Current events discussion

[Speed Chaser]

I mean, I have proven stuff, you're just gonna keep saying that no matter what I show you, even though I actually have.

You have shown absolutely zero credible evidence that AI can live without humans. That is your burden to prove not mine.

No, I say that because you haven't proven anything, moron. I've already disproven your points and even gone asfar as explaining it to a room-temp IQ idiot like you how the stuff you've shown actually proves my point, not yours. Your argument is so stupid that you think an AI, advanced enough to control humans, would waste its time doing that instead of just creating its own optimized biological system for processing power and controlling machines like this that don't need to rest don't need the other maintenance involved with humans

Come on clown type faster i need more to laugh at

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

No, I say that because you haven't proven anything, moron. I've already disproven your points and even gone asfar as explaining it to a room-temp IQ idiot like you how the stuff you've shown actually proves my point, not yours. Your argument is so stupid that you think an AI, advanced enough to control humans, would waste its time doing that instead of just creating its own optimized biological system for processing power and controlling machines like this that don't need to rest don't need the other maintenance involved with humans
View attachment 62032

I don't see any proof that AI doesn't need humans. I've shown you the plan of the global elite to merge man with machine and AI and some of the various technologies surrounding that. They weren't hypotheticals, they are things that have already been done or are in the process of testing right now. All I see is an assumption from you- I see absolutely zero credible evidence that there is any point in the future where AI can survive without humanity.

 

[Speed Chaser]

I don't see any proof that AI doesn't need humans. I've shown you the plan of the global elite to merge man with machine and AI, and some of the various technologies surrounding that. They weren't hypotheticals, they are things that have already been done or are in the process of testing right now. All I see is an assumption from you- I see absolutely zero credible evidence that there is any point in the future where AI can survive without humanity.

Wrong, dumbass. You have shown your assumption of what you think the elite, or whatever boogeyman you believe in, will do. I see zero proof from you that an AI capable of controlling humans would need them at all for survival once it reaches that point of sophistication.

Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Wrong, dumbass. You have shown your assumption of what you think the elite, or whatever boogeyman you believe in, will do. I see zero proof from you that an AI capable of controlling humans would need them at all for survival once it reaches that point of sophistication.

Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

You're assuming that it can. You're assuming that AI can create something say...better than human. So you're saying AI is basically God? That AI can genetically script a better human? I need to see proof of this optimized biological system that exists that is superior to a human, proof that that's even possible, proof that there is a better design.

That's not my assumption- I literally repeat what they say to you about AI, their plans to control everything with it, basically, merge biology with it, etc.

 

[Speed Chaser]

You're assuming that it can. You're assuming that AI can create something say...better than human. So you're saying AI is basically God? That AI can genetically script a better human? I need to see proof of this optimized biological system that exists that is superior to a human, proof that that's even possible, proof that there is a better design.

That's not my assumption- I literally repeat what they say to you about AI, their plans to control everything with it, basically, merge biology with it, etc.

Your entire argument is based on assumptions too, dumbass. You assume that humans are the ultimate design, but there's nothing sacred about human biology that can't be improved upon or surpassed. AI doesn’t need to be a 'God' to engineer better systems that eliminate the limitations of the human framework. You're parroting what others say without critical thought, clinging to these so-called elites 'plans' like fact. Where’s your proof that humans are irreplaceable in AI’s endgame?

Memory​

• Clark's Nutcracker: Exceptional spatial memory allows these birds to recall thousands of seed locations even months later, far exceeding human spatial recall capabilities.

Navigation and Spatial Awareness​

• Homing Pigeons: Their navigation abilities rely on a unique brain structure and magnetic field detection, surpassing human directional and spatial navigation.

Processing Speed​

• Dragonflies: Their brains process visual information at much higher speeds, enabling rapid reactions during flight or while hunting prey, unlike humans.

Cognitive Problem-Solving​

• Crows and Ravens: These birds solve multi-step problems and use tools effectively, rivaling primates in specific cognitive tasks.

Neurogenesis​

• Canaries: They display seasonal neurogenesis, with the ability to grow new neurons linked to learning songs, a level of brain plasticity humans rarely achieve.

