On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:56:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Nov 2014, at 08:45, LizR wrote: > > On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> > The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history. >>> >> >> I would maintain that from a long term operational viewpoint it doesn't >> matter if the humans on the Supreme Court consider computers to be people >> or not, the important thing is if computers consider humans to be people or >> not. >> >> Making certain probably reasonable assumptions, that is quite likely. > > > > Only if we remember that money is a tool, and not a goal. If money is the > goal, machines will correctly conclude that humans are not affordable: they > need 02, plants, a very rich and complex environment, etc. But with some > luck we will be digital before, and get more affordable in the machine's > point of view. > > To say that corporation are person is, imo, a rather big error. Only > machine having the Löbian ability can be considered as person, and > corporations are not. > > What he said that was most new for me was, the supreme court may decide corporations are individuals or not, but that algorithms increasingly define corporations, and what those programs do, they have not say over at all.
The damaging mythology was the way a small cadre of technologist-computationalist-futurist self-reinforce themselves into an unchallenged space of defining the vision for A.I. in wholly positive and historical inevitable terms. A.I. is coming, it's here now, it's going to change everything, it'll be better, it'll be the better version of us even. Which gets the same structure of delayed response that ultimately because dominated by the merchants of doom who think this is going to end badly, either A.I. here, or alien A.I. Which reinforces the next version of the same version of the positive cadre emitted before. It becomes invariant. Which would be fine, but neither one of the scenarios are anything like reflective of what is taking place on the ground. A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not in onvolve -- 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.
