[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 83192)
Message
File  []
close
1a1a437fdc5a665d1024b4028b7e9fae.jpg
831928319283192
>> No. 83192 Anonymous
19th July 2017
Wednesday 6:30 pm
83192 Pensions thought
So the pension age has been stuck up again, this is due to the argument that more old people, more pension, more money etc etc etc.

However, if people work longer and we have more old people in employment, then aren't they going to block up the job market resulting in less jobs for young people? If there's less jobs for young people they will end up being dependent on the state and claim benefits.

Does this not mean that regardless of what is done it's going to hit one budget or the other, essentially? Either it's going to cost more long term in pension or more long term in benefits and essentially cancel out any gains made.

I'm only putting this out there as a thought I've had for a while and never really heard anyone else putting the point across and I was wondering, is that because I'm making a fucking stupid point?
45 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 83250 Anonymous
9th August 2017
Wednesday 2:48 am
83250 spacer
>>83248

According to everything that I've read recently, human consciousness comes about due to the separation of the mind into two parts: the maintenance (respiration, excretion, etc) and primitive impulses (fight or flight), and the "higher cognition" which mainly deals in overriding the instincts of our "animal brain" and allowing us to apply reason to our actions.

This obviously gives us advantages to other animals who cannot reason over their actions such as planning, forward thinking, rationing of food and water, (theoretical) control over out population size and so on and so forth.

The "illusion" of consciousness comes about because "one brain" (the higher faculties) is always watching the "other brain" (our impulses) and applying moralistic and/or ethical decisions over its output. Thus we arrive at phraseology as "let your conscience be your guide".

I'm too tired/issed right now but do a google search and look up the theory that the ancient Greeks hadn't yet fully developed the higher faculties and heard what we currently call the Internal Monologue as the voices of God(s). It's not conspiracy stuff at all.
>> No. 83251 Anonymous
9th August 2017
Wednesday 7:24 am
83251 spacer
>>83249 It's simply impossible to program that into an AI and to suggest we could is to say that you know the properties and importance of every data point generated by humanity in the last 6000 years.

How is this different from children? Bring up your AI like you would a child. It's not as if children get the full 6000 years of every datapoint ever - they get a distilled (and often contradictory) view. Your Amish kid gets a different world from an inuit from a prince, and yet all more or less come out functional.

If you think that consciousness is magic and popped in from outside, just say.
>> No. 83252 Anonymous
9th August 2017
Wednesday 8:53 am
83252 spacer
>>83251
Indeed, there's no reason to suggest something needs human intelligence to be intelligent.
>> No. 83253 Anonymous
9th August 2017
Wednesday 11:01 am
83253 spacer
>>83252

Exactly this. The human brain is hopelessly limited in all sorts of ways compared to intelligent machines. It's absurdly illogical to suggest that 1.4kg lumps of meat will always and forever be superior to arbitrarily large lumps of doped silicon and wire.

The "problem" of consciousness is a dog-and-pony show. We can't even define it, so it's ludicrous to assume that it's something unique to biological brains. It has no practical relevance, and it's a strain of argument that invariably boils down to "machines can't have souls". Consciousness is unique to humans -> machines are not human -> machines cannot be conscious -> humans will always be superior to machines. It's exactly the same circular logic as "the bible is true because it says so in the bible".
>> No. 83254 Anonymous
10th August 2017
Thursday 1:21 am
83254 spacer
>>83253

If you cannot define what consciousness is, why do you use it as a word to describe "it"? And how can you create something that you cannot define? AI is all about mimicking consciousness, creating the illusion of consciousness, but if that cannot be defined then aren't they just making it up as they go along?
>> No. 83255 Anonymous
10th August 2017
Thursday 2:21 am
83255 spacer
>>83254

>AI is all about mimicking consciousness

No it isn't. Not in any way, shape or form. AI is about making machines that can think. In the here-and-now, that means special-purpose machines that can do one task well, with or without situational learning. In the long-term, that means artificial general intelligence - a machine that can independently learn any skill through observation and experimentation. Neither class of machine requires anything that could reasonably be described as "consciousness".


