dzas sejin 
ExNihilo wrote:Cijela debata oko AI je poglupa.
A Musk uzima levate lopatom.
. ev' ima i ovoSaian wrote:Blockchain + AI = Skynet
Last year, a curious nonfiction book became a Times best-seller: a dense meditation on artificial intelligence by the philosopher Nick Bostrom, who holds an appointment at Oxford. Titled “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies,” it argues that true artificial intelligence, if it is realized, might pose a danger that exceeds every previous threat from technology—even nuclear weapons—and that if its development is not managed carefully humanity risks engineering its own extinction. Central to this concern is the prospect of an “intelligence explosion,” a speculative event in which an A.I. gains the ability to improve itself, and in short order exceeds the intellectual potential of the human brain by many orders of magnitude.
Although Bostrom did not know it, a growing number of people around the world shared his intuition that technology could cause transformative change, and they were finding one another in an online discussion group administered by an organization in California called the Extropy Institute. The term “extropy,” coined in 1967, is generally used to describe life’s capacity to reverse the spread of entropy across space and time. Extropianism is a libertarian strain of transhumanism that seeks “to direct human evolution,” hoping to eliminate disease, suffering, even death; the means might be genetic modification, or as yet uninvented nanotechnology, or perhaps dispensing with the body entirely and uploading minds into supercomputers. (As one member noted, “Immortality is mathematical, not mystical.”)
He believes that the future can be studied with the same meticulousness as the past, even if the conclusions are far less firm. “It may be highly unpredictable where a traveller will be one hour after the start of her journey, yet predictable that after five hours she will be at her destination,” he once argued. “The very long-term future of humanity may be relatively easy to predict.” He offers an example: if history were reset, the industrial revolution might occur at a different time, or in a different place, or perhaps not at all, with innovation instead occurring in increments over hundreds of years. In the short term, predicting technological achievements in the counter-history might not be possible; but after, say, a hundred thousand years it is easier to imagine that all the same inventions would have emerged.
Bostrom calls this the Technological Completion Conjecture: “If scientific- and technological-development efforts do not effectively cease, then all important basic capabilities that could be obtained through some possible technology will be obtained.” In light of this, he suspects that the farther into the future one looks the less likely it seems that life will continue as it is. He favors the far ends of possibility: humanity becomes transcendent or it perishes.
ev' ima i ovoSaian wrote:Blockchain + AI = Skynet
Last year, a curious nonfiction book became a Times best-seller: a dense meditation on artificial intelligence by the philosopher Nick Bostrom, who holds an appointment at Oxford. Titled “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies,” it argues that true artificial intelligence, if it is realized, might pose a danger that exceeds every previous threat from technology—even nuclear weapons—and that if its development is not managed carefully humanity risks engineering its own extinction. Central to this concern is the prospect of an “intelligence explosion,” a speculative event in which an A.I. gains the ability to improve itself, and in short order exceeds the intellectual potential of the human brain by many orders of magnitude.
Although Bostrom did not know it, a growing number of people around the world shared his intuition that technology could cause transformative change, and they were finding one another in an online discussion group administered by an organization in California called the Extropy Institute. The term “extropy,” coined in 1967, is generally used to describe life’s capacity to reverse the spread of entropy across space and time. Extropianism is a libertarian strain of transhumanism that seeks “to direct human evolution,” hoping to eliminate disease, suffering, even death; the means might be genetic modification, or as yet uninvented nanotechnology, or perhaps dispensing with the body entirely and uploading minds into supercomputers. (As one member noted, “Immortality is mathematical, not mystical.”)
He believes that the future can be studied with the same meticulousness as the past, even if the conclusions are far less firm. “It may be highly unpredictable where a traveller will be one hour after the start of her journey, yet predictable that after five hours she will be at her destination,” he once argued. “The very long-term future of humanity may be relatively easy to predict.” He offers an example: if history were reset, the industrial revolution might occur at a different time, or in a different place, or perhaps not at all, with innovation instead occurring in increments over hundreds of years. In the short term, predicting technological achievements in the counter-history might not be possible; but after, say, a hundred thousand years it is easier to imagine that all the same inventions would have emerged.
