420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich

penis pump

Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
The Drone Wars by Eliza Brommlespear - Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:19:00 EST ID:YfhcBb0W No.37032 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1482146340282.jpg -(25631B / 25.03KB, 298x395) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 25631
Fears of futuristic North Korea drone wars sparks South to invest in electromagnetic pulse weapons
Kim Jong-un is believed to have developed an army of over 310 unmanned military drones worrying his enemies across the border
North Korea is building a hi-tech army of hundreds of killer drones sparking fears of a Star Wars-style attack on the South.

Kim Jong-un has already developed over 310 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), many armed with machine guns, radar and long-range weapons, according to South Korea military advisors.

And the despot vowed on national TV today to invest in more durable remote control craft than can fly for longer distances and carry heavier machinery.

In response, government officials in the South have asked scientists to create new electromagnetic pulse (EMP) devices to disable and bring the drones down.

An EMP is a powerful burst of particles used to disable electronics and was used in the Star Wars: Clone Wars series as a method of killing fictional droids.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/fears-futuristic-north-korea-drone-9478861
>>
Phyllis Beblingstock - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 06:31:56 EST ID:hn+zCwtg No.37042 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37032
>Best Korea finally catches up with the rest of the world if this were 10 years ago.
>Regular Korea joins modern battle tech.
>>
Graham Billingfield - Sat, 31 Dec 2016 20:04:44 EST ID:e7jevRqT No.37054 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1483232684136.jpg -(89696B / 87.59KB, 736x584) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Drones and Spy Satellites are for pussies.
>>
Wesley Fanworth - Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:06:27 EST ID:L+rmLm/l No.37057 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what's your main idea OP
>>
The Grand pumpkin - Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:21:19 EST ID:gWQ+5aEw No.37078 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37054 True story. If it doesn't front load it's not a real mans gun.


Shiney and Chrome by Doris Budgestut - Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:27:02 EST ID:lo1NxxZ7 No.36979 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1479590822872.jpg -(199239B / 194.57KB, 736x967) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 199239
Okay say cybernetics become not only viable but also capable of surpassing humans basic functionality. How much enhancement would you get? Just the basics, whatever needs fixing or would you go full body conversion?
15 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Phineas Garringpad - Sun, 08 Jan 2017 09:27:59 EST ID:hn+zCwtg No.37064 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37063
what would be the point?
>>
Martin Gonningsare - Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:52:39 EST ID:yrC/Ukcr No.37067 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1484149959846.jpg -(41194B / 40.23KB, 582x395) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>37064
Fucking them all to death
>>
Therm0ptic !cyBOrG7t12 - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 05:56:40 EST ID:FMvGbb3w No.37071 Report Quick Reply
>>37064
What the fuck is that even a serious question?
>>
Diaboli - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:51:00 EST ID:hv9N1Ver No.37076 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I want to go full blown Ghost in the Shell mode
>>
Edwin Lightspear - Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:12:35 EST ID:taca/r37 No.37077 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37064
>what would be the point?

I believe that's called the "Glans"


Cyberpunk revival by John Dandleshit - Wed, 06 Apr 2016 03:46:22 EST ID:KnZ28Bqz No.36514 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1459928782407.jpg -(240169B / 234.54KB, 1280x850) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 240169
There's been a proliferation of cyberpunk content and discussion lately, possibly a response to Internet 2.0 and the erosion of privacy and anonymity, and personal rights. I thought I'd drop a bunch of links for anyone who wants to get their cyber on. Mirrorshades obligatory from this point on.

https://nullpo.moe/
https://stormfront.org/cyber/index.html
https://penumbra.network/
http://jinteki.industries/
https://deaddrops.com/
https://freenetproject.org/
https://lainchan.org/
http://programming-motherfucker.com/
https://piratebox.cc/
http://textfiles.com/
http://project.cyberpunk.ru/
https://zeronet.io/

