-humanism, I just never want to get my brain replaced, only upgraded since chances are if I had my personality uploaded to a computerized brain I would die and only a copy of me would exist.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;28135003]Computers can only crunch numbers, you don't have to do it very fast. Having speed is nice, but not required.
If you're saying that AI takes more than crunching numbers, then computers can't do it at all.[/QUOTE]
Point. However, the whole 'is consciousness just numbers' debate has gone on a long time, and we don't have an answer yet. The main goal of AI is to be able to 'simulate intelligence to the degree that it is indistinguishable from a real human' - in which case, does it really have consciousness, or is it just using numbers to generate answers.
Is there even a difference?
[QUOTE=Beafman;28135041]Somehow in my mind this sounds like causality then? If the brain is just reacting to the previous firing of neurons, then it's just cause and effect of the entire brain then?[/QUOTE]
Yeah pretty much.
I was hoping to find out how to live for a 1000 years god dam it
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;28135133]I was hoping to find out how to live for a 1000 years god dam it[/QUOTE]
Only 1000? :smith:
I was hoping to find out how to live for 12.000 years god dam it
I think merging humans and machines will do nothing but destroy the humanity we all know and love, and replace it with something... Different. And not necessarily better.
I prefer being a biological entity. No artifical creation can surpass the amazing mechanism that is the human body.
Do you know how incredible it would be to not have to worry about the limitations of the human body? To not have to worry about disease, parasites, sunburns, blisters, cuts, bruises, broken limbs?
PAIN?
To never have to take another drop of medicine, or another whale-sized pill? To be able to simply walk across the sea floor with only a tank of oxygen for your BRAIN?
To be able to live for as long as you like, and when you eventually live the fulfilling life you wanted, and have done everything you could have ever dreamed of doing, to simply unplug yourself?
Perfection.
[QUOTE=booster;28135458]Step 1 - Live til' 2045.
Step 2 - Live.[/QUOTE]
i dont remember if the article mentioned this or not, but im wondering what the cut off age for this process is. is it possible i could be too old to receive the treatment to make me live longer? what if the process has to start in adolescence?
I am okay with the whole "extending lifespan by artificial means" and the human + machine thing. I certainly would never dream of actually doing it myself however.
Honestly, do you really want to have a long lifespan? Consider your life now and your future. You won't have more time, you will just have "longer" time.
[QUOTE=Andokool12;28133627]People need to stop under-estimating how powerful the human brain is. The amount of power that clump of flesh in your head has is nearly inconceivable to our conscious self. It's just the way we consciously use it that makes it seem so limited.
The brain is fucking light years ahead of computers, [i][b]and don't you forget it, damn it.[/i][/b][/QUOTE]
agreed
I want to live for 1000 years but not much more then that...
[QUOTE=Datsun;28135561]I am okay with the whole "extending lifespan by artificial means" and the human + machine thing. I certainly would never dream of actually doing it myself however.
Honestly, do you really want to have a long lifespan? Consider your life now and your future. You won't have more time, you will just have "longer" time.[/QUOTE]
I'll ask you again when you're dead and I'm alive how you feel being dead and how I feel being alive and maybe we can compare notes.
[QUOTE=Datsun;28135561]I am okay with the whole "extending lifespan by artificial means" and the human + machine thing. I certainly would never dream of actually doing it myself however.
Honestly, do you really want to have a long lifespan? Consider your life now and your future. You won't have more time, you will just have "longer" time.[/QUOTE]
Hell yes I would. You're not the only one who gets longer life, everyone you love too, so why not?
Though our robotics are rather shitty yet, I don't think we will achieve much by 45, but who knows.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28135710]I'll ask you again when you're dead and I'm alive how you feel being dead and how I feel being alive and maybe we can compare notes.[/QUOTE]
Well hopefully in the longer time you have, you can develop better conversational skills.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;28135753]Hell yes I would. You're not the only one who gets longer life, everyone you love too, so why not?
Though our robotics are rather shitty yet, I don't think we will achieve much by 45, but who knows.[/QUOTE]
Actually by 2045 most of my loved ones would be old/dying/dead. Depending on my health, I would never want to be a burden by staying alive either.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
