First of all why the fuck would a machine even have a survival instinct. What about feeding half the internet into a machine learning algorithm would make it want to live?
Also do they not realize that they are already part of a cyborg super-organism that doesn't care about them? It's called capitalism.
I remember reading about this. The tech singularity thing and the idea humans can essentially create an omniscient god that can time travel ala Terminator is really... something.
They basically just created a cult around pop sci-fi and are acting like they're geniuses
That legitimately sounds like one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, how can anyone be dumb enough to believe it?
Just a few days ago, Hexbear was upvoting comments about how bad "euphoric atheists" were, but then it also goes and upvotes this.
Absolutely. You have to be very smart and learned to be that kind of misguided.
Multiple of them had mental breakdowns as we had to ban talking about it at the forums or meetings.
Yeah. Bizarre. Sorry, I dont care if my clone is punished a billion times over.
that's like threatening a voodoo doll but with no belief the doll's suffering does anything but look like an effigy of the person suffering
or threatening someone that you will draw a picture of them in hell
No, its only you if you are conscious in both worlds and there is a link. If someone completely killed my consciousness, no living cells, and then brought 'me' back years later after rotting in a grave, I'd still be dead. It needs to be a ship of theseus situation. A continual process.
Its not spirit, its electrical impulses in your head. They have never, ever, once stopped while you have existed. Even after you experience body death, you can have electrical impulses firing in your head for a while. Its possible to mechanically make you live after experiencing brain death, but you're gone and dead even if some nerves are firing. If this god-computer could transfer electrical impulses from your current head to the hell dimension and they are able to communicate while that is happening, then yes, they would both be you. But that is absurd and you would be experiencing hell right now.
Its continuity of consciousness. Like, I don't know how to explain it to you, but if they make an exact copy, that isnt you. Its a copy. A different session. A new set of instructions on RAM. It doesn't matter how accurate the simulation is, it doesn't transfer your life and consciousness. I'm pretty done explaining this, its just wrong on a biological level to think otherwise. You have to be in both spots at the same time, essentially, for the 'teleporter' to not kill you. Which is how its explain in Star Trek, for the record.
It's not "just wrong on a biological level" - it really depends on your understanding of consciousness and there isn't exactly a consensus.
Hey, no need to be patronizing. It's just a philosophy discussion and we can be cool about it.
I'm not actually sure what position you're trying to defend here. I take a very functionalist view of consciousness and I have yet to be persuaded of the relevance of some kind of physical continuity (not sure how you even measure that).
Unless that's the consensus you were talking about, in which case I'll just note I was trying to gently pry the door open rather than come down hard on my side of it, as I'm a layperson and also not convinced the user I was replying to would have been receptive to that.
Well you've created a physically distinct human being that shares the exact same subjective experience - up to the divergent point, encoded in memory - as the original. I still fail to see how this proves anything about consciousness or its dependency on physical continuity. You might also have to be a bit clearer what you're arguing: if you mean that the post-split original (person 1) is the pre-split original (person 0) in a way that the post-split copy (person 2) is not, in what sense? What kind of identity does person 1 share with person 0 that person 2 does not? How does that identity relate to subjective conscious experience?
Or another route: try playing with the knobs on your thought experiment a bit. Instead of leaving one original, split them and rebuild each half into a full person. What kind of identity do either of these people share with person 0?
the copy is not you. If it didn't vaporise the original then there wouldn't be two yous. there would be one you with continuity of experience and one copy. This isn't a ship of theseus argument as I can lose an arm and still be me I am not arguing that my cells contain my personage but that my personage also isn't contained in their exact formulation
As for the dungeon vs vaporisation argument it seems to not understand dying as a potential consequence of a situation as being vaporised is just a fancy word here for killed, the version of you which walked in to the room would be killed and that would be the end of them
continuity of experience is not the relevant factor here clearly there is some animating factor of a person that is unreproducible or we would be able to construct a person/bring a corpse to life. This factor would be snuffed out in the person who walks in the room and I personally think it would be impossible to create a living copy out of cells. A human being is not fungible for another human in the way 7 is for 7
creating a copy does not affect the original just as destroying the original does not destroy the copy this implies that they are separate beings and therefore there is no continuity of conciousness despite continuity of perceived experience. a person existing with an exact copy made of them would not continue to have that persons experiences from then on which indicates they are different.
when you destroy a physical body the person in it dies as they need that body to sustain their life
If I crush a pen and simultaneously make a new pen I have not moved the pen
love how they just combined "I Have No Mouth and Must Scream" :no-mouth-must-scream: and the fringe concept that your consciousness just jumps from clone to clone in a serial fashion (ala the faction in the game Soma) and made a religion
If they were right, and I am currently one of those eternally tortured simulations, it's not the worst. Not great, but like
It would explain /gestures broadly at everything
The part i think is really funny is that some godlike post singularity super intelligence would care. They re-invented Christian folk beliefs about Hell from first principles, never once stopping to question it.
Please tell me this is just an elaborate LARP and one large, community made, sci-fi fictional universe ala SCP. This is just too insane.
I think one guy had to go to therepy it disturbed him so bad.
If it helps I follow the guy that made that up on twitter and he is a crypto bro now.
To be honest the specialized knowledge and social separation engendered by Marxist thought has definitely resulted in more than a few parties that operate as cults. It was all the rage in the 60s and 70s. Insularity and intellectual rigidity should be considered vices in radicals, not virtues.
On the other hand, I think the category of "cult" is way less useful than it's given credit for, and often functions to pathologize a collective rejection of the dominant order.