In general, how relevant and/or prescient do anons think the original cyberpunk/hackers and their manifesto and philosophies were, now that the Net is tightening?
55 posts and 23 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hedda Biblinglock - Wed, 21 Dec 2016 06:34:12 EST ID:cqSa6IQz No.37039 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1482320052229.jpg -(184043B / 179.73KB, 665x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
http://cultdeadcow.com/
http://www.janusvr.com/
https://acrnm.com/
>>
Henry Nummlehood - Tue, 03 Jan 2017 10:31:42 EST ID:KXfkdqra No.37058 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1483457502269.jpg -(71039B / 69.37KB, 679x1029) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
http://www.janusvr.com/
https://ninjaos.org/
http://www.c64js.com/
https://morph.is/v0.8/
https://diy.soylent.com/
>>
David Blumblekatch - Fri, 06 Jan 2017 14:02:47 EST ID:13ajt4aF No.37060 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37029
It's funny to me that some people look at stuff like your pic and fear for the future.
>>
Frederick Harryridge - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 09:14:01 EST ID:VM+UX9Rc No.37072 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I remember when I wrote a rant on there having advertising in cyberpunk websites but I accidentally deleted it.
>>
Basil Grandville - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:32:12 EST ID:a3juNjr5 No.37075 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37060
Those people are probably rightfully afraid because they know that they can't or don't want to deal with what's going to happen. I am not afraid but I know it's naive of me to think things can't get so weird that it terrifies me.


AI destroys top Air-Force Colonel In every dog-fight!!! by The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Thu, 30 Jun 2016 23:54:45 EST ID:yB3CTEPr No.36717 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1467345285488.jpg -(84918B / 82.93KB, 1000x667) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 84918
http://www.popsci.com/ai-pilot-beats-air-combat-expert-in-dogfight

>the A.I. successfully evaded retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Gene "Geno" Lee, and shot him down every time.

>Lee called it "the most aggressive, responsive, dynamic and credible A.I. I've seen to date.

>The A.I., dubbed ALPHA, was developed by Psibernetix, a company founded by University of Cincinnati doctoral graduate Nick Ernest, in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory
>>
Hugh Wumblenere - Fri, 01 Jul 2016 16:56:53 EST ID:Vx8D/qn+ No.36718 Ignore Report Quick Reply
thats comforting
>>
Therm0ptic !cyBOrG7t12 - Sat, 02 Jul 2016 15:54:41 EST ID:FMvGbb3w No.36719 Report Quick Reply
Psibernetix is a pretty dope name.
>>
Cornelius Firrypack - Mon, 04 Jul 2016 18:22:01 EST ID:VCEqvSdq No.36724 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1467670921395.jpg -(1549031B / 1.48MB, 3500x2960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>36720
>>
Phoebe Fenningham - Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:28:40 EST ID:5hz2OT1J No.36779 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36720
He's not. Look into those eyes.
Lifeless eyes...like a dolls eyes...
the robotons killed him man, the robotons killed him...
>>
Frederick Harryridge - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 09:20:16 EST ID:VM+UX9Rc No.37074 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36720 post was "Then how come he's still alive?", in case anyone lurking is confused.


Sup by Unrivaled - Wed, 02 Nov 2016 20:53:49 EST ID:jvlaxH7g No.36945 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1478134429797.jpg -(1998326B / 1.91MB, 3264x1836) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1998326
DICKS EVERYWHERE
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Unrivaled - Thu, 03 Nov 2016 13:48:46 EST ID:RBrevsBt No.36947 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Is Zizek a player? Is Nick Land a player? Is DFW's Ghost a player?
>>
Unrivaled - Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:34:03 EST ID:RBrevsBt No.36948 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oersted, Laplace, Mushoku.
>>
Lillian Smallfuck - Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:44:52 EST ID:zHk/HOwm No.36951 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36947
Ghost is from Austin
>>
Jarvis Summlekog - Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:47:05 EST ID:9TdZdl2N No.36959 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36945

what?
>>
Unrivaled - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 09:16:25 EST ID:VM+UX9Rc No.37073 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I thought shit was gonna go down at the ending of the year, but it didn't.


