Military AI vanquishes human fighter pilot in F-16 simulatio

[rick49]

what happens when ai starts demanding worship.

[perrykneeham]

Give it Ork Royal.

[voice]

Humans have made God's of rocks, trees, rivers, mountains, statues and invisible sky daddies, you God might not be a rock Ricky, but at least the rock exists.

[flatandy]

From what I know of current AI, I don't think we have a lot to worry about yet.

[rick49]

Mar 27, 2023 20:28:45 GMT flatandy said:

From what I know of current AI, I don't think we have a lot to worry about yet.

key word is yet. i have a hunch if/when it gets to the point where we have to begin worrying, it will be far too late. it wouldn't allow itself to be unplugged.

[flatandy]

I'll be long dead before it's that smart rather than just rehashing previous human inputs like ChatGPT does.

[ootlg]

He'll be back.

[rick49]

Mar 28, 2023 15:57:05 GMT flatandy said:

I'll be long dead before it's that smart rather than just rehashing previous human inputs like ChatGPT does.

so you don't care what happens so long as you're not here to see it? pretty self centered. and i would'nt be so positive it won't happen before you kick off. not the way technological advancement is accelerating.

ever watch jurassic park? dr. ian malcom, played by jeff goldblum (the best character in the the movie), says the scientists haven't taken the time or effort to fully understand what they are creating. history is full of examples. atomic weapons for instance. and by the time they do realize it, pandora is already out of the box and can't be put back in.

best quote

Dr. Ian Malcolm:
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

[perrykneeham]

I'm pretty sure that the lads on the Manhattan Peoject knew exactly what they were doing.

[rick49]

Mar 29, 2023 1:43:24 GMT perrykneeham said:

I'm pretty sure that the lads on the Manhattan Peoject knew exactly what they were doing.

The Fear That a Nuclear Bomb Could Ignite the Atmosphere

"Early on in the Manhattan Project, the scientists taking part knew that they were pursuing a weapon that could give humankind the unprecedented ability to destroy itself. What they didn't know, however, was how this destruction might occur.

In 1942, Hungarian-American physicist Edward Teller, known now as "the father of the hydrogen bomb," entertained a devastating nightmare scenario: that an atomic bomb could ignite the atmosphere and the oceans. He reasoned that a nuclear fission bomb might create temperatures so extreme that it would cause the hydrogen atoms in the air and water to fuse together into helium, just like in our sun, generating a runaway reaction that would eventually engulf the globe, extinguishing all life."
www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/09/12/the_fear_that_a_nuclear_bomb_could_ignite_the_atmosphere.html

luckily it didn't happen, but they had misgivings. their numbers told them it wouldn't happen, but what if their numbers had been wrong? they gambled and rolled the dice with life on the planet on the table.

[voice]

It wasn't luck it didn't happen, they used science and math to prove it was not going to happen before they did the first test.

[perrykneeham]

Also, Pandora was never in the box.

Also, Rex Harrison was very good in Dr. Doolittle, but he's not generally regarded as a definitive source on cross-species disease spread.

On the whole, I think it's a bad idea to take technical advice from fictional characters in childrens' pictures.

[rick49]

i love science. i really do. but i don't worship science or scientists as some in here do. and we treat them like gods. they have been wrong countless times in the past and, believe it or not, are capable of making mistakes in math. and it seems like scientists sometimes have a god complex and are willing to take huge gambles with life on this planet. covid, anyone? seriously talking about terraforming the atmosphere because of a tiny cyclic natural climate change? we lucked out with the a-bomb. their math said the trinity test wouldn't cause a planet wide catastrophe and it didn't.

[rick49]

Mar 29, 2023 6:10:44 GMT perrykneeham said:

Also, Pandora was never in the box.

Also, Rex Harrison was very good in Dr. Doolittle, but he's not generally regarded as a definitive source on cross-species disease spread.

On the whole, I think it's a bad idea to take technical advice from fictional characters in childrens' pictures.

what's wrong with them? you don't see any wisdom in the remarks just because they were made in a hmmm, "kids movie"?

[perrykneeham]

Well, there was never really anybody question of an atmospheric chain reaction, was there?

Do you think that Mr. Goldblum's line might just have been the sort of throwaway pseudo-intellectual observation that you might expect from a trendy liberal in an adventure movie? If not, he's chosen a curious platform to air his obsevations.
I think that he was probably referring to nuclear proliferation rather than any theoretical risk of uncontrolled fission. I can't be sure of that as I don't think I've ever managed to watch the whole film.

