Scientific purpose of human species, may be to replicate universes
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Could you repeat that in a coherent manner?( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
See? You cannot understand or comprehend English. I understood perfectly.
"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.
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.
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.
I think we need another voter post.
@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.
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.
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:
2. You still continue to completely ignore that AGI is a quite real model in scientific endeavour, and not fiction.
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
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".
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.
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 ͡°)
@Avant Brown I found an article, I found interesting, that is related to this.
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.
That article is not valid Meepwned, it's source is not Wiki.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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?
Arakish, are you sure it isn't 2525, and he came back in time?
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.
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 ͡°)
@ 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.
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?
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.
Maintaining the blockchain also helps prevent fraudulent transactions and activity, such as someone trying to transfer bitcoin they don't own. Cloud mining, which is also referred to as cloud hashing, allows the user to buy the output of cryptocurrency mining hardware located in remote data centers and that's the answer on how does crypto use energy question. With all mining done remotely, this removes the issues faced by miners using powerful platforms, including sizeable power usage, heat, insulation, and of course, maintenance. However, the optics of bitcoin's energy use in the midst of the global climate crisis has become a problem for the network.