[deleted]
Human
81–90 of 282 posts
Re: Human
#82And so, all the humans on earth swarmed to see what was going on. The machines did too. There was one weird thing, though. The title of the event was rather mysterious. It simply read… “Grand Theft Auto VI”
Every two months, “Half-Life 3” flashed on the screen.
The humans have invented Tyler McVicker.
Re: Human
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you fail to see the irony that your own eschatology itself is pretty religious.
More broadly—and at least in online spaces—I often notice that many vocal proponents of atheism exhibit traits typically associated with religious behaviour: - a tendency to proselytise - a stubborn unwillingness to genuinely engage with opposing views - the use of memes and in-jokes as if they were profound arguments - an almost reverential attitude toward certain past figures There’s more, but I really ought to get…
It sounds like you are describing people with strong beliefs. Religious people may have strong beliefs, but so do non-religious people.
Re: Human
#84Great
Re: Human
#85And so, all the humans on earth swarmed to see what was going on. The machines did too. There was one weird thing, though. The title of the event was rather mysterious. It simply read… “Grand Theft Auto VI”
[flagged]
Re: Human
#86Funny enough, this is also something I thought about a few weeks back: what's the motivation of machine, if it has no emotions, to explore and continue in the world - what sense does it make if it doesn't have curiosity (of course this could be a RL function, but still, imagine putting yourself in world without life, where everything is only static, how boring would it be).
what if the causation is in the opposite direction (and i believe it is) - to explore and continue in the world is the primary drive (as the opposite traits just get naturally de-selected, be it organics or machines), and we only perceive it as our mind's artificial constructs like curiosity/emotions/motivation.
it's quite the coincidence that ideas like friendship and love happen to be good for socialization and reproduction
Re: Human
#87Related but an aside - Lately I've really been wondering if Skynet actually is the next evolution. That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better…
If we assume that the many worlds interpretation has a basis in reality, then we can consider the following metaphysical angle. The evolution around us is our world line with the physical laws we are familiar with. And indeed the natural and inevitable progression of this world line is a machine world, just like a massive star inevitably collapses into a black hole, at least under our physical laws. However in the MW…
> And indeed the natural and inevitable progression of this world line is a machine world,
Would you mind clarifying your line of reasoning for suggesting this?
Second: quoting wikipedia - "The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are many parallel, non-interacting worlds."
If the multiple words are non-interacting, how could one world observe a large scale extinction event corresponding to the other world line departing? The two world lines are completely non-interacting, there would be no way to observe anything about the other.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Re: Human
#88Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other. Emotions aren't what make humans different than machines. feeling something is similar to an LLM model reacting to a prompt a certain way. Just because chatgpt is trained to not "feel" anything (to avoid controversial output) doesn't mean LLMs can't feel things like we do. self-awareness, self-training, adaptability, original thinking, critical thin…
> feeling something is similar to an LLM model reacting to a prompt a certain way. Maybe the appearance is the same, but a bold claim to suggest the source is the same.
why does the source need to be the same? You're looking at it from a biased self-centric perspective. We think too highly of our emotions. Think of it the other way, our emotions appear the same as adaptive algorithms like LLMs.
Re: Human
#89Excuse me, but from the very beginning, it was SO predictable where this was going.
Just ask ChatGPT to make a less predictable ending so you can enjoy it.
Re: Human
#90Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other. Emotions aren't what make humans different than machines. feeling something is similar to an LLM model reacting to a prompt a certain way. Just because chatgpt is trained to not "feel" anything (to avoid controversial output) doesn't mean LLMs can't feel things like we do. self-awareness, self-training, adaptability, original thinking, critical thin…
I wonder if there is something to be said about how machines are based on deterministic and algorithmic properties, whereas emotions could potentially involve logic beyond what humans can observe, like quantum interactions.
What is the reasoning behind the claim that our emotions are not deterministic or that they are not algorithmic? Perhaps we can take into account more inputs, process more memory and have larger and more complex algorithmic models but that's just scale and capacity, not a difference in genuine nature. We are a lot more than our emotions.