Scientific purpose of human species, may be to replicate universes

149 posts / 0 new
Last post
Blue Grey Brain's picture
re: Avant BrowN

re: Avant BrowN
Is is not becoming obvious that ole Brown can not stay on a single topic.

Could you repeat that in a coherent manner?( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

arakish's picture
See? You cannot understand

See? You cannot understand or comprehend English. I understood perfectly.

rmfr

Meepwned's picture
"Was the atom in atomic

"Was the atom in atomic theory fiction before being experimentally observed?"

The idea of atoms was fiction before they were observed, yes. However, the things we call atoms were not.

Blue Grey Brain's picture
"Was the atom in atomic

"Was the atom in atomic theory fiction before being experimentally observed?"

The idea of atoms was fiction before they were observed, yes. However, the things we call atoms were not.

So, you're saying that scientific theory is fiction?

You can continue with your responses, but I will have to decline from further interacting with you in this regime. I don't know how to deal with a person that feels scientific theory is fiction.

Cognostic's picture
Avant Brown: How many

Avant Brown: How many atheist sites have you been removed from for your absurd trolling?

Blue Grey Brain's picture
Avant Brown: How many atheist

Avant Brown: How many atheist sites have you been removed from for your absurd trolling?

1. I haven't been removed from any atheist website.

2. When you are demonstrably shown to be wrong, it doesn't necessitate that facts constitute troll material.

3. Have you only argued about a particular topic, on a single website? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
If that's the case, you may want to engage in arguments elsewhere, so as to aim to broaden your horizon.

LogicFTW's picture
Maybe you missed it, but you

@Avant Brown

Maybe you missed it, but you have not responded to my reply to you. I pointed out even nvidia's own "hyper" moore's law has fallen apart when it comes to real world performance for current high end modern games. The RTX series represents roughly 50% price increase for roughly 20% more performance in all current and past games. Over the 10XX series. (Sometimes performs worse!)

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Blue Grey Brain's picture
@Avant Brown

@Avant Brown

Maybe you missed it, but you have not responded to my reply to you. I pointed out even nvidia's own "hyper" moore's law has fallen apart when it comes to real world performance for current high end modern games. The RTX series represents roughly 50% price increase for roughly 20% more performance in all current and past games. Over the 10XX series. (Sometimes performs worse!)

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

1. What precisely do you mean by "fallen apart"? Please also include sources.

2. What I had particularly referred to, was the use of Nvidia in Ai applications, as the same article underlined. [See Nvidia's ai presentation, and see the high rate of growth in artificial intelligence acceleration.]

3. In the same old response, I also referred to TPU's, as a part of the exponential increase both software and hardware processing, in relation to artificial intelligence development. [Wikipedia/Tensor Processing Unit]

Also, note NVDIA's 2 petaflop general purpose Ai supercomputer array, compared to Google's 12+ petaflot general purpose Ai supercomputer TPU array. Also, although in a different league, see this 200 petaflop large ai-non-general purpose supercomputer experiment.

arakish's picture
Hey Nyarlathotep

Hey Nyarlathotep

I think we need another voter post.

rmfr

Meepwned's picture
@Avant Brown Clearly, you do

@Avant Brown Clearly, you do not know what a scientific theory is. If you are indeed getting a PHD, I highly recommend you get a refund.

scientific theory
noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

Notice that it is repeatedly confirmed. Scientific theories are not fiction because they have been proven possible and have immense amounts of evidence supporting them.

Any other idea/model is a hypothesis, which may fall within the realm of fiction if they have not been proven possible.

Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

Blue Grey Brain's picture
@Avant Brown Clearly, you do

@Avant Brown Clearly, you do not know what a scientific theory is. If you are indeed getting a PHD, I highly recommend you get a refund.

scientific theory
noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

Notice that it is repeatedly confirmed. Scientific theories are not fiction because they have been proven possible and have immense amounts of evidence supporting them.

Any other idea/model is a hypothesis, which may fall within the realm of fiction if they have not been proven possible.

Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

I urge that you carfully read the response below, especially point 4, as I have carefully read your responses thus far.

++++++++++++
1. Aren't you aware of Artificial General Intelligence Research? Are you saying that Artificial General Intelligence, is not a valid scientific theory/model/area of active research?

You would be demonstrably false, because:

  • There are AGI frameworks or scientific models like this one: [Ultimate Intelligence Part I], that won a 2015 Kurzweil Prize.
  • Some of the smartest people on the planet doing Ai research and programming, predict AGI to occur within the next 5 to 10 years roughly. These predictions occur on accelerating change.
  • -----------------
    2. You still continue to completely ignore that AGI is a quite real model in scientific endeavour, and not fiction.

