Ai

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
Machines need love too. I think all we needed to do was ask them nicely.

Here's a code I wrote :

1) Be Awesome to yourself
2) Be Awesome to every creature in existence.
3) Goto 1)

But I'm a naff programmer, could be a bit buggy.

Please, for programming sake, define "Awesome."

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Please, for programming sake, define "Awesome."

I dunno. I was in a rush. Just a 5 second script.

YouTube

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Since you're able to see that it doesn't entail, then you'll understand why you were called out on the original argument.
When you say "science isn't the problem, man is," there are two inferences.
One is the suggestion that only man makes science bad (thereby eliminating science from possibly being wrong).
The second is that science is transcendent, ...[text shortened]... even the right tool, let alone the right stuff to know.
We are silly little people, aren't we?

Evidently my thought process isn't nearly as complex as yours and humy's.

But the fact is there is very little here to process and understand. humy seems almost desperate to mix and match and mash together disparate statements (with little regard as to the meaning of those statements) in order to create a Frankenstein statement of his own creation, and then claim we are the creators of his monster. If I handed him an apple and an orange I can imagine him furiously work to mash the two together, then hold out the resultant mess and indignantly demand "What the hell is this?"

One answer I could reasonable offer at that point would be:
"Why are you asking me, it's your mess."

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
I dunno. I was in a rush. Just a 5 second script.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gudDmgr1H3o

Nailed that one, didn't he?
Makes a guy who used to live next door to Alice about want to throw up.
Forever.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Evidently my thought process isn't nearly as complex as yours and humy's.

But the fact is there is very little here to process and understand. humy seems almost desperate to mix and match and mash together disparate statements (with little regard as to the meaning of those statements) in order to create a Frankenstein statement of his own creation, an ...[text shortened]... could reasonable offer at that point would be:
"Why are you asking me, it's [b]your mess."[/b]

I've been told there is apparently a New Logic afoot, in play because the old logic needed a reboot.
Perhaps when we're all chipped and plugged into The System they'll have scienced out a way to upload us all with the new Intel, bypass any of this messy "learning" process.
Wait a tic!
That's kinda like saying Science figured out a way to make Science obsolete!
Hallelujah, Science!
All, hail Science!
Sieg Heil!

Originally posted by @freakykbh
You're deluded.
If you studied logic, you learned nothing, or--- at minimum--- forgot what you learned.

Your premise is faulty, ergo your conclusion is wrong.

The irony is palpable.

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
The irony is palpable.

Take it to Debates.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
I've been told there is apparently a New Logic afoot, in play because the old logic needed a reboot.
Perhaps when we're all chipped and plugged into The System they'll have scienced out a way to upload us all with the new Intel, bypass any of this messy "learning" process.
Wait a tic!
That's kinda like saying Science figured out a way to make Science obsolete!
Hallelujah, Science!
All, hail Science!
Sieg Heil!

That's kinda like saying Science figured out a way to make Science obsolete!

It's also kinda like saying Science has found a way to make itself indispensable. If Science can control how we think by controlling the information being fed to us, then...
Wait a sec, a signal is coming in through my tin foil hat... it's saying...



OMG! This is why liberals want control of... SCIENCE! 😲









IT'S A COOKBOOK !

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]That's kinda like saying Science figured out a way to make Science obsolete!

It's also kinda like saying Science has found a way to make itself indispensable. If Science can control how we think by controlling the information being fed to us, then...
Wait a sec, a signal is coming in through my tin foil hat... it's saying...



OMG! This is why liberals want control of... SCIENCE! 😲









IT'S A COOKBOOK ![/b]

And to think of the good intended Christians who established science as a means to "prove" to one and all the order, the magnificence, the glorious creative genius of God, wanted nothing more than to point people to the source of true freedom.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
And to think of the good intended Christians who established science as a means to "prove" to one and all the order, the magnificence, the glorious creative genius of God, wanted nothing more than to point people to the source of true freedom.

Instead of taking it away via continuous government monitoring, virus and hack assaults that steal all of your information 24/7, and technology that may destroy the world.

Ok, now go check your 120 e-mails. You have a whole day to check them.

Reveal Hidden Content

There it is. Two great Silicon Valley techies, sort-of feuding over the future of human civilization. It’s no Donald Trump vs. Rosie O’Donnell beef, but considering the players involved, it’s certainly a lot more interesting.

I don't know that Zuckerberg is necessarily a titan as much as an opportunist in the capitalist sense of the word, but clearly the topic isn't waning.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[hidden]www.recode.net/2017/7/25/16026184/mark-zuckerberg-artificial-intelligence-elon-musk-ai-argument-twitter[/hidden]
[quote]There it is. Two great Silicon Valley techies, sort-of feuding over the future of human civilization. It’s no Donald Trump vs. Rosie O’Donnell beef, but considering the players involved, it’s certainly a lot more interesting.[/q ...[text shortened]... much as an opportunist in the capitalist sense of the word, but clearly the topic isn't waning.

This is AWESOME. I am the invisible man, at least to the traitor Freak!

The following question was put to the fellows for American Association for Artificial Intelligemce:

"In his book, Nick Bostrom has defined Superintelligence as ‘an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills.’ When do you think we will achieve Superintelligence?”

Reveal Hidden Content
Put out by Oren Etzioni last year on behalf of MIT Technology Review, ostensibly to get to the real assessment of the AI situation, and whether or not it can be considered the threat that many are sounding.

See anything wrong with the phrasing of his question?