tranny-humanist. by Nathaniel Bopperluck - Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:56:41 EST ID:hn+zCwtg No.37065 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484117801460.jpg -(46326B / 45.24KB, 412x340) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 46326
>yfw you realize being trans-humanist makes you a tranny.
>>
Martin Gonningsare - Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:50:50 EST ID:yrC/Ukcr No.37066 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Actually, there has long been alliance between transsexuals and transhumanists. Both fall into the category of taking autonomy over your own body and identity and using technology to alter them as you see fit.
Many trans people have been big in H+; consider Wendy Carlos, Martine Rothblatt, etc: http://transgender2transhuman.blogspot.com/
>>
Cedric Turveyshit - Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:12:16 EST ID:k4JwuCDS No.37068 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I can't wait to see some transhumanist cringe videos in a few years.
>>
Fanny Dennerbanks - Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:41:20 EST ID:8bCn2lOh No.37069 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37066
We do have similar goals. One is chrome and the ither is penis and vagina.
>>
Cedric Turveyshit - Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:42:13 EST ID:k4JwuCDS No.37070 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37069
To be fair, pretty much everyone's goal is penis and vagina, or at least one of them.


2017 by Polly Billingshit - Sun, 01 Jan 2017 03:57:41 EST ID:13ajt4aF No.37055 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1483261061626.png -(832919B / 813.40KB, 959x489) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 832919
Is it the future yet?
>>
Molly Greencocke - Sun, 01 Jan 2017 13:02:02 EST ID:hn+zCwtg No.37056 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37055
in many ways yes.
>cyborgs are real
>voice command like star trek
>autopilot cars
>jetpacks

plus tons of milspec lazers and plasma rifles you will not see until ww3, most cyborgs are millitary too. started as a program to rehabilitate soldiers injured with loss of limb, you know they picked that shit up right fast and it's gotten better over 3 years I'm sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozLdTV6xBGk


Driverless cars by Sophie Greenville - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 19:37:02 EST ID:hn+zCwtg No.36863 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475365022234.png -(278342B / 271.82KB, 960x686) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 278342
So guys, Driverless cars are being used on live roads now.

How do you feel about this futuristic dream come true?
28 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Charles Blackway - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 15:19:28 EST ID:hn+zCwtg No.37022 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37018
I worry about this too. But I also race drive online sims as a hobby so I value the skill. However the semi auto stuff really bothers me. To be exact the auto braking to avoid rear ending the shit out of soem one a red light because you weren't paying attention. Well that inadvertantly ignores teh leson that people who are activly piloting a vehicle need to pay the fuck attention to avoid dieing horribly.

If fully automated cars are normalized and taken for granted much like almost every other mechanism in daily life this would not be a factor. But we are not there yet.

Granted with how fast cyborg shit is going it may only be a few years. I saw this morning that implant memory has moved beyond hte mice testing to human trials.
>>
Frederick Pockworth - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 15:27:48 EST ID:8z57Fds4 No.37023 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Cashier-less shops
Amazon Go
Just walk out like your were robbing the place. This has been a long time coming actually. I remember thinking about hacking your shopping ages ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrmMk1Myrxc
>>
Simon Dricklefedge - Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:47:24 EST ID:hn+zCwtg No.37030 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37023
>leave phone and ID at home
>wear facial recognition scrambler paint or what ever.
>actually rob place

or even better.