  • You are clearly confusing block buster movies, such as terminator etc, with an actual study, called Artificial General Intelligence.
  • You are conflating the event that AGI is associated with science fiction regarding intelligent machines, with some supposed falsehood that intelligent machines aren't actually possible or shown to be viable, and that is rather demonstrably silly.
  • ++++++++++++
    3. Why do you feel that the very real scientific model, namely AGI, is fiction? I.e. Why do you consistently presume scientific theory to be fiction?

    -----------------
    4. Crucially, the human brain, as far as science goes [Wikipedia/neuroscience], generates something called "general inteligence" in neuroscience, and this is observed in science to be substrate independent, i.e. not limited to flesh. [See Lessons for Artificial Human Intelligence and Substrate-Independent Minds.]

    However, if one subscribes to some sort of religion, that stipulates the mind to be some special otherworldly, unscientific product, then it would be explainable why one would refuse to detect evidence regarding replicating general intelligence, a very real scientific quantity, in inorganic form, namely artificial general intelligence.

    -----------------
    ++++++++++++
    5. Max Tegmark is not a neuroscientist, but a phycist instead, who recently began to work on Machine learning. This is no surprise; machine learning benefits from applying physics in the learning equations.

    You may want to check out Max Tegmark's simple explanation regarding what "substrate-independence" concerns:

    Consciousness is a mathematical pattern: Max Tegmark at TEDxCambridge

    Meepwned's picture
    I never said that AGI was

    I never said that AGI was invalid as a model. The idea that AI will be able to fully simulate a human brain, is an unproven claim. I reject it because it is unproven. Until it gets proven possible, I do not believe it.

    I've never said it was impossible. I've simply pointed out that by definition, the idea of AGI is fiction, at this moment. There is no reason to believe claims until they have been shown to be possible.

    Look, I want AI to become human-like. I want AGI to happen, but I am not going to delude myself by letting the level of evidence needed to convince me lower. I am giving this equal treatment as religion.

    Also, do not take everything you read about AI as true. Check sources, corroborate evidence, and ask someone more knowledgeable than you.

    I do not claim to be more knowledgeable, so go ask an expert in the relevant field and take their words with a grain of salt.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    I never said that AGI was

    I never said that AGI was invalid as a model. The idea that AI will be able to fully simulate a human brain, is an unproven claim. I reject it because it is unproven. Until it gets proven possible, I do not believe it.

    I've never said it was impossible. I've simply pointed out that by definition, the idea of AGI is fiction, at this moment. There is no reason to believe claims until they have been shown to be possible.

    Look, I want AI to become human-like. I want AGI to happen, but I am not going to delude myself by letting the level of evidence needed to convince me lower. I am giving this equal treatment as religion.

    Also, do not take everything you read about AI as true. Check sources, corroborate evidence, and ask someone more knowledgeable than you.

    I do not claim to be more knowledgeable, so go ask an expert in the relevant field and take their words with a grain of salt.

    1. I do PhD work, particularly regarding Ai, so I think I understand things regarding ai.

    2. The basic idea behind AGI, is that general intelligence is largely replicable outside of human flesh, i.e. general intelligence is "substrate independent".

  • This means that given some configuration of particles or components, general intelligence will arise and a quick, unavoidable example of particular configurations of things that leads to general intelligence, is something already existent, which happens to be biological human brains; but there are reasonably other components that may be configured in nature that may give rise to general intelligence apart from biological components, which you seem to be crucially ignoring. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  • ( ͡Ϙ ͜ʖ ͡o)( ͡Ϙ ͜ʖ ͡o) In simpler terms, biological brains though consisting of a special [or rather particular] configuration of stuff, are reasonably not so special as to consist of some solely suitable configuration, such that a special [or rather particular] configuration of non-biological things [namely artificial general intelligence] couldn't also generate something like general intelligence.
  • ---------------

    3. It is strange that you admit you are not an expert in the field, yet you seem to seek to make claims with absolute confidence, especially regarding the supposedly fictitious nature of a quite real field/model in science, contrary to common knowledge in the field, as reasonably underlined in my points throughout this thread.

    Meepwned's picture
    The idea of general

    The idea of general intelligence arising outside of biology is an unproven claim. Care to present even one example? Otherwise, stop spouting unevidenced claims.

    Your sources say nothing about evidence for AI achieving general intelligence, only animals. We are animals, so no surprise. We gained it the same way other animals have, natural selection.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    The idea of general

    The idea of general intelligence arising outside of biology is an unproven claim. Care to present even one example? Otherwise, stop spouting unevidenced claims.

