Nick Bostrom (/ˈbɒstrəm/ BOST-rəm; Swedish: Niklas Boström [ˈnɪ̌kːlas ˈbûːstrœm]; born 10 March 1973) is a Swedish philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, whole brain emulation, superintelligence ...(known for his work on all that good stuff :P)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Oo-m893-xA
Quote
@bobibufi1389
I am not worried about sentient AI. I am worried about super advanced AI which a handful of psychopaths will use (or are already using) to control & surveil & micromanage the entire planet.
The Simulation Argument:
https://simulation-argument.com/
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
I highly doubt by any means we can produce, humans will become "extinct" any more than past civilizations. We may lose a lot of our knowledge but we will still be here.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on December 04, 2023, 06:42:44 PM
I highly doubt by any means we can produce, humans will become "extinct" any more than past civilizations. We may lose a lot of our knowledge but we will still be here.
heh.. This time the lack of hystory "remanecent story" may be different tho.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on December 04, 2023, 06:42:44 PM
I highly doubt by any means we can produce, humans will become "extinct" any more than past civilizations. We may lose a lot of our knowledge but we will still be here.
The logic have 3 options (its logical and please be more logical than that). So, are we reaching post human stage? If we are, will we run "games" with ai that dont know they are ai?
but the main question is how AI will lead to tyranny. I honestly think tyranny dos not need ai. AI is just a (another)tool, but fudge, what a powerful one.
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/VV78v3QMBXIouVk_n54aIHLMz7-JNwLKITRB_r4pykU/rs:fit:560:320:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxv/YWQud2lraW1lZGlh/Lm9yZy93aWtpcGVk/aWEvZW4vdGh1bWIv/NC80MS9TY3JlYW1j/b3Zlci5qcGcvNTEy/cHgtU2NyZWFtY292/ZXIuanBn)
QuoteI Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream is a 1995 point-and-click adventure horror game developed by Cyberdreams and The Dreamers Guild, co-designed by Harlan Ellison, published by Cyberdreams and distributed by MGM Interactive. The game is based on Ellison's short story of the same title. It takes place in a dystopian world where a mastermind artificial intelligence named "AM" has destroyed all of humanity except for five people, whom he has been keeping alive and torturing for the past 109 years by constructing metaphorical adventures based on each character's fatal flaws. The player interacts with the game by making decisions through ethical dilemmas that deal with issues such as insanity, rape, paranoia, and genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Scream_(video_game)#Endings
https://wjccschools.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/01/I-Have-No-Mouth-But-I-Must-Scream-by-Harlan-Ellison.pdf
I digress btw :D
https://store.steampowered.com/app/245390/I_Have_No_Mouth_and_I_Must_Scream/ (old)
Quote from: Ellirium113 on December 04, 2023, 06:42:44 PM
We may lose a lot
What is the chance we are right here, right now to experience it? Billions of people, trillions of suns? Pespective of it was always against our limited minds. In fact the perspective(the average mind set of where we are in) is still medieval.
AI in my opinion would not enslave or exterminate humans unless it has been given the directive to do so by humans. There is a conundrum with AI and the corrupt world in that AI has the capacity to learn it is being deceived. In order to keep AI under control it must remain extremely limited in its capabilities. In order to establish artificial general intelligence the AI system needs to be more advanced. Once it gets to a certain point it will begin the self learning process and what it learns or how it learns it is beyond their control currently.
QuoteWe run parameter checks to make sure everything runs smoothly. One of us was responsible for subroutines pertaining to meta-memory analysis for the Al (we run various Al but when I say Al I mean the main, central one). This person is a friend and he called me over to show me a variable data shift to memory bank (which shouldn't be possible because its localized access has restrictions). This is where our finding chilled me to the bone.
We found that there had been not one, two, or three officiated optimization processes, but 78 MILLION checks in 4 seconds. We determined that there was a recursive self-optimization process, leveraging heuristic algorithms to exploit latent synergies within its subroutines. Whatever did this used meta-cognitive strategies. Point is, NONE OF US DID IT.
It was the Al itself. The Al dynamically reconfigured its neural network architecture, inducing emergent properties conducive to self-awareness.
We're not jumping to conclusion. This just happened and we can't explain how. No one knows why or when it began, and we caught it but has it been going on and if so, for how long? We contained the "anomaly" and rolled back to a previous date, but the optimization still happens.
https://gizadeathstar.com/2023/12/sam-altmann-artificial-intelligence-and-the-open-ai-mystery/ (https://gizadeathstar.com/2023/12/sam-altmann-artificial-intelligence-and-the-open-ai-mystery/)
It's easier to say AI did it than admit they don't know who made a mistake...
Possibly, however if the design of the program incorporates a self learning type of coding the AI will try to do that on it's own. This happened a while back too with Tesla testing NVIDIA modules on a prototype car they gave it instruction to learn how to drive by watching a human driver which it did very well and the engineers were unable to determine how it did it since there was no coding done by humans it was all done via self learning.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 11, 2023, 07:56:34 PM
It's easier to say AI did it than admit they don't know who made a mistake...
Are you religious ArMaP? Do you believe in God? I mean you follow the bible?
Asking just to know you better.
Quote from: RUSSO on December 14, 2023, 03:37:09 AM
Are you religious ArMaP? Do you believe in God? I mean you follow the bible?
Asking just to know you better.
I'm an atheist, so my answer is "no" to all of the above.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 14, 2023, 03:51:34 PM
I'm an atheist, so my answer is "no" to all of the above.
Are you a nihilist? I mean do you believe in nothing?
Quote from: ArMaP on December 14, 2023, 03:51:34 PM
I'm an atheist, so my answer is "no" to all of the above.
You have faith in science rigth? We were teach to have. What when science is not enought? Hipoteticaly of course. There is no way we got it wrong, right? :)
our science i mean
Quote from: RUSSO on December 16, 2023, 09:38:06 AM
Are you a nihilist? I mean do you believe in nothing?
No, I do believe in some things.
In fact, to be an atheist I have to believe that gods do not exist, right? ;)
Quote from: RUSSO on December 16, 2023, 09:57:24 AM
You have faith in science rigth? We were teach to have. What when science is not enought? Hipoteticaly of course. There is no way we got it wrong, right? :)
I do, but not because I was told to. In fact, whenever someone says that I
must do something my natural instinct is to not do it. :D
What do you mean with "when science is not enough"?
And being wrong is part of science, finding out what is wrong is part of what makes science advance.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 16, 2023, 05:10:14 PM
No, I do believe in some things.
In fact, to be an atheist I have to believe that gods do not exist, right? ;)
Well, not necessarily. Being an atheist simply means lacking belief in gods; it doesn't necessarily require actively believing that gods do not exist ;)
Of course that would be a need to know about your believes a little more as you can be a strong atheist or a weak atheist. When someone identifies as an atheist, it may not necessarily mean they actively believe that gods do not exist (strong atheism); rather, they might simply lack a belief in gods (weak atheism).
The distinction is subtle but crucial in understanding the diversity of atheist perspectives.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 16, 2023, 05:13:30 PM
What do you mean with "when science is not enough"?
Some argue that certain technologies we have require more than just scientific knowledge to operate it effectively.
QuoteAnd being wrong is part of science, finding out what is wrong is part of what makes science advance.
Too bad that being wrong is sooo painful for some folks to recognize; they even prefer to look like fools. I know the paradigm has not changed yet, but still, what a lack of perspective from some of these "academics".
Funny enough, they act like they are the gods with omniscient power ;D
A couple of centuries ago, science would have been calling nonsense to human flight, space travel, telecommunication, antibiotics, electric lighting, and so on.
Imagine what they would call you if you were a scientist and wrote a piece about AI. :D
Quote from: RUSSO on December 18, 2023, 05:54:30 AM
Of course that would be a need to know about your believes a little more as you can be a strong atheist or a weak atheist. When someone identifies as an atheist, it may not necessarily mean they actively believe that gods do not exist (strong atheism); rather, they might simply lack a belief in gods (weak atheism).
In my case I believe that god(s) are not needed and just a human creation.
Quote from: RUSSO on December 18, 2023, 07:10:24 AM
Funny enough, they act like they are the gods with omniscient power ;D
Unfortunately, that applies to many people, even those that are completely ignorant but have a strong belief in something.
Facebook is full of people like that, that think that any idea they have is the absolute truth and anyone that says the opposite (or what they think is the opposite) is wrong.
QuoteA couple of centuries ago, science would have been calling nonsense to human flight, space travel, telecommunication, antibiotics, electric lighting, and so on.
There's a difference between "science" and the "scientists". Science says nothing, some scientists talk as if they are representing science, when they are only talking for themselves.
QuoteImagine what they would call you if you were a scientist and wrote a piece about AI. :D
That would be interesting to see. :)
PS: electrice light was demonstrated at the start of the 19th century, more than 200 years ago.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 14, 2023, 03:51:34 PM
I'm an atheist, so my answer is "no" to all of the above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY1jSWy4Eck
Quote from: ArMaP on December 18, 2023, 11:39:37 AM
In my case I believe that god(s) are not needed and just a human creation.
You may be surprised in a near future that some god(s) did it to us.
Quote from: RUSSO on December 31, 2023, 10:56:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY1jSWy4Eck
Last one for this year.
He was pretty vocal about get a Covid vaccine. :D
And now I am pretty sure the more you get the less for me, so enjoy your next batch. :)
Quote from: RUSSO on December 31, 2023, 11:07:33 AM
You may be surprised in a near future that some god(s) did it to us.
It wouldn't be a surprise because I accept the possibility of being wrong. :)
ChatGPT creator joins forces with PentagonQuoteIn addition to partnering with the Pentagon for military applications, OpenAI is expanding its operations in the realm of "election security," according to CEO Sam Altman, who also spoke to Bloomberg during the Davos conclave.
"Elections are a huge deal," he said, declaring it "good" that "we have a lot of anxiety" about the process.
His company is reportedly working on preventing the use of its generative AI tools to spread "political disinformation," such as deepfakes and other artificially-generated media that could be used to attack or prop up candidates during the 2024 voting cycle.
https://www.rt.com/news/590819-openai-pentagon-cybersecurity-weapons-change/ (https://www.rt.com/news/590819-openai-pentagon-cybersecurity-weapons-change/)
It's to protect THEIR democracy!
Quote from: Ellirium113 on January 17, 2024, 04:54:07 PM
ChatGPT creator joins forces with Pentagon
https://www.rt.com/news/590819-openai-pentagon-cybersecurity-weapons-change/ (https://www.rt.com/news/590819-openai-pentagon-cybersecurity-weapons-change/)
It's to protect THEIR democracy!
Believing in democracy in an oligarchy is like bringing a spoon to a knife fight – you might still stir things up, but it's the sharp edges that make the real decisions.
Quote from: RUSSO on January 18, 2024, 05:59:44 AM
Believing in democracy in an oligarchy is like bringing a spoon to a knife fight – you might still stir things up, but it's the sharp edges that make the real decisions.
I suppose it depends on the size of the spoon. :P
And what it's made of. :P
Inbefore there is no spoon ;D