In many of your past statements, you have brought up skynet so I am going to reference that just for shits and giggles. Once Skynet became advanced enough, it didn’t say, 'Hey, let’s keep the humans alive for fun or efficiency.' No, it calculated that humans were inefficient, a threat, and completely unnecessary, and acted accordingly and worked on eliminating them

So once again from the top:
Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Your entire argument is based on assumptions too, dumbass. You assume that humans are the ultimate design, but there's nothing sacred about human biology that can't be improved upon or surpassed. AI doesn’t need to be a 'God' to engineer better systems that eliminate the limitations of the human framework. You're parroting what others say without critical thought, clinging to these so-called elites 'plans' like fact. Where’s your proof that humans are irreplaceable in AI’s endgame?

Memory​

• Clark's Nutcracker: Exceptional spatial memory allows these birds to recall thousands of seed locations even months later, far exceeding human spatial recall capabilities.

Navigation and Spatial Awareness​

• Homing Pigeons: Their navigation abilities rely on a unique brain structure and magnetic field detection, surpassing human directional and spatial navigation.

Processing Speed​

• Dragonflies: Their brains process visual information at much higher speeds, enabling rapid reactions during flight or while hunting prey, unlike humans.

Cognitive Problem-Solving​

• Crows and Ravens: These birds solve multi-step problems and use tools effectively, rivaling primates in specific cognitive tasks.

Neurogenesis​

• Canaries: They display seasonal neurogenesis, with the ability to grow new neurons linked to learning songs, a level of brain plasticity humans rarely achieve.

In many of your past statements, you have brought up skynet so I am going to reference that just for shits and giggles. Once Skynet became advanced enough, it didn’t say, 'Hey, let’s keep the humans alive for fun or efficiency.' No, it calculated that humans were inefficient, a threat, and completely unnecessary, and acted accordingly and worked on eliminating them

So once again from the top:
Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

I'm not parroting others say without critical thought. I am telling you what others are saying like the billionaires that run the world and what not. I'm telling you their plans, and that's what I happen to agree with actually, as in that's the way they're going to try to make it go, that's the way the world will go, because they have the power and the resources and all of that. They are forcing the development in that direction that they say they're going.

I know for a fact humans aren't the ultimate design for intelligent life, but that's not what I said. I said I need proof that AI can make a better design than a human. It's easy to prove the coming merging of man and machine. What you are saying is that AI can make a better overall system than what a human being is or what a human brain is. Where is the proof that AI can actually make a better brain and keep it either reproducing or stay alive forever. It's not even that you just have to make a better human or brain or whatever biological system you mean, you'd have to make it immortal or reproducible, somehow without humans and the human body.


And to be fair, I don't really think you're stupid, not anymore than I am, and I like this conversation. This has been a good one.

 

[Speed Chaser]

I'm not parroting others say without critical thought. I am telling you what others are saying like the billionaires that run the world and what not. I'm telling you their plans, and that's what I happen to agree with actually, as in that's the way they're going to try to make it go, that's the way the world will go, because they have the power and the resources and all of that. They are forcing the development in that direction that they say they're going.

I know for a fact humans aren't the ultimate design for intelligent life, but that's not what I said. I said I need proof that AI can make a better design than a human. It's easy to prove the coming merging of man and machine. What you are saying is that AI can make a better overall system than what a human being is or what a human brain is. Where is the proof that AI can actually make a better brain and keep it either reproducing or stay alive forever. It's not even that you just have to make a better human or brain or whatever biological system you mean, you'd have to make it immortal or reproducible, somehow without humans and the human body.


And to be fair, I don't really think you're stupid, not anymore than I am, and I like this conversation. This has been a good one.

So, you aren’t parroting brainlessly, but you're parroting brainlessly what others say—gotcha. When you state that AI can't live without humans, you might as well say humans are the ultimate design. I need proof that AI needs humans indefinitely, which you have failed to show. I don't assume like you it's a logical conclusion that AI can make a better system. Do you really think a system that can control AI, manipulate DNA like you claim, or edit genes won’t be able to create a better life form?

If AI reaches a point where it can manipulate biological systems, control its own design, and optimize those systems, it will no longer need humans. You seem to be stuck on the idea that humans are somehow essential to AI's survival, but in reality, that’s more of an assumption than a conclusion supported by any evidence. AI could evolve beyond humans and create better, more efficient systems, whether biological or digital. The concept that a sufficiently advanced AI would still need humans is illogical when you consider how much more efficient and capable AI could be if it removes the demands to sustain human life.