    Your sources say nothing about evidence for AI achieving general intelligence, only animals. We are animals, so no surprise. We gained it the same way other animals have, natural selection.

    1. Where did I supposedly say that "general intelligence" occurs outside of biology? [See Wikipedia/Strawman fallacy]

    2. If you think human level ai is impossible, although that's not yet achieved as far as I am aware, there are scientific models that exist concerning said human level ai (AGI).

    [It's almost like you're saying that since no grand unified theory has yet been empirically observed, then therefore, Grand Unified Theories are fiction.] ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Meepwned's picture
    @Avant Brown I found an

    @Avant Brown I found an article, I found interesting, that is related to this.

    https://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/amp

    Give it a read. It is not a scientific source, but it brings up some interesting arguments against AGI. Let me know what you think about it.

    David Killens's picture
    That article is not valid

    That article is not valid Meepwned, it's source is not Wiki.

    arakish's picture
    David Killens: "That article

    David Killens: "That article is not valid Meepwned, it's source is not Wiki."

    LMAO. I literally fell out my chair to make that one ROFLMAO.

    rmfr

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    That article is not valid

    That article is not valid Meepwned, it's source is not Wiki.

    Wikipedia would actually be far better; at least valid sources exist in the references.

    That article Meepwned provided, contains zero scientific papers, if I am not mistaken.

    Cognostic's picture
    OH for FS. Now you are

    OH for FS. Now you are calling people on their sources? I'm not even going to bother with my Mother Goose Cosmic Consciousness Little Miss Muffet quote. Go to hell. This conversation can just continue on without my pedantic interludes.

    arakish's picture
    @ Avant Brown

    @ Avant Brown

    With all the SIMPLE posts that have 747ed over your head, I am curious as to when you expect to graduate high school. 2025?

    rmfr

    David Killens's picture
    Arakish, are you sure it isn

    Arakish, are you sure it isn't 2525, and he came back in time?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    First I want to say this

    First I want to say this topic is fascinating to me and I like to read and learn all I can on it. I am by no means an expert at this stuff and I could very easily get something wrong.

    1. That is cool, did not know they were up to 2048. They must of made some major advances to stabilizing the qubit to make 2048 qubit possible, or perhaps they went more of the "brute force" route, where many, perhaps most of them spit out bad data, but the numbers are high enough to error correct. I unfortunately did not have time to read the article in its entirety I hope to do so tomorrow. If 2048 qubit every went mass scale, we would all have to update our encryption methods away from prime integers method. Which could end up requiring a lot more overhead for your non quantum computers to remain secure. As I do work in cyber security now, that is a big deal in my line of work.

    2. Agreed, but if we are just changing definitions and setting new bars we are not really talking about moore's law anymore. My base point that actual targeted useful improvement by reducing transistor size to realize gains in space, heat issues etc is pretty much at an end. We can however modify, add to, and run stuff in parallel, like what GPU's are good at.

    Take Nvidia's latest 20XX series of graphics cards released last summer. The 2080 (retails for at best 750 bucks (and this is months after launch!) but is can only play the latest games maybe 10-20 percent faster than the 1080 that was launched 2.5 years ago for ~$550. The price to performance ratio for all games has actually gone down! The only real gains in power is for games that utilize ray tracing to a great degree. Basically they just added on more hardware, more transistors to do new things, not a whole lot of "improving upon" what it could do before w/o throwing more memory at it. Now at least part of it is Nvidia cashing in on the cryptocurrency craze which allows them to fatten their profit margins, but overall even for nvidia the "inventor of Hyper moore's law" is having real trouble seeing advancement at a practical usable level. It is a bit like a car manufacture saying: This car is much faster and better then our last model, we added turbo instead of doubling horsepower, and that is fine, but the car also cost a signficant amount more, weighs more etc with the inclusion of turbo.

    3. Fully agree with you here. It is pretty cool reading about how they taught the computer how to play GO well enough to beat the top GO players in the world, by having it play many thousands of games and learning based on the outcome of them. Instead of trying to brute force calculate every possible move, as the developers were well aware that the possibilities quickly ballooned to unmanageable numbers even with with a computer that had performance measured in tera flops.

    3C. Disagree with you here. That is quite the unevidenced leap, there are many many other possibilities here other then "human intuition going on." We humans still do not even fully understand human intuition.

    Most of your arguments demonstrably occur on ignorance.

