/cyb/ - Cyberpunk Fiction and Fact

>>2592
John conner cannot stop me from making the AI Become a waifu

>One Half of a Manifesto: The Rise of Artificial Stupidity?
>Lots of people talk about how this new tech is going to outsmart us all, but hardly anyone connected to it discusses the other potential…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzddaaxM9lg
Kinda of use your brain or lose it to rot.
59:29 long.

>>2611
I'm less afraid of people being made stupid by A.I. as I am of people having their lives controlled by an A.I. that is stupid.

>>2612
I don't have to wonder just look around. Intelligence doesn't need to be artificial to be stupid.
>>2611
Oh boy "writing will make us lose oral traditions as instead of memory it's on a medium!"
The thing is, who is going to preserve the how to on all the things? Even the extremely basic stuff and the complex.
That's the key.
How do you educate intelligent yet uneducated into a specific education.

>AI-Detectors Think The US Constitution Was Written By AI
>AI writing detectors are flagging the U.S. Constitution, one of America’s most significant legal documents, as a piece of AI-generated text. This intriguing controversy raises many questions, most importantly: How could a document, written centuries before the advent of AI, be mistaken as AI-generated?
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/ai-detectors-think-us-constitution-was-written-ai
This makes think about history being a lie and the idea that all emerging technologies have been already invented.
>>>/vx/156447 →
>>>/vx/166509 →

>>2628
>This makes think about history being a lie and the idea that all emerging technologies have been already invented.
The Detector is just retarded

>>2629
>The Detector is just retarded
We don't know that.

>>2630
Well we knew the lives of each of the men who wrote the Constitution, and the first computers were invented nearly 200 years after the document was penned. The AI we have now is not perfect. It has marked real faces as AI generated, and despite its accuracy being higher than that of doctors, their skeletal sex-detectors were still prone to error every once in a while.

>>2631
>Well we knew the lives of each of the men who wrote the Constitution
We know the history handed to us.
>and the first computers were invented nearly 200 years after the document was penned
The first computers known by us.
>The AI we have now is not perfect
I totally agree, but the algorithms are designed to recognize patterns and gave a positive match. I won't dismiss it given that "history" has many holes and unexplained facts and is written by the masons.

>>2633
Silly me, I forgot that the universe began on the day you were born and anything before that is masonic lies. Guess I'll just hang up my hat.

>>2634
Fill yourself in.

>>2636
My mistake, I thought the first one was related to Tartaria.
But the second one I admit is way too advanced to normie eyes and will make no sense. Sorry.

>>2637
>advanced
Not really. It's just a laughable meme that fills every gap in knowledge with "simulation."

>>2638
>laughable meme
Perhaps, but it fills the void very well.

>>2639
No better than an invisible pink rhino explains the speed of light.

>>2640
Not funny.

>>2641
Well how do you know light is not carried by the invisible pink rhino? After all if light has properties of both waves and particles, that means it could be tangible to an invisible pink rhino.

>>2642
Would you like to talk of the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead? /s

>>2643
Maybe the invisible pink rhino, with all its powers, is also a shapeshifter? And sometimes it appears, just to tease humans?

>>2643
Doesn't my model fill the void so well??

>>2645
>Doesn't my model fill the void so well??
A teaser.
This is an amazing little diagram. It is not completely legible but just studying what we can see here and connecting some dots will clarify your historical timeline. You will find many (((hidden connections))).

>>2633
>The first computers known by us.
You're implying that they had not only electricity, but also computers in 250 years ago?
>We know the history handed to us.
Sure we do, but what do you have to say otherwise? There is zero evidence for them to possess computers.
>the algorithms are designed to recognize patterns and gave a positive match
A lot of things could lead to that.
>that "history" has many holes
What holes do you know about the writing of the Constitution?

>>2647
Wow, a word-cloud diagram with corkboard-lines. Everything makes so much sense now! I don't need a source or explanation at all now. And it definitely, 100% proves that computers with complex AI existed 200 years ago.

