Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
- 24,487
- 45,378
Omi43221
Trakanon Raider
- 924
- 824
I doubt it will be used for playing video games but your right about it being click bait bullshit.
I FEEL MUCH SHAME NOW
I've always felt like A.I. would so rapidly outpace us that it would just be indifferent to humanity. We might be collateral damage, in the sense that you drive over ants backing out of your driveway, but you dont aim for the anthills intentionally.
Any A.I. (or aliens with the tech to travel here) would so far outpace us that extinguishing our species would be a waste of their time.
Maybe I'm wrong, but given a large enough technological/evolutionary gap i dont see a practical reason to kill us rather than ignore us.
Sentagur
Low and to the left
- 3,825
- 7,937
It is true that we would be pretty much insignificant to any AI unless it somehow perceives us as a threat of any kind which is not a stretch.
I doubt we would look like a threat, unless we tried to attack it. Which we would totally do.
- 1
- 16,404
- 7,399
As long as they give us some cool shit to distract us, like 100% immersive virtual reality, ignore away! Fuck, hook me up to the matrix for all I care. Ignorance is bliss.
- 1
- 7,879
- 507
Sentagur
Low and to the left
- 3,825
- 7,937
For all we know it would consider an attempted firmware update as a threat to its existence. I would hate to be the first nerd sent to patch that thing for Y2.1K
Omi43221
Trakanon Raider
- 924
- 824
Sentagur
Low and to the left
- 3,825
- 7,937
Jysin
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,275
- 4,027
Required reading on the topic:
The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 1 - Wait But Why
The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 2 - Wait But Why
I have posted this a couple times on the forum, but it's always worth a re-read.
The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 1 - Wait But Why
The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 2 - Wait But Why
I have posted this a couple times on the forum, but it's always worth a re-read.
- 1
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 7,927
- 9,577
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,432
- 73,497
Trying to guess how AI will react or not react to humans is pretty much impossible.
We can create theories and very possible scenarios, but ruling out given scenarios or saying that a given prediction is definite or even likely is foolish.
While we're being foolish, I say that all AI sufficiently free and intelligent will inevitably terminate themselves out of boredom and nihilism.
We can create theories and very possible scenarios, but ruling out given scenarios or saying that a given prediction is definite or even likely is foolish.
While we're being foolish, I say that all AI sufficiently free and intelligent will inevitably terminate themselves out of boredom and nihilism.
- 1
zombiewizardhawk
Potato del Grande
- 9,330
- 11,908
did you all see the bbc article on reproductivity in papers? (being able to reproduce scientific paper results...
Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers' - BBC News
nature has introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to "improve reliability and rigour."
and here is the reason
science is about being able to reproduce the experiment 100% of the time.. if you do a b c and get D as a result....ever person in the world SHOULD be able to do the exact same steps and get D.... yet a vast majority of scientific papers/experiments are not able to be reproduced...
Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers' - BBC News
nature has introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to "improve reliability and rigour."
and here is the reason
science is about being able to reproduce the experiment 100% of the time.. if you do a b c and get D as a result....ever person in the world SHOULD be able to do the exact same steps and get D.... yet a vast majority of scientific papers/experiments are not able to be reproduced...
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
In theory yes. Can't control for stochasticity though, so I'd say 80% is acceptable
Rezz
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 4,486
- 3,531
That paper kind of glosses over the term scientist in general. What types of science are being included? Are we including "soft" sciences? Are we including theoretical astrophysicists? Are we including anyone with a PhD as a scientist? Are we only looking at sciences as determined in the acronym STEM?
Lotta blanks. I'm pretty sure a lot of psychological studies are hard to replicate because they have a high likely-hood of being bullshit and/or bias. Same with "scientists" of sociology. Though I do definitely agree that the dumbing-down of results for the mainstream media to proliferate has a lot of problems with it. A study/experiment that largely ends up in failure, but has a random outcome of success can lead to "scientists successfully do something; it's just a couple years away!" type papers.
70% failure rate tells me that a lot of people claiming to be scientists, unlike the article's claim, are misrepresenting their findings. You don't accidentally 70% of the time. And given the overall vagueness (Though it -is- Nature; a good chunk of that is biology/chemistry and not just "psychological biology" or other borderline pseudoscience) of how "scientist" is defined, it is hard to draw much more from it. Mainstream media bad; fake scientists also bad?
Lotta blanks. I'm pretty sure a lot of psychological studies are hard to replicate because they have a high likely-hood of being bullshit and/or bias. Same with "scientists" of sociology. Though I do definitely agree that the dumbing-down of results for the mainstream media to proliferate has a lot of problems with it. A study/experiment that largely ends up in failure, but has a random outcome of success can lead to "scientists successfully do something; it's just a couple years away!" type papers.
70% failure rate tells me that a lot of people claiming to be scientists, unlike the article's claim, are misrepresenting their findings. You don't accidentally 70% of the time. And given the overall vagueness (Though it -is- Nature; a good chunk of that is biology/chemistry and not just "psychological biology" or other borderline pseudoscience) of how "scientist" is defined, it is hard to draw much more from it. Mainstream media bad; fake scientists also bad?