Bostrom calls this the Technological Completion Conjecture: “If scientific- and technological-development efforts do not effectively cease, then all important basic capabilities that could be obtained through some possible technology will be obtained.” In light of this, he suspects that the farther into the future one looks the less likely it seems that life will continue as it is. He favors the far ends of possibility: humanity becomes transcendent or it perishes.
Nema se tu puno sta kontat, fino ce doc po tebe i rec evo puska i idemo na njiha. Ili tvojoj djeci ako omatorimo. Zivotni ciklus sviha na planeti. Kakve kocke baci sudbina tako ce i bidnit.kiligonzales wrote:Imaju ljudi svakakvih ideja
https://zimo.dnevnik.hr/clanak/bebe-i-d ... 91793.html
Zamisli buducu djecu kad budi imali isprekidane pokrete rukama i nogama ko jaran od R2D2-a.Black swan wrote:kolko god podržavao tradicionalne obitelji
smatram da su nespojive s današnjim kapitalizmom
kompromis je moguć...uz tehnologiju
ja sam za za
Pa i Nikola Tesla je jeo govna na sve strane i cacko sve zivoMyTao wrote:Na opasnost AI je prvi upozorio Hawking, sada u zadnje vrijeme i Musk...
Kako tacno oni uzimaju lovu tako sto pricaju o ovom? Ljudi prave donacije njima da urade sta? Oni prodaju nesto sto to moze sprijeciti pa kupe pare tako?
. Ne mora znacit ako je neko pametan i nesto izmisli da je kompetentan za sve stvari. Znaci idem napravit generator i srat cu o filozofiji. . OK.triconja wrote:Pa i Nikola Tesla je jeo govna na sve strane i cacko sve zivoMyTao wrote:Na opasnost AI je prvi upozorio Hawking, sada u zadnje vrijeme i Musk...
Kako tacno oni uzimaju lovu tako sto pricaju o ovom? Ljudi prave donacije njima da urade sta? Oni prodaju nesto sto to moze sprijeciti pa kupe pare tako?
Ili kae odoh napravit elektro auto i nesto ko pokusavat oko spejssatlova i u zadnje doba crijep od fotonaponskih celija. Kakve to veze ima sa AI? Kompetentniji je bilo koji asistent informatike da prica o tim temama nego Hawking i Musk skupa.
A nako narodski receno "oj Hamo vidi mu glave" i Hawkingu i Musku, cvikerasi mrtvi
Sto ih vise izbacuje po portalima i drustvenim mrezama vise su trending. Sto su vise trending popularniji postaju a bogami i bogatiji.MyTao wrote:OK.triconja wrote:Pa i Nikola Tesla je jeo govna na sve strane i cacko sve zivoMyTao wrote:Na opasnost AI je prvi upozorio Hawking, sada u zadnje vrijeme i Musk...
Kako tacno oni uzimaju lovu tako sto pricaju o ovom? Ljudi prave donacije njima da urade sta? Oni prodaju nesto sto to moze sprijeciti pa kupe pare tako?
Ili kae odoh napravit elektro auto i nesto ko pokusavat oko spejssatlova i u zadnje doba crijep od fotonaponskih celija. Kakve to veze ima sa AI? Kompetentniji je bilo koji asistent informatike da prica o tim temama nego Hawking i Musk skupa.
A nako narodski receno "oj Hamo vidi mu glave" i Hawkingu i Musku, cvikerasi mrtvi
Ja samo pitam kakve koristi imaju of toga sto upozoravaju da AI moze biti opasan?
A to da je asistent informatike kompetentniji da prica o AI od jednog Hawkinga mi je za
Auu strasni C++triconja wrote: Sto ih vise izbacuje po portalima i drustvenim mrezama vise su trending. Sto su vise trending popularniji postaju a bogami i bogatiji.
