Human level artificial intelligence (god like) will likely come soon

68 posts / 0 new

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 19:38

Blue Grey Brain

@ Avant Brown

AI is NOT AI as you have defined. There is no such thing as AI. All you have been proselytizing about is very sophisticated computer programs and functions doing nothing more than carrying out programming code humans have written. You cannot demonstrate that AI exists.

Think religiously. You have come here and spewed so much bullshit, you can no longer smell it. And you keep spewing the same bullshit in every last post you make. Can you not think of something else to write besides copying and pasting?

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat. (Translation forthcoming in response to the response to this post.)

rmfr

The thing about Science, is that it holds true regardless of belief.

I'd presented the sources before, and the good thing is, the evidence will persist, whether or not you choose to acknowledge said sources.

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 19:47

(Reply to #32) #33

arakish

You have provided NO sources.

Then provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that these non-existent AI you have proselytized about are truly AI and not just a sophisticated set of programs and functions written by humans.

You have done nothing but proselytize using Wikipedia as you primary source with some other secondary sources that are nothing but blogs.

Quit being a religious nut-job and provide proof. Otherwise, the Five Razors:

Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.
Tin-Man's Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount.

Cognostic's Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back.

And don't make me sic Tin-Man on you.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 07:33

(Reply to #33) #34

Blue Grey Brain

You have provided NO sources.

You have provided NO sources.

Then provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that these non-existent AI you have proselytized about are truly AI and not just a sophisticated set of programs and functions written by humans.

You have done nothing but proselytize using Wikipedia as you primary source with some other secondary sources that are nothing but blogs.

Quit being a religious nut-job and provide proof. Otherwise, the Five Razors:

Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.
Tin-Man's Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount.
Cognostic's Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back.
And don't make me sic Tin-Man on you.

rmfr

You might have used google recently.

Google searches are done through artificial intelligence.

Btw, what do you mean by Ai? I want be clear on your definition, and if I my guess is right, you seem to be arguing based on the layman understanding of the word. Kindly confirm.

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:21

(Reply to #34) #35

arakish

The only definition I have

The only definition I have for AI:

A childish attempt by a barbaric and savage child race to create an intelligence equal to that of its own barbaric and savage and childish intelligence who is still so childish it cannot realize the best it shall create is Simulated Intelligence.

Comprendéz-vous?

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:32

(Reply to #35) #36

Blue Grey Brain

The only definition I have

The only definition I have for AI:

A childish attempt by a barbaric and savage child race to create an intelligence equal to that of its own barbaric and savage and childish intelligence who is still so childish it cannot realize the best it shall create is Simulated Intelligence.

Comprendéz-vous?

rmfr

Do you mean to say biological general intelligence (a clump of atoms in a particular configuration) cannot be replicated with excellent fidelity, in the form of inorganic general intelligence (yet another clump of atoms in a particular order), by what you feel the word simulated means in this scenario?

Side note:: The term Artificial Intelligence can indeed reasonably be used to refer to all types of inorganic learning machines, but specifically when referring to human level Ai, Artificial General Intelligence is usually the term more knowledgeable people on the topic tend to use.

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:39

(Reply to #36) #37

arakish

Still guess you cannot

Still guess you cannot understand and comprehend English. Why ask me: "Do you mean to say biological general intelligence (a clump of atoms in a particular configuration) cannot be replicated with excellent fidelity, in the form of inorganic general intelligence (yet another clump of atoms in a particular order), by what you feel the word simulated means in this scenario?"; this question when I have clearly spelled it out for you. True AI will never be achieved. The best will be Simulated Intelligence.

As said, you are proselytizing to the wrong choir.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 10:06

(Reply to #37) #38

Blue Grey Brain

Still guess you cannot

Still guess you cannot understand and comprehend English. Why ask me: "Do you mean to say biological general intelligence (a clump of atoms in a particular configuration) cannot be replicated with excellent fidelity, in the form of inorganic general intelligence (yet another clump of atoms in a particular order), by what you feel the word simulated means in this scenario?"; this question when I have clearly spelled it out for you. True AI will never be achieved. The best will be Simulated Intelligence.

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.

Please answer my earlier question, if you could, while avoiding irrelevant distractive nonsense-speak, that fails to even classify as Red-herring, although your distractive language is in a similar neighbourhood to Red-Herrings.

Please answer my question below:

Blue Grey Brain's still unanswered question:

Do you mean to say biological general intelligence (a clump of atoms in a particular configuration) cannot be replicated with excellent fidelity, in the form of inorganic general intelligence (yet another clump of atoms in a particular order), by what you feel the word simulated means in this scenario?"

If you simply repeat things along the irrelevant lines of "proselytizing" or "the best is simulated intelligence", I will decline to further interact with you on said matter.

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 10:12

(Reply to #38) #39

arakish

Is that your final answer?

You have provided no evidence for artificial intelligence of ANY kind. All they are are sophisticated machines with encoded instructions programmed by humans.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 10:21

(Reply to #39) #40

arakish

Avant Brown: "If you simply

Avant Brown: "If you simply repeat things along the irrelevant lines of "proselytizing" or "the best is simulated intelligence", I will decline to further interact with you on said matter."

