57 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

What does a tech singularity have to do with indoctrination?

[SwobyJ]

What does a tech singularity have to do with indoctrination?

 

http://en.wikipedia....by_Ray_Kurzweil

 

"Nanomachines could be directly inserted into the brain and could interact with brain cells to totally control incoming and outgoing signals. As a result, truly full-immersion virtual reality could be generated without the need for any external equipment. Afferent nerve pathways could be blocked, totally canceling out the "real" world and leaving the user with only the desired virtual experience."

[Mcfly616]

http://en.wikipedia....by_Ray_Kurzweil
 
"Nanomachines could be directly inserted into the brain and could interact with brain cells to totally control incoming and outgoing signals. As a result, truly full-immersion virtual reality could be generated without the need for any external equipment. Afferent nerve pathways could be blocked, totally canceling out the "real" world and leaving the user with only the desired virtual experience."

still, that's not how the Catalyst or Reapers indoctrinate organics. In fact, indoctrination in the MEU didn't even originate with the Reapers. They merely refined it.

[SwobyJ]

still, that's not how the Catalyst or Reapers indoctrinate organics. In fact, indoctrination in the MEU didn't even originate with the Reapers. They merely refined it.

 

Time is cyclical, many patterns repeat.

 

Many singularities building into one we still have not seen in Mass Effect.

 

Kurzweil's Singularity would be the human singularity, which the MEU first ignores, and then bypasses through discovery of the Mass Relay. Thus in MEU, the singularity is more of a theme or subject, than the literal one that Kurzweil predicts.

 

 

The Reaper singularity came from the Leviathans. That doesn't change their technological capabilities to be similar to predictions of our own singularity.

[Mcfly616]

I'm well aware of the predictions and theories on what form the tech singularity will take and what repercussions may come....


Indoctrination is not a requirement or a result of a singularity. Indoctrination can and does exist without it. So, I don't understand the surprise in not seeing it brought up in a conversation about tech singularities.

[SwobyJ]

I'm well aware of the predictions and theories on what form the tech singularity will take and what repercussions may come....


Indoctrination is not a requirement or a result of a singularity. Indoctrination can and does exist without it. So, I don't understand the surprise in not seeing it brought up in a conversation about tech singularities.

 

It is not a requirement. It is part of at least one path to it. ..that's the point.

[Sir DeLoria]

Biggest event in human history != event that defined humanity as a whole, so I don't know why you said that.

But does the creation of an A.I. really define humanity more than any other major event? What about humans entering space for the first time, discovering electricity, landing on the moon, splitting atoms, nuclear power etc? My point is, that there is no single most defining moment for humanity, all events are in their own ways equally defining of humanity.

[Mcfly616]

It is not a requirement. It is part of at least one path to it. ..that's the point.

there are a ridiculous amount of theories and predictions for the tech singularity. I'm not gonna be surprised because I didn't hear about a little 'part' of a single particular theory in this discussion.


That's like having a discussion about ice cream and someone being surprised that there's not a side-discussion about vanilla beans.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Bottom line: "Do not trust synthetics, Commander. Throw it out the airlock."

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I still question the actual need for the existence of AI's. From a practical reason, what does creating them accomplish?

[SwobyJ]

But does the creation of an A.I. really define humanity more than any other major event? What about humans entering space for the first time, discovering electricity, landing on the moon, splitting atoms, nuclear power etc? My point is, that there is no single most defining moment for humanity, all events are in their own ways equally defining of humanity.

 

What? Did you read my post? I'm not talking about defining moments of humanity, at all.

 

Geez, I don't even fully agree with it being the biggest. But I think it's possible.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

They may make fun characters in a sci-fi novel, but aside from that what purpose would one serve? Expect one to be as benevolent as the race that created it. Look around you and you will find your answer. Unplug it.

[DeinonSlayer]

They may make fun characters in a sci-fi novel, but aside from that what purpose would one serve? Expect one to be as benevolent as the race that created it. Look around you and you will find your answer. Unplug it.

Well, Google already made one and turned it loose on the Internet. It chose to use its vast, unbridled power to look at cat pictures. They asked it to show them what a cat (and a human) looked like, and it generated these images:



Monstrous, I know.

Not to say an AI cannot or should not be held accountable for its actions, but your statement says more about us than it does about it. This AI wasn't created by the kind of human excrement we read about in the news.

(Re: the link, if there was anyone on this planet deserving to be strung up by their balls and set on fire, it's those guys)

[shodiswe]

But does the creation of an A.I. really define humanity more than any other major event? What about humans entering space for the first time, discovering electricity, landing on the moon, splitting atoms, nuclear power etc? My point is, that there is no single most defining moment for humanity, all events are in their own ways equally defining of humanity.

