On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> As Nicolás Gómez Dávila said (more or less): The modern man indulge >>> itself thinking that he is a mechanism, but protest loudly when he is >>> treated as such. >>> >> >> I would argue that Gödel provides some excuse for this apparently >> paradoxical behaviour. >> > > Is that because Godel has explained that our system, whatever it is, > Is open to the input of truth, whatever, from more complete systems > that we are embedded in.. > I was thinking more along the lines of "mechanism" already containing what we call human, while our common sense definition of mechanism is a simplifying caricature. > >> >>> >>> 2014-11-15 18:39 GMT+01:00, [email protected] <[email protected]>: >>> > I know this comes up a lot, so there's a risk this guy isn't saying >>> > anything new here, but I browsed and decided to view the video and >>> thought >>> > I'd throw it out in case anyone else wants to enter that process. >>> > >>> > Here's the first few paragraphs, linke at bottom. Edge basically. >>> > >>> > *THE MYTH OF AI* >>> > >>> > A lot of us were appalled a few years ago when the American Supreme >>> Court >>> > decided, out of the blue, to decide a question it hadn't been asked to >>> > decide, and declare that corporations are people. That's a cover for >>> making >>> > >>> > it easier for big money to have an influence in politics. But there's >>> > another angle to it, which I don't think has been considered as much: >>> the >>> > tech companies, which are becoming the most profitable, the fastest >>> rising, >>> > >>> > the richest companies, with the most cash on hand, are essentially >>> people >>> > for a different reason than that. They might be people because the >>> Supreme >>> > Court said so, but they're essentially algorithms. >>> > >>> > If you look at a company like Google or Amazon and many others, they >>> do a >>> > little bit of device manufacture, but the only reason they do is to >>> create >>> > a channel between people and algorithms. And the algorithms run on >>> these >>> > big cloud computer facilities. >>> > >>> > The distinction between a corporation and an algorithm is fading. Does >>> that >>> > >>> > make an algorithm a person? Here we have this interesting confluence >>> > between two totally different worlds. We have the world of money and >>> > politics and the so-called conservative Supreme Court, with this other >>> > world of what we can call artificial intelligence, which is a movement >>> > within the technical culture to find an equivalence between computers >>> and >>> > people. In both cases, there's an intellectual tradition that goes back >>> > many decades. Previously they'd been separated; they'd been worlds >>> apart. >>> > Now, suddenly they've been intertwined. >>> > >>> > The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history. It >>> goes >>> > back to the very origins of computers, and even from before. There's >>> always >>> > >>> > been a question about whether a program is something alive or not >>> since it >>> > intrinsically has some kind of autonomy at the very least, or it >>> wouldn't >>> > be a program. There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the >>> most >>> > wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical >>> world—that >>> > for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an >>> equivalence >>> > between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a >>> > historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that >>> will be >>> > smarter and better than us and will take over from us >>> > >>> > http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>> > "Everything List" group. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an >>> > email to [email protected]. >>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alberto. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