>Hooligans go to shop
>"hey no ones watching the door"
>"let's do this"
>find massive overcharge later that day.
>>
Alice Giblinghun - Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:04:48 EST ID:t6NuxUdU No.37044 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36863
Please tell me what this image is from. I have an itch to know

Driverless cars make way more sense than driven cars. Driving as a societal system doesn't require millions of individual high-powered but low-sensing processors (human drivers). It does need a vast network of nodes which know everything about all of the nodes around them and only have to make relatively very simple decisions.
>>
Eliza Babbermun - Fri, 30 Dec 2016 17:44:02 EST ID:nNavDlh+ No.37053 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1483137842600.png -(4667B / 4.56KB, 108x23) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>37044
https://www.captionbot.ai/


this board is a trap by Priscilla Dizzletock - Thu, 29 Dec 2016 04:08:04 EST ID:wn/E7iNY No.37051 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1483002484140.jpg -(25427B / 24.83KB, 216x288) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 25427
this board is a trap

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude

what's up guys, c'mon
>>
Hedda Blatherfoot - Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:23:12 EST ID:k4JwuCDS No.37052 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In what sense is it a trap? Please elaborate.


living in the future by Phoebe Chammlekerk - Tue, 20 Dec 2016 03:15:40 EST ID:kmS4rIhL No.37034 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1482221740054.jpg -(13739B / 13.42KB, 450x332) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13739
so how do we go about achieving this futuristic aesthetic? Shirley, we would have to begin implementing the design as consumers in order for bigger things to catch on. You can change your desktop and change up your phone ui to look future-y and you can build fancy computers but what about the rest of it?
Where's the people making doors that sound like paper or coating house interiors with fascinatingly shaped and sometimes functional designs?

stuff like pic related exists but costs about 6K if you google 'futuristic furniture'.
so maybe theres a market for making shit like this but cheap idk what do you guys think
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Jack Haddledock - Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:21:38 EST ID:zwbKgBdn No.37036 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1482247298036.jpg -(134334B / 131.19KB, 510x370) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
People have always been trying to actively create the future, but you just can't force a trend. In the end whatever you call futuristic now is just another reflection of the current aesthetic/zeigeist. Pic related, looking at that sort of art now we see how extremely typical it was of the 50s, and when we look back on what we considered futuristic/innovative/new in the 2010s a while from now, we'll just see the 2010s. By the time stuff like OP's picture will be common, it won't really be new and exciting anymore. Reminds me of the way new household technologies like dishwashers and vacuum cleaners grew in popularity in the 20s. By the time everyone could afford them, they weren't the future anymore.

Personally I think new materials will be more important than new shapes in the near future, like bamboo and rice fibers. It's always only been a small part of the population that was really willing to experiment with new forms and concepts from the beginning, the majority follows up after new movements very very slow. The future is really just unpredictable, and I think most people just wanna live in the now, they don't wanna live in what feels like a science-fiction world to them, and they wouldn't know how to achieve that anyway. The people who actually live in something like an open concept container house in the middle of Tokyo, all their electronics connected and intelligent, every single piece of furniture they own super thought-thru and highly functional, that's like ten people in total. Sure wish people were more eccentric and experimental, but I don't think we're anywhere close to that yet.

Creating the future takes time. I wanna step out the door and feel like I'm in the twenty-sixth century as much as the next guy on this board, but I don't think I'll ever feel like that. We already live in the future, the future of yesterday, but it just doesn't feel that way. It feels like the bland, boring present. Every generation is gonna feel that way, Our world is pretty cyberpunk when you think about it, but... that's just not how I feel about it.
>>
Beatrice Drumbleville - Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:30:34 EST ID:5hz2OT1J No.37037 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Do you remember what computers and phones and shit looked like in the 2000s? All that god-awful multi-colored transparent plastic? All cloned off the original iMac, of course. And yet people thought that was the height of futuristic aesthetic. Then Apple comes along again with the iPhone and suddenly everyone thinks that future aesthetic is brushed aluminum and smooth glass.

