Are you stupid?

all the same

Attached: Intelligence2.png (1376x1124, 137.96K)

>GPT-3 is proprietary and closed-source
There are many analogues coming out now that are open source.

The paper you linked is what is called "AGI" in the OP
The idea that your AI computer programs will one day have conciousness is a laughably arrogant materialist delusion, an extrapolation not based in reality

>a laughably arrogant materialist delusion
>thinks there is anything spiritual about conciousness
Your statement reminds me of
>Heavier than air flying machines are impossible
The same as Lord Kelvin spoke about "flying machines" being impossible you speak about AI being impossible but that statement is founded on your belief, not on rational, scientific knowledge.
If you do have such knowledge as to why it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for there to ever be a consciousness, please, go ahead and share it. Otherwise it's just your belief and opinion.

>that statement is founded on your belief, not on rational, scientific knowledge.
correct, just like the statement that AI consciousness is achievable
I assert that my beliefs are correct and that opposing beliefs are a delusion

The difference between you and me is that you claim that something is impossible because you believe that to be the case without any rational reasons outside of your biased opinion.
While I do not make any such claims and merely say that because from what we currently know, which is not a whole lot, there is yet to be anything that would prevent a conscious AI to be one day possible.
Your stance comes from a biased opinion and claims that something is impossible without having any proofs or evidence to support such claim.

Yes
If you claim it is possible, I would call you an idiot
Not having an opinion is an intelligent position to take
There is nothing to suggest that what we call AI has anything to do with what we call conciousness, we don't even understand what conciousness is
Things like the pyramid in the OP are incredibly arrogant

>If you claim it is possible, I would call you an idiot
It's not like there are uncountable instances of people claiming the same about many things throughout history. You should know better by now to claim that something is impossible unless it is truly impossible within the constraints of our reality.
>Not having an opinion is an intelligent position to take
Then you are not in this "intelligent position" as you already have an opinion on it, as you claim it to be literally impossible.
>There is nothing to suggest that what we call AI has anything to do with what we call conciousness, we don't even understand what conciousness is
As far as science is concerned, we do know that there is nothing spiritual about consciousness or rather, science does not make any claims for any spirituality when considering the function of a consciousness within the brain's functions.
It's merely a product of evolution that came to exist by combination of many survival instics and features of an expanded brain such as pattern recognition, short-term and long-term memory, ability to learn etc.

There's many instances throughout history of people claiming things to be possible that weren't
>As far as science is concerned, we do know that there is nothing spiritual about consciousness
We do not
>It's merely a product of evolution
Completely and utterly unproven

>>There's many instances throughout history of people claiming things to be possible that weren't
The difference which seems to be going over your head is that simply put:
>You claim X is impossible without any proof that it is impossible.
>I claim X is possible as there is currently no proof for it to be impossible.
I think it's much more rational to require scientific/real-world proofs and observations before one can claim something to be impossible rather than dismiss ideas out of personal belief. That's a completely irrational stance.
As long as there is no objective reason for something to be impossible, it should not be deamed so.
>>We do not
Yes, we do know that as far as objective, rational science is concerned, there is nothing spiritual about it. And even if there was, it would not be field of science anymore under the current definition.
>>Completely and utterly unproven
You've your right to believe what you want, but the alternative is what? Religious creationism?
You realize that is far more irrational than my stance that AI is possible until it is proven to be impossible within the constraints of our reality, right?
Even if we assume the evolution theory to be "unproven", it still has far more objectively logical proofs to it than creationism does which provides no real basis for you to even claim it to be an objective truth outside of your personal belief.
Also, I'm kind of amazed that someone like you is even on Any Forums.

>we do know that as far as objective, rational science is concerned, there is nothing spiritual about it
You just said you need proof before you claim something is impossible. I agree, that's rational. But then you go on to claim that there's nothing spiritual about conciousness, with zero proof. You just contradicted yourself.

>>You just said you need proof before you claim something is impossible. I agree, that's rational. But then you go on to claim that there's nothing spiritual about conciousness, with zero proof. You just contradicted yourself.
I think there is a misunderstanding.
I was saying the following:
>As far as science is concerned...
>or rather, science does not make any claims for any spirituality...
>we do know that as far as objective, rational science is concerned...
By that I meant that SCIENCE does not consider any spirituality to be present there as the role of science is to only work within the measurable/observable etc. constraints that it can work with. You can not do "science" as we know it on spiritual topics.
Therefore, as we can not know or prove anything about the potential spiritual aspects of the consciousness, we can not take it into real scientific consideration as science does not have a framework to work with it.
That's why I said:
>And even if there was, it would not be field of science anymore under the current definition.

>that there's nothing spiritual about conciousness

You seem like the kind of guy who browses /x/ on a regular basis.

That's an insult, btw.

You just made a claim that scientific knowledge is all there is. "It's merely a product of evolution". You didn't say that science can't measure the spiritual, you said the spiritual doesn't exist