Turing preempted all this in 1950 in his paper Computer Machinery and Intelligence, systematically dismantling all of the key arguments against AI at a time when most people had never even heard the word "computer". I have no idea if your internal experience is the same as mine. It's entirely possible that I'm the only real thinking and feeling person in this world and everyone else is an elaborate automaton or a figment of my imagination. I don't know if my understanding of "blueness" is the same as yours, or if you have a totally different internal experience when you look at the sky. I don't know if you experience pain as I do, or if you're just pretending. The practical implications of this quandry are effectively nil - you can't prove to me that you aren't a philosophical zombie, but I assume that you aren't out of basic politeness.

We fundamentally don't care about the qualitative internal experience of those machines; we care about what they can do. Consciousness might be a fascinating line of inquiry for philosophers, but it is utterly irrelevant to computer scientists. When designing software to drive a car, we don't care whether the car is really "driving" or just following a complex set of instructions, we care about whether it gets from A to B safely. The same applies if we're designing software to do preparatory work for legal firms, to diagnose cancer or to provide talking therapy to people suffering from mental illness. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is in every other way indistinguishable from a duck, we don't really care whether it has an internal self-conception of duckness.

There are big and important questions that need to be answered in regards to AI - what we'll do when we're worse than machines at everything, how we stop a rogue AI from turning all the matter in the universe into paperclips, how we can impose our values on superintelligent machines. A lot of very smart, very informed people are genuinely concerned that badly-regulated AI technology might unintentionally kill us all. Whether those machines really think or just perfectly impersonate the act of thinking in every respect is not high on our list of priorities.

If you're still completely unconvinced by my arguments, I'd strongly recommend that you take some time to study the practical facts of AI. Machines can perform exquisitely complex and difficult tasks without replicating the human brain in any way. Examine how Deep Blue and AlphaGo work under the hood, how fraud detection algorithms work, how a Roomba hoovers a floor. Learn the basics of search and sorting algorithms, learn how a Markov chain or a Bayesian network operates. Go right to the fundamentals of computer science - if you don't understand the implications of the universal Turing machine and the lambda calculus, you're fumbling about in the dark.
>> No. 83256 Anonymous
10th August 2017
Thursday 2:30 am
83256 spacer
>>83255

I didn't post >>83254 but now I'm starting to wonder if you're the same person who posted about Moravec's paradox, and if you are I'm going to have a giggle and hide this thread, because I'm arguing with you to defend your own point. Which is just perfectly fucking Britfa.

Also learn to sage, you cunt.
>> No. 83257 Anonymous
10th August 2017
Thursday 2:34 am
83257 spacer
>>83255
>>83256

Also you can wrap the lambda calculus (and the knights of) up in a bunch of Lispy parenthesis and shove them right up your arse.

Let's have a handbags at dawn cunt off over Knuth where the winner gets a threesome with RMS and his parrot.
>> No. 83260 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 12:57 am
83260 spacer
>>83255

>No it isn't. Not in any way, shape or form. AI is about making machines that can think. In the here-and-now, that means special-purpose machines that can do one task well, with or without situational learning. In the long-term, that means artificial general intelligence - a machine that can independently learn any skill through observation and experimentation. Neither class of machine requires anything that could reasonably be described as "consciousness".

Thought, observation and experimentation all require consciousness/awareness. How do I know I'm aware? Because I'm aware that I'm aware. I'm also aware of that, and that and so on to an infinite regression. For AI to do that would require infinite processing power, infinite memory and infinite code.

>Turing preempted all this in 1950 in his paper Computer Machinery and Intelligence, systematically dismantling all of the key arguments against AI at a time when most people had never even heard the word "computer". I have no idea if your internal experience is the same as mine. It's entirely possible that I'm the only real thinking and feeling person in this world and everyone else is an elaborate automaton or a figment of my imagination. I don't know if my understanding of "blueness" is the same as yours, or if you have a totally different internal experience when you look at the sky. I don't know if you experience pain as I do, or if you're just pretending. The practical implications of this quandry are effectively nil - you can't prove to me that you aren't a philosophical zombie, but I assume that you aren't out of basic politeness.

Wouldn't the practical issue with that be the "people" creating AI aren't actually conscious, therefore how can they can create anything? The only person that can in this scenario would be yourself.

