humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft
If humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft
Q: Are systems like ChatGPT sentient life-forms?
A: No, systems like ChatGPT are not sentient life-forms. While they are designed to mimic human language and respond to input in a conversational manner, they do not possess consciousness or self-awareness. ChatGPT is a machine learning model that uses algorithms to analyze and process language data, and its responses are generated based on patterns and probabilities learned from the input it has been trained on. It does not have subjective experiences, emotions, or the ability to make decisions based on its own desires or goals. — ChatGPT
If humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft
Well, I can think of three immediate "implications": ContactIf humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft
Btw, talking to one of nephews today (who's not yet thirty, working in finance & tech) the "Fermi Paradox" came up and by the end of that part of the discussion, maybe fifteen minutes later, I concluded that there's no paradox after all because, in the (local) universe, there are probably exponentially more extraterrestrial intelligent machines (ETIM) – which are not detectable yet by us and therefore we are of no interest to those xeno-machines – than there are non-extinct extraterrestrial intelligent species (ETIS) whose thinking machine descendants are exploring the universe and leaving behind their makers to carry on safely existing in boundless, virtual worlds. "The Great Silence" is an illusion, I remarked, for those who don't have post-Singularity ears to hear the "Music of the Spheres" playing between and beyond the stars. Maybe, universeness, you agree with the young man who told me, in effect, that my cosmic scenario diminishes human significance to ... Lovecraftian zero. :smirk: — 180 Proof
Why don't they contact us too? — javi2541997
the decision to terminate us is not yet final; — Vera Mont
Maybe they see us as someone who is dangerous and they do not want to get closer. Yet, this theory considers "higher intelligences" as cowards. — javi2541997
It is not the same when we talk about military strategies. — javi2541997
If higher intelligences do not want to conquer us because of our unknown behavior, it means that they are not powerful enough — javi2541997
Why in the name of Beetlejuice would a higher intelligence want to conquer us? (Because it's what we do?) — Vera Mont
Whether you like it or not, that's how most of the interactions tend to be. — javi2541997
Why would those higher intelligences do otherwise? — javi2541997
By the way, if they are not the first in attacking, our military forces would do the job for them. This is a given. — javi2541997
There are going to be many enormous consequences of AI in the very near future, let's not introduce imponderable questions such as higher intelligences into the equation. — Wayfarer
First, there is the simple fact of other intelligent life — Vera Mont
Second, and rather more important, is the question of how that intelligent alien responds to us. — Vera Mont
The interaction with other intelligent lives through AI chats will be frustrating if we do not achieve a common language for such cause previously. — javi2541997
"The Great Silence" is an illusion, I remarked, for those who don't have post-Singularity ears to hear the "Music of the Spheres" playing between and beyond the stars. — 180 Proof
My intention was only to relay some information and context that has changed my perspective on AI as a whole. — Bret Bernhoft
One of these individuals claims to have made contact with some sort of super-intelligence; something far beyond our humanity and our tools. — Bret Bernhoft
If humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence ... — Bret Bernhoft
what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft
I think it is only a matter of time before AI fabricates concepts, techniques, theorems and proofs in mathematics that lay beyond the grasp of human mathematicians. — jgill
Could you elaborate? Do you mean their theorems/concepts would have so many steps/components that it would take longer than a lifetime for a human to properly go through it/grasp it? — Ø implies everything
Then we have things like the Four Color theorem which required a computer to evaluate a huge number of cases to "prove". — jgill
I don't see how there are any issues of incomprehensibility that are not ultimately an issue of length, — Ø implies everything
Scheme theory, perhaps more than any other subject, has a reputation for being extremely
difficult and tedious to learn. One gets the impression that the subject involves many highly
technical and difficult constructions, is exceedingly vast and abstract, and that it takes
considerable time and energy before one is able to prove anything of value. Quite famously,
the subject originated from Grothendieck’s attempt to “simplify” an eighty page paper by
Serre into the thousand page document that was to become Les ́El ́ements de g ́eom ́etrie
alg ́ebrique — a fact that is both oddly remarkable and offers little encouragement.
It is perhaps somewhat surprising, then, that there seems to be no shortage of graduate
students and even undergraduates eager to devote time to understand schemes. The usual
procedure is to sit down with a copy of Hartshorne, formally sift through a seemingly endless
series of complex definitions, and then grudgingly admit defeat. Usually absent from these
attempts at understanding schemes are good sources of intuition, motivation, and clear and
identifiable goals. The result is that students learning the subject this way have difficulty
explaining the “point” of a definition or a construction, and so don’t know what it’s related
to, why it’s there, and consequently can’t use it.
The purpose of this article is to give the basic definitions of scheme theory in context.
We will take the view that it is just as important, if not more so, to explain the definitions
themselves as it is to explain the lemmas and the proofs. In doing so, we hope to remedy a
common affliction that befalls those who read Hartshorne’s book: not having any idea what
is going on
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.