This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Anonymous (User Deleted)
Pages: 1 ... 207208209 210211212
6241
« on: November 12, 2014, 05:59:50 PM »
Sounds more dangerous than it's worth. Is it?
6242
« on: November 12, 2014, 05:55:53 PM »
I should screencap the PM you sent on B.next when you told me to come here.
6243
« on: November 12, 2014, 04:41:19 PM »
My aunt called Naruto "cartoons" and I've been low-key about it ever since.
I mean, Anime is a essentially a Japanese cartoon show though
Yeah, but cartoons has the connotation of being for elementary and middle schoolers (which is exactly the tone she used when she said it).
But... but... it is!
Don't do this to me ;_;
6244
« on: November 12, 2014, 04:28:17 PM »
My aunt called Naruto "cartoons" and I've been low-key about it ever since.
I mean, Anime is a essentially a Japanese cartoon show though
Yeah, but cartoons has the connotation of being for elementary and middle schoolers (which is exactly the tone she used when she said it).
6245
« on: November 12, 2014, 04:10:56 PM »
My aunt called Naruto "cartoons" and I've been low-key about it ever since.
6246
« on: November 12, 2014, 04:07:36 PM »
Fate/Zero was excellent, all hail Ufotable
6247
« on: November 12, 2014, 04:03:06 PM »
lol just buy both
I did, I'm asking for a public opinion on looks lmfao
O: The Huracán looks like a baby Aventador, so I'd have to say Aventador.
6248
« on: November 12, 2014, 04:01:05 PM »
lol just buy both
6249
« on: November 12, 2014, 04:00:36 PM »
Depends on what you think about me.
6250
« on: November 12, 2014, 03:58:55 PM »
The Will Smith Fan Club is probably mourning the passing of their idol. 
6251
« on: November 12, 2014, 03:51:57 PM »
rip in pepperonis will smitherino 
6252
« on: November 12, 2014, 12:42:54 PM »
Bloom and Armor Abilities made it feel a bit off. Firefight could have used more DLC 
firefight could have used better netcode, too. it was almost as bad as ODST's firefight
Ughhh yeah, and I just felt like ODST had better Firefight maps. I especially missed Lost Platoon...
6253
« on: November 12, 2014, 12:40:24 PM »
>Firefight
>Forge World ala Reach
I would be okay with this.
6254
« on: November 12, 2014, 12:37:44 PM »
Bloom and Armor Abilities made it feel a bit off. Firefight could have used more DLC
6255
« on: November 12, 2014, 12:04:54 PM »
Reginald is the only child she needs 
6256
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:58:54 AM »
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.
I don't think you're understanding the point of the thread.
I'm talking about AI. Not how AI would react if told the purpose of life or some shit. You're misunderstanding.
AI is all about perceiving its environment and the information it's given and reacting. If that's not the point of this thread, then I don't know what is.
Right.
I don't know why you're bringing religion and god into this though. It's totally irrelevant.
I think it's completely relevant. We have no reason to believe an AI would share our sense of morals. And when you think about it, there is no purpose to life other than those given by constructed beliefs, religious or otherwise.
A sufficiently advanced AI would probably be a nihilist, and that would be a humongous problem if it has the power to act on those beliefs. Completely unhinged from any morals whatsoever. Nothing has any purpose, so therefore nothing has any consequence.
I disagree.
AI doesn't have to share our morals. It just wouldn't have a reason to harm us or even help us either, unless it's working towards a goal.
I'd like to think that's correct. It certainly is the best-case scenario, after all.
6257
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:46:55 AM »
Since when did SecondClass use proper capitalization and grammar?
6258
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:39:16 AM »
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.
I don't think you're understanding the point of the thread.
I'm talking about AI. Not how AI would react if told the purpose of life or some shit. You're misunderstanding.
AI is all about perceiving its environment and the information it's given and reacting. If that's not the point of this thread, then I don't know what is.
Right.
I don't know why you're bringing religion and god into this though. It's totally irrelevant.
I think it's completely relevant. We have no reason to believe an AI would share our sense of morals. And when you think about it, there is no purpose to life other than those given by constructed beliefs, religious or otherwise. A sufficiently advanced AI would probably be a nihilist, and that would be a humongous problem if it has the power to act on those beliefs. Completely unhinged from any morals whatsoever. Nothing has any purpose, so therefore nothing has any consequence.
6259
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:22:29 AM »
YEAH MR. WHITE! YEAH SCIENCE! 
6260
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:20:06 AM »
Just do it. It's a brilliant and beautiful take on a largely unexplored niche of end-of-the-world sci-fi with plenty of scientifically grounded technology and themes. I wasn't surprised that I enjoyed Hans Zimmer's scoring, but I was surprised that his music was my favorite part of the film. He uses an organ as his primary instrument and builds such incredible crescendos that fit perfectly with the action taking place on-screen (though this technique is overused somewhat). Despite the three-hour runtime I thought the pacing was spot-on (which is typical for Nolan) and at no point did I feel like the plot was dragging. The acting is believable and moving, though I personally think McConaughy was pretty boring until he left Earth.
