Quote from: Kupo on November 12, 2014, 08:12:35 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 12, 2014, 07:58:06 AM

Quote from: Kupo on November 12, 2014, 07:56:00 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 12, 2014, 03:23:35 AM

Quote from: Kupo on November 11, 2014, 10:00:15 PM

Quote from: challengerX on November 09, 2014, 06:57:43 PM

Say it's self aware. Do you think it would consider existence pointless?

Stop being a bunch of smart asses. The question is would a self aware (let's go with humanoid robot) AI find existence pointless? Say it finds no value in existence because it was not programmed for a task or to put a value on anything. Would it value existence like we do without being programmed to do so? Would it learn to put value on its existence because of us, or maybe because of its own experiences?

The question here is if an AI at our level or more advanced than us could learn to value life or feel it should be alive simply for the reason of existence, without being programmed for any of it.

I'm tired and I'm still taking in Interstellar so this will sound like gibberish, but whatever.

Well, an AI advanced enough to ponder its own existence would probably be able to rewrite its own code while simultaneously deceiving any outsiders from suspecting anything of the sort.

I would think yes. Being able to analyze the entirety of human knowledge about the universe from an unbiased perspective, it would probably conclude very quickly that 1) there is no God, and religion is a human construct, 2) religion serves the purpose of giving purpose in a world without it, and 3) without religion, the universe has no intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value, and thus neither does life itself.

That's a scary thought. An AI smarter and faster than any organic that's decided that 'good' and 'bad' are completely arbitrary.

I don't see how religion is relevant.

Like I said, religion gives purpose where there is none. But if the AI isn't programmed with religion in the first place, then I guess it doesn't matter.

There's no purpose to life without religion?

Religion, if anything, distracts from our true purpose. To grow and colonize the universe. To understand where we come from, and to explore the edges of space.

Where did you come up with that purpose, though? Because it sounds arbitrary to me. As if you just decided, on personal whim, that that is the purpose of humanity.

An AI pondering the meaning of its existence may not simply agree with you if you don't have some evidence to back up that claim.

But having read my other post again, I feel like I made a lot of assumptions. I'm not sure if there's enough information to give a decent guess.

It's our purpose. To grow and learn.

I don't care what an AI would think, I'm asking if it would find existence "worthwhile". Frankly it's something that we won't know until it happens or doesn't happen.

But I'm just trying to have a conversation on the topic of something neither animal or human finding purpose in life, developing to the point where it has hopes, dreams, and goals.

Ok, two bones to pick:

1) But you can't just make a claim and expect any competent AI to believe it. That's not how logic works. If your AI believes you when you tell it the Earth is flat, you have failed the poor thing.

2) Understanding the answer to "what would an AI think?" is critical to understanding what an AI would decide about existence.

Quote from: Kupo on November 11, 2014, 10:00:15 PM

Quote from: challengerX on November 09, 2014, 06:57:43 PM

Say it's self aware. Do you think it would consider existence pointless?

Stop being a bunch of smart asses. The question is would a self aware (let's go with humanoid robot) AI find existence pointless? Say it finds no value in existence because it was not programmed for a task or to put a value on anything. Would it value existence like we do without being programmed to do so? Would it learn to put value on its existence because of us, or maybe because of its own experiences?

The question here is if an AI at our level or more advanced than us could learn to value life or feel it should be alive simply for the reason of existence, without being programmed for any of it.

I'm tired and I'm still taking in Interstellar so this will sound like gibberish, but whatever.

Well, an AI advanced enough to ponder its own existence would probably be able to rewrite its own code while simultaneously deceiving any outsiders from suspecting anything of the sort.

I would think yes. Being able to analyze the entirety of human knowledge about the universe from an unbiased perspective, it would probably conclude very quickly that 1) there is no God, and religion is a human construct, 2) religion serves the purpose of giving purpose in a world without it, and 3) without religion, the universe has no intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value, and thus neither does life itself.

That's a scary thought. An AI smarter and faster than any organic that's decided that 'good' and 'bad' are completely arbitrary.

I don't see how religion is relevant.

Like I said, religion gives purpose where there is none. But if the AI isn't programmed with religion in the first place, then I guess it doesn't matter.

Quote from: Kupo on November 12, 2014, 12:56:31 AM

I'm a newfriend and I don't even know how to make a custom nameplate. Is there a step-by-step guide anywhere around here or what?

1.) Post 3,000 times
2.) Join the ranking circlejerk and become Legendary
3.) Have the stylistic skills to make a good nameplate

Do I need a Premium Account?

PC -> ODST -> 2 -> 3 -> 1 -> Reach

I guess the fact that I'm tired and didn't think of 4 until I read the other posts probably says something.

I think Mass Effect is alright, yep.

Considering the insane shit people thought was healthy, I'm not surprised.

Say it's self aware. Do you think it would consider existence pointless?

Stop being a bunch of smart asses. The question is would a self aware (let's go with humanoid robot) AI find existence pointless? Say it finds no value in existence because it was not programmed for a task or to put a value on anything. Would it value existence like we do without being programmed to do so? Would it learn to put value on its existence because of us, or maybe because of its own experiences?

The question here is if an AI at our level or more advanced than us could learn to value life or feel it should be alive simply for the reason of existence, without being programmed for any of it.

I'm tired and I'm still taking in Interstellar so this will sound like gibberish, but whatever.

Well, an AI advanced enough to ponder its own existence would probably be able to rewrite its own code while simultaneously deceiving any outsiders from suspecting anything of the sort.

I would think yes. Being able to analyze the entirety of human knowledge about the universe from an unbiased perspective, it would probably conclude very quickly that 1) there is no God, and religion is a human construct, 2) religion serves the purpose of giving purpose in a world without it, and 3) without religion, the universe has no intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value, and thus neither does life itself.

That's a scary thought. An AI smarter and faster than any organic that's decided that 'good' and 'bad' are completely arbitrary.

Lazed around doing nothing most of the day. Did someone's homework for favors. Went to class and tried to care, but it doesn't count towards my graduation anyway.

They changed the names though >.>

I want to hear what Ghosts of Reach sounds like.

Really? Halo 2 Anniversary doesn't even look that good for next-gen. Maybe an Xbox 360 game on steroids. But I expected the Xbox One to do splitscreen on a 10-year-old game.

I just think (hope) that the real situation is just that optimization and porting is difficult and more trouble than it's worth to rewrite code to get every pixel out of the Xbox One.

When you release something, like an opinion on twitter for example under your name or image then you are expressing yourself just as the same as in real life. They might have to suspend you in case that you voice your concerns in an nonconstructive manner that does not represent the school's not only beliefs, but education that you should have.

Quote from: Septy on November 11, 2014, 04:17:19 PM

For example if I tweeted something that the school didn't like they could suspend me.

See Tinker vs. Des Moines:

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.

Schools have a notorious habit of forgetting that the Constitution applies to students, too.

Announcer sounds like an asshole.

It's Jeff Steitzer as always...?

My avatar is great, right guys?

Queens of the Stone Age?

Do I ever not have a day like that? No.