Lol that is complete nonsense, without factual proof. This is coming from a guy who think free market is the most efficient system, which does not take social economics or conscious into effect. Free market is good for max profit and does not always work the best for the world. Maybe it's 80% of max profit or around that range that is most efficient system. Not ruining our world with overconsumption is good, just because you can get max profit by producing more and consuming more but it will have net damage on the earth which is not ideal. People are not aware of Mother Earth today. Like how we are consuming seafood and resources without thinking for the future. Emotions of course, we are humans we are given emotions for a reason.
We human think more is better, it is not. Excess is bad for the soul.
A lot of people would drive 5 minutes than bike 10 minutes, world is mess up.
No thought for the health of this world, only their bottom line.

I imagine Creativity and consciousness is of quantum thinking so this is where we disagree.

There are two major possibilities:

- The brain is an organic computer and all of its outputs are the result are based in physics, however impressively emergent

- There is something spooky going on and consciousness involves more than is captured in hardware.

The evidence for the first view is overwhelming. The evidence for the second view is non existent.

If the first view is true, then we will build human equivalent brains in less than two generations. Human dexterity and then beyond in one generation. Except both the brains and the bodies will be far faster and far more extensible and far more compacted. It follows than humans will become first like dogs and the like ants to the AI we'll spawn - mindless automatons little different to rocks, from their perspective.

It's a sobering view, and morons will rage against it, but it's probably correct. What this means for the future of humanity, I don't know, but we'll all be replaceable and eventually become incompetent and unemployable in the long run. Machine-mind systems will prolong it somewhat.

But once fully immersive, interactive virtual reality is up, who would want to live in reality anyway?

Creativity is certainly not a quantum phenomena. You can trace its path pretty easily for most types. Most stuff that the cucks laud as creativity and expressive of emotion or truth is formulaic - put that with this, using this style. Irony, wit, humor, creativity, spirituality, the stimulation of emotions, controlling people and winning their interest and loyalty, are all formulaic creations to a sufficient intelligence.

There's a lot of insight to be gleaned from the experience of sociopaths, narcissistic manipulators, those with dulled emotions, brain damage, etc.

Jesus Christ that's depressing

It would be if it was anything more than the mindless outpourings of a low brow Asperger's sufferer who fails to understand that art and the intention behind it can't be boiled down to an algorithm.

The rest of it he's probably right about.

It's also mostly correct. I think that he's premature in that we don't know certain things such as what consciousness is despite his clear preference for the conventional view. But it doesn't matter anyway bec the trajectory, which seems clear to me, leads to the building of machines that can decipher what ingredients are contained in the greatest human accomplishments and improve on them. There's no reason to think that a machine won't someday write best selling novels or compose symphonies, for example.

If we can create such machines, and I see no reason why we can't, we become irrelevant w/ all of the consequences that human nature will guaranty to come down on us.

I just love that you feel you have some special insight about art. The mark of the rolled gold tosser. Most ironic of all is that what you wrote is an Aspie response. The truth is that you're so uneducated that you're incapable of even understanding the issues at play, or early insights we've gleaned into creativity from watching AI produce things that we call creative and having intention, purely from algorithmic learning. Way smarter people than you have been floored by the way their assumptions are challenged. We read intentions and meaning and creativity in things that aren't actually there.

You're so philosophically daft and so unaware of how art is produced that you don't realize that the intention behind the art is just formulaic and algorithmic, often an experimental accident of learned technique and particular emotions, albeit at a level beyond what your non-art-appreciating mind can understand, so you see it as meaningful magic.

If human can create Ai super intelligent, why not make itself a super humans to overcome AI? Ironman or similar, I mean you guys are underestimating our abilities and overestimating AI.

Human will create the machine learning and hardware that creates AI. We can't create it ourselves. For example, no one programmed the machine that beat humans at a computer game, or Go. They set wide parameters and weights on the algorithms, then it learnt itself.

But the answer is, biological limitations. The cell is incredibly slow to change, to transmit chemicals (which is how thoughts propagate), and so on. We're probably several orders of magnitude in size and 6+ orders of magnitude in speed slower than what's possible for the same size in a perfectly designed processing unit, rather than one hacked together from multi-purpose cells.

The best out for humans is machine/mind interfaces, that help us keep up. This will buy more years, but eventually even these will be obsolete.
Well, it was written in a depressing way, but it won't be. From a personal perspective, assuming we're not controlled or exterminated, it's going to be an amazing time. We'll become like Gods, able to live in real-as-life virtual worlds, experience whatever we choose, be challenged and taught, experience deeply rich meaningful lives.

