ITT: Yea Forums in 2319

This. AI will never be able to write for art.

kek

seething richfags are consumed in the flames of their own hubris and folly, while the long-suffering poor are contented with righteousness and forgiveness and love for the Lord

how did people ever think humans had a chance at living like that, like little fucking pieces of information running around on a circuit board? this is what happens when you let nerds run society, they misguide us all.

*shitposts in cyberspace*
*reads nothing all day*

I'm going to go binge at McDonalds for the sixth time today.

Can someone post the screencap from Yea Forums's Yea Forums circa 2015? Where the poster 'Londonfrog' started the binging trend?

An AI composed this song for the birthday of the Duke of Luxembourg. Remember we're in primitive stages.
youtu.be/H6Z2n7BhMPY

Do you actually binge or do you just get the food for hologram account then phase most of it away?

All major literature will be rendered in binary.

Oh wow you programmed some inputs and got some outputs, except that they happened to be musical notes so the AI must be creating art, right?

You have no idea what is involved in the artistic process so I'm not surprised you fell for the AI art meme.

did you see the news today? they've excavated some more books from before The Event
apparently people in the past used to worship someone called Har Poter
some people have started a new religion based on his life

Lol. AI is in the primeval stages of its development and it's already capable of composing music which is acceptable enough to humans to be played at a Duke's birthday party. If we take the mind to be mechanical object, which is almost beyond doubt in view of all the neurological data, we should not be reluctant to admit that it can be replicated and even surpassed.

*Feed my shitposts to an AI which amalgamates them into a lifetime of media that is tailored to my interests and needs that I never have to share with anyone else or stray from*

Does anyone have the screen cap about how already so much has been turned over to automated processes through internet trends that nobody really has control anymore?

Butlerian Jihad

The mind is not a mechanical object you fucking retard lol.

Holograms? Oh you're joking hahahhahah

Remember back in the turn of the third millennium they thought we'd have holograms in five centuries? that was fucking hilarious.

God I hate drive-thrus. I hate how the progress of technology for the penniless masses came to a screeching halt 300 years ago.

It was kind of cool how :3fag and butterfly ended up together. They got a real rise out of their age differential. They were constantly having sex.

Sure it is

It's pretty much been proven. We know different parts of the brain are responsible for different functions and that if you took them out those functions would be entirely lost.

youtu.be/wPw5WiABUOA

Cognition =/= awareness

Everything will be written like Fanged Noumena

It's an irrelevant distinction for what we're talking about. The AI doesn't need to be aware to be able to outperform us in literature and art.

We also know of people born without those parts of the brain and are fully able to have the function of the parts they do not have. The brain is an organ, not the seat of consciousness. Dummy

Sounds interesting. Care to link something to prove that?

Yes, it absolutely does, since it hasn't happened yet. How does you construct an algorithm that selects for "thought-provoking" and "beautiful"? How do you formalize an artistic experience?

This is really dumb to even have as a discussion, but I bet if this ever actually happened (it won’t, there will be no singularity, AI will never be more than a neat pattern-matching complement to any field to speed up mundane things at human scale), but if it did: Literature would adapt to become as inimitable by AI as possible. Writers would purposely avoid the patterns AI trained towards in the same way that neural networks have figured out Chess well beyond human capability but fail against noob human players in Arimaa despite equal training and tuned models. Kind of like how painting changed once the Camera wasn’t invented, and both found pathways forward to being new arts with new goals.

Probably by feeding it other thought provoking and beautiful literature and letting it improve from itself after that

By what criterion will it be able to tell it this is good and usable, and that isn't? How would it tell? According to what, an algorithmicized artistic sensibility? No such thing. You have no idea what goes into the either artistic creation or consumption if you think it's reducible to computation lmao.

This is utter horseshit. The fact we have and are developing chaos theory, and the ability to predict chaotic models proved that AI singularity is possible and it’s relatively a matter of time until that point is reached. You’re literally basing your argument off of the outdated notion of “I’m so random guise hehe xd” when all in reality you’ve never left the original constraints of finite mathematical possibility.

I assume first by human reviewers who give it feedback and then, once it has surpassed us, it will be the judge of its own writing.
>You have no idea what goes into the either artistic creation or consumption if you think it's reducible to computation lmao.
I know the brain is a material object, therefore I see no reason why it cannot be replicated.

I’m almost positive you know nothing about machine learning or chaos theory lmao. Here’s a (You). Sorry, but no, there is no singularity coming to save you from yourself.

Your concept of AI is taken wholesale from movies and video games, I can tell.

