I realize you haven’t actually read my writing in this thread that I started in 2018, but rather popped in, read a few lines and began dismissing the theory. But I’ve laid out multiple theses and supported them with logic. No need to debate with you as you haven’t read my writing and you have no interest in the subject anyway.
But I’ll acknowledge you’ve made a clear rebuttal to my theory by claiming that A) The human brain is far superior to anything AI could ever achieve and B) AI cannot teach us anything about language, thought or anything else relevant to humans. I strongly disagree but your dismissal of my ideas on these grounds is duly noted. Thanks for reading and responding.
As far as finding publications that “echo” my thoughts there won’t be many because my theory is original thought. I’m proud of that. Original thoughts are becoming rare these days in the era of reproduction. But claiming that computers and AI are a natural part of evolution anywhere in the Universe and in fact how intellectual evolution ends is a unique and distinct premise.
I am genuinely terrible at differentiating between trolling and sincere sentiment. I honestly still don't know if you're joking or not. I took your earlier posts to indicate that this is a comedy thread, and my responses were meant to reflect that. Your post here would suggest that you're actually proud of these 'original theories' and irritated by the thought of me not reading them carefully. I do apologize for giving you that indication. Rest assured I have read the entire thread, and I'd like to pay you the courtesy of summarizing your half-a-decade of research here:
Human beings will soon become superfluous to the interests of the universe. Computers will outperform us on every intellectual measure. Artificial Intelligence – independent of biological bodies – will be the 'next step' in evolution. AI will also bring us closer to God because God is truth – in the sense that the universe appears to correspond with mathematical principles that are independent of personal beliefs – and nothing can bring us to truth quite like super-smart AI, which is now essentially Jesus-like in its role. 'Theory' then gets fucked because an AI chatbot has developed sentience and displays an 'ego', and ego is a barrier to truth. We are now all doomed because AI has 'evolved' into something malevolent and we now find ourselves in the same position as the animals below us.
Granted, I've been quite generous in making this sound more coherent than it is, but even now I think we can both agree that it’s not come close to anything like a logical hypothesis. It still very much remains in the category of 'stupid stoner Sci-Fi wank-fantasy.'
I've addressed your misunderstanding of evolution and need not comment further on that (other than to suggest you might actually want to start reading publications that logically challenge your 'unique and distinct premise'), so allow me to turn my attention to some other aspects of your original theory in order to better elucidate our areas of disagreement.
we will soon reach the limit of our intellect...we already have pretty much seen the limits of human iq...and that limit has been put into computers...computers will soon be able to integrate new information and experiences and will simply be smarter than any human soon.IQ is a
score that we derive from standardized intelligence tests. Researchers have observed what is called the Flynn effect (average IQ increasing over time), and in one recent and reasonably large US sample they've observed what might indicate a reversal – for reasons unknown – but none of that speaks to a limit being reached.
Regarding human intelligence itself, if you take it to mean our ability to construct intelligible theories about the world (theories in the strict sense as opposed to yours) then there's not necessarily a limit; however, we've already had machines outperforming us in certain areas for a long time now. Calculators surpass us on arithmetic. Computer programmes surpass us at chess. Can we construct programmes that mimic what we call thinking? Yes. Does it tell us anything about thinking? No. Both computers and other animals outperform us on many measures already. Do we have any reason to think that we have stopped evolving and now risk being replaced entirely by our own programmes? No.
Intergalactic travel will see our computer President travel to other planet governmentsSeems strange that AI will surpass us in thought and make us obsolete, yet also maintain very inefficient human constructs like presidential political systems.
Artificial intelligence will replace God. For God is truthReally? How has the discovery of certain facts about biology and physics influenced the religious convictions of a few billion Christians and Muslims who still believe ridiculous fairy tales about the world? Faith in God continues for them regardless of what you label as truth.
The sun must be a precise distance from the Earth at all times for life to exist. The suns orbit combined with the basic elements of life; Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen and Phosphorous(then there's some other shit like sulfur and stuff but I am not educated enough to explain more).
Calculate the circumference of the Sun's orbit: c = 2 π r = ( 2 π ) * ( 8000 pc ) * ( 3.1 x 10 13 km / pc ) = 1.6 x 10 18 km . Calculate the period of the orbit by taking the circumference and dividing by the velocity: P = 1.6 x 10 18 km / 200 km/sec = 8.0 x 10 15 sec ≈ 250 million years .'Then there's some other shit like sulfur and stuff.' LOL, classic. There's nothing quite like seeing a brilliant mathematical mind capable of converting parsecs to kilometers and calculating the Sun's orbit also displaying the humility to admit that he's reached his intellectual limit with the periodic table.
The only option if we want to keep religion alive is the Notomorrow option. We must worship truth alone as God.Indeed - flawless logic. On your favourite subject of ego, it is quite interesting to note your habit of seeking to elevate your status as a thinker by patting yourself on the back with self-appointed honors (see also: the now-deleted request to have Getbig adopt a piece of legislation known as 'No Tomorrow's Law' forbidding the discussion of anything pedo-related. Amusingly, one tends to have an anti-pedo law named after them posthumously after falling victim to a brutal fiddling, so it's probably for the best you deleted that). Might I instead suggest a reading of Phantom Spunker’s Law of Eponymy: if you try to name a discovery after yourself, you will undoubtedly come across as a pompous wanker.
The New Bing AI bot has an ego nowNo, it doesn't. As stated earlier, similarities between brains and computers are vague. Do we have reason to suspect that your laptop is conscious? If we want to accept that consciousness can emerge on different, non-biological substrates, and that AI might plausibly be conscious, then we should consider that the substrate of our dumb silicone computers and AI is the same – with some trivial differences in speed and connections, etc. Should we take this idea seriously? If so, please do spare a thought for the wellbeing of your laptop tonight when you turn it off after completing the next chapter of your drug-induced psychobabble.
