On 21 Nov 2014, at 13:39, [email protected] wrote:
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]> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, <[email protected]> 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.
That's not AI, but marketing. Of course there is nothing new.nature
has invented "AI' well before us. It does not makes things better are
priori. It economizes energy only, allowing more species to develop.
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
I disagree with this. Universal are maximally intelligent. But we
don't listen to them (except some in theoretical computer science).
Programming them transforms those intelligent machine into docile
idiots.
The siingularity is yesterday, with the discovery of the universal
machine. The next singularity will be when machine will be as idiot
than us (the adults, not the kids).
Bruno
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
