Steve Reality is; the haves do not give a shit about the poor. These technologies are beyond the poor, and not for their class and/or personal empowerment. AGI cannot save the poor. The poor will just have to do that for themselves, without access to advanced technologies and friendly markets. Bazinga!!!!
That is not my personal values per se, but just how this world works. We pay lip-service to the poor while we tighten the screws to exploit and exclude them even more. It is the end-game of globalization. There's nothing you or me can do about that. At least, with truly-autonomous vehicles, when powered by renewable energy sources, even the poor may finally get affordable transport on land, sea, and air. For that to happen, the vehicles need to be smart enough to go where the poor tend to go. They're not, and those that might be, are not reserved for the poor. Rodriguez said it well when he sang; "The sun is shining, as it's always done Coffin dust is the fate of everyone Talking 'bout the rich folks The poor create the rich hoax And only late breast-fed fools believe it." Rob ________________________________ From: Steve Richfield via AGI <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 02 August 2018 9:42 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Reality Rob, Should we be: 1. hiring otherwise-homeless people to drive cars, or 2. have computers drive our cars and tax the computers to support the homeless, or 3. ignore what technology is doing to our society and just let Darwin do his ugly thing to the homeless? I get your point about using driving as a benchmark. Winning at checkers was an early benchmark. Then came winning at chess. Then came Eliza. Then came winning at go. Now comes driving in traffic. Sure, this will push Computer Science forward, but I don't see that any true intelligence is necessary. My point is that once perfected, manufacturing self-driving cars sounds rather socially questionable - at least until we get poverty well under control. Steve On 11:40AM, Thu, Aug 2, 2018 Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Quite happy to discuss AGI. I've been thinking, if we could truly mainstream self-driving cars by resolving the remaining issues hampering its maturity, it would be a significant step forward towards achieving AGI feasibility. Should AGI researchers be pooling their talent to that purpose, and/or similar industry problems? Rob ________________________________ From: Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, 02 August 2018 7:34 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Reality I disagree with most of this. On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:31 PM Steve Richfield via AGI <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > My AGI-related interest here springs from my observation that nearly > everything people expect from an AGI: > 1. Is well within human problem solving ability. No. Machines already do many things that humans cannot. They have for centuries. > 2. Is absolutely impossible. No. The set of things where people still outperform machines is steadily shrinking. Everything the brain does is computable in principle. > 3. Is SO costly that it isn't worth doing. No, we are already doing it. The ROI on automating human labor is world GDP divided by market interest rates, or about $1 quadrillion. > 4. Would attract others to destroy the AGI. People write malware. Future technology will allow people to create self replicating nanotechnology and engineer lethal and highly contagious pathogens at low cost. That doesn't mean all technology is bad. > 5. Would be overcome by other differently-motivated AGIs. The internet really has no competition. > 6. Requires information not available to a non-human. Automating human labor requires collecting human knowledge. The cost is in the tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars, but not impossible. > 7. Something that an AGI can accomplish that humans cannot accomplish. So > far, I have seen NOTHING that falls into this category. Sure they can. A computer can easily remember a 20 digit number and repeat it back. And other mental feats. > Basic System Analysis Step #1: Detetmine what is expected of the system. > Perhaps you can help here? I outlined the requirements for AGI in http://mattmahoney.net/costofai.pdf > I was serious when I made my reverse Turing test proposal to start a > competition for people to try emulating an AGI, as I expected the falacy or > lack thereof to fall out of such a competition. Until that happens, I just > can't take AGIs serioudly. You mean like a CAPTCHA? Yeah, these will eventually stop working. -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T56889bf27bc7ed87-M72db9f5e9347a122a75bcefc> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T56889bf27bc7ed87-M11efce362630303f7843ba25 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
