[removed]

Where is the evidence that we can't explain reality? Where is the evidence that there exists questions that we can never truly answer? Saying that reality cannot be explained is as strong a statement as any hypothetical explanation of reality itself.

https://fs.blog/map-and-territory/

/thread

[deleted]

SkyNet would be so pissed by this idea.

Terminator: Yes. Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.

John: [pokes at one of Terminator's bullet wounds] Holy sh*t! You're really real! I mean, you're like a machine underneath, right? But sort of alive outside?

Terminator: I'm a cybernetic organism. Living tissue over a metal endoskeleton.

Reading about this app, it sounds like the general consensus is that it works barely more than half the time.

> There is no real "thing" called a bottle, there's just a collection of particle

That's what a "thing" entails. A collection of particles.

Yes, there is language and words concepts. But even when that gets played with and you call it a chupa, it doesn't change what it really is. The universe doesn't give two shits what's rumbling around your head.or what language you used. It existed long before you and that bottle will be around after your dead and just sitting in a land fill, probably.

Ugh, arguing with philosophers that reality exists. I need another beer.

It is.

>But the thing is we just don't know when AGI is coming, maybe a long way off.

This is what I feel a lot of people don't get. We have literally no idea what the threshold for consciousness is. We don't even know how to identify it in other humans let alone another species. Without knowing what that threshold is, there is absolutely no way for us to determine how close or far away from it we are. All we do know is that if and when AI reaches that level, it will intellectually outpace humans at a significant rate.

When the first atomic bomb was created, scientists knew precisely under what conditions a nuclear reaction would go critical. Now imagine if those scientists had absolutely no way of know when or if the reaction would go critical and blow up in their face. That is exactly what we are doing with AI. Racing towards a criticality point which we cannot identify.

Long story short, it could happen in 10 years or 100 years. We literally have no means knowing when.

I'm surprised you're on a Philosophy subreddit while possessing such a narrow and unimaginative perspective. Odd.

> despite the authors wordy arguments AI requires input and only that input (however jumbled) will be returned on a query. if it were really creative it could dream up something on its own and populate a blank sheet of paper with something novel. AI isn't creative. the people that program it might be.

My only significant gripe with this is, isn't this exactly how humans work? Everything we do is slightly derivative, and built on what came before us. All of our output is due to the input from our environment.

This isn't to say anything about your argument. I just feel like AI and humans are only truly separated by superficial boundaries like scale and implementation, and maybe we should consider this as the technology continues to advance.

>My work is facilitating a particular type of technical safety audit (HAZOP) in the process engineering industry.

You had me here. I was about to jump in pointing out that things like auditing is probably one of the easier tasks for AI. Glad I read the rest before commenting though because I think you're spot on with what you said. Lots of things could be replaced by AI, but until AI becomes more advanced and lower cost to train, many of those applications just won't be feasible from a financial point of view.

Haha, good luck. Your much better off just buying Bitcoin as its an investment into all future innovation entirely. Literally allowing you to purchase future energy value for 99% on sale.

Nice, there's something off about what AI writes.

Edit: I’m not certain how legitimate the tool being used to correct it or how accurate it is, but this blog post is written so strange that it feels like it’s generated through a script .

[removed]

"...then we have absolutely no basis for reality." Yes, that's right. Have you even watched the video?

"We do have it, though, and it is highly accurate..." How, may I ask, do you know that for a fact?

I’ve always thought if there was a machine that could make other people feel your pain.especially people that have not experienced it. But not only for sympathetic and comparison reasons for people that do not have chronic pain make them feel better about their own condition. Sorry to get off topic but being in chronic pain for so many years. I’ve always thought this and wanted to put it out there.

[removed]

Utterly technocratic! An article written by an AI. CRAZY times we live in, folks.

A lump of mush and neurons rattling around inside a osseus tissue cavity. We know that because every person who has ever been examined by millions of certified modern professionals says it is so. It was the same yesterday and will be the same tomorrow. Therefor any one of us being any different would be beyond what is statistically possible.

Thats whats real. We can know it very easily and without faith.

If we dont use science as our basis for knowledge of reality then we have absolutely no basis for reality, because nothing else even comes close. We do have it, though, and it is highly accurate, and so choosing not to use it is ignorance.

Maybe your ability to investigate it, but try not to speak for others.

[removed]

No, it was a pretty simple idea, cannot think of a way to make it any easier to digest. The more math you know the more you see the similarity in how everything is described through mathematics.