When computers learn faster than humans

[Deleted User]

What will humans do?

 

[Deleted User]

As if they dont already

Edit- computers nowdays csn learn to reproduce stuff that they are shown, and they are good at this. Give it enough processing power and time and it will understand things we mortals will struggle with, like guessing the output of a system with milions of inputs. They dont need to sleep so...

 

[KingVamp]

Assuming they don't gain actual consciousness, more and more mundane work would be eliminated and done by robots. People will simply try to get the newest technology, like we are doing now.

Assuming some do, people will be fighting for or against their rights. I say some, because I doubt every single robot will gain consciousness, if that does happen.

In both scenarios, some people will try to merge with technology (cyborgs) or become it altogether (actual brain transfer). Rather the latter is actually possible, well, that's for the future to decide.

 

[Jiehfeng]

Then it's up to humans to develop their intelligence themselves. We have the capability, our brains are so advanced we use under 3% of it in our work, we can never make something that matches it. We are doing nothing to improve upon our intelligence because we firstly assume it's fixed for everyone, and only focus on memorizing and storing dead knowledge.

 

[CallmeBerto]

Robots do NOT learn. They take data and do with it what they are programmed to do.

Also no robots will not have a conscience because that would require someone to program that into them and I see no beelnifit in that.

 

[Veho]

Robots do NOT learn. They take data and do with it what they are programmed to do.

Read up on neural networks.

 

[FAST6191]

You know how you have pets?

 

[Veho]

You know how you have pets?

Remember to spay/neuter your humans

 

[Deleted User]

You know how you have pets?

Are you saying that in the future I'll be somebody else's human pet? Or are you saying that AI will actually serve humanity like dogs do for shepherds and not fuck us up even more than we've already managed to fuck ourselves up?

 

[FAST6191]

Are you saying that in the future I'll be somebody else's human pet? Or are you saying that AI will actually serve humanity like dogs do for shepherds and not fuck us up even more than we've already managed to fuck ourselves up?

Is there a difference between those?

Also

 

[Taleweaver]

Robots do NOT learn. They take data and do with it what they are programmed to do.

Also no robots will not have a conscience because that would require someone to program that into them and I see no beelnifit in that.

It would've been true for early-generation AI's. Computers acted on algorithms they were fed, which made them resemble enough human-like behavior to instill all sorts of fear in media (Terminator is a classic example). Back when Kasparov got defeated by deep blue, it was quite a discussion on whether that was really a program or not. But at best, that was a showcase that given enough options and calculation time, a computer could determine the best outcomes in the long term and act towards that.

The newer AI's (the neural networks that @Vego mentions) may start with the same principle, but their execution is..."more refined" isn't the proper term anymore. From what I gather, it would be like saying an adult is a "more refined" version of a child. They still seek of patterns and apply the best ones, but in the case of the world championship Go tournament, the AI sort of "invents" a new strategy to apply to win. The AI clones itself onto wherever calculation space it has to search for the best answers, and eventually loses/replaces those with the least favorable answers with the better ones.

You know how you have pets?

No...sorry, but I don't think that analogy is correct. Computers may will become smarter than humans, but we'll always remain conscious, aware and able to communicate. And because computers are always built with the idea that they serve us, that'll be a treat they won't "accidentally" forget (that stuff is more dark sci fi than likely).

The better analogy IMHO would be of the office world. A rule of thumb for managers is to always hire people that are smarter than him/her. This makes sense, because it'll increase the chances of reaching office goals, whereas hiring equaly smart or dumber people, it'll only serve to stay at the status quo.

What'll happen, though, is that intelligence will become overrated (more so than today, probably). Computers might (and will) learn to drive better than humans...but that doesn't mean humanity is going to give up their steering wheel.

I predict a worldwide discrimination against solutions brought forward by (or aided by) advanced AI. If a computer tells you something you don't like (say...how to lose weight), it'll be cool to dismiss it as coming from someone not human.

...but meanwhile, everyone will be using it. Take chess as an example: at this point chess computers beat professional players any time of the week. So why is there still a worldwide tournament going on? Because the computers don't matter. Even while smarter, they're more seen and used as interesting tools than anything else.

 

[SG854]

Read up on neural networks.

Deep learning A.I. is da shiz. Wait till we give them consciencenees and human rights.

What will humans do?

We can always merge with machines and become super human. Make cyborg arms and legs. Replace our organic eye with a robotic one that can see as good or better than birds and also see infrared and ultraviolet light. And every time a new improved model comes out we can easily replace our old eyes with new ones.

 

[FAST6191]

No...sorry, but I don't think that analogy is correct. Computers may will become smarter than humans, but we'll always remain conscious, aware and able to communicate. And because computers are always built with the idea that they serve us, that'll be a treat they won't "accidentally" forget (that stuff is more dark sci fi than likely).

The better analogy IMHO would be of the office world. A rule of thumb for managers is to always hire people that are smarter than him/her. This makes sense, because it'll increase the chances of reaching office goals, whereas hiring equaly smart or dumber people, it'll only serve to stay at the status quo.

What'll happen, though, is that intelligence will become overrated (more so than today, probably). Computers might (and will) learn to drive better than humans...but that doesn't mean humanity is going to give up their steering wheel.

I predict a worldwide discrimination against solutions brought forward by (or aided by) advanced AI. If a computer tells you something you don't like (say...how to lose weight), it'll be cool to dismiss it as coming from someone not human.

...but meanwhile, everyone will be using it. Take chess as an example: at this point chess computers beat professional players any time of the week. So why is there still a worldwide tournament going on? Because the computers don't matter. Even while smarter, they're more seen and used as interesting tools than anything else.

If and when advanced AI becomes a thing and before it escapes into the world do make sure to come put two in my head. Assuming it only needs moderate technical skills then... yeah.

On weight loss then I would reckon around the time it arrives then between biology (some argue we are already seeing the early stages of evolution into times of abundance), pharmacology (most weight loss pills today are placebo or amphetamines but I don't doubt for a moment some cocktail could be made that actually works), clothing (apply a controlled voltage to one of those electroactive polymers and watch it almost invisibly sap a few hundred more calories a day despite "normally" feeling like simple clothing) and maybe some choice implants (maybe even ones that power the clothing from before) it will not be a thing.
That is not where I wanted to head though -- already we have fairly interesting advertising campaigns and I imagine a subtle AI's mind control, coupled with some heavily targetted adverts will be where it goes.

As far as games go then sure. As far as things a bit lower on the old pyramid of needs then all AI all the time, and if nothing else those that lean into it will probably outperform those that do not before too long. Would not be surprised if there is a neo luddite movement but I don't expect too much there.