Blakut
Blakut t1_j9ka6sn wrote
Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
>But the point i am trying to make is that it is a possibility that God exists.
Ok, but you are going about it the wrong way. The possibility of god existing or not is irrelevant to what we can know about his existence. If something is unkowable, then any categorical statements about it are invalid. Yes, we can consider the possibility, but if you can't ever tell if it's true or not, this approach makes no sense.
>we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.
And what i'm saying is that since we will never have that evidence, no matter what, it is pointless to approach the problem from this angle.
Blakut t1_j9k9cmx wrote
Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
we don't know yet is a much clear thing to say than all the statements above tho.
Blakut t1_j9k8y0f wrote
Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
>It is true currently, because what I am saying is that God has the possibility of existing. This truth stands strong because, using this logic, it is difficult to disprove the existence of God.
And i can equally say that the same thing about absolutely anything. Even about anti-god, a thing of opposite charge of god that if it exists would annihilate with god and create two gamma rays. I can say that that our universe is one where god doesn't exist, and those would be equally hard to disprove. So by this logic, anything is true at the same time, 0 = 1 etc. Makes little sense to me.
Blakut t1_j9k875d wrote
Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
>I think it is well worth the fact that it suggests god can exist. It gives hope to those who think god cannot exist and want god to be able to exist.
If you think god cannot exist, turning to black holes won't change your mind i'm afraid. In any case, this debate has no place here.
>i am comparing black holes and god to the mystery surrounding ai and sentience.
Well, I'm not sure what mystery you're talking about regarding AI. There's tons of complexity, in the human brain, and, presumably, in a general AI too. I'm not really sure that black holes are even a good comparison here. There are other things that are also unkowable, by default, like the position and momentum of a particle, and that's just how nature works in that case. However, nothing i know of so far suggests there is something inherently unknowable about AI.
Blakut t1_j9k6jdn wrote
Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
I don't understand what you mean. If you take away the need to prove statements, then the truth value of a statement is meaningless. Contradictory statements have equal value in this kind of world.
Blakut t1_j9k67q9 wrote
Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
>Can you explain what it means "if a function takes any input and gives you only one output,"
The argument you give takes any input, god, santa, aliens, a basketball, and gives the same answer, i.e. result. Not hard to look at it like a function.
>AI because we cannot tell if AI is conscious, even if it is because we cannot read minds.
But then how do you know another person is conscious? You cannot read their mind either.
>This is furthermore a possibility because there are things about AI that are not well understood therefore within what we don't understand (like a black hole)
See, this is the problem, you conflate not understood with forever hidden from view (if we assume some things about black holes). Just because it's not understood doesn't mean it's not understandable.
> AI is sentient (god).
what?
Blakut t1_j9k4ur3 wrote
Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
Well, if a function takes any input and gives you only one output, what are you going to do with it? How useful is a logic like the one above? What is the connection with the AI part anyway, since we're not here to debate if god exists in black holes?
The better argument would go:
- does god exist?
- idk, but i see no proof of him existing, so i don't think so.
- what if he is in a black hole?
- prove it.
Blakut t1_j9k44e2 wrote
Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
Yes, but you can replace god with anything, so the statement loses its value, don't you think?
Blakut t1_j9j1b3v wrote
Reply to comment by mrshulgin in Does evolution slow down over time? by AmTheHobo
check out the red queen hypothesis, don't know if it's still considered valid.
Blakut t1_j9ir7zh wrote
Reply to comment by IsABot-Ban in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
It affects stuff around it, but those properties can be thought to be "of the hole itself", like mass, charge etc. but we can't look inside.
Blakut t1_j9ipddh wrote
Reply to [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
What you are alluding to is god of the gaps, not a black box theory. The mistaken belief that putting god in ever difficult places to find will, as more and more things are discovered and explained, somehow maintain his presence in this world.
As an (astro)physicist i think the only connection between the black box of AI and the black hole is the world black. Nobody is stopping you from opening the black box of AI and looking inside at the numbers. Whether that helps you or not is an entirely different matter. You can never do that with a black hole. No matter what technology you use, or what tool, you can't peer inside the black hole. And nothing of what happens inside influences what's outside, unlike the "black box" of AI.
