3 ms·

It's also fictional. So yes, if you make up something that can't be contained, then it won't be containable. Discussions like this paper are philosophy, not sci

by jstx1 5y ago

It's also fictional. So yes, if you make up something that can't be contained, then it won't be containable. Discussions like this paper are philosophy, not science, and they often give the wrong impression to people who aren't up-to-date with the current state of the field.

deeviant 5y ago
Philosopher's should be legally barred from talking about AI. You would think after 80 years or so of talking about AI, at least one philosopher would have accidentally gotten something right about AI, but sadly that has yet to happen. With that out of the way, it is self evident that a super intelligent AI, should one be developed, will likely cause an exponential increase in knowledge and technology and this would likely be an extremely destabilizing event in human history. The truth is the super intelligence doesn't have to go all terminator to likely kill off humanity as I could not possibly see us responsibly navigating a singularity event as a species.
- eptcyka 5y ago
  Indeed humans are perfectly capable of deatroying their own species wiylthout the help of any other sentient entities.
- kordlessagain 5y ago
  I think idiots should be legally barred from posting drivel to social media. With that out of the way, the study and practice of Philosophy was, until the 19th century, the means by which many scientific discoveries or theories were made, including those for electricity, magnetism and gravity.
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    Indeed; what we call "science" was called Natural Philosophy and was one of the major branches. But times have changed.
  - deeviant 5y ago
    Yes, I do realize that philosophy claims dominion of all human thought, but that is fantasy. For thousands of years, humans armed with philosophy made a snail's progress in the natural understanding of our world. Then science came about and it was like a mini-singularity. It was not philosophy that created science, it was the utter failure of philosophy to describe the natural world around us that created the right conditions for the scientific method to be developed, and it so happens the scientific method is wholly incompatible with philosophy. Philosophy's one chance to be relevant to the understanding of the natural world ended with the death of logical positivism, aka that branch of philosophy that thought it ought to try to actually verifiably prove it's claims. Philosophers threw logical positivism away when they realized that philosophy of any kind couldn't actually prove anything about the world around us and instead of realizing that the entire field of formal philosophy is about as useful as screen door on a submarine, they sweeped logical positivism under the rug and agreed it was all a very bad idea(TM).
- dTal 5y ago
  Philosopher's what? There's no noun.
taaha47 5y ago
I agree, take a thousand brain theory book for instance, the author argues that artificial intelligence will never be a threat to humanity, since it won't have motives like we do. Primal motives are hardwired in our brain, they are actually shortcut to our muscles that our intelligence possesses no control over. On the other hand, the neocortext, the part of the brain that is actually intelligent, doesn't exhibit such motives... Creating intelligence that mimics ours is just bad design, artificial intelligence will probably look a lot different than ours.
- ilaksh 5y ago
  The problem is that many people are trying very hard to mimic human intelligence and/or human behavior. It's important to try to educate people about why it's a bad idea to go all the way with that.

by jstx1 5y ago

deeviant 5y ago

Philosopher's should be legally barred from talking about AI. You would think after 80 years or so of talking about AI, at least one philosopher would have accidentally gotten something right about AI, but sadly that has yet to happen. With that out of the way, it is self evident that a super intelligent AI, should one be developed, will likely cause an exponential increase in knowledge and technology and this would likely be an extremely destabilizing event in human history. The truth is the super intelligence doesn't have to go all terminator to likely kill off humanity as I could not possibly see us responsibly navigating a singularity event as a species.

eptcyka 5y ago
Indeed humans are perfectly capable of deatroying their own species wiylthout the help of any other sentient entities.
kordlessagain 5y ago
I think idiots should be legally barred from posting drivel to social media. With that out of the way, the study and practice of Philosophy was, until the 19th century, the means by which many scientific discoveries or theories were made, including those for electricity, magnetism and gravity.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  Indeed; what we call "science" was called Natural Philosophy and was one of the major branches. But times have changed.
- deeviant 5y ago
  Yes, I do realize that philosophy claims dominion of all human thought, but that is fantasy. For thousands of years, humans armed with philosophy made a snail's progress in the natural understanding of our world. Then science came about and it was like a mini-singularity. It was not philosophy that created science, it was the utter failure of philosophy to describe the natural world around us that created the right conditions for the scientific method to be developed, and it so happens the scientific method is wholly incompatible with philosophy. Philosophy's one chance to be relevant to the understanding of the natural world ended with the death of logical positivism, aka that branch of philosophy that thought it ought to try to actually verifiably prove it's claims. Philosophers threw logical positivism away when they realized that philosophy of any kind couldn't actually prove anything about the world around us and instead of realizing that the entire field of formal philosophy is about as useful as screen door on a submarine, they sweeped logical positivism under the rug and agreed it was all a very bad idea(TM).
dTal 5y ago
Philosopher's what? There's no noun.

taaha47 5y ago

I agree, take a thousand brain theory book for instance, the author argues that artificial intelligence will never be a threat to humanity, since it won't have motives like we do. Primal motives are hardwired in our brain, they are actually shortcut to our muscles that our intelligence possesses no control over. On the other hand, the neocortext, the part of the brain that is actually intelligent, doesn't exhibit such motives... Creating intelligence that mimics ours is just bad design, artificial intelligence will probably look a lot different than ours.

ilaksh 5y ago
The problem is that many people are trying very hard to mimic human intelligence and/or human behavior. It's important to try to educate people about why it's a bad idea to go all the way with that.