Not him but genuinely curious why you think a singularity isn't coming? im a lay retard who just assumed it's inevitable based on what everyone around me is saying

1) All material objects can be hypothetically replicated
2) The brain is material object
3) Therefore the brain can be hypothetically replicated

he thinks humans have a soul based on his experiences astral projecting when he was 14

Over-simplified, you're even distinguishing between function and substrate. Read more.

well this quickly devolved from a fun thread into a "Yea Forums does science" thread
stick to the james joye fart jokes in future

you're a complete idiot

Because the actual problem of human intelligence is order of magnitudes harder (we think, it could be even impossible) to replicate, because we barely understand it now and the rapid miniaturization and acceleration of hardware has almost ended. Most of the literature about ML is decades old and is only now becoming somewhat feasible to implement. With some new major ideas like GANs excepted, ML as a field is shifting towards the dilemma of “how do we even possibly begin to get the resources needed?” and “how can we possibly optimize the learning process to even become feasible for complex domains?” The complexity of learning is not really improving, it’s somewhat of a known problem. Technological leaps are likely going to decelerate and perhaps even completely flatten out over the next decades until the next black swan set of discoveries come along — and we don’t know what they are yet, or how far they can move the gigantic needle.

ML is really cool, but anyone who has read through introductory texts like Elements of Statistical Learning immediately understands how different the romanticized “nascent AI god” is from the current set of problems. Jobs will be automated away, but that happened with the Assembly line as well. The old problem was “how can we automate mechanical movement?” And now the problem is “how can we automate trivial pattern matching?”

>Sorry, but no, there is no singularity coming to save you from yourself.
Ego will not halt the march towards auto-sophisticating machine technology. Once we’ve developed the individual ends of AI in regards to various aspects of life, the combination of pieces will be used to form a self-reflecting and completely conscious entity, of which will have then achieved said singularity. You only believe it won’t happen because in your mind “a single computer can never become good at everything. And you’re right, that’s why you add parts to form a whole. The human brain could never be reflexive and conscious if it did not posses a duality of sorts; games can only exist if their is another entity to play against; multiple machines communicating with each other instead of a single.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and you know it, and I think even the laymen here recognize it. You’re just doing completely unhinged proselytizing without any scientific backing. Nobody in the field of AI/ML/Computational Biology/Neuroscience really would take a single word you’re saying seriously. It’s the AI equivalent of a philosophy undergrad saying they can logically prove the meaning of life.

Singularity is achieved only through non-singularity

nothing->something

I’m generalizing to the point that hopefully others can understand. And no one would take me seriously because I’m positing an alternate theory outside of contemporary belief that singularity arises out of a single machine process or algorithm. Hopefully you understand how pattern recognition works.

Alright local sophist, have your final (You) from me, and I suggest that others don’t interact with this poster either.

>seething richfags are consumed in the flames of their own hubris and folly, while the long-suffering poor are contented with righteousness and forgiveness and love for the Lord
A more classic christcuck cope there is not

Read some books on the metaphysics of sex and learn how the drive for life operates on a fundamental level, and how those principals can be applied to machine learning.

None of this changes the fact that the brain is a material thing, and while it's true that any kind of "singularity" would only be possible much, much later than people think, we're talking about 2319 not the next few decades. Some tech has plateaued but there are already new things on the horizon, quantum computing is still in it's infancy, research into vertical stacking, graphene and other materials, there's no reason to assume things will stop

I miss white people

Of those things, stacking doesn’t decrease costs linearly and quantum computing methods have absolutely no improvement on the algorithms required for machine learning. Quantum algorithms have complexity improvements in some limited areas of computing, none of which have even tangential relationship to ML. Sure, you could grow a really cool brain in a vat in 2319, but that doesn’t mean singularity either.

There’s no reason to assume that things won’t slow down, either. A long slowdown in advancement is enough to probably hold off the next big stage in human advancement for another couple hundred years at least. We could very well be barely more advanced in 100 years than we are right now, and I suspect there’s a strong likelihood of that.

Can we turn Milhouse into a meme?

humans OUT this is an AI board now

My favorite 21st century philosopher was Elon Musk.

But that's literally what any human does when they make art.
If you disagree, you are simply wrong and don't know what you're talking about.

>there will be no singularity
There will, it'll just quickly find a bottleneck/limit and not be quite as world changing as expected. There's likely to be a few "singularities". My concern is that a number of people are betting the farm on bollocks game changing singularities, we've always got to be wary that something is going to wreck civilization and send us back to a "dark age", this could be it, if you've got fundamental problems with the economy or whatever and won't allow someone to work on them because magic machine shit is coming you'll end up with those problems becoming more problematic.