The only point that makes sense is that little part at the end. Yes, an AI could've published this text, but even an AI that could cobble together this long text wouldn't make the mistake of comparing a black hole with a black box. Or would it? Who knows. Better question: does it matter?
Blakut t1_j9hggg6 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in What are more accepted hypotheses that similarly explain the aspects of hominid evolution that the "pseudoscientific" aquatic ape theory does? by KEVLAR60442
then why no other adaptations, like webbed fingers?
Blakut t1_j96dp2t wrote
Reply to comment by zerepgn in Why Nikola Tesla is So Famous (and Westinghouse is not) by pier4r
what were the rules for being nominated for a Nobel Prize? Who could do it during Tesla's time?
Blakut t1_j96dd80 wrote
Reply to comment by jrhooo in Why Nikola Tesla is So Famous (and Westinghouse is not) by pier4r
outside the us tesla was and is well known and in europe, especially in eastern europe, he is tied to numerouw conspiracy theories since ages. This, plus most of the balkan nationalists trying to claim Tesla's origins are in their country.
Blakut t1_j90rtj7 wrote
Reply to comment by fabulousrice in New study examines Leonardo da Vinci's experiments on gravity by Rear-gunner
That's why you publish the results. Average joe can access them too if he pays whatever 15 bucks to the journal or via scihub for free, but he can't understand what's inthe paper and has no equipment so he can't do anything. Most journals are free access now yet no average joe reads them anyway.
Blakut t1_j8yyc0f wrote
Reply to comment by fabulousrice in New study examines Leonardo da Vinci's experiments on gravity by Rear-gunner
yeah, no, giving the average joe access to medical research journals won't mean faster cures. How would that work?
Blakut t1_j89vpqi wrote
Reply to Proof of mystery settlement of Aboriginal Australians and Indonesians found in an Italian library by Geek-Haven888
ok first i read it as Indonesians and Australians living in the Italian library
Blakut t1_j7duabr wrote
Reply to Lead Plates and Land Claims in North America and Europe: When did the practice begin of burying lead plates to establish ownership of land, and why did it die out, and was it ever used successfully in a court of law to establish ownership? by whyenn
back when they were alive my grandparents burried a 6 foot metal rebar pole with L metal profiles horizontally welded to it as a marker, only 1ft above ground was left.
Blakut t1_j78jn2y wrote
Reply to comment by spiritus_dei in [D] Are large language models dangerous? by spiritus_dei
"All of that is possible with a sophisticated enough AI model. It can even write computer viruses." only directed by a human, so far.
"In the copyright debates the AI engineers have contorted themselves into a carnival act telling the world that the outputs of the AI art are novel and not a copy. They've even granted the copyright to the prompt writers in some instances." - idk, they might be
Blakut t1_j788j67 wrote
Reply to comment by spiritus_dei in [D] Are large language models dangerous? by spiritus_dei
it is a code, but actually it's much more than that. It's a self replicating piece of code packaged in a capsule that allows it to survive and propagate. Like a computer virus. But you know, computer viruses are written and disseminated by people. They don't evolve on their own.
Blakut t1_j77o7gg wrote
Reply to comment by spiritus_dei in [D] Are large language models dangerous? by spiritus_dei
i don't think a simple piece of code can be dangerous, and probably not a lot of systems will be integrated with AI anytime soon. The problem is the piece of code in the hands of humans can become dangerous.
Blakut t1_j77l70x wrote
Reply to [D] Are large language models dangerous? by spiritus_dei
It is hard to say if a device is sentient when we can't really define sentience without pointing at another human and going "like that". And if that is our standard, then any device that we can't distinguish between it and a sentient being, can be considered sentient. I know people were fast to dismiss the turing test when chatbots became more capable, but maybe there's still something to it?
Blakut t1_j70zi38 wrote
Reply to Mexican Tourist Whacked with Stick, Heckled after Illegally Climbing Sacred Mayan Pyramid. by ThePinkTeenager
ugh i had to see tucker carlson's face in the morning thanks op
Blakut t1_j56vtpe wrote
Reply to Did ancient Greeks think that observation prevented observation of the paranormal / paradoxa? by Zestyclose-Advisor71
The gaze was always linked to powerful things in myths and legends, so why not?
Blakut t1_j9kagtv wrote
Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299
alright have fun