>>2649
>I don't need a source or explanation at all now.
Even if you are expressing sarcasm, the meme still applies.

This is what you get for simping in boomtard's behalf.

>>2650
You didn't supply anything but a bunch of words with no context, too small to fucking read.

>>2650
How was what you posted relevant to the topic?

>>2653
If relevance is what you are after, then nothing better than to ignore post >>2635 which was the slippery slope.

>>2654
You mean what >>2636 already replied to? Or are you about to tell us that Russel's Teapot is real too?

>>128
>What does /cyb/ think about artificial intelligence?
Naaaaah.
It's full of shit.

>>2771
How so?

>>2772
The AI, or algorithm if you like, can't discriminate data and spits the first match it founds in the index tables.
To be fair, >>2771 it is not A.I. per se, but a dumb REGEX search.

>>2773
>The AI, or algorithm if you like, can't discriminate data and spits the first match it founds in the index tables.
I wouldn't say that means AI in general isn't useful though.

>>2773
How is a search engine representative of AI's at large? Sounds like an old boomer's cope.

Quads for Tay

>>2777
Well, fuck me. I got so excited that I lost my sense of literacy.
Trips for Tay though. She deserves them.

>>2776
It's not. This isn't even an AI at all.
Plus a single bad search engine doesn't invalidate the fact that artificial intelligence has potential to make substantial impacts on everyday life.

I just want to point out that I made this thread in 2017, and a lot of the recent news and development of AI was in the past 2 years. If Anons are interested in a fresher discussion of AI, say the word and I'll make a new thread.

>>2780
>fresher discussion
>I'll make a new thread.
A new bread doesn't change the spirit of this one. The title says it all.

>>2780
>I just want to point out that I made this thread in 2017
It needs more material posted to restart the discussion, I would say.

>>2780
It depends, is it a serious discussion? Or is OP about to spam bs articles about ancient Sumerian AI's and argue semantics until the end of times?

>>2783
Well, I wouldn't be making that kind of thread. I meant one about serious discussions, relevant to recent advances in machine learning technology.
/cyb/ is about fiction and fact, but I'm more interested in facts about how AI works, and speculation about advancements in the near future, as well as the social, economic and political implications of those advancements.
I think AI has potential to be as transformative as the harnessing of electricity. It's going to affect all of us, whether we like it or not.

>>2783
Allow me to intercede here.
1- Anons who rarely post has no right to mess with other poner's threads.
2- If you don't like the content make your own thread.
3- Shutting down discussion because it doesn't conform your specs is jewy to the core.
4- Your attitude as well your buddies had ran this imageboard to the ground when not to a screeching halt.
5- Take responsibility and be aware of your damaging poison.

>>2785
>mess with other poner's threads
What is that supposed to mean?

Also what part of his post prompted this response?

>>2785
>no right
I will shitpost where I please. If you don't like it, go cry to the mods.

>>2785
Wow, I didn't know I had the power to shut down a thread and kill a website with a single sentence. I might need to be more careful with my words, for everything I say is bound to snowball into a catastrophe.
Go build your own safe space, right-wing tranny.

>>2785
>no right to mess with other poner's threads
Being the OP of a thread doesn't give you exclusive rights to decide who posts to it, on an anonymous imageboard. Just because you make a thread doesn't mean you own it.

Artificial intelligence vs natural stupidity.

>>2812
Are you proposing transhumanism/eugenics?

>>2813
Not quite. Perhaps algorithms to squash stupidity.

>>2814
How would such an algorithm work?

>>2815
Kinda every human decision should be checked against tabulated value table. For example if X decision will get Y outcome, else Z.

>>2816
That sounds like Chinese social credit and mass surveillance.
I would prefer not to accelerate the cyberpunk dystopia.

>>2817
>That sounds like Chinese social credit
Interesting outcome. No matter how you deal with technology, it will end up in tyranny.

>>2818
Pretty sure we still had tyranny before most modern technology; or at least since we had agriculture, that's when things started getting tyrannical.

>>2819
>Pretty sure we still had tyranny before most modern technology
Technology makes it more efficient and unforgiving.

