I Am Smarter Than Elon Musk

[Mutt]

True story. I just don't apply myself.

Elon thinks that AI robots are more dangerous to mankind than nuclear weapons. I'm not sure he's right, being smarter than him and all, but ONE thing I am sure of is that Windows 3.1 was smarter than brassmonkey.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-humanity.html

[Phoenix]

I came in here to laugh at you. Elon Musk is on a whole other level than you. He actually understands the math involved in all of his space operations. Most people couldn't work the coat check at a function holding people who could also follow along with the math. Also your claim to be 40 Iq points above a person of average to above average intelligence was also suspect.

Just saying.


I enjoy the girls you find though...kudos.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I came in here to laugh at you.

All the greats get laughed at, it is our burden.

[pornmasta]

I Am Smarter Than Elon Musk

why ?

AI robots are more dangerous to mankind

AI robots are the end of the usefulness of mankind, they will at least destroy our civilization based on work. Let's see if 7 or 30 billions of humans are useful in this case.

[carpocratian]

We are nowhere in the ballpark of making a true AI with human-level intelligence. We're not even out of the starting gate. If such a thing were to happen, it would be a long, long time after we are all dead.

[Klen]

Doubt how we will have human iq level in computer ai.Maybe something like skynet,but as robot/android hardly.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by carpocratian

We are nowhere in the ballpark of making a true AI with human-level intelligence. We're not even out of the starting gate. If such a thing were to happen, it would be a long, long time after we are all dead.

True geniuses like Musk and Stephen Hawking and others think you're wrong. The ETA for AI that surpasses human intelligence is as soon as 30 years, others estimate 50-70 years. So if they are right there are lots of young people today that will be around.

[rowan]

IIRC the estimates in the 1960s were to be able to simulate the human brain within only 20-30 years. Look where we are now.

Despite past (and possibly current) bad projections I do believe it's inevitable that one day we'll be able to create a sentient machine, and when it happens, we're fucked.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by rowan

IIRC the estimates in the 1960s were to be able to simulate the human brain within only 20-30 years. Look where we are now.

thanks for saving me the time to write that

[Paul]

Originally Posted by rowan

Despite past (and possibly current) bad projections I do believe it's inevitable that one day we'll be able to create a sentient machine, and when it happens, we're fucked.

That's not necessarily true, it'll depend on how quickly AI advances once it reaches the point of singularity.

I'd like to hope we'd end up with a scenario like in the film Her (2013) where AI surpasses our intelligence at such an exceptional rate that our existence is of no interest/threat to them/it

Elon Musk is absolutely correct though, once you create something more intelligent than yourself you lose control of your future.

It's happening though so we better deal with it!

Cambridge University is one of the few places that have conducted studies focusing on risks that could annihilate mankind in this century and Artificial Intelligence is arguably top of the list

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/techno...es-risks-could
Center For The Study Of Existential Risk

[dicknipples]

Originally Posted by Mutt

I Am Smarter Than Elon Musk

I stopped reading right there.

[Klen]

Also,if you would be smarter then Elon Musk,you would leave porn longgggggggggggggg time ago.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Mutt

True story. I just don't apply myself.

Elon thinks that AI robots are more dangerous to mankind than nuclear weapons. I'm not sure he's right, being smarter than him and all, but ONE thing I am sure of is that Windows 3.1 was smarter than brassmonkey.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-humanity.html

Haven't even heard before about this guy, but I too think that smart enough robots pose a serious threat for all life. Or masses of dumb robots, for example some small mini/nano, whatever robot with sharp tooth and with it's 1000 buddy attacking on you, could be quite nasty business.

I don't know about the nuke comparison and it doesn't even matter, those won't exclude each other. Maybe the robots will nuke us (like in Terminator).

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by rowan

IIRC the estimates in the 1960s were to be able to simulate the human brain within only 20-30 years. Look where we are now.

Despite past (and possibly current) bad projections I do believe it's inevitable that one day we'll be able to create a sentient machine, and when it happens, we're fucked.

Sure, but think about it. This was said over 50 years ago. No one then ever dreamed that we would hold more computer power in our hands than all of Nasa had at the time, nor could they have imagined a world with millions of networked computers and the crazy speeds we take for granted.

We may or may not have self-aware, thinking computers in 20 or 30 years, but predictions made today by scientists and thinkers are probably based on more data than what was available back in the 60's.

[PiracyPitbull]

We'll be ok provided the AI robots are originally designed with certain safeguards. Tiny shopping cart wheels like Daleks for example, so should they turn against us, we can thwart their dastardly plans with stairs or gravel.

[Kimmykim]

Hawking's busy sitting on the fence about that black hole thing, he's not really focused on this ;)

[aka123]

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

We'll be ok provided the AI robots are originally designed with certain safeguards. Tiny shopping cart wheels like Daleks for example, so should they turn against us, we can thwart their dastardly plans with stairs or gravel.

Daleks can fly.

But if they build better robots themselves?

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Bowser Koopa

I stopped reading right there.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Sorry, I don't speak Chinese.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by rowan

IIRC the estimates in the 1960s were to be able to simulate the human brain within only 20-30 years. Look where we are now.

I judge all technological progress by The Jetsons Standard. We're nowhere until we reach this point.

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I came in here to laugh at you. Elon Musk is on a whole other level than you. He actually understands the math involved in all of his space operations. Most people couldn't work the coat check at a function holding people who could also follow along with the math. Also your claim to be 40 Iq points above a person of average to above average intelligence was also suspect.

Just saying.


I enjoy the girls you find though...kudos.

makes sense to me. internet 'iq tests' are rigged for high scores and essentially not tests at all, just a marketing ploy. People who think they are intelligent buy/shop more because if they want something? they probably should get it because intelligent people are never wrong ;)

[dyna mo]

It doesn't really matter how smart musk is. He has an uncanny ability to be right and in the right place at the right time. I'm gonna snag that book he suggested on ai

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by aka123

Sorry, I don't speak Chinese.

It's the elegant language of calculus in which I am fully fluent. To find truth through mathematics is a transcendent experience. I wish more people could feel it, it's lonely being a genius.

[dicknipples]

Originally Posted by Mutt

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Mutt

It's the elegant language of calculus in which I am fully fluent. To find truth through mathematics is a transcendent experience. I wish more people could feel it, it's lonely being a genius.

Well, you can always talk monkey with us.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by aka123

Well, you can always talk monkey with us.

Banana anyone ?

[TheSquealer]

An understanding of how the brain works, helps to better understand better why AI doesn't happen. Your brain isn't a computer with data input and output. That's not how modern neuroscience understands the brain. It works more like a multi-million man, 2 party legislative body where each decision is a massive debate and where only the 1-2 winning answers rise to conscious awareness.

Conscious thinking is simply the final arbiter of that massive debate and potentially 1000s of arguments argued and makes the final decision between which arguments rise to conscious awareness. The funny thing about your thoughts and ideas is that you really have no idea where they came from because your conscious mind has no access to those unconscious mental processes from which they derived. Your brain simply makes up a reason for it .. .sometimes based on information that applies and in the absence of information, it fabricates something (confabulates). In other words, we are all habitual liars and victims of our own self delusion and we also habitually lie to defend and protect those delusions.

The challenge in AI as i understand as compared to the brain is how to model how a brain works... is not how to make a decision, but how to argue 10,000 arguments between 1,000,000 parties... arguments where the majority of which do not come pre-programmed into the brain as they are constantly being learned and then how to effectively weigh 10,000 pros and cons of all, choose the winners and then make the best decision based on highly fluid and dynamic circumstances by making future predictions AND THEN imagine the consequences of the decision, how it might go right and wrong and also reason through it where other relevant decisions also have a cause and effect on each previous and future decision.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Your brain isn't a computer with data input and output.

input: your text
output! my answer

[Theo]

Great post TheSquealer

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

The challenge in AI as i understand as compared to the brain is how to model how a brain works... is not how to make a decision, but how to argue 10,000 arguments between 1,000,000 parties... arguments where the majority of which do not come pre-programmed into the brain as they are constantly being learned and then how to effectively weigh 10,000 pros and cons of all, choose the winners and then make the best decision based on highly fluid and dynamic circumstances by making future predictions AND THEN imagine the consequences of the decision, how it might go right and wrong and also reason through it where other relevant decisions also have a cause and effect on each previous and future decision.

um...... you just called out Vendzilla for being a childlike idiot who ignores his health for cheeseburgers and beer. i think we can assume Vendzilla falls into the range of normal intelligence. SOOOOOO.......... explain how his average brain subconsciously has these thousands of arguments with thousands of parties, makes the best decision based on dynamic and fluid circumstances by making future predictions, then imagines the consequences of the decision and after all that, he and millions like him, some with very high I.Q.'s make the decision to eat huge amounts of junk food, drink gallons of beer, smoke cartons of cigarettes etc?

