>When you make a robot and then kill yourself so that the robot can live your life <:ancom:520002567988838401>

Why would you cuck your entire species though. That goes against pretty much the whole reason why you, and your entire species line, exist.

Also there's no gain in it

the mind uploads aren't gonna work

>cuck your species

are you cucking cro-magnon men when you evolved to be homo sapiens?

Ok this is epic

Funny, man survived wars that killed millions, massive plagues that nearly wiped out their own people, yet, if things are to continue in technological development, its own creation will be its undoing

That was a remarkably bad point man. First of all, the genes were still present there, albeit in different form. There was still continuum between the one that came before, and the one that came after. Second of all, that wasn't a choice on anyone's part - therefore, not *cucking.*

Now, you though advocate for the abrupt phasing out of biological life it seems, becoming AI, which is - not only probably impossible from scientific standpoint - the most insane concept there is.

But lets dwell on that little point of scientific untenability for a moment

see, it might be that the brain is non-computable. And if it is non-computable, then it quite literally can never be transferred over to digital form. And to make matters worse, it might be further that *no computer can ever be conscious,* specifically because the mind has an element of non-computability to it, a semantics in addition to syntax, whereas the computer doesn't have that element of non-computability.

My point is that banning technological advancement is kind of a shitty idea too.

>the mind has an element of non computability

<:lol:521377935672737792>

Well yes

mate, your brain IS a computer.

just because it isnt binary doesnt mean sentience isnt a gestalt construct of a computational organ.

you are probably aware with Penrose's views on this

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

47 mins

im not gonna waste my time watching a philosophical circlejerk.

ahahahaha

so wait

hes claiming that a computer is incapable of replicating a human mind. that is patently false.

Roger Penrose, one of the leading scientists of our time, renowned beyond any and every doubt, is just "philosophical circlejerk"?

you cannot make that statement actually, and at the very least respond to the arguments he raises

How about you offer them to me in your own words.

the notion is that there are elements of non-computability in human thought, things which *cannot be described in algorithmic sense* (not to even go to the issue of qualia); some forms for example include the human ability to grasp the infinite tiling problem which for the machine intelligence (being based on computation), impossible to grasp - it can never know whether or not the general tiling pattern *will go on forever,* but a human mind can see this readily and for us it is obvious. He also points out to deeper problems in physics and how those problems may in part be due to the fact that we haven't yet accounted for the aspect of non-computability in our theories of the world, even though we observe it on regular basis.

Trust me when I say though he makes this case much better than I can, so I suggest you watch it. There are also many more arguments that he makes, more cases he uses, etc. He obviously has written books on the subject as well which are worth a read.

Xi Jinping is a great leader

I mean

humans DONT conceive the tiling problem.

we cut corners.

its a generalization.

thats not a problem of computation, we arent literally computing the infinite tiling problem.

our minds just dismiss it.

it takes the principles we know are true, and we just continue to assume its true.

thats computable my dude.

There are arguments beyond those that Penrose makes though about the problem of transferability of the mind to a machine, which have to do with the

a) historical
b) dynamic
c) totalising

aspects of the brain. Scale put aside (which silicon computers can't even begin to address yet), the brain is a dynamic entity which evolves in time and in totalised form. There's no clear way to transform something like this, over to a completely different substrate. Further, there are aspects of chemistry and physics to consider here which aren't yet thought out to a degree that could even begin to approach a satisfying answer. So at the very least you should consider that its certainly not a done deal yet and that ultimately we aren't sure *what* will emerge out of this technological trajectory.

And again, watch the video if you want *a better presentation* of it than what I gave. There's active debate about this, and Penrose is after all a mathematician as well as a physicist. He can deliver the point home better than I can, seeing how I'm *neither.*

Well, yes. thats obvious. if we are trying to replicate organic processes you are going to have to compute on a level of detail that is incomprehensible to us.

however, that does not make it impossible, and it does not mean that computer intelligence has to be created in a similar way to us.

We have already created working models of worm nervous systems.

🤷‍♂️

and i can hardly see why banning general intelligence for safety concerns will address any problems we conceive of.

theoretically, literally anyone could create a general intelligence if they had the time and resources.

are you really oyveying me.

> literally anyone could create a general intelligence if they had the time and resources.

Which are absolutely vast in question. Resources? What resources? How much energy production? How much processing power? How much memory capacity? How much cooling is needed for this? There are a shit ton of limitations present here I think that are not often accounted for. Its not like building something in your garage, I think.