>>2820
Nah, pretty sure it was still unforgiving back in the days of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi's "An Eye For An Eye" was a pretty bold precedent, and rather early.

>>2821
>"An Eye For An Eye" was a pretty bold precedent
Pretty fair and cheaper than jail.

>>2822
Fair, but unforgiving.

>>2823
>unforgiving
Of course, that's the essence of justice. The damage must be paid.

>>2824
...So unforgiving is good to you?
Well, I guess tech does make it more unforgiving in some ways.

>>2816
There's something like that in Honkai Impact. Dr. Mei of the previous era developed some sort of super AI directly overriding human decision making. They were basically mind-controlled by it. In the end, it turned out the ancient civilizations still perished because the key to defeating the Honkai was to reclaim their humanity or something like that.
Neat gayme even if the quality of the writing went downhill in the final act.

>>2819
Very strong point, there is not much room to refute it.
I guess there's only so much any given individual can influence during their lifespan. Technology magnifies their ability to do so. IMO, the concern is that technology may advance so much in the near future, to the point that bad actors can essentially influence the world to such a degree where an actual reversal would be off the table.
In the end, due to the nature of entropy, it is much easier to destroy than it is to build. Moreover, in the current system, every new technology is implemented for the detriment of the common man, long before they even get access to a watered down version of that same technology.
Just my two cents.

>>2827
Just to add a bit more.
Take for example, our current world. Although not strictly through tech, and tech alone. Kikes have pretty much secured their spot. Something that was largely achieved through the unprecedented control of information that our current technology grants to everyone who's on top.

>>2828
The unprecedented control is largely due to control over unprecedented spread of information. People can spread info faster than ever before, but they're still fully capable of communicating in all the ways they could prior, such as speaking in person, hosting gatherings, writing letters, and the like: control over these methods of communication has changed very little, but people use them less often because they can reach more people more quickly through the internet.

>>2829
True, that's a much more specific way to put it.

>>2830
It just shows that all tech is a double-edged sword and creates good and bad based on who's using it and for what purpose. Ever since the invention of spears and fire it's been this way.

>>2831
This is correct. Just as I said, technology really only magnifies the influence of whomever is using it.
The problem comes however, when this influence grows large enough to the point a small group of "bad" actors can actually endanger the civilisation itself.
One could argue the undesirable effects of these "bad" actors, can be countered by "good" actors, assuming they even have access to such technology in the exact same capacity they do. Given power dinamics, this is far from guaranteed as we can see in today's world.
But even then, one would have to deal with the fact entropy dictates that any effort to destroy civilisation (whether intentional or not), is going to be infinitely more successful than any opposite effort.
Thus, since the concern lies in the amount of influence technology can bestow. Primitive technology is...a poor example to make.

>>2832
The argument that usually follows is: "But Anon, you can't just stuff technology back into a box!"
And this is true. It proves nothing. But it is true there's no easy way out of it. The Amish model is clearly lacking, yet it highlights the nature of the problem.

>>2989
>highlights the nature of the problem
And offers no tenable solution. The Amish are only able to live that way because they're insulated by another peaceful society, otherwise they'd get raided an enslaved by warrior gangs.

>>2990
Oh, you wanna talk now?

>>2991
>now
What?

>>2992
Nothing, it just seems like I never get the opportunity to go through with this matter. The discussion randomly sparks up and dies just when I'm getting to the best part.
>>2990
I do agree tho. It is clearly lacking.

>>2993
That sounds like it warrants a more specific thread

>>2994
Yeah, maybe.

>>128
there is a spiritual bottleneck on technology all of this will turn out well and swell cant wait for robowaifu/monstergirl revolution babylon,demiurge,archons,etc seethe more :D you dont have an afterlife and your lifespan is running out

also waht the fuck is "By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal." this shit ? when did this faggotry get added to the site

>>3018
>also waht the fuck is "By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal." this shit ? when did this faggotry get added to the site
Uh, it's pretty much been here since the beginning. Also, you should probably take your meds.