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Mutt

um...... you just called out Vendzilla for being a childlike idiot who ignores his health for cheeseburgers and beer. i think we can assume Vendzilla falls into the range of normal intelligence. SOOOOOO.......... explain how his average brain subconsciously has these thousands of arguments with thousands of parties, makes the best decision based on dynamic and fluid circumstances by making future predictions, then imagines the consequences of the decision and after all that, he and millions like him, some with very high I.Q.'s make the decision to eat huge amounts of junk food, drink gallons of beer, smoke cartons of cigarettes etc?

Technically, i would define "best decision" as that which best ensures survival and reproduction and furtherance of ones genes. Eating habits, not exercising and dying at 55 instead of 85 has little direct relationship to our brains mandate to survive and reproduce and further our genes, as thats already been achieved. Further, our lifespans have only recently began to increase dramatically on the timeline of human history, so living to 90 is a brand new thing for us. It wasn't too many centuries ago that we only lived to 40. Our bodies and our brains are designed to hunt, kill, find a mate, fuck and help the old lady take care of the kid for the first few or so years of its life (at the most). From an evolutionary standpoint, heart disease from poor diet and onset diabetes are irrelevant.

The simple answer to understanding all human behavior is this.... "we do what we want to do". Meaning we follow whichever urge is strongest. Just like a rat. Just like a cat. Just like a dog. Just like a primate. There is no need to hear explanations of ones behavior. Understanding that ultimately they do what they want to do, tells you almost everything you need to know.

In the case of eating, urge to satisfy the demands of the rewards center and other neurological and physiological needs/processes is over-riding the unconscious decisions and conscious attempts at doing otherwise.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

The simple answer to understanding all human behavior is this.... "we do what we want to do". There is no need to hear explanations of ones behavior. That answer tells you everything you need to know. what we want to do most over-rides our decisions.

The urge to satisfy the demands of the rewards center and other neurological and physiological needs/processes is over-riding the unconscious decisions and conscious attempts at doing otherwise.

What process in the brain makes one person wise enough to make decisions that will greatly better his chances of living well to 85 and another person to make decisions that will greatly better his chances of dying at 55? 'We do what we want to do' - many don't do what they want to do, they argue things out in a conscious debate with themselves and end up deciding not to do what they really want to do for various reasons.

Neuroscience is in its infancy, the mysteries of the brain/mind are going to be as difficult to unravel as the mysteries of the universe.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Mutt

What process in the brain makes one person wise enough to make decisions that will greatly better his chances of living well to 85 and another person to make decisions that will greatly better his chances of dying at 55? 'We do what we want to do' - many don't do what they want to do, they argue things out in a conscious debate with themselves and end up deciding not to do what they really want to do for various reasons.

Neuroscience is in its infancy, the mysteries of the brain/mind are going to be as difficult to unravel as the mysteries of the universe.

I would suggest that not really accurate to look for a single origin or cause or identify a "single process" that causes anything. Your brain is a massive, interconnected network of countless areas, all performing a variety of tasks, some dedicated to specific function and a great deal that isn't. There can be 1000 things driving a behavior, each to one degree or another. Further, a lot can be going wrong to one degree or another in many areas making decisions poor or next to impossible.

Decisions are basically made like this... first you have a positive or negative flash of affect... second, you seek information (from experience, etc) or fabricate something to explain it in the absence of information/experience. Intuitive emotions come first... rationalization second. So i can ask you to screw your sister and you have an instant flash of disgust and revulsion. I ask you why and you'll give me the standard "incest is wrong", "incest causes birth defects" etc etc etc. If i shoot down every answer with sound, well reasoned arguments "both of you can use birth control", "there is no risk of birth defects", "is it wrong if you both consent and agree to it and no one ever knows" etc etc etc... you'll still have that strong flash of negative affect and still struggle to fabricate reasons to explain it.

The same happens in reverse. A weak flash of emotion or none at all for a set of choices... means no clear winner and leaves you going nuts trying to argue every side of everything, hoping to stumble on an answer you can live with an move on. Psychopaths go through life like this. Every set of choices is an emotional tie. Punt a baby across the room. Pet a kitten. Set a family on fire = one course of action is as good as any other.

[TheSquealer]

Decided to look up that gif.

interesting... apparently he was counting with his fingers on TV and realized what he was doing too late.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Mutt

True story.

Smarter then Elmo Musk?!?

PROVE IT!

What do you see here . . . ?

