Thread: LHC - Joe Rogans View

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think technological progress is in some way a sentient force driving us. I think it's just a product of the simple human desire for purpose. We create this great endeavour like a God to worship; something to be part of greater than oneself; simply something to do.

I think you misunderstood. What he's saying is that it, in a way, is driving us because we have a sort of insatiable desire to get it better and better. Then eventually it will become smarter than us, or we will live 'inside' it; our consciousnesses.

Also, who gives a fuck whether he can comment on UFC. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Originally Posted by tommo

I think you misunderstood. What he's saying is that it, in a way, is driving us because we have a sort of insatiable desire to get it better and better. Then eventually it will become smarter than us, or we will live 'inside' it; our consciousnesses.

Where does this idea that someday technology will become "smarter" than us spawn from? Honestly, it makes very little sense to me.

Um.... what do you think? Have you never seen AI, iRobot, Bicentennial Man, Terminator etc. etc.
We are trying to build these robots right now. Of course they will get smarter than us. If we can successfully make them conscious, they will instantly be smarter because computers already can process more data quicker than humans.

Originally Posted by tommo

Um.... what do you think? Have you never seen AI, iRobot, Bicentennial Man, Terminator etc. etc.

I have, and they are films. Fictional films.

Originally Posted by tommo

We are trying to build these robots right now.

Source? To my knowledge the most advanced robot at the moment is ASIMO, which, while totally remarkable, could hardly spell doom for the human race.

Originally Posted by tommo

Of course they will get smarter than us. If we can successfully make them conscious, they will instantly be smarter because computers already can process more data quicker than humans.

I doubt it would happen instantaneously. When AI comes around (if it even does), I highly doubt that it will happen at once, meaning that the very first robot or computer with AI will have a conscientiousness similar to humans. Rather I see it being a long and gradual process, something that would be much easier to govern. However, this is all speculation.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Ive watched ufc since 2002 so yeah, Ive heard him a lot. For every time He* is right like you say several more he'll be wrong and I dont blame that on him, because mma can change on a dime, but theres some times I just want to facepalm with assertions he makes during matches.

No I dont have anything against him, calm down. His comedy, on the other hand is good, I enjoy that. yeesh, no reason to get so worked up over someone else's view on a person you barely know. If you think nothing Ive said is true, I dont really care, its not the point of the thread anyway.

-Well, he makes no more mistakes during a match than any other announcer would. And also, the only reason I'm getting worked up about anything is because I've read a few of Joe's blogs, and watched a few vids... and he's clearly one of the most intelligent (if not the most reasonable and wise) celebrities that I know. He follows current events, politics, and media and pop culture religiously... and he can form no less of a good argument than any of you... if anything he can probably write a better article then 90% of the people on this board. He's knows much, understands much, and has the courage to go online and write blogs like this about what he thinks.

It's just wierd that you think any less of his opinion because of both his occupation, and his quality of 'announcemanship'. This is just a guy taking what he knows about he LHC and putting it into a blog with opinions. If anything you should think more of his opinion because of his character and education... not less because he apparently

cant even announce a ufc match without saying something dumb lol.

But like you said, this isn't what the thread about... but I just wanted to give my opinion on your opinion.

edit:

Also...
I think the whole technology overtaking us thing is regarding the exponential fasion in which technology is advancing. Anthropologists, historians, and anyone who has taken highschool level Social Studies will notice a trend. That is the rate at which we're developing new technologies is advancing exponentially. In the last 10 years we've probably learned more than in the 50 years before it. Everything we know to be true has only been known (largely) for the last 50-150 years... which is crazy considering humans have been around for over 150'000 years. It used to be a big deal to find out some crazy new technological advancement every few years... but now everyday in the news scientists from around the world are discovering/inventing new technologies. Within the next few decades we'll be at the point were we're advancing what used to take 50 years, in only a few months. As technology gets better, so do our abilities to aquire new technologies... therefore it's exponential.

Hopefully that helped... basically it's saying that in no time technologically the human race, and possibly all carbon based life forms, could be bypassed rendering us fairly useless and weak. Computers, though bypassing us easily as far as pure calculation, still lack the 'human element'. Which is conciousness, abstract thinking, problem solving etc. If the intense potential of a super-computer were given conciousness... who knows what might happen.