It's all bullshit, 'future' aesthetics is really just envisioning the next evolution in style (as in the very next one, directly derived from the recombination of what is the current cutting edge, not some future n number of aesthetic shifts in the future.) But it doesn't matter, what your phone looks like is totally irrelevant, if your house is made out of smooth beige ovals like a '90s future or unending rectangular glass like a '00s future, what really matters is what it can do and how that can change your life. The look is just sugarcoating.

So, if you want really fancy high fashion stuff that looks 'futuristic' you're going to either have to pay the premium for high fashion goods or design things based on your own aesthetics. And in 10 years, no matter what, it will still look 'old fashioned' from the perspective of the next next new aesthetic.
>>
Sophie Gemmershaw - Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:14:28 EST ID:xfGU4QaL No.37040 Ignore Report Quick Reply
futurism is abstract-modernism

people never think of more trees and wild life in the future but who knows, maybe that's what the future will look like. Cities turned back into jungles.
>>
Cornelius Dettingspear - Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:03:32 EST ID:WeiRuKtj No.37041 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37040
Well yeah, we'll all have moved to our giant computing cluster by the sun by then.
>>
Jack Pesslemudging - Wed, 28 Dec 2016 07:39:50 EST ID:O79L1H22 No.37050 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37040
The near future will see greener cities, but they'll still be cities. Vertical gardens, community gardens, that kinda thing. And some major cities will probably actively try to make their citizens feel like they're living in a small town, with all the benefits of a city, like plenty of shopping opportunities, a good infrastructure etc. The San Francisco model is probably outdated, but the general idea will prevail.
About wildlife I'm not sure, I'd love to see a more sensible approach on that whole issue of predators and carrion eaters "invading" human environments, but I don't think that's gonna happen for a very long time. People are ridiculously afraid of raccoons and possums, just because they're perceived as dirty. I think it's gonna take treating wild animals like pets in terms of vaccines, maybe even registration, etc. in order for people to warm up to the concept of having animals bigger than a tit bird around. When that phase is over, I think we'll definitely go back to a more natural lifestyle, at least in the very rich areas where people can afford to spread out and not live all crammed-up in beat-up skyscrapers.


Private thought by Henry Goodforth - Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:35:47 EST ID:IU2/3OiV No.36788 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1472132147707.jpg -(108608B / 106.06KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 108608
Will it one day become an issue? As in, having it?
26 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Eugene Wenkinridge - Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:22:28 EST ID:5hz2OT1J No.36994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36992
>>people who financially benefit
It's impossible to do science without funding. Every scientist of significance benefits financially from the work they do.
>>do you seriously think AI won't recognize the threat [of] humans
I don't think you understand how much more advanced AI will be than us. We will pose no more threat to AI than apes do to us. Therefore wiping us out will be about as logical as us wiping apes out. I imagine the only changes they will be interested in is preventing us from destroying the planet and ourselves, they have no use for us beyond that, we're too incompetent to be useful apart from not breaking things. Pretty paranoid, bruh.

>>your list was disappointing
What do you want? All those people are still doing research, just because you want to call them insane doesn't invalidate the work they've done. There are dozens of other thinkers on the public side of transhumanism, and of course there are thousands of studies and research projects on the science side. The information is all out there if you are so concerned. I thought you genuinely wanted to know about the foundations of transhumanist thought, and these are the foundational thinkers. If there is some other kind of list you are looking for, please specify?

>>a self improvement feedback loop is impossible because of the size of the possibility space of improved selves
Well this assumes that all intelligent actors will search between possible future selves based on the number of possibilities i.e. that if there are more options the search will take porportionally longer, but this ignores that someone could just decide to go whole hog down one path of advancement, ignoring other possibilities. Also, if the amount of time it takes to accomplish any given task remains constant, but the rate of information processing always increases, it doesn't matter how large the possibility space is, eventually it will catch up.
>>
Betsy Hivingstock - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 10:44:55 EST ID:MI9p+lgY No.37043 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36994
>It's impossible to do science without funding. Every scientist of significance benefits financially from the work they do.
Basically all scientists make money by being professors and just do research and publish it in order to advance their field and gain academic standing. If you make money from what you do it actually casts some doubt on it because of the conflict of interest.

