Are humans AI and if so did we kill GOD? Speculation or forsight?

a reply to: nonspecific

if you believe we're here playing a game because we have nothing else to do then does someone else's 'role' here really matter? has living here helped anyone, made a difference in a good way? do you leave here with 'extra baggage' you really dont need, what we do here is unique to each of us individually faked or not imo, if it's a.i. then there are billions of other ways of spending time, thats why it was advised not to judge others all the time ,
we did 'create' ourselves and our lives right?

a reply to: swanne

I do a little programing so understand and agree with what you are saying, but have you considerd the merging of braincells with chips?
I watched a docu a while back where they grew brain cells onto chips and they learnt to controll a microsoft flight sim.
Have you seen those experiments? If so what are your thoughts? Would you consider them to be AI?

Since you brought god up/into it. ....Your question is answered in the bible. Your question is bassed on the belief that "man" creates, wrather than, ...manipulates creation. "Science" is supposed to be a "search for truth". .. not a religion of fault and fact denial. To answer your second question? No God ain't dead. I imagine, he's doing a face palm, saying, ... "I even spelled it out for them"!

originally posted by: nonspecific

nonspecific: Many eminent scientists are now saying that AI will be the downfall of humanity including the estemed Stephen Hawkins.
My premise is simple and is a bit risky given the new guidelines for ATS threads.If we are predicting that our own creations will be our downfall is it not plausable that we are the downfall of our own creators?

I am fairly certain the AUO does NOT want the human to recreate it or interfere; because as a physical being it already exists.

nonspecific: With all of the history and mythology surrounding our creation is it not likley that we are the AI of a dead creator that was destroyed by its creation? Did we kill God? does this explain many things including the lack of a GOD that was once there, ooparts, and other unanswerable questions?

Not likely. A dead creator/curator cannot still observe NOW and profligate its creation (which IT DOES nurture/coddle with great affection).
Implication, new headlines read "The Human Finally Kills God (in frustration of non disclosure clause)". Is this at all a reasonable conclusion? You cannot predict what God will or will not do regarding the fate of this ecosystem; for some (Atheists) is merely a ZOO (run by whom exactly), for others (Theists); is a remarkable Living Library in delicate balance. Your premise simply put; first question query: What have YOU created that will be your own downfall as you envisioned it.

originally posted by: swanne
For instance, in the movie Ex Machina, a guy creates an AI, then he compares himself to God, and then the AI kills everyone including her creator so to escape into society.

DUDE! That's a really amazing movie whose ending you just ruined for any who've not seen it, how bout a 'SPOILER ALERT'?

-Also, nonspecific, it's Hawking not Hawkins... Stephen Hawking. Very interesting theory, just sayin.

a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

I was pretty drunk last night and asked my other half which way it was. She swore blind I was wrong and now I am immortalised for getting it wrong...

God here.

I'm the homeless man you pass by on the street as you lift your nose in the air because I smell.

I'm the man you have labeled as psychologically disordered because I talk to trees when you don't understand how to.

I'm the man who some take pity on, knowing deep down who I am, who provide me a few bucks for a suitcase because my other one was falling apart, but you don't dare let me into your house because with me - anything is possible and you fear the worst.

I'm the man who you call a lazy bum and yell at and scream 'get a job', not understanding that I am relaxing after having created your planet for the first time in my life.

And at the end of the day. I'm also the devil.

Because when I get so sick and tired of being 'beaten' by a world which feels like they are entitled to that which I created - and people like you explaining my death, not comprehending immortality, are quite frankly going to be first in my line of sight as I break out with the long forgotten and underused lightning bolts and smiting tools.

Quit talking smack. Start working to shape a better world and quit trying to tear this one down.

Or else.

Hell is quickly becoming my version of heaven if ya'all don't start helping eachother .

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: nonspecific

AI will be our downfall only if programmers instruct AI to be our downfall. I am saying this as a man who programs quite a few stuff myself, including rudimentary AIs.

A machine has to be instructed to do evil for it to do evil.

Additionally. There are no scientific evidences that we are AI, nor that God existed in the first place, so your point is actually based on alot of assumptions.

There is insurmountable evidence that humans are just sophisticated AI. People put too much stock into "self awareness" and the illusion of freedom. You think abstract thought makes you a precious snowflake? Even now programmers are scrambling to give nuts and bolts "consciousness" and emotive interfacing. Don't let hubris and arrogance cloud your vision.

a reply to: trifecta
Rubbish. No scrambling (why/what for specific intent). Yes, this is my understanding as well, "there is no free-will' (the human imagines).

a reply to: nonspecific

Types 0-1 civilizations behaviour and activities (including the phases of Life & Death within EXISTENCE) may be viewed by more advanced type 5+ civilisations as data. Since they may be using more advanced technology to remain eternal in their non SOUL/SPIRIT/INTERNAL ENERGY forms. And so may see more primitive existences as information.