Originally Posted by Catbus

I have, and they are films. Fictional films.

You fail at getting the point. What I'm saying is that that is how they will get smarter than us.

Originally Posted by Catbus

I doubt it would happen instantaneously. When AI comes around (if it even does), I highly doubt that it will happen at once, meaning that the very first robot or computer with AI will have a conscientiousness similar to humans. Rather I see it being a long and gradual process, something that would be much easier to govern. However, this is all speculation.

Well if the very first robot or computer to get AI has consciousness similar to humans, it will already be considered smarter than us. If you didn't understand what I said, computers now already kick the shit out of a human brain in calculations per second. Like our best computers. Computers will also improve a lot between now and when we get AI, like we'll have quantum computers. So they will be smarter right away.

Originally Posted by tommo

You fail at getting the point. What I'm saying is that that is how they will get smarter than us.

I understood your point, I was just highlighting the fact that it's a bit outlandish.

Originally Posted by tommo

Well if the very first robot or computer to get AI has consciousness similar to humans, it will already be considered smarter than us. If you didn't understand what I said, computers now already kick the shit out of a human brain in calculations per second. Like our best computers. Computers will also improve a lot between now and when we get AI, like we'll have quantum computers. So they will be smarter right away.

That makes sense, and to an extent I can see it's viability, but my initial point was that it's silly to say that technology will eventually grow smarter/turn on us. Technology, to me at least, encompasses a lot more than just robotics.

Originally Posted by Catbus

I understood your point, I was just highlighting the fact that it's a bit outlandish.



That makes sense, and to an extent I can see it's viability, but my initial point was that it's silly to say that technology will eventually grow smarter/turn on us. Technology, to me at least, encompasses a lot more than just robotics.

I agree. Technology is only as smart as we make it. We would never create something that would be capable of taking over the world. Why make a self-aware robot that has the ability to make decisions, and then give it to capability to carry a weapon? I think humans are smart enough not to do that. Even if a robot can become self-aware, it is a stretch to think we can completely replicate human consciousness. We have to completely understand it ourselves before we can replicate it. And I think creativity and human ingenuity always trumps a robot in a fight, humans could easily find a way to destroy an army of robots. Science fiction isn't always a good prediction of the future. According to science fiction movies, we should be driving hover cars by now.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

We would never create something that would be capable of taking over the world. Why make a self-aware robot that has the ability to make decisions, and then give it to capability to carry a weapon?

Yeah, we would never create something that has the capability of destroying the entire planet Earth....

I agree. Technology is only as smart as we make it.

You'd think.......

We would never create something that would be capable of taking over the world.

Who's to say? And even assuming we wouldn't, accidents happen you know.

Why make a self-aware robot that has the ability to make decisions, and then give it to capability to carry a weapon?

Dunno... ask the 1000's of scientists across various govmnts (including US and Canada). We're working at self-aware artificially intelligent robots, robots that can rebuild themselves, robot that can predict complex behaviours and robots that can kill people... Seems like a good idea to have a bunch of smart killer robots on your side... at first.

I think humans are smart enough not to do that.

HAHAHA
You're giving the human race more credit than it deserves. We've commited genocide, started wars for money, and accepted religion without question for as long as we've been around. It's clear you and I aren't talking about the same humans... since the humans I know are not only capable... but possible 'dumb' enough to do it... if not intentionally... then by accident.

Even if a robot can become self-aware, it is a stretch to think we can completely replicate human consciousness.

You'd know? Of course Seriously... if we can make a bunch of circuits, wires, and micro-processors able to comprehend that they are a bunch of circuits, wires, and processors then anything is possible. Once you're self aware there isn't much further to go. Plus... I'm not saying they'll replicate human conciousness... they'll have their own... which will probably be far superior to ours assuming they get that far.

We have to completely understand it ourselves before we can replicate it.

Possibly true, but we aren't far off anyways... and it's possible that some freak accident could endow our metallic friends with conciousness! Guess how we started? A bunch of gases and molecules, then single cells, then multiple cells, and then a few millions years down the line you've got a bunch of self-aware 'intelligent' things walking around. We were a freak accident... one in a bazillion... think about it...