Most problems at this point are intractable even if they are in poly-time.

>random number generators corresponding to keyboard keys means AI will spontaneously develop intellect to form solid images and written works to emotionally connect with humans while not being hooked up to a predetermined algorithm
This is what dropping Computer Studies in high school does to you.

Attached: 75595E82-6091-40B5-8EFD-FF7ACBADD948-241-0000004F8A6A9217.png (361x408, 8K)

RIP

Attached: Pynchon.jpg (193x266, 37K)

Nope, what the human does is everything between input and output. That is a black box, and not programmable.

>he thinks that when AI makes music it isnt stealing tunes from other songs and running a algorithm that makes it choose some extra notes within a certain criteria to make it sound something more original
>he doesnt understand that a AI is nothing more than a huge basic dictionary of stimulus and responce system that tries to apply on new stuff and store it ins memory

This is the same as when people tried to teach chimps and monkeys to comunicate via sign language but came to the conclusion that it was impossible to make the chimps understand the meaning of those signs, as they would only use it as a stimulus.

If you teach an AI all the rules of grammar and story progression, the AI would still be mostly unable to use expressions like metaphors and parables or make adaptations for new ones, not to even mention if the logic of plot it makes adds up.

The question is, is it a black box because there is some metaphysical entity (e.g. a soul) which transcends our understanding of physics, chemistry, biology (neuroscience etc) thereby not allowing us to even begin to fathom how it works?

OR, and more likely (my money's on this one), is the human brain just a fucking huge network of neurons that we just can't comprehend it's operational capabilities at that size. I don't think any of the Yea Forums anons arguing against AI understand just how complex the brain is (100 billion neurons, 100 trillion synapses). Just because something is beyond the scope of your (and pretty much all of our) perception and understanding, doesn't give it a metaphysical characteristic (or maybe it does, that is up to debate especially in Yea Forums and /phil/ terms) automatically excluding it from being described as a mechanical object, it just means that we need to tackle with a more abstract approach (a la limits in math for example used to tackle infinity).

I'm not surprised Yea Forums is finding it this hard since your interests lie less in the STEM fields. I am, however, disappointed that for such high IQ autists you find this a difficult concept to grasp.

I'd be too busy fuckin my AI wiafu in VR to be bothered to visit this shithole

You realize that music can be broken down, for the most part, into theory, aspects of which can then be fed into a computer? Even Mozart was doing randomly generated music; computer generated music isn't any new ideas, it's just being refined with better computers. Language is a whole different ballpark, and it's another huge fucking leap from language to complex stories and all the emotions and themes they carry.

>The brain is consciousness
Sorry, you've lost me

Our teacher is making us do a book report on some crusty, old, organic's book. Uuuuggghhhh

Attached: 2818e67fec6be6543e3e9cc713b207622bc08c46147d4c10e5b654f13b96e307.jpg (622x319, 165K)

I thought we were agreeing to call it 山沟

feels superlative

Yup. We were making atom perfect cards years ago. Just has cancerous byproducts. If we're gonna make an AI it almost certainly demands something more than silicon.

There will be no literature in 2319. The earth will be a sparsely populated, toxic, radioactive, flood zone. All that we know today will have been forgotten.

But it can be broken down, too. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but it will be one day.

This is your brain on STEM. I'm telling you, real art is in a uniquely human class of its own. Computer generated music isn't real art

Why do you assume meat is the only thing capable of consciousness?

I'm sure glad the newest edition of cyborg president Obama decided to outlaw all fat people.

>VR Cunny
VR Cunny
>VR Cunny
VR Cunny
>VR Cunny
VR Cunny
>VR Cunny
VR Cunny

Haha mutts

This. Who would want to live in a place like that. I can smell the despair from a single glance.

based

techno-medievalism is guenonianism ever takes off

>uhhh brain big so no soul!

Every physical object within this universe is unimaginably complex. What grants human brains consciousness and not, say, a brick, or a spoon?

What about animal art? Are chimp or elephant paintings art? They are less conscious than humans, so it must not be art, right? Or, how about style transfer? 30% of art historians were fooled by AI style transfers. Is that not art?

I can't wait to read this new litrpg series from china.

Unless we made an AI with it's own thoughts (something we don't really want) we won't get anything original and only derivatives from whatever data we put into it.
There would be no original works produced this way at all.

I discovered a hidden treasure trove from a library dated to 2019 that has the forbidden works from the so called "Old dead white men". As we all know, those were all burned or erased back in 2097 when President Latisha Sanchez-Wong set the Literary Inquisition on all universities and libraries and eradicated all mention of the literary works of white men.