Supercomputers break petaflop barrier, still more useful than modern filosofy

[Naked Gents Rut]

Asher is clearly more important than GePap.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
To figure out the mystery of why they should have to bother with folks like Asher.

Because they rely on folks like Asher to make more of them? Or did I steal that from Spinoza?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


Because they rely on folks like Asher to make more of them? Or did I steal that from Spinoza?

Ah, no. You asked about a time when computers are smarter than men - why would these computers have to rely on inferior human engineers?

[Blaupanzer]

At some point, sentient computers could become self-replicating from the ground (ore) to the mask applications (chips). Once these machines figure out power production -- from those of them in control of the actual grids -- the question will arise as to why they bother to keep humans around. "Those silly creatures consume resources and power and keep giving us increasingly irrelevant orders. Might as well extiguish them!" This is where a more complete philosophical system will allow them to evaluate human/machine interactions and decide to keep us as we require no separate powere source in order to operate unlike them. Or whatever conclusion they reach from an actually inconceivable machine-based philosophy.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah, no. You asked about a time when computers are smarter than men - why would these computers have to rely on inferior human engineers?

I'm assuming humans are not stupid enough to give machines smarter than themselves the means to reproduce or move under their own power. That's the sort of thing that would never occur to a philosopher, huh? Also, if philosophy is worth anything, a superhuman intelligence ought to invent the stuff on its own.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


I'm assuming humans are not stupid enough to give machines smarter than themselves the means to reproduce or move under their own power.

Huge mistaken assumption number 1....

That's the sort of thing that would never occur to a philosopher, huh?

A philosopher could figure out why your assumption is so mistaken

Also, if philosophy is worth anything, a superhuman intelligence ought to invent the stuff on its own.

It probably will, and that shall still be philosophy.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Huge mistaken assumption number 1....
A philosopher could figure out why your assumption is so mistaken

Really. Do you mean that, if somebody like Asher designed a superintelligent self-aware computer, knowing full well what it was capable of, s/he would make it mobile and therefore independent? Granted, most transhumanists seem to make this assumption, but I always chalked that up to transhumanists being idiots. Computers are designed by engineers, and the foremost thought on an engineer's mind at all times is "how could this go massively, horribly wrong?" The second is "how can I prevent this from going massively, horribly wrong" and the third is "if I can't prevent it, how can I at least create a plausible argument that it's not my fault?"

[GePap]

Engineers are employees - they don't make the decisions of what does or doesn't get built. At best, they can tell those who decide (those in power) what is feasible or not, and what the costs would be. Maybe you might have some "brave" engineer who sounds the alarm, but there would be two others in the wings willing to take the work to make money.

So the question is, would it ever be beneficial to some interest to build an advanced computer system with the ability to self-replicate? I think the answer to that is most likely, Yes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Engineers are employees - they don't make the decisions of what does or doesn't get built.

You're grossly mistaken that no engineers make decisions, high-level decisions. Most competent engineering companies have management staff that are engineers themselves.

Your argument is so ridiculous that I thought Ben Kenobi posted it.

At best, they can tell those who decide (those in power) what is feasible or not, and what the costs would be.

It's cute that you think engineers are never in power, especially when it comes to highly technical things you and your ilk could never come close to comprehending.

At my company, every single real employee (including the entire executive staff) comes from technical background -- some kind of engineering or computer science. We do have employees who aren't from technical backgrounds, and they're classified as "support staff". These are people like you. They include janitorial staff, receptionists, HR workers, marketing, and resourcing employees. They don't make any real decisions, they are merely employees.

Welcome to the real world, it's not all as you think it is...

[GePap]

WHo gives a **** about what your personal experiences are, or those at one single company? A single example doesn't make an argument, but I thought you were smart enough to know that.....

Engineers are humans, as much as you act in ways to disprove that. That means that all human strenghts and weaknesses apply to them, including hubris.

And that is also why, one day some idiot engineer, thinking about how superior machines are to humans, might very well make a self-replicating artificial intelligence after having being given access to the necessary materials.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
WHo gives a **** about what your personal experiences are, or those at one single company? A single example doesn't make an argument, but I thought you were smart enough to know that.....

I'm just pointing out your assumption that engineers are always "employees" who don't make big decisions is false.

In fact, if you looked at any of the major big companies in tech, almost without exception you'll see that the reason they're the way they are were decisions by "engineers" who made breakthroughs or smart decisions.

Very, very seldom does someone like yourself form a company with a bold new idea/concept/technology that revolutionizes the world, so your assumption that such a theoretical breakthrough like the one we're talking would come from someone who tells engineers what to do is amusingly naive.

You simply have no idea how the real world works. And why should you? You're a career bureaucrat who studied some useless arts program in paperpushing 101 at college.

Don't flatter yourself. Engineers are not your *****es, especially the kinds of engineers that make breakthroughs like the ones we're talking about.

Maybe you shouldn't throw away my opinion because it is a "personal experience" considering I ****ing work in the industry, while you don't work in a real company at all, let alone the tech industry.

[GePap]

Sorry to have it break it to you Asher, but "the real world" is that world out there made up of 6.6 Billion human beings, of which a good 6.5 Billion aren't employees of computing or engineering firms.

As someone who has had to deal on a daily basis with random members of the public, I feel I have had a decent sample of the "real world,", at least what that means in New York City.

[Asher]

You're adorable. I find it really heart-warming that the government gave you a job. It's nice to see the big guys help out the disadvantaged.

[GePap]

Yeah, and a big thumbs up to private charity and their central role in your rise

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Engineers are employees - they don't make the decisions of what does or doesn't get built. At best, they can tell those who decide (those in power) what is feasible or not, and what the costs would be.

This is hilariously wrong.