And I think creativity and human ingenuity always trumps a robot in a fight, humans could easily find a way to destroy an army of robots.

Wow... you seem to know everything eh? We can't even win the war on drugs and terrorism... let alone hard, mechanical, killing machines with no distractions (politics/religion) and with no need for air or water... quite possibly self-replicating/repairing. If it gets as far as that... we're screwed. Don't kid yourself... We'd be trying to find a diplomatic solution with all our morals and stuff... while they'd be gassing our atmosphere killing us off.

Science fiction isn't always a good prediction of the future. According to science fiction movies, we should be driving hover cars by now.

True... isn't ALWAYS... is sometimes though.

btw... this is a lot of what ifs, theoretical questions, and a little bit of satire... don't take it TOO seriously. I'm just showing you potential flaws in all your seemingly 'common knowledge'. If the answer was as obvious as you're saying... then these conversations wouldn't even be necessary.

Originally Posted by mindwanderer

You'd think.......


Who's to say? And even assuming we wouldn't, accidents happen you know.


Dunno... ask the 1000's of scientists across various govmnts (including US and Canada). We're working at self-aware artificially intelligent robots, robots that can rebuild themselves, robot that can predict complex behaviours and robots that can kill people... Seems like a good idea to have a bunch of smart killer robots on your side... at first.


HAHAHA
You're giving the human race more credit than it deserves. We've commited genocide, started wars for money, and accepted religion without question for as long as we've been around. It's clear you and I aren't talking about the same humans... since the humans I know are not only capable... but possible 'dumb' enough to do it... if not intentionally... then by accident.


You'd know? Of course Seriously... if we can make a bunch of circuits, wires, and micro-processors able to comprehend that they are a bunch of circuits, wires, and processors then anything is possible. Once you're self aware there isn't much further to go. Plus... I'm not saying they'll replicate human conciousness... they'll have their own... which will probably be far superior to ours assuming they get that far.


Possibly true, but we aren't far off anyways... and it's possible that some freak accident could endow our metallic friends with conciousness! Guess how we started? A bunch of gases and molecules, then single cells, then multiple cells, and then a few millions years down the line you've got a bunch of self-aware 'intelligent' things walking around. We were a freak accident... one in a bazillion... think about it...


Wow... you seem to know everything eh? We can't even win the war on drugs and terrorism... let alone hard, mechanical, killing machines with no distractions (politics/religion) and with no need for air or water... quite possibly self-replicating/repairing. If it gets as far as that... we're screwed. Don't kid yourself... We'd be trying to find a diplomatic solution with all our morals and stuff... while they'd be gassing our atmosphere killing us off.


True... isn't ALWAYS... is sometimes though.

btw... this is a lot of what ifs, theoretical questions, and a little bit of satire... don't take it TOO seriously. I'm just showing you potential flaws in all your seemingly 'common knowledge'. If the answer was as obvious as you're saying... then these conversations wouldn't even be necessary.

"Who's to say? And even assuming we wouldn't, accidents happen you know."

Accidentally create something that can take over the world? I can't imagine a scenario where that could possibly happen.

"Dunno... ask the 1000's of scientists across various govmnts (including US and Canada). We're working at self-aware artificially intelligent robots, robots that can rebuild themselves, robot that can predict complex behaviours and robots that can kill people... Seems like a good idea to have a bunch of smart killer robots on your side... at first."

The only robots that can kill are controlled by humans. I think I can comfortably say robots that independently make the decision to kill will never be created, certainly not mass produced. Keep in mind this technology would need to be approved by a large number of people before it is mass produced, it will never happen.

"HAHAHA
You're giving the human race more credit than it deserves. We've commited genocide, started wars for money, and accepted religion without question for as long as we've been around. It's clear you and I aren't talking about the same humans... since the humans I know are not only capable... but possible 'dumb' enough to do it... if not intentionally... then by accident."

This is an awful argument. You aren't giving humans enough credit. Everything you described can be attributed to psychological blemishes on an otherwise remarkable capacity for creative and critical thinking. I am talking about the humans that have built sprawling metropolises, put men on the moon, flown robots to Mars, harnessed the power of electricity, built cars, airplanes, telescopes that can see to the edge of the universe, developed live-saving medicines etc. You think we can't figure out how to kill robots? Aren't robots allergic to water?

