Return to

Synthetic intelligence — let's be real


I think ol’ Chomsky might have a few different ideas today. Alot has happened since 2013:) Namely, advances in deep learning, or machine learning. Algorithyms that allow the program to change it’s own programming. I do see where he was right about so much, especially when it comes to “brute-force” learning methods, that is still a thing. But it is changing, and even brute-forcing is getting faster.
I think the “singularity”, or a program suddenly developing sentience, will not be an event, but rather, a fuzzy development over time. And even then, everyone will argue if it was really achieved or not. We could all equally argue if we humans are even sentient or not.


This was a funny and informative quick video.


Yes. The neural lace has been around for some time now. So far this (and interfaces like it) appear to hold the greatest chance of success in bringing actual, conscious, cognition to the machine. I mean, we’re already there in a way — it just isn’t hard wired. The thing about our current status is that we do have the option to exercise complete shutdown and disconnect from this net. In the case with neural lace (and other hardware interfaces of this nature) I don’t know if we would have the option of completely disconnecting or exercising our illusion of “free will” by “hitting the switch”. I don’t mean to boast my extensive tin foil hat collection either but this does seem to be the quick and dirty way to bring cognition to the machine. Definitely Borg in every respect.


As much as I respect Chomsky I don’t always agree with him. Chomsky is a word wizard but the math is proving him wrong. One thing he is good at is mastering semantics but again, as I stated earlier, we are banging our heads on Babylon. Until we can all agree on what a thing is and our terminology matches the imagery and dare I say it — philosophy? of the terms we use to approach the subject material at hand we will consistently be drumming up these very creative and very non-compatible constructs. Someone else more eloquently pointed out the fact that even though flight was considered an impossibility we still figured out how to fly — without fully comprehending the dynamics of flight, without fully learning all the mechanics involved, without fully grasping every thing there was to know about gravity etc. Humankind flies today and humankind still crashes and burns. Noam is a great spin doctor but he’s certainly no final authority.


:::sigh::: I think I need more ram :frowning:


The leactors I have listened too say that the bodies nerves are maps on the outside of the brain in different areas and over time can be mapped. The brain can even remap then.

But this still is so basic and even harmful to mess with on lessor mammals

I know cutting off monkey limbs and grafting artificial limbs is happening.

We have know idea about biology and more about electronics replacing organic.

We will make monstrous electronic machines before we make organic replacements.

I think maybe it will take an AI to crack DNA and building so Electronics to understand us and how we are built.


Have you noticed any similarities between graphene and grey matter?


Graphene is just carbon. Its very creative in how it can be made / shaped.

Grey matter is organic and we are still cave men in understanding it.

Im even more of an idiot reading about what is going on with the tech.


This just happened. Looks like IBM’s AI has taken on debates with people. I can’t find a full video yet, but IBM will probably want to release it on their youtube channel soon.


As a society, we are so insane. I’ve seen the monkey’s too. Surely we could just wait for the non-invasive tech to ripen without resorting to mangling our pets:)
I also am looking forward to a time where AI can work out the finer details of human anatomy and function that still elude us today. There are alot of possibilities for changing lives for the better. But I am trapped in hopefullness at the same time as being a pessimist. The people ushering in this new AI era don’t want us to get better, they want us to be a commodity. We have already started shifting from being consumers, to being the product of consumption with our data an online attention.


Perhaps this will provide some clarity…

Edit: it’s relevant to the discussion because I believe this discussion is leaning toward the ‘invisible world’ of theoretical singularity. Most of the AI today from my research is not reproducible, so we’re still unsure how to make good bots. That would necessarily lead to a reduction; that the termed ‘AI’ is more a network of plausible inference (Pearl). CGP Grey had a good video overview on that topic.


In the words of the legendary inventor Nikola Tesla,

“One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”


I give up at this.

The Problem with Thinking
As far as we know, humans are the only animal that can think about thinking. That can imagine what is and what is not and question it with awareness.

Dogs, Cats, Crows even Octopus think about thinking. We just can’t prove it. They scheme. We are not special snowflakes.


If you can’t prove it then why point it out


Thinking deeply is indeed one of the things that separates us from most other species we know of. One feature that is thought to be unique to the human brain by neurologists, is the ability to daydream while performing other tasks.

This has a profound function to our survival over many other species. We can be thinking about where to find our next meal while preparing weapons to obtain that meal. Multi-tasking.


um… to make 5 characters to reply


I’m with Klingon00 on this one.


I’ve seen many pets dream. It’s our manafessistual lack of onganics that leads to these only humans daydream. I know pets and lesser animals see the possibilities it is way smaller than ours. I bet they think should I fuck that cow…The bull ruling them is getting old…I could take him…YER I want to fuck that cow…Lets do this.


I think I see what you’re getting at now, ha. Very funny. But there’s a richer point to the article that I think you’re missing by dismissing it due to one statement you can willfully suspend in disbelief if you just read on…


The trap that most of us fall into is one in which we impose too much of the invisible world onto the real, tangible world. The result of this is that we add needless context and depth that detracts from the clarity provided by the senses we use to paint the part of reality in which we commonly live.

There is no invisible world ?

Hay Im old and broken.