Will it be powerful enough to turn jalfrezi into a normal human being? THAT magical?

I really disagree with these statements. Almost all of the truly great artists of the world have been colossal geniuses. There may be an outlier here or there, like maybe one guy who was really dumb accidentally took a phenomenal photograph, or maybe Nabokov couldn't do partial differentials in his head, but in general — from my research — all of the undeniably great artists were several standard deviations above the norm in intelligence.

+1 to TS. Humans are organic algorithms. One day we'll be completely outdated when machines are exponentially smarter than us in every single way, just how we're currently far smarter than plankton.

This is where we different again, I believe humans have unlimited possiblities that we are not aware of but as time goes on people will start to realize their power. 200 years ago no one would have thought of airplanes or whatever techonogly that wasn't created but you just can not predict techonogly or gives us limits. People's biological cells can be upgraded or improve. Yes it might be weak and slow right now but for the future can you be certain it stays the same?

As cliche as it sounds only constant is change. I am just way more optimistic than you fear mongers about AI

I'd be happy if they can invent a pill to end this hair loss I got going on. **** the robots.

TS is right. The human brain doesn't double it's computing power every year, far, far from it, and w/e enhancements we make will be slowed down by the wet-work whereas machines don't have this limitation. The machines are going to go whizzing by.

However, being God in my own Universe seems nice so that's a plus.

Their information bank will be so vast that they'd be able to tap into every corner of the human psyche and optimize an emo punk song so dark and disturbed it could bring a grown man to weep.


I agree everything that humans can do can be broken down sufficiently for a computer to do. But why would they do it? Are you suggesting it's an inevitability that inept programmers will toy with giving it "purpose" causing it to break free of the shackles of it's creators? That's a lot more than a couple of generations away and not even close to what it would take for something as simple as defining artistic merit. IIRC you're not even confident in the tech for driver-less cars in the near future.

If we're using IQ as a metric, some of the most primitive computers in existence could smoke the greatest geniuses of all time at solving problems with clearly defined parameters.

70iq child is pretty 'tarded though if they grew up in a modern western home. Compare it to someone in the 100-110 range who has an interest in writing music, and I'd say that kid would be favored to create something that cracks the top 100 in any genre, and in pursuit of that goal their iq would probably creep up a bit beyond the highly coveted "gifted" threshold.

If I were running a movie studio I'd be the first in line to buy the sound-track software that's bound to show up.

I dunno about all this. Last robot girl I was with, the battery ran out before I was done. Darn "D" cells don't last much.

This thread is giving me anxiety. Am I the only one?

I'm 41 and I just don't see these changes happening by the time I'm about to die, unless we find something relatively soon that is an intelligence multiplier in humans. I would think the barrier is that we don't really understand how the human brain works so we can't program/create a better artificial brain yet.

I like the variety of the human species. As much as I love my advantages (and there aren't many) my faults (which are a lot) help keep things in perspective and make me value my accomplishments. It's like the lottery conversation. What fun is it if you have all the resources? Is buying your mother a new house even satisfying if you have 50 billion dollars? Of course not. Is anything at all fun if you are the God of your own world? I would guess probably not.

I'm just rambling, I guess. I'm deeply troubled by all this, though. Maybe I'll give it more thought tomorrow when I'm more sober.

Being 41 means (barring misfortune) that you will see at least a part of the catastrophe and likely a significant one. I ask one thing: remember that you didn't believe me.

I'm going to ask you politely not to refer to my son as "lame." I have no quibble w your other objective and accurate observations (I blame the sugar intake on his mother).

But he paints like Beethoven.

To 41 and balding: Dnegs gets flack for lots of things, but whatever he has done to rectify his hair issues, seemed to have worked. My memory is telling me he has reduced his tics, increased eye contact, and played better poker since fixing his hair. I guess that makes sense for someone who is often on camera and is a poker celebrity.

What if it doesn't happen? This is an emotional freeroll for you, not to mention one man's (or thing's) catastrophe is another man's (or thing's) revolution :P

Sorry I really didn't mean to offend anyone

It's not going to work. Humans are used to being on top and they won't be for much longer.

This isn't Terminator 2. The robots are not taking over.

Not balding, just going thin-ish. Thanks.

Isn't it more likely the machines will create the next keeping up the kardashians?

You just HAD to add to the horror!