[perrykneeham]

Is simulatio when you pretend to give someone a blowjob?

[voice]

Religious people often level the accusation that empiricists 'worship' science, but its just not the case. Science and scientists often come to dead ends in research or make mistakes in their numbers or conclusions, and as understanding develops conclusions and what's accepted changes to fit the new data, observation or new breakthroughs. This idea that science got it wrong cos new ideas, new data, better measuring better math, whatever, and changed what we thought we knew, rather than examples of science getting it wrong, it actually shows science working.

The example of covid is a perfect one really, a novel virus emerges many things are unknown, but as more is learned advice changed to fit the evidence, but sure the hard of thinkers and those who made covid political to get their base to vote for them pointed to the changes as examples of science lying to them and experts/deep state/Fauci (insert villain of choice) not knowing anything and being untrustworthy. Though the reality was as science was done, our understanding changed and so the response changed.

And really covid is more a perfect example why faith over reason can be so dangerous, its estimated over 100,000 excess deaths in the US was down to vaccine refusal based on a variety of beliefs about the vaccine, tracking chips to causing sudden death, all because they rejected science and went with belief, preferring to believe what ever miracle cure their favorite charlatan was pushing that week, be it horse worming paste or lupus medication, both of which were quickly proven to be ineffective, yet even today many still take this stuff and have faith in it.

Same with your other obsession, climate change, there is very clear scientific evidence humans dumping huge amounts of carbon, methane and so on into the atmosphere is having an effect to raise temps and acidify the sea, sure as more data comes in models change to accommodate that, but even the ones who pay your favorite denialist mouthpiece Anthony Watts, Exxon Mobile, have scientists working for them and their scientists modeled climate change and temp rises due to expected use of carbon rich fuel back in the 70's and their predictions were pretty spot on, in some cases closer to reality than some climate science models, sure they hid this (much like the tobacco companies in the 60's did) then spent millions on junk science and idiots like Anthony watts with the clear aim of muddying the water, making it political, and getting hard of thinkers to distrust empiricists, data and even the evidence of their own eyes and instead getting them cling to a belief the oil companies had no part to play.

To use a oft quoted saying.

What refutes science?
Better science

What doesn't refute science?
Bill from your 4-H club
The opinion of the local pub bore.
A You-Tube link your nana Kelpie sent you.
That Facebook article shared to you by your uncle Biff.
What your preacher tells you
The opinion of your favorite politician.

[voice]

Mar 29, 2023 14:39:47 GMT perrykneeham said:

Well, there was never really anybody question of an atmospheric chain reaction, was there?

Do you think that Mr. Goldblum's line might just have been the sort of throwaway pseudo-intellectual observation that you might expect from a trendy liberal in an adventure movie? If not, he's chosen a curious platform to air his obsevations.
I think that he was probably referring to nuclear proliferation rather than any theoretical risk of uncontrolled fission. I can't be sure of that as I don't think I've ever managed to watch the whole film.

I read the book about the Manhattan project (well one of them) and it went into a bit of detail, there was a fear the heat generated could in fact ignite the oxygen in the atmosphere, but a number of them sat down and did the math and their conclusion was it was not going to happen and in fact could not happen. So as I said, it wasn't luck, it was very clever blokes doing a lot of clever math based on temp of the bomb and the oxygen concentration. I don't even pretend to understand how they came to the conclusion, but they had their number checked and double checked by other very clever blokes who agreed with their conclusion, so they were sure it was not gonna happen by the time of the first test.

[perrykneeham]

Again, I would draw the distinction between faith and religion. The conflict really only comes between religious doctrine (usually, but now always,set down in the era before popular scientific understanding) and empirical, evidence-based science.

An example might be a person (and there are many) who was a trained biologist and at the same time a practicing Christian. Faith is often enhanced by an appreciation of the wondrous complexity of nature, but is does require that the religious allegory is seen for what it is. People who persist in sticking to the letter of whatever their scripture is are usually disinclined to education generally and science in particular. The Enlightenment was just that.

[voice]

True enough, hard to be a biologist if you think evolution is nonsense and the work of Satan, or being a geologist if you think the earth is only 6000 year old, as many Christians believe.