Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Forget "Her." Your life is already controlled by 'bots
Oh, Share, that's just the beginning. Now you're ready for the movie: http://singularity.com/themovie/#.UtBXk9JdWSo http://singularity.com/themovie/#.UtBXk9JdWSo And you'll definitely want to sign up on the movie site for the Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence newsletter so you can stay up to speed on these exciting developments. << But Richard, maybe 'bots DID detect the Boston Bomber! Having just read wikipedia that Judy posted, thank you Judy for that, I'm not convinced that all 'bots will act benevolently towards humans. Or maybe they will but maybe THEIR idea of benevolently will differ from ours! And will theirs be the right idea of benevolently or will they just think it is? This is VERY cool to think about, thanks turq (-: >>
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Forget "Her." Your life is already controlled by 'bots
On 01/10/2014 08:15 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > turq, I'd say that the world, on one level, is controlled by imperfect programming and still-learning programmers. bots are only as useful as their programming and programmers make them. Right?! */Wrong. You forget that I used to work for an AI company. ILOG was not just involved in optimization, but in natural language processing and rule-based programs as well. It's only an amateur's view that programs are only what they're originally programmed to be. They *can* learn, and they *can* make their own decisions, and they *can* parse English so well that if you were talking to one on the Internet, you wouldn't be able to tell whether they were human or not. I've seen demos of software in development that would shake your faith in the difference between human intelligence and machine intelligence. /* The problem here is "just because you can do it should you do it?" There is little or no accountability for the moral implications of technological development. We have too many dumb technologists who think the coolest thing would be humanity replaced by bots. Your company probably only was doing this because they feared someone else getting their first and the stockholders would rebel.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Forget "Her." Your life is already controlled by 'bots
But Richard, maybe 'bots DID detect the Boston Bomber! Having just read wikipedia that Judy posted, thank you Judy for that, I'm not convinced that all 'bots will act benevolently towards humans. Or maybe they will but maybe THEIR idea of benevolently will differ from ours! And will theirs be the right idea of benevolently or will they just think it is? This is VERY cool to think about, thanks turq (-: On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:54 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: On 1/10/2014 10:15 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > I've seen demos of software in development that would > shake your faith in the difference between human > intelligence and machine intelligence. > But, not sophisticated enough to detect the Boston Bomber, even human intelligence couldn't do that. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Forget "Her." Your life is already controlled by 'bots
On 1/10/2014 10:15 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > I've seen demos of software in development that would > shake your faith in the difference between human > intelligence and machine intelligence. > But, not sophisticated enough to detect the Boston Bomber, even human intelligence couldn't do that. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Forget "Her." Your life is already controlled by 'bots
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity Note especially the section "In Popular Culture." << turq, I admit my mind is boggled by this idea. And that's a really good occurrence. But really?! Computers can do everything humans can do?! Only faster? More precisely? >> On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > turq, I'd say that the world, on one level, is controlled by imperfect > programming and still-learning programmers. bots are only as useful as their > programming and programmers make them. Right?! Wrong. You forget that I used to work for an AI company. ILOG was not just involved in optimization, but in natural language processing and rule-based programs as well. It's only an amateur's view that programs are only what they're originally programmed to be. They *can* learn, and they *can* make their own decisions, and they *can* parse English so well that if you were talking to one on the Internet, you wouldn't be able to tell whether they were human or not. I've seen demos of software in development that would shake your faith in the difference between human intelligence and machine intelligence. > On Friday, January 10, 2014 4:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: > > I found this a fascinating article to stumble upon right after seeing the > film "Her." There will be some who will deny that we as a culture will never > become so dependent on computers and AIs as to allow them to shape and > control our lives as much as Theodore does in "Her." > > Well, let me present a theoretical case to you. You're a fan of science > fiction, and of scifi writing, TV, and movies. As such, you'd love to go to > the most prestigious ceremony for such things, the annual Hugo Awards. But > the awards are being held at Worldcon, a big gathering of scifi folk in > another city, and you can't afford to go there, so you tune in via the > streamed video feed of the event. And everything's going great. You're > enjoying the speeches and the clips from the TV shows and movies and all of a > sudden the feed is cut, and replaced with a blank screen containing the > words: > > > Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement. > > > This actually happened, and it was done by 'bots. > > There was not a human in the loop when the copyright police 'bots used by > Upstream (the streaming video provider for Worldcon) shut down its broadcast. > > These censor-bots just decided that something was being seen that they didn't > think *should* be seen, according to what they had been told by their > programmers, and so they just shut the whole feed down. When Upstream found > out what happened and tried to restart the feed (according to them), they > couldn't. The censor-bots' word turned out to be final. Go figure. > > > http://io9.com/5940036/how-copyright-enforcement-robots-killed-the-hugo-awards >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Forget "Her." Your life is already controlled by 'bots