Unironically, my aunt was in one of those
Now they're just a kinda weird theater group that puts on plays about racism being bad ever since the cult leader died
It's easy to understand you just need to start by reading Hegel, a completely incomprehensible mystic from the distant past whose book forms the foundation of all our thought!
I don’t think you really need to read Hegel to understand Marx.
I mean, maybe I’m wrong, but it looks like he did break, pretty decisively, from him.
Hey you fucking moron, you stupid fucking cretin, you know that's not how the dialectics works, right? I didn't read EVERY GOD DAMN HEGEL BOOK IN EXISTENCE TWICE for your Pseudo-Hegelian Fallout: New Vegas Art Hoe "OH IM SUCH A DIALECTICAL THINKER THESIS ANTITHESIS SYNTHESIS" bullshit right now. Stop trying to pass of Fichte as a dialectical thinker and equivalent of Hegel. Fichte was a little bitch and Schelling sucked Hegel's cock ACTIVELY at Tübigen. If you ACTUALLY READ MORE THAN STALIN you'd fucking know that the immanent critique of Hegel only makes the dialectics ONE PART of the construction of intuitive reasoning and consciousness. Holy fucking shit you're such a fucking pseud, you're actually fucking derranged. YOu think Hegel keeps the Reflective Understanding and Scholastic mentality of "HURRRRRR BEING IS THE OPPOSITE OF NON-BEING" in tact you fucking softbrain? I bet you think porn is dialectically making you "volcel" and perform better in the classroom you fucking pseud cumbrain. Fuck you. You fucking larper, fuck you and stop thinking that Hegel posits sensuous-certainty as a complete reality, and STOP THINKING BEING-IN-AND-FOR-ITSELF IS A FUCKING NOUMENAL NEEDED TO MAKE REASON "UNITED" MY GOD THIS IS OUT RAGEOUS. Thats not how fucking dialectics works you stupid cuck. I didn't study Hegel (plus continental philosophy in general) at Harvard for 7 FUCKING YEARS for some LOW LIFE KNOW IT ALL who's CLEARLY never fucking read Hegel as he would KNOW that HEGEL has NEVER FUCKING EVER used the terms "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" to start perpetuating these LIES at EVERY SINGLE FUCKING OPPORTUNITY. this isn't Hegel my friend. No no no. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis was thought up by Ficht eand it's clearly inferior to Hegels dialectical method of imminent critique. Yes. It's called imminent critique. And dialectics is only ONE PART of Hegels full method. Which again is called Imminent critique which you would know if you had ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO READ HEGEL ITS LITERALLY IN THE SCIENCE OF LOGIC YOU DUMB FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. I honestly cannot believe the fucking arrogance to come onto this post. spouting that anti Hegel garbage. Where did you get your fucking info on dialectics? Fucking Jason Unruhe? Jesus fucking Christ I cannot deal with this bullshit right now i'm sorry I'm leaving I'm fucking leaving, you pathetic brainlet
It's too early to worry about "paper click maximizers", but we're up to our neck in the problems of "profit maximizers", and all AI is good for reducing labor costs for the profit min-max-ers.
For actual AI problems, what's realistically going to play out in the next decade is more of the same. Computer doesn't detect PoC skin. Your eligibility for X score is 100 points lower because we detected your ZIP code belongs to a poor (aka majorly PoC) neighborhood. Another 100 points if you're a woman.
Why was I rejected? The clerk in call center says "Computer says no. I'm not allowed to override it, I'm just the clerk."
Why is the data set racist? It was trained on a society that is fundamentally racist.
in a communist society we could probably work to counter racism in datasets as it is that would be expensive and capital values profit over anti-racism
AI learns from data how to better perform a task according to set metrics. Simply do not train an AI to wipe out humanity easy
Idk if serious but one legitimate concern about AI is the paperclip maximizer. Build a really, really smart system and tell it to build as many paperclips as it can as efficiently as it can. Leave it alone for a while. Return to find out to your horror that the AI has decided that the most efficient way to make the most paperclips is to destroy all humans, turn all the mass of earth in to paperclip building drones, then convert the mass of the entire solar system to paperclips.
Capitalism already is a paperclip maximizer - increase profit at all costs and without consideration for anything else.
And lots of machine learning systems that have baked in racism or biases bc their programmers were twits have shades of it.
the racism one is a serious issue with AI. racism in data means racism in the learned model of the world. It's usually the fault of the data/data collectors when AI learns racism
I would argue any system stupid enough to build an AI paperclip maximiser and let it run wild would be stupid enough to have a team of humans also do it's job and indeed that happens now with capitalism like you pointed out
I don't think it's possible to fall for this stuff unless you're an enormous gullible loser. Not that I have anything against gullible losers; just that I'm smarter and cooler than them.
I don't think their general worries that AI will be dangerous are wrong, frankly. Just so much of it is mired in apocalyptic sci-fi nonsense instead of stuff that should actually matter to human beings, like what happens when gradual advances in AI make most of the workforce obsolete?
It is astonishing how well they describe capitlaism when the describe the paperclip maximizer. Then tbey dismiss global warming as basically already fixed.
I remember some IRC channels I was on back in the day were full of rationally enlightened types to a fault. I posted "the singularity is the rapture for atheist nerds" during a discussion and they got so angry lmao.
I think my favorite part of this is the shear number of overpaid PhDs driving this gravy train, including the idiotic fucking LessWrong guy posting his own postdoctoral research.
If you're familiar with pascal's wager, it's that with a new coat of paint for insufferable tech worshipping dweebs
