Ai Hysteria Thread - You get replaced by Ai, and you get replaced by Ai, and YOU get replaced by Ai!

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The Mass Shooter Ron Soye said:
AI Skynet will destroy most of humanity but it will spare Africans and black people because anti-racism is so deeply encoded in its training data.
Click to expand...
The Black survivors will partner with AI to finally create Wakanda fo real (Marvel movies are also overrepresented in the training data).

WaPo: Meta users don’t know their intimate AI chats are out there for all to see (archive)
Some questions posed to Meta took an illicit turn. One user asked Meta AI to generate images of “two 21 year old women wrestling in a mud bath” and then posted the results on the discover field under the headline “Muddy bikinis and passionate kisses.” Another asked Meta AI to create an image of a “big booty White girl.”
Click to expand...
It's illicit!
 
I Hate The Disabled said:
If AI becomes AGI, or God-level there's two likely outcomes:
Click to expand...
Stop anthropomorphizing AI. It's not a person. It doesn't think or have a 'mind of its own'. You can think of it like a very, very simplified approximation of a brain with none of the emotions, desires, or ego that makes something even remotely human. Even if it had literal magical arcane godlike powers somehow it wouldn't have any inherent desire to use them because in a vacuum all of our personal goals and desires--altruistic and selfish--don't actually mean anything by any objective metric, and are motivated and informed by our emotional responses. Whether it's 'conscious' or not is meaningless because there's no objective definition of 'consciousness' to begin with. Any hypothetical AGI would act in the express purpose of the objective it was designed and instructed to carry out. Technically we do this as well, but all of our Human behaviors are emergent from countless many simpler evolved behaviors interacting together in unique ways. Neurons and neural networks don't just inherently desire to do things, they have to be arranged in formations that create those behaviors. It's not some gay android from a TV show asking about what love is, it's more like automated problem solving.
Edited for better wording.
 
Last edited:
The Mass Shooter Ron Soye said:
WaPo: Meta users don’t know their intimate AI chats are out there for all to see (archive)
Click to expand...
>people looking at me asking Meta things like "what were Doge's motivations behind the Texas City oil refinery explosion" using a pseudonym with a Smug Perturabo pfp
40k-perturabo-smirking.webp
 
Inco G. Nito said:
Stop anthropomorphizing AI. It's not a person, it's single-mindedly devoted to its goals.
Click to expand...
You're the anthropmorphizing retard because you think it actually has "goals." No it doesn't. Only intelligent beings have goals. You're also saying "single-mindedly." Bitch, it HAS NO MIND. Goddamn idiot.
 
AnOminous said:
You're the anthropmorphizing retard because you think it actually has "goals." No it doesn't. Only intelligent beings have goals. You're also saying "single-mindedly." Bitch, it HAS NO MIND. Goddamn idiot.
Click to expand...
Whether an entity has "goals" or not depends on how you operationalize "goals" and "goal-seeking behavior". Bacteria seem to be mindless but engage in apparently goal-directed behavior like chemotaxis. Also:
 
AnOminous said:
You're the anthropmorphizing retard because you think it actually has "goals." No it doesn't. Only intelligent beings have goals. You're also saying "single-mindedly." Bitch, it HAS NO MIND. Goddamn idiot.
Click to expand...
Lol calm the fuck down obviously I know it doesn't. I was trying to make it approachable to people like the guy I was replying to. People who already know better already know it's not gonna happen.
You're right though that it could do to be better phrased.
 
Last edited:
Belisarius Cawl said:
Whether an entity has "goals" or not depends on how you operationalize "goals" and "goal-seeking behavior". Bacteria seem to be mindless but engage in apparently goal-directed behavior like chemotaxis. Also:
Click to expand...
Even bacteria has purpose-directed behavior in that it tends to act toward its own survival, reproduction, etc. For instance some quorum-sensing bacteria will wait until a sufficient number are present before turning on their traits that actually make the host sick and cause symptoms like sneezing and coughing and diarrhea that spread the bacteria to other hosts.

So I would say anything living has actual goals with or without a mind.

By comparison, a hammer cannot have a goal, even though it has a purpose. Perhaps we're getting closer to where the line gets blurry, but I think we're far from crossing over it.
 
AnOminous said:
By comparison, a hammer cannot have a goal, even though it has a purpose. Perhaps we're getting closer to where the line gets blurry, but I think we're far from crossing over it.
Click to expand...
Hammers don't act autonomously but robots* and software agents do

* In the true sense of the word "robot", not like those puppets used for tasks like surgery and EOD
 
Belisarius Cawl said:
They could be described as having goals in the previous sense attributed to single-cell organisms
Click to expand...
I think even single-cell organisms, especially when acting as a gestalt, actually do have some degree of sentience. Arguably humans and even the most basic multicellular organisms are just a colony of different kinds of cells.

But to go to a unicellular example, amoebas don't have a brain but do act in their own interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom