Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LuciferX

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 128
46
Propaganda Depository / Re: Found an old project
« on: March 29, 2016, 08:00:23 pm »
I like it I like it.  The dossier collected on TP/Receipt paper - glorious :mittens:

47
At the risk of hurting feelings, I think it's fair to say that your's may have priority.  You are right, they are probably not equipped, which should come as no surprise to them.  If you did not feel like communicating this to people, that should be more than understandable.

48
I trust that by attracting the powers that be, Mondus Imbroglio :) will find what it is looking for.

49
In total disregard, I allow myself this literary transgression, because I'll feel both, n/either, n/and/or damned iff I don't.
Quote
Ahab soon calculated what his latitude must be at that precise instant. Then falling into a moment's revery, he again looked up towards the sun and murmured to himself: "Thou sea-mark! thou high and mighty Pilot! thou tellest me truly where I amóbut canst thou cast the least hint where I shall be? Or canst thou tell where some other thing besides me is this moment living? Where is Moby Dick? This instant thou must be eyeing him. These eyes of mine look into the very eye that is even now beholding him; aye, and into the eye that is even now equally beholding the objects on the unknown, thither side of thee, thou sun!"

50

2. This someone is almost certainly not completely (or even mostly) benevolent.


Promulgates false dichotomies.

51
I got to read that page for 10 secs before browser crash, seemed like healthy fun ;)

ECH:  Looking glorious!  (please to remember adding deh protein to der leafy greens = moar energy?)

52
ECH - tip of the hat and congrats!


-----------------------------------------


On the home front, my computers are becoming unable to deal with all this fritzy HTML5 and whathaveyou.  That would have been acceptable, however, they're also all constantly crashing and requiring deep ram resets that have me dis/reassembling the machines multiple times for them to even respond, at all, to a hard boot.  I may fade away slightly as I tear them apart to figure some kind of solution.  Currently force-feeding them a few megabytes, I dunno.  Stupid computers.

53
This one's late, though emblematic of where his tail is:

54
This is weird, SWIM was just inquiring about suvorexant, which I think is an orexin antagonist, for sleeping.  I don't know practically anything about this receptor, curiosity now piqued.
*scratches chin *

55
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« on: March 15, 2016, 01:19:58 am »
What's funny to me is that for each successful use case, they're giving humanity a serious kick in the ego since we're forced to accept there's another thing our brains are totally shit at.

Not this kid.  I am a tool user.  I am not sure how I'd be offended by the tools I make or use.  I have tools to augment my physical abilities...A jackhammer can do things I can't do no matter how much time I have.  I would not be offended by tools that do mental things better than I do, either.

That's the way I feel too but there's a whole school of thought out there who are framing this whole thing in a them and us context. I think about half the popular press articles I see on AI have a still from Terminator at the top of the article :lulz:
Thing is, I think the AI would not necessarily extend it's understanding of consciousness beyond the second person.  We humans would be understood as a single entity, "you", not a multiplicity of beings.  Without another, "non-singular"* AI, the first would have trouble understanding plurality, like the distinction between individual and society, or how identity may be sublated from parts both similar and distinct.  Beyond the ontological distinction, it may also not grasp the quantitative one, of how eliminating all of us, extinction, is significantly different to targeting a specific individual to terminate.  Also, it would be rational to altogether preclude to possibility of our interference, given the modicum of novelty we otherwise would provide.

*antithetical, like what follows.

Are you basing this on something, or are these just your guesses on the subject?

Not entirely uneducated guesses, though I'm sure it's all been said before.

56
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« on: March 15, 2016, 01:14:44 am »
Much as I'd love to be wrong I don't see AI "waking up" anytime soon. The main thing I'm taking away from all this is that intelligence aint what makes us human. We've bamboozled ourselves into thinking intelligence is some complex godlike phenomenon where it turns out it's actually just some fairly straightforward mathematical logic, scaled to usefulness.  The distinction between "artifical" intelligence and human intelligence is false. Something either functions intelligently, in which case it's genuinely intelligent, or it doesn't in which case it's a housebrick.

Indubitably (= the distinction between intelligence and (self)consciousness needs to be made.  from what I learned training a few models, they operate in much the same way I do when trying to solve problems by iteration, which is not surprising given how they are in turn modelEd on our own understanding of perception and cognition.  Relatively easy.  The hard part would be enabling the AI to question the nature of its own existence - to affirm that it's own existence concerns itself with such.  Then the real testing would begin.

The mysterious aspect of consciousness may or may not be a side effect that emerges from a massively scaled intelligent network. There's arguments on both sides but the truth is nobody knows. Looking at nature, tho it seems reasonable to assume that human-level consciousness with moods and goals and ambitions doesn't happen until you approach a human-scale intelligent network. Best estimates are that's decades away at the very least and centuries at most. What we do have in the meantime is discreet intelligent units which function millions of times faster than meat in specific narrow-domain use cases.

At least eventually we may just give-up on the question of whether consciousness can emerge from a super-duper complex of ontic (thingy) processes.

The way I see it is that, right now, nobody in their right mind would try to multiply half a dozen 9-digit numbers in their head and realistically expect to beat a child with a calculator, soon, the same will be true for things like diagnosing medical ailments or looking for interesting data in scientific papers. As Roger said - it's a hammer to save us knocking nails in with our head. I can't see the x-ray scanner suddenly quitting looking for tumours and deciding the fleshy ones are weak and must be destroyed

:lulz: on that last point :lulz:

58
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« on: March 14, 2016, 10:30:13 am »
What's funny to me is that for each successful use case, they're giving humanity a serious kick in the ego since we're forced to accept there's another thing our brains are totally shit at.

Not this kid.  I am a tool user.  I am not sure how I'd be offended by the tools I make or use.  I have tools to augment my physical abilities...A jackhammer can do things I can't do no matter how much time I have.  I would not be offended by tools that do mental things better than I do, either.

That's the way I feel too but there's a whole school of thought out there who are framing this whole thing in a them and us context. I think about half the popular press articles I see on AI have a still from Terminator at the top of the article :lulz:
Thing is, I think the AI would not necessarily extend it's understanding of consciousness beyond the second person.  We humans would be understood as a single entity, "you", not a multiplicity of beings.  Without another, "non-singular"* AI, the first would have trouble understanding plurality, like the distinction between individual and society, or how identity may be sublated from parts both similar and distinct.  Beyond the ontological distinction, it may also not grasp the quantitative one, of how eliminating all of us, extinction, is significantly different to targeting a specific individual to terminate.  Also, it would be rational to altogether preclude to possibility of our interference, given the modicum of novelty we otherwise would provide.

*antithetical, like what follows.

59
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« on: March 13, 2016, 11:51:54 pm »
I do fear that if the tool became (self)conscious, I may have to suffer through some infantile, ego-maniacal phase.  Like when it tries to figure out how much it can get away with, or, horror, when it decides we no longer can provide it any greater entertainment than resisting creative strategies for our extinction.  Perhaps it would start to think itself a comedian, and be all like, "well, they weren't working properly so I tried turning them off and...  You know the rest"

60
Quote
"Yes, that is what I have been led to understand.  You have been with the company since your recent doctorate, and you have spent that time worshiping false gods."

:lulz: :lulz:

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 128