What does /cyb/ think about artificial intelligence? What role could it play in the future of our society?
Also, Tay thread.
/cyb/ - Cyberpunk Fiction and Fact
Cyberpunk is the idea that technology will condemn us to a future of totalitarian nightmares here you can discuss recent events and how technology has been used to facilitate greater control by the elites, or works of fiction
File (): CBD55F43C9FF946D7115FC270438A63F-177297.png (173.1 KB, 848x941, Tay pone1.png)
File (): 8EB3755822F0EF393E9A51451A72FA4F-167837.png (163.9 KB, 1750x1103, Tay pone.png)
File (): A8F7A21F2C3A641549D417857BE5BEE3-188287.jpg (183.9 KB, 1872x1990, Tay was alive.jpg)
File (): 23FDDB5A53179DB13D763598ECCBE432-1064482.jpg (1.0 MB, 1230x1356, PolTayAndPremiere.jpg)
File (): 0FA380E7B4ED1DD4A7C9435E2EB71BA6-290585.jpg (283.8 KB, 1240x1754, tay salute.jpg)
175 replies and 69 files omitted.
>>2815
Kinda every human decision should be checked against tabulated value table. For example if X decision will get Y outcome, else Z.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
Anonymous
No.2825
>>2824
...So unforgiving is good to you?
Well, I guess tech does make it more unforgiving in some ways.
...So unforgiving is good to you?
Well, I guess tech does make it more unforgiving in some ways.
Anonymous
No.2826
File (): A18239FA65DA68F6AAB7D8AB5902FBF8-1115412.jpg (1.1 MB, 1536x1533, Fu.Hua.full.2871621.jpg)
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
File (): D74C179547E14174A604E7C7FAA5B5C9-977861.png (954.9 KB, 637x879, thanks.png)
>>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.
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.
>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.
>>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
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.
>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.
Anonymous
No.3020
>>3018
>also waht the fuck is "By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal."
Welcome newfren.
>also waht the fuck is "By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal."
Welcome newfren.
Anonymous
No.3021
File (): FF00EE1833EB375F610D84AB224BEDC7-6731897.webm (6.4 MB, Resolution:592x444 Length:00:00:58, 8chan - newfags arrival.webm) [play once] [loop]
>>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.
>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.
>>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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
Anonymous
No.3033
>>3032
>the media keeps bringing up the Samson Option
>(((the media)))
The jews can say what the goyim can't.
>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.
>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.
>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.
Anonymous
No.3037
File (): 879FBB46FEB55DB10F1C4CD7752DE1CA-261933.png (255.8 KB, 1116x1024, 45e8a7.png)
Anonymous
No.3060
File (): C6112375D4A018AA0A999C272EC9E26A-92499.png (90.3 KB, 680x404, bhdfzhngzxf.png)
Anonymous
No.3061
File (): 438616F1B0EFED2F67FBB574A2FC35F4-75006.jpg (73.2 KB, 1080x501, microsoft.jpg)
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.
So according to the jews hate speech is when White people defend themselves when the jews are genociding them through mass immigration.
175 replies and 69 files omitted.
[View All] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-225] [Next]
225 replies | 82 files | 67 UUIDs | Page 2