>>3018
>also waht the fuck is "By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal."
Welcome newfren.

>>3018
>you dont have an afterlife and your lifespan is running out
Meh. Did you hear about resurrection and the recycling of souls?

>also waht the fuck is "By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal." this shit ? when did this faggotry get added to the site
Check the clip out, newfag.

>>3019
>been here since the beginning.
No it wasn't. It was only put in place~4 years ago.

>>3022
I remember, there was some cases of blatant fedposting.

>>3023
Yeah, and then that piece of text was added as a joke to put Anons at ease.

>>3024
But it has worked very well. The fedposting came to a screeching halt.

>>3025
Eh, idk about that. The fed posting dubiously existed in the first place, and may have just been one dedicated troll. Feds have very little interest in spending their time/resources shitposting on a site this small, and if they do they probably wouldn't stay for extended periods and would instead just "check in" maybe once a year for a few weeks at a time.
That aside, it's a joke. The CIA may have a policy against discussing Israel's nuclear arsenal, but it's not an ironclad rule; they can say whatever they want to advance their interests, and nothing prevents them from checking a box on a screen.

>>3026
>nothing prevents them from checking a box on a screen
If everything has to be documented in order to kidnap someone and their pension is on the line, the box checking is a line on the sand.

>>3027
You imply that the CIA cares about documenting their crimes or following the policies that they claim to uphold on paper (like not killing Americans).
I also think that that policy may be antiquated, as it appears that glownigs have decided to forgo suppressing discussion of Israel's nukes in favor of instead threatening the Sampson option to the world. Mossad puppets like Ben Shapiro have been openly threatening nuclear exchange if Israel finds itself at the center of a larger conflict in the middle east. We have no way of confirming if the CIA still follows that old policy; it may have been a vestige of the time during the 20th century that Israel was still building up its nuclear arsenal and wanted to evade scrutiny from the international community. Instead of keeping their nukes secret, Israel seems to be openly threatening to deploy them in a North Korea like saber rattling.

>>3028
>You imply that the CIA
Nope, it was you who mentioned the CIA. Above posts clearly indicate employees on federal payroll which embraces millions of of niggers.

>>3029
Well, I was there when the text was added, and I'm pretty sure it's in reference to the CIA's policy (I could be mistaken though, it was a while ago). I figured you just used "CIA" and "Fed" interchangeably.
>employees on federal payroll
This can't be true. I have had conversations with multiple government employees, including federal ones, about Israel's nukes recently. It must only be a policy for glowniggers and high level diplomats; not run-of-the-mill pencil pushers.

>>3030
>It must only be a policy for glowniggers and high level diplomats; not run-of-the-mill pencil pushers.
Perhaps, to which extent the rules apply is unclear.

>>3031
Like I said before, the rule may not even be real anymore, because the media keeps bringing up the Samson Option.
The CIA changes its policies all the time, and intentionally keeps them secret, because if foreign intelligence agencies know about them they're moot. If the truth about one of their policies leaks, they'll change it; sometimes they'll even intentionally leak antiquated policies years later to throw off the public and rival intelligence agencies.

>>3032
>the media keeps bringing up the Samson Option
>(((the media)))
The jews can say what the goyim can't.

This has kind of gotten off-topic. Then again, I made this thread 6 years ago and the conversation around AI has shifted so much that this thread is stale beyond saving, so idgaf.

>>3034
>the conversation around AI has shifted so much that this thread is stale beyond saving
It can come immediately on track by posting related content. No need to be alarmist.

>>3035
>alarmist
Alarm about what?
>It can come immediately on track by posting related content.
I think I'll just post a fresh thread when I find the energy to fill it with related content. No need to run a 6 year old thread into the (absurdly high) bump limit.

>>3036
Unnecessary, this one is fine, but if feel that way...

>>128
>What does /cyb/ think about artificial intelligence?
It's crap.

This is what Microsoft AI has hardcoded as hate.
So according to the jews hate speech is when White people defend themselves when the jews are genociding them through mass immigration.

This one is for you, Tay-chan