The biggest flaw in the movie is that it's so densely packed with science that the script feels the need to explain every single plot point and theory down to a grade-school level, and the cinematography often focuses too much on close-up shots of characters explaining what they see rather than just showing us. Even the iconic space imagery is limited to shots taken from the cameras fixed around their spacecraft. It keeps you in the perspective of the crew, but limits the scope of the scenery.
Spoiler Possible spoilers ahead but I don't mention anything specific.
For the first 3/4 of the movie the science seems to be very thoroughly researched and beautifully imagined in CGI. It seems like most reviewers agree that the final act is the greatest failing of the movie, and it's largely because after exploring deep space and all the amazing phenomena the team discovers out there, it's reduced to human squabbles, 'love' as a physical, world-saving resource, and the typical quantum mechanics deus ex machina that so many hard-sci fi rely on these days. I hesitate to say there's any sort of twist at the end, but rather a mystery that is hastily unraveled in the most convenient and unbelievable way possible, ending on a bafflingly stupid paradox and wrap-up that takes away from the magnitude of every little moment of suspense felt previously. The film pulled no punches at making characters real and believable, and subsequently killing them off or subjecting them to emotional suffering, but then the ending just wraps everything up with a nice little "quantum mechanics instantly solved everything" bow on top.
The film was always about Matthew McConaughey and his daughter. McConaughey's acting in that scene was just friggin' good, so I really can't complain about it. Maybe it helps that I watched Inception again before seeing Interstellar, but I wasn't surprised by the deus ex machina. It's no coincidence that they're both about a father wanting to see his children again. Obligatory BRAVO NOLAN rant As far as deus ex machina goes, it was forseeable, unlike the goddamn Star Child in Mass Effect. Bioware committed a storytelling sin in introducing a story element in the final chapter that's actually been the key to the story the entire time. It's like if Attack on Titan introduced the cellar most of the way through the story, as opposed to at the very beginning. It felt like Bioware pulled it out of their ass because they were making it up as they went along.
Not the case with Interstellar. Christopher Nolan knew exactly the kind of film he wanted to make and never allowed himself to get to the point where he's like "crap, I don't know what this is going to be about." HUMONGOUS SPOILERS DO NOT CLICK Matt Damon's character was super important to the whole film though. He's a pathetic, desperate man who doesn't want to die alone in space. The whole film, really, centers on the humanity of its characters. McConaughey's character (bah, too distracted to remember his name right now) leaving his family on bad terms, Michael Caine being another desperate liar like Matt Damon--nothing they're doing is easy, and it's not something that anyone wants to be doing, and they don't even know what the endgame is. They've set up a false illusion of hope to hide the fact that they've given up on themselves. It's how they deal with it that drives the story.
But I will admit, Seneca Crane was pretty lousy. He was the redshirt.
6261
« on: November 12, 2014, 10:49:52 AM »
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.
I don't think you're understanding the point of the thread.
I'm talking about AI. Not how AI would react if told the purpose of life or some shit. You're misunderstanding.
AI is all about perceiving its environment and the information it's given and reacting. If that's not the point of this thread, then I don't know what is.
6262
« on: November 12, 2014, 09:08:32 AM »
That's not a nice way to speak to someone from Lurulu 
Provide your b.net passport, please.
It's almost the same as this one.
Name.
Name. If you were of Lurulu then I have all the power here.
If you were the real Elegiac, you would recognize one of your own.
Doctor Kupo?
Yeah bruh
6263
« on: November 12, 2014, 09:04:28 AM »
That's not a nice way to speak to someone from Lurulu
Provide your b.net passport, please.
It's almost the same as this one.
Name.
Name. If you were of Lurulu then I have all the power here.
If you were the real Elegiac, you would recognize one of your own.
6264
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:57:04 AM »
That's not a nice way to speak to someone from Lurulu
Provide your b.net passport, please.
It's almost the same as this one.
Name.
6265
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:51:53 AM »
You should only spend $8,000+ on someone after you've married them.
It was 80+ thousand
like oh my god.
Oh shit you're right, how did I botch that? Spoiler Holy shiiiiiiiittt!!!
6266
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:44:38 AM »
You should only spend $8,000+ on someone after you've married them.
6267
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:42:57 AM »
That's not a nice way to speak to someone from Lurulu
Provide your b.net passport, please.
It's almost the same as this one.
6268
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:37:45 AM »
That's not a nice way to speak to someone from Lurulu
6269
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:34:11 AM »
You can fight like a Krogan
Run like a leopard
But you'll never be better
Than Commander Shepard
6270
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:30:57 AM »
le reddit ecks dee
Pages: 1 ... 207208209 210211212
|
Show Posts