>We fundamentally don't care about the qualitative internal experience of those machines; we care about what they can do. Consciousness might be a fascinating line of inquiry for philosophers, but it is utterly irrelevant to computer scientists. When designing software to drive a car, we don't care whether the car is really "driving" or just following a complex set of instructions, we care about whether it gets from A to B safely. The same applies if we're designing software to do preparatory work for legal firms, to diagnose cancer or to provide talking therapy to people suffering from mental illness. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is in every other way indistinguishable from a duck, we don't really care whether it has an internal self-conception of duckness.

We will care when they are creating AI that is supposed to be conscious. No one gives a shit about AI cars or AI that does preparatory legal work because you can't have a conversation with it, or interact with it in any meaningful way. It's when things supposedly become conscious and have their own identity, do things become more sinister, something the film industry loves to peddle.

>There are big and important questions that need to be answered in regards to AI - what we'll do when we're worse than machines at everything, how we stop a rogue AI from turning all the matter in the universe into paperclips, how we can impose our values on superintelligent machines. A lot of very smart, very informed people are genuinely concerned that badly-regulated AI technology might unintentionally kill us all. Whether those machines really think or just perfectly impersonate the act of thinking in every respect is not high on our list of priorities.

But didn't you say we fundamentally don't care about the qualitative internal experiences of such machines?

We should care very much about whether a machine is conscious or not. If a machine is truly conscious, then it must also be held responsible for its actions. If it is not conscious, then the creators of the machine must be held responsible. You could get away with a lot of shit by programming a machine to act in a certain way, but claim it is actually conscious and doing it of its own accord so you can't be held responsible.

>If you're still completely unconvinced by my arguments, I'd strongly recommend that you take some time to study the practical facts of AI. Machines can perform exquisitely complex and difficult tasks without replicating the human brain in any way. Examine how Deep Blue and AlphaGo work under the hood, how fraud detection algorithms work, how a Roomba hoovers a floor. Learn the basics of search and sorting algorithms, learn how a Markov chain or a Bayesian network operates. Go right to the fundamentals of computer science - if you don't understand the implications of the universal Turing machine and the lambda calculus, you're fumbling about in the dark.

I think AI is a great thing, but I am not blind to its limitations. I have no issue with it performing complex tasks, it's just that it will never understand those complex tasks, only we can.
>> No. 83261 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 10:05 am
83261 spacer
>>83260
>How do I know I'm aware? Because I'm aware that I'm aware. I'm also aware of that, and that and so on to an infinite regression. For AI to do that would require infinite processing power, infinite memory and infinite code.
Why? You don't have those things and you seem to cope.
>> No. 83263 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 1:37 pm
83263 spacer
>>83261
He's special.
>> No. 83264 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 9:51 pm
83264 spacer
>>83261

How do you know you're aware?
>> No. 83265 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 10:52 pm
83265 spacer
>>83264
If I don't or can't then it's a moot point if AI can.
>> No. 83266 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 11:01 pm
83266 spacer
>>83265

You're telling me you don't know you're aware?
>> No. 83267 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 11:03 pm
83267 spacer
>>83266
No, I'm telling you I don't know how I know I'm aware and regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about being aware, if I am conscious then it's irrelevant if an AI can know how it's aware, or if I can know that the AI is aware.
>> No. 83268 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 11:19 pm
83268 spacer
>>83267

But are you aware that you're aware?
>> No. 83269 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 11:45 pm
83269 spacer
>>83268
I'm aware that I'm aware to as many degrees as you want to go, however I, like any decent AI or even fairly basic software, have checks built in that make me aware when I'm in a pointless loop and prevent it from being followed further.
>> No. 83270 Anonymous
11th August 2017
Friday 11:57 pm
83270 spacer
>>83269

You cannot have awareness without that infinite regression.

You cannot code infinite regression into finite code, it's logically impossible.
>> No. 83271 Anonymous
12th August 2017
Saturday 12:03 am
83271 spacer
>>83270
There is no infinite regression because I stop thinking about it when I realise it's tending towards infinite regression, as any basic software does.
>> No. 83272 Anonymous
12th August 2017
Saturday 12:15 am
83272 spacer
>>83271

It doesn't stop when you stop thinking about it, because you're still aware. Just because you're not thinking about the infinite regression, doesn't stop it from existing.
>> No. 83273 Anonymous
12th August 2017
Saturday 12:24 am
83273 spacer
>>83272

The potential for infinite regression is there, or at least up until the point that I starve to death because I'm doing nothing but thinking "I'm aware that I'm aware that I'm aware ad nauseam", much like software has the potential for infinite regression but stops itself looping because it's going to run out of memory.
>> No. 83274 Anonymous
12th August 2017
Saturday 12:41 am
83274 spacer
>>83273

You don't need to say to yourself that you're aware in a loop to be aware, that's just a way to prove awareness is an infinite regression.

