/cyb/ - Cyberpunk Fiction and Fact

>>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.