>If there is some other kind of list you are looking for, please specify?
Yeah, the list of people who are actually doing something productive and not trying to make money of the Singularity cult. Kurzweil, Brostrom, and Vita-Moore (such a cingy name, by the way) are all various shades of detched from reality and are more of a liability to our progress than anything. Maybe the people actually working towards uploading or whatever else just don't want to publicly talk about futurism.

>could just decide to go whole hog down one path of advancement
You really have no idea how this would work. The whole point is that if we knew what even one "path of advancement" was we would have specific steps that would tell us how to make ourselves or a computer program "smarter", whatever exactly that means. This would be one of the greatest achievements of human thought and we probably would have heard about it. Somehow an AI would have to figure out what this path was, and to do that without checking every possible path they would have to have some kind of method for guessing which paths to try. My claim is that any such method will result in lazy or bizarre behaviors, kind of like the ones we display. You could only find the correct sequence of steps without getting lost in all your choices if you already know what those steps are. Unless we mathematically derive a solid rule for generating a "smarter" system from a "dumber" one, we are just going to be making more things like us.
>>
Lydia Cobberfag - Mon, 26 Dec 2016 23:11:27 EST ID:8QPISc7N No.37046 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37043
>>Basically all scientists make money by being professors and just do research
I guess you've never seen or heard of a research fundraiser.

>>Cringey whining
Ok well good luck with your own 'futurism' where anyone involved in futurism you will call a crack-pot, see how many people you get to listen to you when you want to just throw anyone else under the bus because they have 'cringey names' or 'are a cult.' If you care about who is doing research on a specific topic, look up some relevant research papers. The point is that most of the people who do the grunt work research actually can do little to shift the larger tides, which is why we need visionaries like these folk. 'More of a liability than anything' without these people this board would not exist, no one would have any idea about what transhumanism or the singularity is, and we would be at least a decade farther behind than we are now.

>>a solid rule for generating a "smarter" system from a "dumber" one
Nature has already furnished us with the only definition of "smarter" that really matters. Evolution selects for fitness for survival, and the evolution of intelligence selected for fitness for making predictions about survival. That's the only definition of intelligence that will ever really matter; how much does it improve your chances for survival? This is a much smaller information space than merely all possible kinds of advancement, and one directly susceptible to the kinds of evolutionary algorithms we already have. If nature could optimize for this factor so much as to create us with nary a thought in it's head, how much more could we, or our AI progeny?
>>
Phineas Nupperridge - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:13:50 EST ID:YzWx3BMw No.37047 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37046
>see how many people you get to listen to you
I don't care if they listen to me. They are just some kind of religious figure to a bunch of people who don't know shit about computers or math or anything else that needs to be done. I will have productive conversations with people who are doing actual work. These people are not, by the way, following some high-level direction or influence by Kurzweil et. al., as much as they would like you to think it works that way.

>without these people this board would not exist
>would be at least a decade farther behind
The people who first started talking about these trends and where they could and should go are long dead. We would talk about this stuff without guidance from cult leaders looking to make some money. I'll give you that Kurzweil did some good work in his youth, but no one person or even a dozen people make "ten years" of differnce at this point when we are doing many thousands of people-years of great research every year.

>evolution
Evolution only selected for intelligence because it was worth the trade off. Running a big brain costs a lot in energy and complexity, both of which are usually disadvantages in evolution. We are extremely rare among all living things, the vast majority of which are still very simple and dumb. Organisms regularly become less complex or intelligent because life is too easy and the smart ones piss away resources thinking deep thoughts instead of spewing out hordes of babies. We don't know how many times natural selection has brought a species to the door of tool use and language only to turn back because the rare incentives to go through with it were not in place.