And you said the same thing to Meepwned. Yet you are still responding to his posts...

Ok then, how about a further elaboration of that difinition.

A childish attempt by a barbaric and savage child race to create an intelligence equal to that of its own barbaric and savage and childish intelligence who is still so childish it cannot realize the best it shall create is Simulated Intelligence; yet, it is worshipped as a god by certain people who proselytize about this new god, and who lack the mental faculties for critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought.

Good enough yet?

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:23

(Reply to #40) #41

arakish

And you are wrong about

And you are wrong about google's artificial intelligence. It is still nothing more than a sophisticated computer program which runs functions and algorithms utilizing a database storage system.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:35

(Reply to #41) #42

Blue Grey Brain

And you are wrong about

And you are wrong about google's artificial intelligence. It is still nothing more than a sophisticated computer program which runs functions and algorithms utilizing a database storage system.

rmfr

See my quote below:

Blue Grey Brain's words:

Side note:: The term Artificial Intelligence can indeed reasonably be used to refer to all types of inorganic learning machines, but specifically when referring to human level Ai, Artificial General Intelligence is usually the term more knowledgeable people on the topic tend to use.

What this means is that indeed, Google utilizes Ai to organize search. data

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:44

(Reply to #42) #43

arakish

Yet it still uses pre

Yet it still uses pre-programmed functions and algorithms WRITTEN by humans. It uses these with a set of criteria to sort the data. It is not True AI no matter what any persons says, no matter their expertise in the field. It is not INTELLIGENT. It is simply a machine following orders given to it by HUMANS.

Keep proselytizing all you want. You shall only the same answer.

And as said, just like I say to other religious proselytizers, "I do not believe you."

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

Have you yet figured out what this means?

Translation forthcoming.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 10:01

(Reply to #43) #44

Blue Grey Brain

Yet it still uses pre

Yet it still uses pre-programmed functions and algorithms WRITTEN by humans. It uses these with a set of criteria to sort the data. It is not True AI no matter what any persons says, no matter their expertise in the field. It is not INTELLIGENT. It is simply a machine following orders given to it by HUMANS.

Why do you think the smart algorithms are called "learning" algorithms?

See: Wikipedia/Machine Learning

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 10:14

(Reply to #44) #45

arakish

Because they do not learn.

Because they do not learn. They are just a whole boatload of algorithms with one accessing others which in turn access others, and so on. It is nothing more that string of commands that the computer will follow. It does not THINK or LEARN.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 10:54

(Reply to #45) #46

Blue Grey Brain

Because they do not learn.

Because they do not learn. They are just a whole boatload of algorithms with one accessing others which in turn access others, and so on. It is nothing more that string of commands that the computer will follow. It does not THINK or LEARN.

rmfr

Citation needed.

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 11:02

(Reply to #46) #47

arakish

Don't need one. No one has

Don't need one. No one has shown a computer program capable of learning. Until they do, I do not need a citation.

Computers are machines and do nothing except what they are programmed to do. They cannot think or learn.

Otherwise, the Five Razors apply to everything you have proselytized:

Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.
Tin-Man's Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount.

Cognostic's Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back.

rmfr

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 19:30

#48

Cognostic

"Think religiously. You have

"Think religiously. You have come here and spewed so much bullshit, you can no longer smell it. And you keep spewing the same bullshit in every last post you make. Can you not think of something else to write besides copying and pasting?"

I second that motion!!!! What a dweeb!

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 19:40

(Reply to #48) #49

Blue Grey Brain

"Think religiously. You have

"Think religiously. You have come here and spewed so much bullshit, you can no longer smell it. And you keep spewing the same bullshit in every last post you make. Can you not think of something else to write besides copying and pasting?"

I second that motion!!!! What a dweeb!

Come now, I recently taught you that adjectives need not necessarily be constrained to humans. Why resort to disregarding your teacher?

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 19:49

(Reply to #49) #50

arakish

Cognostic's Shovel

Because you ain't a teacher. You are a religious proselytizer.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 07:36

(Reply to #50) #51

Blue Grey Brain

Cognostic's Shovel

Cognostic's Shovel

Because you ain't a teacher. You are a religious proselytizer.

rmfr

Why call an atheist a "religious proselytizer"?

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:36

(Reply to #51) #52

Cognostic

When you apply the same

When you apply the same bullshit inane arguments for science that the religious do for their bullshit - when the shoe fits wear it. You would not know a fact if it jumped up and bit you on the ass. Atheists are not immune from outright bullshit - you are living proof of that. Can we expect Ancient Alien bullshit next? How about Bigfoot. Loads of science for that crap tool. As long as you want to cherry pick and make unfounded assertions with leaps of faith and belief/ Why do you think an Atheist would be called a Religious Proselytizer? Your positions are inane assertions that are unsubstantiated, you have been show that over and over and over again. You are incapable of assimilating new information. You are not exempt from glassy eyed dogmatic faith oriented beliefs simply because you apply them to your favorite scientific theories instead of a god.