If AI cannot do the same, then it is not conscious.
>> No. 83275 Anonymous
12th August 2017
Saturday 1:07 am
83275 spacer
>>83274
That seems awfully spurious.
>> No. 83276 Anonymous
12th August 2017
Saturday 1:52 am
83276 spacer
>>83275

If AI is to be aware, it needs to be aware that it's aware... etc ad infinitum, that's just how awareness works.
>> No. 83277 Anonymous
12th August 2017
Saturday 2:38 am
83277 spacer
>>83276

In a similar infinite loop, you appear to be ignorant of your own ignorance.
>> No. 83278 Anonymous
12th August 2017
Saturday 10:54 am
83278 spacer
>>83276
I think you've been misreading Hofstadter.
>> No. 83283 Anonymous
17th August 2017
Thursday 10:36 pm
83283 spacer
>>83277
>>83278

Make your cases for how awareness can be programmed into A.I.

If awareness is a finite process that can be coded into A.I, where does it begin, and where does it end? As soon as that process ends, you don't have awareness any more.
>> No. 83284 Anonymous
17th August 2017
Thursday 11:58 pm
83284 spacer
>>83283
Make your case for how that doesn't apply to humans without invoking magic.
>> No. 83286 Anonymous
18th August 2017
Friday 6:04 pm
83286 spacer
>>83284

I consider awareness to be a non-physical "thing", which is why we are able to separate "ourselves" from our physical body as well as all other physical things. We say "I have a brain", rather than directly identifying as the brain, which implies something else has a brain - that something else being non-physical awareness/consciousness.

The current argument against this is that the brain is the thing creating the consciousness. Consciousness is just an "emergent property" of the brain. Yet there is no physical evidence of this emergent property, the closest we get is the chemical/electrical activity of the brain, but this does not prove the chemical/electrical activity is what's creating consciousness. For that to be true, you will have to argue that non-conscious matter/processes can create consciousness, which is logically impossible. Scientists aren't afraid of being illogical though, considering many believe that something can come from nothing (big bang), despite also believing that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

So my argument is that awareness cannot be an "emergent property" of non-aware code and hardware either.
>> No. 83287 Anonymous
18th August 2017
Friday 6:45 pm
83287 spacer
>>83286

Conciousness is the result of the soul, something arising from Logos, the godhead infusing everything in the Universe with its firey breath.
>> No. 83288 Anonymous
18th August 2017
Friday 6:48 pm
83288 spacer
>>83287
Bullshit.
Consciousness is the result of the Buddhas Auntie Mavis dreaming that we exist.
>> No. 83290 Anonymous
18th August 2017
Friday 8:46 pm
83290 spacer
>>83286
So ... magic then.
>We say "I have a brain", rather than
Great, quirks of language are now evidence of souls.
>> No. 83291 Anonymous
18th August 2017
Friday 9:55 pm
83291 spacer
>>83286
>>83290

> So my argument is that awareness cannot be an "emergent property"

Consciousness is evidently an emergent property even in humans. A newborn is no more self aware than a potato.
>> No. 83292 Anonymous
19th August 2017
Saturday 2:05 am
83292 spacer
>>83286
>this does not prove the chemical/electrical activity is what's creating consciousness. For that to be true, you will have to argue that non-conscious matter/processes can create consciousness, which is logically impossible
Do you also think it's logically impossible to rub two things that aren't on fire together to create a fire?
>> No. 83293 Anonymous
19th August 2017
Saturday 3:11 am
83293 spacer
>>83286
>>83292

"you will have to argue that non-conscious matter/processes can create consciousness, which is logically impossible"

I find this statement bizarre. Human front-brain consciousness is obviously an evolved trait; that is to say that something that wasn't conscious became conscious over time.
>> No. 83294 Anonymous
19th August 2017
Saturday 8:39 am
83294 spacer
>>83286
>something can come from nothing (big bang)
Wasn't the big-bang a move from an infinitely small point with a fuckload of energy to the expanding universe we may or may not have today? i.e. energy didn't "come from nowhere" during the big bang, it's always been there and just gone from concentrated to diffuse.
>> No. 83299 Anonymous
23rd August 2017
Wednesday 10:41 pm
83299 spacer
>>83298 Oh give it a rest, the pair of you. This is like one huge pedantry pissing contest.
>> No. 83300 Anonymous
23rd August 2017
Wednesday 10:42 pm
83300 spacer
>>83290

Language is very important - science can't get away from it either.

>>83291
Of course a new born is aware, if it wasn't it might as well be a potato. A new born just isn't able to articulate things as well as adults can.

>>83292
That's two physical things creating another physical thing with the help of oxygen and friction etc.

>>83293

So this magical force called evolution created consciousness? Is evolution a conscious force, or does it somehow just "know" how to create consciousness despite being the complete direct opposite of it. It's like saying up creates down.

>>83294
>infinitely small point

Scientists love to complain about "silly semantics", but this is an example of just that. Smallness cannot be infinite, that doesn't make any sense. If something is labelled as small then it is also finite, otherwise you can't measure it.
>> No. 83301 Anonymous
23rd August 2017
Wednesday 11:28 pm
83301 spacer
>>83300
Science having trouble extricating itself from language doesn't mean that semantic quirks prove anything beyond their own history. If I stub my toe I say fuck but it has nothing to do with sex.

>So this magical force called evolution
idiot
>> No. 83302 Anonymous
24th August 2017
Thursday 2:09 pm
83302 spacer
>>83300
>Smallness cannot be infinite, that doesn't make any sense
Wow, weird how the conditions of the initial singularity don't make intuitive sense to you. It's almost as if your consciousness evolved to aid in your survival and reproduction in a terrestrial environment and as such is ill equipped to grapple with physical cosmology.
>> No. 83316 Anonymous
24th August 2017
Thursday 9:43 pm
83316 spacer
>>83302
>>83301

I'm just going to keep pointing out how tedious your bickering is until one of you notices.
>> No. 83319 Anonymous
24th August 2017
Thursday 10:22 pm
83319 spacer
>>83316
Hide the thread or post something you think is worthwhile then you moaning cunt.
>> No. 83336 Anonymous
25th August 2017
Friday 7:31 am
83336 spacer
>>83319 I did, it turned into this nonsense.
>> No. 83376 Anonymous
25th August 2017
Friday 10:49 pm
83376 spacer
>>83301
>Science having trouble extricating itself from language doesn't mean that semantic quirks prove anything beyond their own history. If I stub my toe I say fuck but it has nothing to do with sex.

Context matters in language.

>idiot

Where does the force of evolution get its energy from?

>Wow, weird how the conditions of the initial singularity don't make intuitive sense to you. It's almost as if your consciousness evolved to aid in your survival and reproduction in a terrestrial environment and as such is ill equipped to grapple with physical cosmology.

Does the "initial singularity" make intuitive sense to anyone, or is it all complete bullshit? But as long as those scientists come out with these intellectual sounding buzz words it must be true. This kind of stuff is totally non-scientific and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.
>> No. 83378 Anonymous
26th August 2017
Saturday 12:08 am
83378 spacer
>>83376
0/10.
>> No. 83380 Anonymous
26th August 2017
Saturday 1:07 pm
83380 spacer
New industries create different kinds of jobs.
>> No. 83381 Anonymous
26th August 2017
Saturday 1:18 pm
83381 spacer
>>83376

Evolution isn't a force, you dipshit. Plus, force is the conversion of energy from one firm to another, so the question doesn't even make sense.

Just fuck off and educate yourself a bit, would you? If you're going to try to convince people you should at least have some idea what they believe.
>> No. 83422 Anonymous
1st September 2017
Friday 7:42 pm
83422 spacer
>>83381

>Evolution isn't a force

What is it then? Pretty sure evolution is the conversion of energy of one form to another. Educate me if not.
>> No. 83424 Anonymous
1st September 2017
Friday 9:15 pm
83424 spacer
>>83422

Evolution is the adaptation of an organism over time to its habitat, to facilitate a greater chance of successful reproduction.
>> No. 83425 Anonymous
1st September 2017
Friday 9:56 pm
83425 spacer
>>83424
Technically, evolution is the process of change in inherited traits over successive generations. What you're describing is natural selection.

Pedant's sage.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password