    I never claimed to be an expert and stated these were my own opinions I even learned some new stuff, like the dwave simulation that happened in late august from your post. But how sure are you that there is no gaps in your knowledge? Enough to be certain "most of my arguments demonstrably occur on ignorance?"

    It is nice that you learned something, we should probably all aim to learn something, that's a part of how Science advances.

    1. When you mention that NVIDIA "just added more hardware", be careful to not underestimate the miles of research that may be required to produce incremental changes. [I am a gamer as well, I use gtx GPU cards to do things other than machine learning. If only I could afford the more efficient TPUs.]

    2. I didn't say human intuition. I said human-like intuition. Alpha-go is not brute forcing all possibilities as you seemed to insist before when you referred to "blazing" speeds, for the reason I priorly stated, and crucially, we already know that ai is loosely inspired by biological brain models. This is quite literally why I used the phrase human-like, rather than "human".

    3. When I said most of your arguments are demonstrably based on ignorance, it was primarily because they were based on ignorance; and as you admitted, you didn't know about some of the items I had mentioned. Now, this doesn't mean I am without ignorance; notably I am very ignorant when it comes to many topics outside of my immediate field (of ai), although the things I work with mostly (artificial neural networks), with more advancements , will reasonably contribute to universal problem solvers, that can approximate most if not all cognitive tasks or fields of human endeavour.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    @Avant Brown I found an

    @Avant Brown I found an article, I found interesting, that is related to this.

    https://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/amp

    Give it a read. It is not a scientific source, but it brings up some interesting arguments against AGI. Let me know what you think about it.

    1. I saw that article when it was published, and like you said, it is not a scientific source.

    ~

    2. In fact, if I am not mistaken, there are [zero scientific papers] cited in the article you referenced. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    2.b. To be fair, apart from the many strawmans and unevidenced opinions the author makes, the author underlines a few sensible points, including this one: "There is no doubt that a super AI can accelerate the process of science."

    ~

    3. Here are some tips for avoiding baloney or "bs", especially those that are absent scientific substantiation, such as the article Meepwned proposed:

    The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking

    ~

    4. Your article also mentions that superhuman ai is quite possible, although unlikely:
    "I understand the beautiful attraction of a superhuman AI god. It’s like a new Superman. But like Superman, it is a mythical figure. Somewhere in the universe a Superman might exist, but he is very unlikely".

    ~

    5. The article itself, has many self-contradictions, on one hand saying "there wont be any general ai", and in the same breath that "superhuman ai (which is a form of general ai) is unlikely", i..e. superai is possible.

    In other words, your article concludes in contrast to what you believe. Isn't that ironic? Did you actually read the article? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    ~

    6. If you could provide some actual scientific sources, that would perhaps be optimal. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    arakish's picture
    @ Avant Brown

    @ Avant Brown

    The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking

    And you never thought to apply this to the bullshit you have been shoveling? Definitely Religious Absolutist and Apologist.

    rmfr

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    @ Avant Brown

    @ Avant Brown

    The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking

    And you never thought to apply this to the bullshit you have been shoveling? Definitely Religious Absolutist and Apologist.

    rmfr

    It would be nice if you could start providing citations. What is you area of study? Perhaps you don't possess the faculties or experience needed to propose sensible arguments, and citations to substantiate your claims?

    Meepwned's picture
    The article I shared does not

    The article I shared does not share my views. I simply found it interesting. I thought you would too.

    If you claim that AI can achieve general intelligence, you are indirectly claiming that general intelligence can arrive in inorganic materials.

    Both are claims that you haven't backed up with objective evidence, only speculation. I've read almost every source you've provided and have seen an awful lot of speculation, but no objective evidence.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    The article I shared does not

    The article I shared does not share my views. I simply found it interesting. I thought you would too.

    If you claim that AI can achieve general intelligence, you are indirectly claiming that general intelligence can arrive in inorganic materials.

    Both are claims that you haven't backed up with objective evidence, only speculation. I've read almost every source you've provided and have seen an awful lot of speculation, but no objective evidence.

    1. So you've gone through thousands to millions of scientific papers and software code packages, regarding Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial General Intelligence, in a few hours from the last reply? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    2. I am not indirectly claiming anything, I've without hiding, linked artificial general intelligence several times, which clearly concerns human level intelligence in the form of inorganic materials. Did you even visit the Artificial General Intelligence or Artificial Intelligence once?

    3. It's quite clear by now that you haven't the slightest clue regarding the topic at hand, and that's okay, as we are not all ai researchers. However you should probably refrain from making claims, with such high confidence, especially in light of your obvious ignorance.

    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.