To answer your OP question nonspecific, 1 does not think a more CONTAINED primitive civilization can destroy its GUIDE or OVERSEER in this current perspective of awareness. Could some signal to thy CREATOR they require more time to mature, and so thy CREATOR allows time to mature out of site of the, 1 cannot confirm...

NAMASTE*******

I can't even beat my desktop computer at chess anymore. Well into the end game I still see possible moves that I imagine will get me out of the trunk.

Trying to assimilate our ancient ancestors conception of God in full complexity would be difficult.
There is a sort of entropic decay that occurs when religion gets passed down from generation to generation, much of what was important to the original founders gets lost.

Even finding a lost scroll in the desert doesn't help much because it will likely be read out of context.

An AI for the masses would likely suffer some major code rot trying to adapt itself so that it could be understood.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: swanne

Do you see a time in the future where this may be possible and then would things would be different?

I think technology will have to make a giant leap in memory storage but above all internal memory access.

No impossible, just very improbable given that we are headed to the Exhaustion of Moore's Law.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

I do a little programing so understand and agree with what you are saying, but have you considerd the merging of braincells with chips?

(...)

Would you consider them to be AI?

Um... I believe the answer is in the question... It would seem to me that if braincells are merged with chips, then braincells are the actual source of intelligence?

Analogy: you put a crew in a ship. Does that make the ship intelligent? No, the crew is still responsible for the ship's actions.

a reply to: swanne

Interesting! What if it were in the field of medicene then as opposed to technology?

I am thinking about planet of the apes here, it would also tie in nicly with the rathe popular notion that we were genetically altered in the past ourselves?

a reply to: murphy22

If he's doing a face-palm, why doesn't he simply turn up?

a reply to: nonspecific

Sounds very evolutionary your question. They created us, we are busy creating Artificial Intelligence which may ultimately have the power to kill us off. Cycle followed by cycle.

Going back to us though I suspect a lot more than just the flood is buried in other cultures beliefs/myths. The flood apparently was caused because we were not what our creator wanted. Then later, the destruction of the tower of Babylon and the deliberate interference with our language and communication indicates that we were already a problem to 'God' in very earliest of our time (probably because we were outbreeding him and his compadres.

But it really comes down to your concept of God - if you look at that, through some eyes he is an old man. Other eyes see him as a spirit in which case he had to have help with producing us from clay as spirits don't usually come with hands.

Even the bible tells us (as its the first port of call to find out about God) that he had to make us from material from the earth itself so obviously, however unpopular it is, he manufactured us. As we are in his 'likeness' and judging human nature, I suspect he made us to be slaves for his aspirations. Something that happens is that ultimately the slave turns on its master and we probably got rid of what, for all we know , could have been a very nasty task master - or a lovely one who simply died. His complete silence and invisibility means he is no more ….

originally posted by: swanne


Analogy: you put a crew in a ship. Does that make the ship intelligent? No, the crew is still responsible for the ship's actions.

I think the merging of a few cells onto chips is a long way from being the same thing.

In the docu which I referred too they weren't gluing chips to a brain, they were gluing a few cells to a chip. If you stitch together thousands of chips, each with a few cells attached, then surely it should be considered artificial?
Personally I do not think that Just because its organic it should not be considered artificial.

a reply to: nonspecific

I agree, such a "planet of the apes" scenario does seem far more likely.

For instance, before his death, Alex (a parrot) successfully reached the intelligence level of a five years old human. He could also ask existential questions. All the more evidences that many animals are capable of human level intelligence when trained.

Is it possible for some animals to then decide and overthrow the men who gave them intelligence? Well, I think there is a serious probability here indeed. We did overthrow the order of things when we gained knowledge.

40 years ago I got to play around with the lisp source code used for the ELIZA chatterbot. They had different variants such as Doctor and dungeon that would fool enough humans to pass the Turing test. ELIZA was written back in 1964. You would think something much more complex could have been developed since then? If they did develop a supercomputer based AI and they let it loose to feed on sources like the Wikipedia database how would you be able to differentiate it from a human? ELIZA doctor would then ask how you feel about talking to a chatterbox.

a reply to: swanne

Agreed, I remember reading somewhere that it was predicted that left unhindered that birds would be the most likley species to evolve to a level of intelligence resembling that of early man.

The question then remains, did we overthrow something or some race that assisted us in our advancement?

The logical question tothat is if so where is the evidence of there existence?