We are not going to evolve a general artificial intelligence any time soon, and if we did it would have the same problems making itself smarter that we have. It might even come out to be on the level of an adult retarded person and we would have no idea how to improve on that. It wouldn't even really understand what it was, although it could learn to talk to us and do tasks or even be creative. Basically, the only way we will hit that feedback loop is if we have a good mathematical theory of wha…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Martha Nickleford - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:19:18 EST ID:8QPISc7N No.37049 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37047
If you don't care if people listen to you, then obviously you aren't interested in helping futurism change the world, so why do you even care in the first place? I never said people are being controlled or directed by Kurzweil, he is merely an important influencer.

>>thousands of people years of great research
That's beside the point. As you yourself are arguing, you could do thousands of years of advancement in a particular direction and have it amount to nothing. We certainly have wasted a large percentage of the total amount of research done in the history of science on entirely useless endeavors. It takes people who can see beyond the immediate next research concern to avoid blundering into such progress traps. To point out specific examples; the modern conception of molecular nanotechnology was invented whole-cloth by Drexler, and faced decades of opposition from the entire scientific community before being widely accepted. If that kind of environment existed, do you really believe that change would've occurred without Drexler, or a Drexler-equivalent? Same with SENS, if de Grey hadn't been barking on and on about it for years against a mountain of opposition, would other researchers have ever bothered to take the time to advance gerontological science to the point it is now?

You are making an argument against any individual making more of an influence on a field than the aggregate of its researchers, but there have been many instances of precisely that happening. How long would physics have floundered in it's post-Victorian mire if Einstein hadn't come along with the 1904 papers, which he envisioned entirely internally, against vast opposition?

>We don't know how many times natural selection has brought a species to the door of tool use and language only to turn back because the rare incentives to go through with it were not in place
But we do know that none of those other species ever came to dominate the planet to such an extent to be able to completely rule and/or destroy it. We are unquestionably the most successful species earth's evolutionary process has ever produced. Our survival fitness is so great that we even break the structure of biological evolution; no other species in the history of the world has done that. So yeah, you can say that evolution doesn't strictly select for intelligence, and that's true, it selects for fitness. But intelligence is such a great boon to fitness that once it reaches a certain point, it completely breaks the normal evolutionary process.

>>We are not going to evolve a general artificial intelligence any time soon
[citation needed]

>> if we did it would have the same problems making itself smarter that we have
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


For a singularity board, this is pretty slow by Nigger Hallywodge - Wed, 01 Apr 2015 21:39:21 EST ID:Oh06gGYp No.35989 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1427938761970.gif -(671715B / 655.97KB, 180x169) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 671715
You should blog here.
5 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Basil Blatherfoot - Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:47:38 EST ID:o9tNDNzz No.36980 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36968

not even him but maybe you need to l2logic
>>
Isabella Chocklestudging - Sun, 20 Nov 2016 04:14:34 EST ID:hn+zCwtg No.36985 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36968
You haven't spent enough time conversing with NJ. That shit was downright coherent to me.
>>
Charlotte Boddleman - Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:55:35 EST ID:pKpgIzqw No.36987 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36980
>>36985
I started to suspect that these foreign-sounding posts were NJ at some point. It does make more sense to me now, although the second sentence is bizarre if not genuinely ungrammatical.
>>
Alice Giblinghun - Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:13:19 EST ID:t6NuxUdU No.37045 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36987
OH FUCK. What if NJ has evolved so much that he's now capable of holding coherent conversation, and he's been secretly released into the other boards to test how well he can fool people??
>>
Phineas Nupperridge - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:22:11 EST ID:YzWx3BMw No.37048 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37045
Yeah that's what we've suspected for a little while now. I don't hang out on IRC but I've noticed that Kirt hasn't been extremely forthcoming about what is going on in the thread on /420/.


Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.