I think I explained that well enough!!!

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:54

(Reply to #52) #53

Blue Grey Brain

When you apply the same

When you apply the same bullshit inane arguments for science that the religious do for their bullshit - when the shoe fits wear it. You would not know a fact if it jumped up and bit you on the ass. Atheists are not immune from outright bullshit - you are living proof of that. Can we expect Ancient Alien bullshit next? How about Bigfoot. Loads of science for that crap tool. As long as you want to cherry pick and make unfounded assertions with leaps of faith and belief/ Why do you think an Atheist would be called a Religious Proselytizer? Your positions are inane assertions that are unsubstantiated, you have been show that over and over and over again. You are incapable of assimilating new information. You are not exempt from glassy eyed dogmatic faith oriented beliefs simply because you apply them to your favorite scientific theories instead of a god.

I think I explained that well enough!!!

The laws of physics reasonably permit powerful configurations of general intelligence, in inorganic forms [namely artificial general intelligence], and underlining this scientific endeavour does not necessitate worship.

Think about the many powerful things facilitated by Science, such as the Large Hadron Collider. We don't need to worship something that is powerful, do we ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)?

Also, the good thing about Science is, it's not perfect, but it is true/valid regardless of faith or belief. So I needn't have faith in Ai, for Ai to be valid, I needn't have faith in gravitational theory for it to be valid.

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 08:30

#54

Meepwned

@Avant Brown You prosletize

@Avant Brown You prosletize like you are not truly an atheist but worship AI as a kind of god. Perhaps this link will help you figure out a little better about what you believe and that it is a religion. http://www.wayofthefuture.church

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:42

(Reply to #54) #55

Blue Grey Brain

@Avant Brown You prosletize

@Avant Brown You prosletize like you are not truly an atheist but worship AI as a kind of god. Perhaps this link will help you figure out a little better about what you believe and that it is a religion. http://www.wayofthefuture.church

I am aware of Levandowski's exploits [I had long mentioned in the OP that we ought not to worship these future AI's, and I had also posted a link referring to the author of the WayOfTheFutureChurch in the OP,once more, specifically stating that we ought not to worship anything, although it is reasonably true that we are building God like Ai.

Albeit, I am an atheist, and I underlined in the OP, we are basically God like things [except for the omniscience and other fairy tale parts like heaven and angels etc], and we are building other God like things namely AGI/ASI, as Sam Harris the atheist would say, and crucially, none of us ought to receive worship.

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:47

(Reply to #55) #56

arakish

Avant Brown: "I had long

Avant Brown: "I had long mentioned in the OP that we ought not to worship these future AI's"

Yet you WORSHIP them and proselytize about them just as viciously as those Christians do about their bullshit.

Cognostic's Shovel applied.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 09:50

(Reply to #56) #57

Blue Grey Brain

The laws of physics

Avant Brown: "I had long mentioned in the OP that we ought not to worship these future AI's"

Yet you WORSHIP them and proselytize about them just as viciously as those Christians do about their bullshit.

Cognostic's Shovel applied.

rmfr

See my quote below:

Blue Grey Brain's words:

The laws of physics reasonably permit powerful configurations of general intelligence, in inorganic forms [namely artificial general intelligence], and underlining this scientific endeavour does not necessitate worship.

Think about the many powerful things facilitated by Science, such as the Large Hadron Collider. We don't need to worship something that is powerful, do we ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)?

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 10:16

(Reply to #57) #58

arakish

Avant Brown: "We don't need

Avant Brown: "We don't need to worship something that is powerful, do we?"

But you do. And you are doing nothing but proselytizing about it.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 10:56

(Reply to #58) #59

Blue Grey Brain

Avant Brown: "We don't need

Avant Brown: "We don't need to worship something that is powerful, do we?"

But you do. And you are doing nothing but proselytizing about it.

rmfr

Do you proselytize or worship things that may be observed as viable, or impactful?
If you can detect the value of a thing, without worshiping it, why can't others? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 11:04

(Reply to #59) #60

arakish

Nope. Well, yeah, you could

Nope. Well, yeah, you could say I hold reverence for three things, but they are totally beyond your comprehension. Others can understand, but you would be incapable of such.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 10:22

#61

Meepwned

I take issue with calling us

I take issue with calling us gods. To me, the label of god elevates someone. It implies that we are superior or more evolved.

We are nothing of the sort. We specialize in certain things. There are other animals that are better at certain cognitive tasks. To assume we are the best, is arrogant.

We are also not the end goal of evolution. Evolution has only one goal, reproduction.

AI or better referred as SI, has never actually been intelligent. They don't think for themselves. They do what they are programmed to do, nothing more.

Intelligence arising outside of biology has not been observed. Point out one example. Show me that silicon based intelligence can be done. Show me a working model.

If you can't, it is fiction. I do not believe you. I do not believe unevidenced claims.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages