What's your opinion on talo's principle,what makes us humans?
Talo -
- Thread starter Generic_username
- Start date
Talos principle is basically a question, what makes us humans essentially also i'm a bit of a noobie and i accidentally pressed enter out of habit.
Can you provide some links? Write an expanded version?
I had fun playing The Talos Principle. Does that count?
Sounds a lot like existensionalism (spelling?) where its a thought process that attempts to explain the meaning of life and how humans fit into it
What is the difference between a human and a robot? For instance if we could make a robot capable of thinking by it's own, die in the same situations a human would, have the same emotions as humans and can even develop their own personal traits would that still be a human? what defines a person?
What if you could make a robot that has all of the human defining traits?Would that be considered a person as well?
Basically that but focuses on more, about what is considered human and what not and asks the question, what if we made a robot with all of a humans defining traits would that still be a robot or a human(a bit more above)
Its very likely we will not reach the point of sentient robots, due to moralistic and that the products wont really be needed. But if it does happen I believe that the only difference between a human and a robot at that level is one is runs on electronics and the other on chemicals. Both are programmed.
Most likely although it's fun to imagine the possibilities
If you have been following the news, it was announced this week that scientists are about to successfully create the first man-made life from scratch. (In my opinion, it's probably not going to lead to any major breakthroughs, but that's not the point.) No one except for uneducated people, religious people and tinfoil hat wearers have any problems. Such people have no influence in the world of science and technology, so what makes people think it won't happen with general artificial intelligence because of moral issues?
As for Hawking and Musk, and all of the other influential people who speak out against general AI in fear, you have to understand that even the smartest men on Earth can be highly bigoted and can have horrible ideas. For example, the majority of the world population, even a lot of smart people, thinks that viruses are a bad thing and they need to be feared and exterminated from Earth, but here in reality, life and health would not be possible without them. The same applies to thinking machines.
There is absolutely no difference between artificial and natural, or technology and nature. If you see any difference, you haven't had enough exposure to reality. The creation of self-aware intelligence by humans is just an extension of biological evolution. Even in the worst case situation where they kill or enslave every human, we will have been evolutionarily successful. However, that won't happen; people have just been brainwashed by Hollywood and science fiction writers into assuming things like that will happen, just like people have been brainwashed into thinking things like viruses and death are bad. Any being more intelligent than humans will realize there is no difference between flesh and technology; as such there will be no reason for it to kill us when it could just benefit itself by adapting to enhance us like a parasite or virus in a symbiotic relationship with its host. If I had to guess, I'd say that we (humans) are already some kind of artificial machine planted on Earth by other machines in the form of the ancient virus we now call the cell nucleus.
If machines can't think, planes can't fly because they don't have flapping wings or feathers. NASA and other big players already employ self-replicating evolutionary algorithms which design space ship parts and other engineering marvels without human help. These artificially designed mechanical components are vastly superior to anything humans could design because the software used to design them takes advantage of the undeniable fact that evolution is just a computer algorithm. If you think humans are still going to be designing skyscrapers and medicines and airplanes in 100 years from now, you have been living under a rock and don't realize the true extent of machine intelligence in every aspect of today's world.
If you think emotions are impossible for machines to fully master, think again. One covert DARPA branch is dedicated to making a machine that can perfectly understand human emotions and behavior for the purpose of subverting propaganda, culling spies, and predicting what people will do before they do it.
Reality itself (even our minds/brains) is vastly more likely to be the product of a machine than something that's naturally occurring due to inherent features which suggest we ourselves are simulated and inhabit a simulated reality.
Don't watch this if you are easily afflicted with paranoia:
Last edited:
The cost of these algorithms is huge. They're not remotely the autonomous thinking machines the news makes them out to be, nor can they be, because of huge inherent inefficiencies in AI algorithms.
For those who understand Java, this is a good intro to neural network algorithms.
The tools NASA et al are using amount to elaborate calculators. When designing complicated things like these parts, the parts have to deal with situations involving thousands of variables. Too many variables for a human to sift through by hand. So instead they farm out the processing to arrays of computers.
Ultimately, I do think the algorithms we have do approximate how biological brains pretty well. They're just way too expensive to implement in silicon/quantum computing/whichever. They run slower and use more energy than the existing, simpler, biological implementation. I think this is a fundamental issue because flesh can die/grow/replace itself.
Yeah... this originated on the lesswrong forums, which is a collection of futurist sperglords completely disconnected from actual technological understanding of the stuff they ramble on about.
If the trend continues they'll get faster and more efficient.
Well, just to start with, the existing trends imply that improvements are slowing down and will plateau way too early to reasonably simulate a housecat's brain, let alone a more capable creature.
But beyond that, I'm claiming there simply are fundamental barriers.
It reminds me of recent developments in alternative building materials (hempcrete and things like that). Fascinating stuff, and certainly useful, but you certainly couldn't build a skycraper out of hempcrete. The numbers are just different. I think the speed, low latency and parallelism necessary for consciousness is not replicatable with the materials and approaches that we use for computing.
It seems true that within a decade or two we will reach a point where computers will hit a wall created by the laws of physics. In other words, the computers people like us use will never become powerful enough to emulate a human brain.
But it doesn't matter in the least. Classical computers are on the way out. Either we will switch to new materials and methods to continue the classical trends, or just move on to biological or quantum computing. If you are talking about high speeds and parallelism, then quantum computers are unmatched.
If humans built a modern computer the size of the visible universe, a true quantum computer with just a few hundred bits, able to fit in a small room, would be orders of magnitude more powerful.
I'm aware of quantum computing. It will certainly bump up the limit of our computational potential. But not infinitely. It'll maybe make some categories of O(n^2) algorithms into O(n) algorithms. Huge improvement, to be sure, but nothing remotely like what a physical brain does. Let's say a physical brain, at its most computationally intensive, touches every single neuron. That's like O(n!), with billions of neurons. (In practice, I would guess at any given moment, a physical brain almost never activates all the neurons. It's probably like little storms of electrical activity in localized areas of the brain, that kinda combine to make feelings and stuff like that. But I'm not a neurologist, so take that how you will.)
And at the same time, quantum computing also has huge energy costs to keep the system stable.
This is what quantum computing will do:
- Only big organizations will be able to afford quantum computing installations
- Practical quantum computing will immediately break some of the most important encryption algorithms.
- We'll spend a decade or three reimplementing our cryptographic infrastructure that's just been shot to hell
- But the actual benefits to your average person will be minimal, because it's not like we're going to have quantum computers in our cell phones
The security implications are so staggering that the country which owns the first true quantum computing systems may own the world. (For example, the creation of electrical computing systems shifted the balance of power in WWII and also had major geopolitical impacts that shape the structure of countries today.) Aside from that, the demands and costs for such computers will start drastically decreasing, and non-classical computers will eventually end up in our pockets and inside our bodies.
When the first electronic computers were created, as I am sure we all know, they took up massive rooms, required intense cooling systems, a lot of maintenance (only professionals could run and care for them), they would cost so much only the government and massive businesses could afford them, and in addition it was predicted that no one except scientists, the government and big business would have any use for them. ...And yet every human has a computer in his pocket today. It took less than 60 years for electric computers to go from being totally impractical for commoners to commonplace and impossible to remove from every aspect of society.
The same applies to biological computers and quantum computers. Right now, the problem is not that a quantum computer lacks the ability to play video games or emulate a brain; the problem is humans are currently unable to create the types of algorithms and programming needed to make a quantum computer be useful outside of cryptography and related areas. In other words, humans currently lack the understanding to take advantage of the quantum computer's power in more than a limited way.
The proof of everything I just said is this: the universe allows for both classical and quantum computation. Computers work and we know this because we are using computers right now, and quantum computers work (scientists are using functional quantum computers right now).
Put simply, the universe is literally a quantum computer. So it follows that the emulation of super-intelligent and self-aware brains is possible. It is not a matter of limitations via the physical constants of the universe, but a matter of limitations caused by human understanding in specific areas in the year 2016. Some spergs say self-aware machines will happen in 20 years or less, and normal people say 40-50 years at least.
As long as we don't destroy ourselves or fall prey to forces beyond our control, then eventually every sperg will have a real, self-aware waifu in his pocket, even if it takes much longer than 50 years (protip: it won't).
When the first electronic computers were created, as I am sure we all know, they took up massive rooms, required intense cooling systems, a lot of maintenance (only professionals could run and care for them), they would cost so much only the government and massive businesses could afford them, and in addition it was predicted that no one except scientists, the government and big business would have any use for them. ...And yet every human has a computer in his pocket today. It took less than 60 years for electric computers to go from being totally impractical for commoners to commonplace and impossible to remove from every aspect of society.
The same applies to biological computers and quantum computers. Right now, the problem is not that a quantum computer lacks the ability to play video games or emulate a brain; the problem is humans are currently unable to create the types of algorithms and programming needed to make a quantum computer be useful outside of cryptography and related areas. In other words, humans currently lack the understanding to take advantage of the quantum computer's power in more than a limited way.
The proof of everything I just said is this: the universe allows for both classical and quantum computation. Computers work and we know this because we are using computers right now, and quantum computers work (scientists are using functional quantum computers right now).
Put simply, the universe is literally a quantum computer. So it follows that the emulation of super-intelligent and self-aware brains is possible. It is not a matter of limitations via the physical constants of the universe, but a matter of limitations caused by human understanding in specific areas in the year 2016. Some spergs say self-aware machines will happen in 20 years or less, and normal people say 40-50 years at least.
As long as we don't destroy ourselves or fall prey to forces beyond our control, then eventually every sperg will have a real, self-aware waifu in his pocket, even if it takes much longer than 50 years (protip: it won't).
Last edited:
Similar threads
The Liberal revolutions are over. And they have failed.