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > turq, I admit my mind is boggled by this idea. And that's a really good occurrence. But really?! Computers can do everything humans can do?! Only faster? More precisely? Faster? More precisely? Duh. Everything? Not yet. > On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:30 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > turq, I'd say that the world, on one level, is controlled by imperfect programming and still-learning programmers. bots are only as useful as their programming and programmers make them. Right?! > > Wrong. You forget that I used to work for an AI company. ILOG was not just involved in optimization, but in natural language processing and rule-based programs as well. > > It's only an amateur's view that programs are only what they're originally programmed to be. They *can* learn, and they *can* make their own decisions, and they *can* parse English so well that if you were talking to one on the Internet, you wouldn't be able to tell whether they were human or not. I've seen demos of software in development that would shake your faith in the difference between human intelligence and machine intelligence.  > > > On Friday, January 10, 2014 4:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: > > > > I found this a fascinating article to stumble upon right after seeing the film "Her." There will be some who will deny that we as a culture will never become so dependent on computers and AIs as to allow them to shape and control our lives as much as Theodore does in "Her." > > > > Well, let me present a theoretical case to you. You're a fan of science fiction, and of scifi writing, TV, and movies. As such, you'd love to go to the most prestigious ceremony for such things, the annual Hugo Awards. But the awards are being held at Worldcon, a big gathering of scifi folk in another city, and you can't afford to go there, so you tune in via the streamed video feed of the event. And everything's going great. You're enjoying the speeches and the clips from the TV shows and movies and all of a sudden the feed is cut, and replaced with a blank screen containing the words: > > > > > > Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement. > > > > > > This actually happened, and it was done by 'bots. > > > > There was not a human in the loop when the copyright police 'bots used by Upstream (the streaming video provider for Worldcon) shut down its broadcast. > > > > These censor-bots just decided that something was being seen that they didn't think *should* be seen, according to what they had been told by their programmers, and so they just shut the whole feed down. When Upstream found out what happened and tried to restart the feed (according to them), they couldn't. The censor-bots' word turned out to be final. Go figure. > > > > > > http://io9.com/5940036/how-copyright-enforcement-robots-killed-the-hugo-\ awards > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Forget "Her." Your life is already controlled by 'bots
turq, I admit my mind is boggled by this idea. And that's a really good occurrence. But really?! Computers can do everything humans can do?! Only faster? More precisely? On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > turq, I'd say that the world, on one level, is controlled by imperfect > programming and still-learning programmers. bots are only as useful as their > programming and programmers make them. Right?! Wrong. You forget that I used to work for an AI company. ILOG was not just involved in optimization, but in natural language processing and rule-based programs as well. It's only an amateur's view that programs are only what they're originally programmed to be. They *can* learn, and they *can* make their own decisions, and they *can* parse English so well that if you were talking to one on the Internet, you wouldn't be able to tell whether they were human or not. I've seen demos of software in development that would shake your faith in the difference between human intelligence and machine intelligence. > On Friday, January 10, 2014 4:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: > > I found this a fascinating article to stumble upon right after seeing the > film "Her." There will be some who will deny that we as a culture will never > become so dependent on computers and AIs as to allow them to shape and > control our lives as much as Theodore does in "Her." > > Well, let me present a theoretical case to you. You're a fan of science > fiction, and of scifi writing, TV, and movies. As such, you'd love to go to > the most prestigious ceremony for such things, the annual Hugo Awards. But > the awards are being held at Worldcon, a big gathering of scifi folk in > another city, and you can't afford to go there, so you tune in via the > streamed video feed of the event. And everything's going great. You're > enjoying the speeches and the clips from the TV shows and movies and all of a > sudden the feed is cut, and replaced with a blank screen containing the > words: > > > Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement. > > > This actually happened, and it was done by 'bots. > > There was not a human in the loop when the copyright police 'bots used by > Upstream (the streaming video provider for Worldcon) shut down its broadcast. > > These censor-bots just decided that something was being seen that they didn't > think *should* be seen, according to what they had been told by their > programmers, and so they just shut the whole feed down. When Upstream found > out what happened and tried to restart the feed (according to them), they > couldn't. The censor-bots' word turned out to be final. Go figure. > > > http://io9.com/5940036/how-copyright-enforcement-robots-killed-the-hugo-awards >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Forget "Her." Your life is already controlled by 'bots
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > turq, I'd say that the world, on one level, is controlled by imperfect programming and still-learning programmers. bots are only as useful as their programming and programmers make them. Right?! Wrong. You forget that I used to work for an AI company. ILOG was not just involved in optimization, but in natural language processing and rule-based programs as well. It's only an amateur's view that programs are only what they're originally programmed to be. They *can* learn, and they *can* make their own decisions, and they *can* parse English so well that if you were talking to one on the Internet, you wouldn't be able to tell whether they were human or not. I've seen demos of software in development that would shake your faith in the difference between human intelligence and machine intelligence. > On Friday, January 10, 2014 4:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: > > I found this a fascinating article to stumble upon right after seeing the film "Her." There will be some who will deny that we as a culture will never become so dependent on computers and AIs as to allow them to shape and control our lives as much as Theodore does in "Her." > > Well, let me present a theoretical case to you. You're a fan of science fiction, and of scifi writing, TV, and movies. As such, you'd love to go to the most prestigious ceremony for such things, the annual Hugo Awards. But the awards are being held at Worldcon, a big gathering of scifi folk in another city, and you can't afford to go there, so you tune in via the streamed video feed of the event. And everything's going great. You're enjoying the speeches and the clips from the TV shows and movies and all of a sudden the feed is cut, and replaced with a blank screen containing the words: > > > Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement. > > > This actually happened, and it was done by 'bots. > > There was not a human in the loop when the copyright police 'bots used by Upstream (the streaming video provider for Worldcon) shut down its broadcast. > > These censor-bots just decided that something was being seen that they didn't think *should* be seen, according to what they had been told by their programmers, and so they just shut the whole feed down. When Upstream found out what happened and tried to restart the feed (according to them), they couldn't. The censor-bots' word turned out to be final. Go figure. > > > http://io9.com/5940036/how-copyright-enforcement-robots-killed-the-hugo-\ awards >