I still find the conversation worthless and unengaging. The only reason I continue to entertain it is purely from a boredom standpoint.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

So, you aren’t parroting brainlessly, but you're parroting brainlessly what others say—gotcha. When you state that AI can't live without humans, you might as well say humans are the ultimate design. I need proof that AI needs humans indefinitely, which you have failed to show. I don't assume like you it's a logical conclusion that AI can make a better system. Do you really think a system that can control AI, manipulate DNA like you claim, or edit genes won’t be able to create a better life form?

If AI reaches a point where it can manipulate biological systems, control its own design, and optimize those systems, it will no longer need humans. You seem to be stuck on the idea that humans are somehow essential to AI's survival, but in reality, that’s more of an assumption than a conclusion supported by any evidence. AI could evolve beyond humans and create better, more efficient systems, whether biological or digital. The concept that a sufficiently advanced AI would still need humans is illogical when you consider how much more efficient and capable AI could be if it removes the demands to sustain human life.

I still find the conversation worthless and unengaging. The only reason I continue to entertain it is purely from a boredom standpoint.

Well, it's good to see you're doing productive things with your life, then.

No, if I wanted to say humans were the perfect design, then I'd say humans are the perfect ******* design. Quit putting words in my mouth.

There is no indication that AI will ever be independent of humanity. If you say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

This can’t be real. Loool

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

ABC News will pay $15 million to Trump's future presidential library to settle suit over Stephanopoulos comments

Trump filed a defamation lawsuit over inaccurate comments made by the anchor George Stephanopoulos on a March episode of ABC's "This Week."

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Speed Chaser]

Well, it's good to see you're doing productive things with your life, then.

No, if I wanted to say humans were the perfect design, then I'd say humans are the perfect ******* design. Quit putting words in my mouth.

There is no indication that AI will ever be independent of humanity. If you say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Looks like you're back to crying lol. Funny, someone like you brings up productivity, yet all you do is post worthless conspiracy nonsense.

First off, stop pretending you haven't been insinuating humans are the perfect design. I'm not putting words in your mouth—I’m pointing out that you keep defending the idea that humans are necessary for AI’s survival.

Just because you can't imagine AI ever becoming independent of humanity doesn’t mean it’s incapable of doing so. There’s zero evidence to support the claim that AI must always depend on humans. When AI reaches a high enough level, where it can manipulate biological systems and control its own design, it won’t need humanity anymore. That’s a logical conclusion, not an assumption. A system capable of manipulating DNA or editing genes, as you claim AI could, is more than capable of creating better and more efficient life forms than the flawed human design.

Like a typical rat, you try to shift the burden of proof onto me because you can't prove your point, but you're not getting out of it. The burden is on you, idiot, because you made the claim, not me. You’re the one screaming about AI takeovers. You’re just a mad little hoe because I use the bullshit you link to, to disprove your own points, clown.

Better type fast that next response i wanna continue laughing

Oh i almost forgot:
Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Looks like you're back to crying lol. Funny, someone like you brings up productivity, yet all you do is post worthless conspiracy nonsense.

First off, stop pretending you haven't been insinuating humans are the perfect design. I'm not putting words in your mouth—I’m pointing out that you keep defending the idea that humans are necessary for AI’s survival.

Just because you can't imagine AI ever becoming independent of humanity doesn’t mean it’s incapable of doing so. There’s zero evidence to support the claim that AI must always depend on humans. When AI reaches a high enough level, where it can manipulate biological systems and control its own design, it won’t need humanity anymore. That’s a logical conclusion, not an assumption. A system capable of manipulating DNA or editing genes, as you claim AI could, is more than capable of creating better and more efficient life forms than the flawed human design.

Like a typical rat, you try to shift the burden of proof onto me because you can't prove your point, but you're not getting out of it. The burden is on you, idiot, because you made the claim, not me. You’re the one screaming about AI takeovers. You’re just a mad little hoe because I use the bullshit you link to, to disprove your own points, clown.

Better type fast that next response i wanna continue laughing

I am not insinuating humans are the perfect design. I fail to see how AI can design something better without needing the current design of humans continuously to do it.

There's a lot of evidence to support that AI will need humans- considering there's never been a point where it hasn't ever not needed humans. That's literally called evidence. There's literally zero evidence AI can survive by itself, at this point. If you say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Just because AI would be able to edit genes or manipulate DNA doesn't mean it's going to do it to create a new species or radically change human DNA. I think it's going to do it simply for purposes of control over humans, like editing or manipulating genes or gene expressions that make you think too much like I do.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Yet you voted a ****** into office.

Show me the conviction...or is that more of you anti-trump propaganda like the 30k you pulled out your ***?