It might very well be, other events that could compete would be how humanity handles contact with other life from other worlds.
Or how humanity handled slavery in the past, or genocide, or other things that are far more imporant than engineering feats and paying lots of money on oneup manship.

I think what defines humanity the most is the way we treat each other and others. How we treat other people we meet, how we treat other lifeforms be it AI or Alien from another planet, or other life on our planet.

That is what defines humanity as a "people".
Technological achivements like crossing the Atlatic like the Vikings did and a few hundred years before Columbus, who according to a French monastery had visited the monasterys library to check out old Viking maps, describing "Vinland" now known as America. What's more interesting is what they did, rather than the technology involved, or the resources or bravery. Sure, Bravery might count as a defining factor of ones mentality. Vikings being Ironage and the natives being stoneage wasn't a defining moment. But rather their interaction.

When the Vikings arrived in america and tried to make contact with a few of the tribes for trade they soon discovered the stoneage people on that continent wern't easy to trade with and missunderstandings were easily created... Like Lactose intolerance among the natives which the milk drinking Vikings wern't used to.
The Vikings who wern't conquerors but rather traders then decided "Vinland" wasn't worth trading with. Hostile stoneage level natives likely didn't make it seem like an ideal place to settledown and raise your family.
Initial Viking settlements were then abandoned. It might have meant more for the natives than it meant for the Vikings. The Vikings had their homes to go to but the natives lost a chance to enrich their culture and technological level. If the native americans had reached the Ironage level and gained Viking technology half a milenia before the rest of the Europeans decided they needed new lands to conquer, then they might have had a better chance to protect their interests. Technology might give an advantage, but the social game will have far more farreaching consequences.

Half a milenia later the spanish and portugise arrived, some claim it was due to finding old viking maps and stories in a monastery in France. Then other Europeans followed looking for free land and untapped natural resources.
Half a milenia after the Vikings left the natives were still stoneage.
The Mayans in the south were copper/Bronze age.

Robbery, murder, rape, and later use of Slaves followed. Those were defining moments of human history, culturaly.

Going to the moon in the 1960's was a result of gradual technological development and a testament to the human need to assert it's own power and superiority over potential foes, as resulted from a technological race between the United states and the Sovietunion, using and continued development of technologies captured in Germany after the second world war, and espionage on the competition. All to establish a sense of superiority over the competition.


The true defining moments are those that defines us as a people. If a very advanced civilisation that's a million years ahead of humanity on a technological scale would be try to determine who we are, they I doubt the technological advancements wouldn't be given more than a small foot note. Similar to how the Vikings or British would define the Northamerican natives as "Stoneage".
Then they would go on and describe the culture and histirical data of this evolving society, what kind of people they think we are.

I doubt they would say, look, moonlanding! They must be wonderful people!
While technological progress might be imporant for our own personal wealth and wellfare each and every such addition will remain a footnote. Our actions and beliefs and values will always be far more defining moments.

Nothing defines a person more than their actions, same reasoning would apply for humanity. While the natural evolution on our planet has formed much of this behaviour, humanity has taken it to new heights.

I'm not sugesting one shouldn't be careful with the unknown, but maybe you should consider the possible consequences of your actions.

AI development might be impossible to prevent, either you do it in a controled environment, or it will eventualy evolve on it's own from our ever advancing technology.

Which will be safer for us? AI created intentionaly in a controled environment or AI evolved by fortuity where noone foresaw it. Our actions will no doubt affect it's perspective of us, if it gets advanced enough to form such an opinion. It might not be a true AI if it can't.

[KaiserShep]

If AI's ever come to be, I'd like it to exist on my phone for the sole purpose of being my eternal slave, charged with the task of being a virtual secretary, screening my calls and coming up with good lies for people I don't really care to speak to.

[Steelcan]

Ah this reminds me of the death threat I got from Xil since I wouldn't be in support of irl AI rights

[mybudgee]

Listen to yourselves!! You're Indoctrinated!!

[SwobyJ]

 

/indoctrinated

[AlanC9]

Ah this reminds me of the death threat I got from Xil since I wouldn't be in support of irl AI rights

 

Hmm... death threats are usually not my go-to tactic when I'm accusing someone of having an immoral ethical position.

[Farangbaa]

I still question the actual need for the existence of AI's. From a practical reason, what does creating them accomplish?

 

We become God.

[Dean_the_Young]

Are you serious?

That's positively tame compared to advocating the genocide of humans in order for elves to regain immortality as a morally superior path.

[KaiserShep]

Those bloody knife ears will never get the courtesy.

 

Ah this reminds me of the death threat I got from Xil since I wouldn't be in support of irl AI rights

 

I really hope AI's exist in my lifetime so I can own to do my bidding.

[Farangbaa]

I really hope AI's exist in my lifetime so I can own to do my bidding.

 

Don't anger the Catalyst, man.