"You'd know? Of course Seriously... if we can make a bunch of circuits, wires, and micro-processors able to comprehend that they are a bunch of circuits, wires, and processors then anything is possible. Once you're self aware there isn't much further to go. Plus... I'm not saying they'll replicate human conciousness... they'll have their own... which will probably be far superior to ours assuming they get that far."

Yes I'd know. The number of neurons that make up a human brain is so large that said brain can't even comprehend it's size, at least not without getting a headache. Accurately replicating the brain is a feat that I think is too staggering for humans to accomplish, not in this millenium. There is still so much we don't know about psychology. How is robot consciousness different than human consciousness? How is it better? Why would we want it to have such a "superior" consciousness. What exactly does it mean to have a superior consciousness anyways? I thought consciousness just meant being aware of yourself.

"Possibly true, but we aren't far off anyways... and it's possible that some freak accident could endow our metallic friends with conciousness! Guess how we started? A bunch of gases and molecules, then single cells, then multiple cells, and then a few millions years down the line you've got a bunch of self-aware 'intelligent' things walking around. We were a freak accident... one in a bazillion... think about it... "

Actually, we are extremely far off. I mean light years away. I might be so bold as to say we will never fully understand the depths of it's complexity. And somehow I don't think lightning will strike consciousness into robots.

"Wow... you seem to know everything eh? We can't even win the war on drugs and terrorism... let alone hard, mechanical, killing machines with no distractions (politics/religion) and with no need for air or water... quite possibly self-replicating/repairing. If it gets as far as that... we're screwed. Don't kid yourself... We'd be trying to find a diplomatic solution with all our morals and stuff... while they'd be gassing our atmosphere killing us off."

No need to get cheeky, Im just offering my opinions. Don't you think we would take some security measures into account before we mass produce an army of self-aware, killer robots? Maybe form some emergency plans in case our worst nightmares were realized? Maybe a virus installed in every machine before hand, then said virus can be activated at the touch of a button. But I know what you will say. "The robots are so smart that they will somehow get rid of the virus." Well, we could also exploit some physical weakness, there is an infinite number of reasons why a robot army could never take over the world. Im pretty sure I could kill one with my garden hose, a robot can't repair itself if it's dead. Perhaps the most important flaw with this scenario is that an army of "super-counscious," killer robots would serve no purpose in this world. Warfare has evolved past the point of large standing armies doing battle across a large field.

"True... isn't ALWAYS... is sometimes though."

In what instances?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Accidentally create something that can take over the world? I can't imagine a scenario where that could possibly happen.

Wait for the Nanobots:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...estroy-us.html

You're basing your opinion on nano-technology on information coming from The Telegraph instead of a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

I wasn't serious

My bad, I didn't catch that.

Good stuff...
I was largely playing the devils advocate... and I was trying to tease some more info outta you
The fact is, most of what you're saying is pretty true... but a lot is speculation. We really can't know for sure... is it likely? No. Possible? Absolutely.

Everything you described can be attributed to psychological blemishes on an otherwise remarkable capacity for creative and critical thinking.

Not everything I described... and even if that's true it doesn't affect my statement. Regardless of what caused those things, the fact is they happened. Hitler, mussolini, stalin, bush senior and junior, albert einstein, donald trump... those are of a few of MILLIONS of people who did, and do, have capacity for terrible things. These psychological blemishes you speak of, are unfortunately present (to some extent) in all the human race.

Yes I'd know.

No offence, but you really don't... no one does. You yourself exclaim how much depth there is to this, and how little we know... so you can speculate and make educated guesses based off of observations... but you can't KNOW.

The number of neurons that make up a human brain is so large that said brain can't even comprehend it's size, at least not without getting a headache.

Wrong... we actually can, and do, comprehend it. I've done psych for 3 years and we do extensive units focusing on the human brain... we have a great knowledge of most of it, and we're learning daily.

Accurately replicating the brain is a feat that I think is too staggering for humans to accomplish, not in this millenium.