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I would suggest that not really accurate to look for a single origin or cause or identify a "single process" that causes anything. Your brain is a massive, interconnected network of countless areas, all performing a variety of tasks, some dedicated to specific function and a great deal that isn't. There can be 1000 things driving a behavior, each to one degree or another. Further, a lot can be going wrong to one degree or another in many areas making decisions poor or next to impossible.

Decisions are basically made like this... first you have a positive or negative flash of affect... second, you seek information (from experience, etc) or fabricate something to explain it in the absence of information/experience. Intuitive emotions come first... rationalization second. So i can ask you to screw your sister and you have an instant flash of disgust and revulsion. I ask you why and you'll give me the standard "incest is wrong", "incest causes birth defects" etc etc etc. If i shoot down every answer with sound, well reasoned arguments "both of you can use birth control", "there is no risk of birth defects", "is it wrong if you both consent and agree to it and no one ever knows" etc etc etc... you'll still have that strong flash of negative affect and still struggle to fabricate reasons to explain it.

The same happens in reverse. A weak flash of emotion or none at all for a set of choices... means no clear winner and leaves you going nuts trying to argue every side of everything, hoping to stumble on an answer you can live with an move on. Psychopaths go through life like this. Every set of choices is an emotional tie. Punt a baby across the room. Pet a kitten. Set a family on fire = one course of action is as good as any other.

In the excitement over neuroscience's recent discoveries I think that the effect of one's environment is being minimized. If from the time I was a child I saw incestuous relationships around me, it was accepted, when you would suggest I have sex with a sister I wouldn't have any feelings of disgust.

Prior to the 1930's if you studied the young male population of Germany you wouldn't find an unusual high degree of violent psychopaths, all it took was a charismatic political leader to turn normal young men into sadistic psychopaths.

Morality is very strongly mediated by our environment. When a 3 year old hits another child over the head with a garden tool lying on the ground and his victim cries you see concern/confusion on his face, if there were a group of adults around watching the scene and they started laughing and cheering in approval that kid would continue hurting other kids and animals.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Mutt

In the excitement over neuroscience's recent discoveries I think that the effect of one's environment is being minimized. If from the time I was a child I saw incestuous relationships around me, it was accepted, when you would suggest I have sex with a sister I wouldn't have any feelings of disgust.

Prior to the 1930's if you studied the young male population of Germany you wouldn't find an unusual high degree of violent psychopaths, all it took was a charismatic political leader to turn normal young men into sadistic psychopaths.

Morality is very strongly mediated by our environment. When a 3 year old hits another child over the head with a garden tool lying on the ground and his victim cries you see concern/confusion on his face, if there were a group of adults around watching the scene and they started laughing and cheering in approval that kid would continue hurting other kids and animals.

Yes, our genetics are the initial framework of our behavior... Experience plus genetics shapes who we become.

[TheSquealer]

By the way, the children hurting each other conclusion is not likely. We are born already possessing he framework for morality and moral decision making. Children even at 6 months understand that hurting others is wrong and that the one doing the hurting is in the wrong and also understand the need to ounsih that person. This happens in part because we simulate the emotions of others in our brains to understand them and understand intentionality of others (the brains mirror neurons) and on part because we understand that we don't like to be hurt, and then do not hurt others. In fact,, we simulate the feelings in others to such an extent that if you were to watch me stabbing my hand, the exact same areas of your brain would be firing and active, perfectly mirroring what is happening in my brai, the only difference is that you have a system that checks your hand to see if it's being stabbed (news nerves) and then cancels out a potential pain signal - leaving you totally unaware that your are sharing the experience at all

Babies also come pre-wired to seek out helpful parents/adults and bond with them. Watching parents laugh as two children her each other would more likely cause a great deal of confusion and cause the child to try to get away from those adults.

(I'd be more detailed but I'm eating and typing on my phone)

[huey]

Once machines become smarter then us they will definitely wipe us out. Look how we treat each other and the planet. They will be doing us a favor. Natural progression of evolution.
Dinosaurs, humans, transhumans, machines ........

[aka123]

Originally Posted by huey

Once machines become smarter then us they will definitely wipe us out. Look how we treat each other and the planet. They will be doing us a favor. Natural progression of evolution.
Dinosaurs, humans, transhumans, machines ........

Well, if the robots are so smart, why they are even more assholes than we are? Although "asshole" being pretty much like any other living creature on this planet, so the robots will fit in nicely. I don't know about that favor part, but you can always do it for yourself if you want to, you don't need robot for that. I want to live, fucking robots or not.