Evo da ja tebe priupitam uze li ti ikad pascal ili basic nako malo da vidis sta je to, ili nedo bog c++, znaci samo da vidis kako to ide. Znaci ja ako zavrsim tehnicki fakultet smjer automatiku mogu laprdat o medicini koliko mi je cejf jer je naucno dokazano da covjek radi na struju i ima automatske sisteme u sebi. Postoji jedan minorni problem a to je da ce me mali broj ljudi cuti i slusati jer nisam toliko popularan kao doticni.
Slazem se sa gore navedenim ali je malo paradoksalno da sa tehnologijom koju imamo danas ili koju cemo imati za 100 godina napravimo ai. Mislim da je ova tema daleko od one "mirno spavajte, rata nece biti" tvrdnje. Cak da postoji tehnologija koja moze izvrsiti toliko kalkulacija da imitira ljudski mozak postoji jedan mali problem, znaci kako funkcionise mozak, sta je svijest i slicne stvari kad se bolje upoznaju onda mozda i bude neki ai.MyTao wrote:
Auu strasni C++
Hawking ne prica o tehnickim stvarima kada je AI u pitanju... ne moras biti programmer da znas da ako masina dodje do nivoa da sama za sebe "razmislja" i moze sama sebe popraviti/unaprijediti moze biti opasna po ljude. To koji si ti program koristio da bi tu masinu programirao, kakav i kiliki kod si pisao nema nikakve veze sa zakljuckom.
Pokusavam da izvucem iz ljudi sta znaci AI (njihovo misljenje). Izgleda da velika vecina misli da ce AI postati omnipotentan i da ce preuzeti sve funkcije u ljudskom zivotu. Cini mi se da je terminator film pripremio ljude kako da razmisljaju cim se spomene AI.Saian wrote:triconja ti haman ko da si vas, glavom i bradom off-topic, docim je ovo potonje manje vazno
. Musk je pravi "oj Hamo vid mu glave", cvikeras mrtvi. Da mu presusi pipa izvrsio bi lola harakiri.ExNihilo wrote:Tesla još nikada nije poslovala s dobiti. O SpaceX da ne pričamo. S obzirom da se radi o biznisima koji zavise od miliona koje pumpaju investitori, Musk nema izbora doli u javnosti graditi imidž neprikosnovenog genija kako bi zadržao povjerenje investitora. Jer, u odsustvu standardnih poslovnih metrika, tj. finansijskih rezultata, to povjerenje je sve što ima. U kompaniju koja konzistentno ostvaruje gubitke ulagati može samo lud čovjek ili onaj koji vjeruje da iza iste stoji vizionar koji će kad-tad promijeniti svijet. Zbog svega toga frajer iskače iz paštete, i zapravo je marketinški genije više nego bilo šta drugo.
Što se tiče AI, prvo moramo razumjeti šta je uopće svijest, a tek onda uplašiti se stvaranja vještačke.
Dobro mi se smijemo Hawkingsu i Musku, ali cinjenica je da svijet tehnologije dobija dimenziju vise i da neke stvari se desavaju mimo nas. AI trenutno nema taj stepen da nam bude prijetnja, medjutim buducnost sta nosi ne znamo. Sve je u bazi spekulacije. Tako da je lakse pretpostavljati ono sto je gore, nego ono sto je bolje.ExNihilo wrote:Tesla još nikada nije poslovala s dobiti. O SpaceX da ne pričamo. S obzirom da se radi o biznisima koji zavise od miliona koje pumpaju investitori, Musk nema izbora doli u javnosti graditi imidž neprikosnovenog genija kako bi zadržao povjerenje investitora. Jer, u odsustvu standardnih poslovnih metrika, tj. finansijskih rezultata, to povjerenje je sve što ima. U kompaniju koja konzistentno ostvaruje gubitke ulagati može samo lud čovjek ili onaj koji vjeruje da iza iste stoji vizionar koji će kad-tad promijeniti svijet. Zbog svega toga frajer iskače iz paštete, i zapravo je marketinški genije više nego bilo šta drugo.
Što se tiče AI, prvo moramo razumjeti šta je uopće svijest, a tek onda uplašiti se stvaranja vještačke.