I'm not expecting the human brain to be replicated... neurons differ greatly from processors and super computers and 'stuff'. We've already got basic cognition and intelligence in robots... and the the exponential expansion of technology it can't be too long (few decades, maybe century) till we get there. And as far as 'better conciousness' I meant better intelligence to go along with the conciousness.

Anyways, I agree with much of what you're saying.

Originally Posted by mindwanderer

Good stuff...
I was largely playing the devils advocate... and I was trying to tease some more info outta you
The fact is, most of what you're saying is pretty true... but a lot is speculation. We really can't know for sure... is it likely? No. Possible? Absolutely.


Not everything I described... and even if that's true it doesn't affect my statement. Regardless of what caused those things, the fact is they happened. Hitler, mussolini, stalin, bush senior and junior, albert einstein, donald trump... those are of a few of MILLIONS of people who did, and do, have capacity for terrible things. These psychological blemishes you speak of, are unfortunately present (to some extent) in all the human race.


No offence, but you really don't... no one does. You yourself exclaim how much depth there is to this, and how little we know... so you can speculate and make educated guesses based off of observations... but you can't KNOW.


Wrong... we actually can, and do, comprehend it. I've done psych for 3 years and we do extensive units focusing on the human brain... we have a great knowledge of most of it, and we're learning daily.


I'm not expecting the human brain to be replicated... neurons differ greatly from processors and super computers and 'stuff'. We've already got basic cognition and intelligence in robots... and the the exponential expansion of technology it can't be too long (few decades, maybe century) till we get there. And as far as 'better conciousness' I meant better intelligence to go along with the conciousness.

Anyways, I agree with much of what you're saying.

"Not everything I described... and even if that's true it doesn't affect my statement. Regardless of what caused those things, the fact is they happened. Hitler, mussolini, stalin, bush senior and junior, albert einstein, donald trump... those are of a few of MILLIONS of people who did, and do, have capacity for terrible things. These psychological blemishes you speak of, are unfortunately present (to some extent) in all the human race."

I don't understand how the existence of people like Hitler could undermine human intelligence. Would people like him prevent us from formulating a plan to kill all robots? It doesn't make sense.

"No offence, but you really don't... no one does. You yourself exclaim how much depth there is to this, and how little we know... so you can speculate and make educated guesses based off of observations... but you can't KNOW."

I know because I read the work of people who know. People who study the brain for a living have an idea of how complicated it is. Remember my original statement was "it would be a stretch to think we could completely replicate human consciousness." I think that is being more than generous.

"Wrong... we actually can, and do, comprehend it. I've done psych for 3 years and we do extensive units focusing on the human brain... we have a great knowledge of most of it, and we're learning daily."

Maybe we have a different idea of what it means to comprehend a number that large. When sombody says the words "one-hundred billion" to you, in your mind, do you see a one followed by eleven zeros or do you actually see 100 billion separate entities? My guess would be the first answer because you would otherwise be some kind of genius. Just because we can work with extremely large numbers doesn't mean we actually comprehend how large they are. We can describe a galaxy as millions of light years across, but humans don't really have a concept of how big that is.

We don't have to understand the human brain fully to replicate it. They've done studies with mice where they just replicated it by taking very tiny tiny slices and seeing what the connections are. It was only a very small, maybe 1mm slice and a mouse brain has less neurons than ours, but it's a start. And No I'm not finding the fucking study I cbf.

Oh yeah also nano bots are something I'm concerned about. Just send em over to a country you don't like to deconstruct their army atom by atom.... scary shit.

The majority of research into nanotechnology isn't into weapons (if any research is designated to that at all), but rather into advances in medical fields and other scientific areas of study. Besides, your argument is parallel to the fear that people had over nuclear weapons. "You don't like a country so you just nuke them, game over," is a thought that comes to mind. Obviously, there has never been, and more than likely won't be a wide scale nuclear war. With the mutually assured destruction that would come from it, it's only common sense to not use them if there's even the slightest chance that another country could use them back, so why wouldn't this apply to nanobots* as well?

*Nanobots seems to be a misnomer as well, fueled by fear that spawns from shitty sci-fi films. At the moment "nanobots" are absolutely nothing like how they are depicted in those B-films. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanorobotics#Approaches sheds a little light on the largely experimental feild of nanorobotics.

I think we're all missing the point here, wolves lives are hard as fuck.