Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Russell: Yep , exactly, AI's that develop themselves , think Person of Interest , had a list of all the social security numbers of people that needed help and at Midnight did a complete refresh of that list. A very interesting concept. Scott On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:06 PM Seymour J Metz wrote: > Well, Heinlein's explanation was bafflegab, but think neural nets; they > have to be trained rather than programmed. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf > of Russell Witt [025adb32e6d7-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:52 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > But what about the AI that develops autonomously? Remember Mike (Mycroft) > from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein) and TANSTAAFL (still true > today - so many people forget). AI might not be "developed" directly, which > then rules out having any "rules". > > Russell > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of scott Ford > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:51 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > Joel, > > I agree I am a huge sci-fi fan and believe in the sciences over utter > stupidity. > Lionel your point is well taken. I am guilty too, but when you have strong > feelings , which sometimes part of ADHD , it’s called RSD ( Reject > Sensitive Dysphoria ). > I have both ... > > Scott > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22 AM Lionel B Dyck wrote: > > > Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I > > wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests > > and that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in > > money, influence, etc.). > > > > There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the > > development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software > > developers who implement the code for the three laws. > > > > > > Lionel B. Dyck < > > Website: > https://secure-web.cisco.com/10rW9HRt3rzwxzpQwZHaIaC_lBpBXktWnjqey9MYD8CTNRZehiZ-cQm-wjOlPtpza0yh2Q10-0KdT_XcArRjoeQ2nMiLt61252ye4hPTKFuPXgrYELwQ54ioOLkR-FEGH68FsHXY145RqiE1b97NrhE7o2clkfWGlhPy4F22jGvW6jjJwZoNwOx_dD5DdA6cOy-OO7TwEgYNdCD5EJ4IN51GSWLIYW-JGV4c_TaAon7_kL_nRItaZXmspnf7KySHBu5WuvaH4pKwaq4YARZjZT50Ltdv63kKUvQ72XSRiO7-aCszqGoWi4CU0gh--4qDLpQsD5sQH0UhbJfJkZKPzfZoGfFDT12X_BzTNKk0CYbrB-yKyMQlyr3pXTBSYUcc74hMt2il56Km4CzPi85cLM1YuDxBMjeMeZMa1sXtneJ86iw1PpGfx__Tkz8En7xH8/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lbdsoftware.com > > > > "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is > > what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John > > Wooden > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > > Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when > > I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of > > robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. > > Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a > > robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when > > there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one > > group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of > "protecting" > > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or > > scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were > > given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that > > they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? > > > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a > > menace to humanity. > > Joel C Ewing > > > > On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about > > > the future of AI. > > > a bit of Isaac Asimov &g
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Shmuel wrote: >I hated it; that level of AI on a 360/75? To say nothing of just reeking of >sympathetic magic. >BTW, the wiki article got the origin of the name wrong; it was P-1 because it >ran in partition (remember those) 1. Does anybody know whether Waterloo was >actually running MVT on their 75, as seems likely? Yes, we were. I remember long after the 360 was gone, a virtual machine called OSVS2 still running some tiny thing that nobody felt like porting. That book started badly, getting the bloody location of Waterloo wrong for no good reason (didn't matter to the story, but they had it on the wrong highway) but was at least entertaining. ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Well, Heinlein's explanation was bafflegab, but think neural nets; they have to be trained rather than programmed. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Russell Witt [025adb32e6d7-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:52 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... But what about the AI that develops autonomously? Remember Mike (Mycroft) from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein) and TANSTAAFL (still true today - so many people forget). AI might not be "developed" directly, which then rules out having any "rules". Russell -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of scott Ford Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... Joel, I agree I am a huge sci-fi fan and believe in the sciences over utter stupidity. Lionel your point is well taken. I am guilty too, but when you have strong feelings , which sometimes part of ADHD , it’s called RSD ( Reject Sensitive Dysphoria ). I have both ... Scott On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22 AM Lionel B Dyck wrote: > Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I > wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests > and that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in > money, influence, etc.). > > There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the > development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software > developers who implement the code for the three laws. > > > Lionel B. Dyck < > Website: > https://secure-web.cisco.com/10rW9HRt3rzwxzpQwZHaIaC_lBpBXktWnjqey9MYD8CTNRZehiZ-cQm-wjOlPtpza0yh2Q10-0KdT_XcArRjoeQ2nMiLt61252ye4hPTKFuPXgrYELwQ54ioOLkR-FEGH68FsHXY145RqiE1b97NrhE7o2clkfWGlhPy4F22jGvW6jjJwZoNwOx_dD5DdA6cOy-OO7TwEgYNdCD5EJ4IN51GSWLIYW-JGV4c_TaAon7_kL_nRItaZXmspnf7KySHBu5WuvaH4pKwaq4YARZjZT50Ltdv63kKUvQ72XSRiO7-aCszqGoWi4CU0gh--4qDLpQsD5sQH0UhbJfJkZKPzfZoGfFDT12X_BzTNKk0CYbrB-yKyMQlyr3pXTBSYUcc74hMt2il56Km4CzPi85cLM1YuDxBMjeMeZMa1sXtneJ86iw1PpGfx__Tkz8En7xH8/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lbdsoftware.com > > "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is > what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John > Wooden > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when > I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of > robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. > Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a > robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when > there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one > group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of > "protecting" > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or > scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were > given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that > they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a > menace to humanity. > Joel C Ewing > > On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about > > the future of AI. > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > Scott > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > > > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. > >> was to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and > >> non-programmers (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting > >> lethal force in the hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous > >> machine is something with incredible potential to go wrong. We all > >> know that even if the hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably > >> will, that all software above a certain leve
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
But what about the AI that develops autonomously? Remember Mike (Mycroft) from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein) and TANSTAAFL (still true today - so many people forget). AI might not be "developed" directly, which then rules out having any "rules". Russell -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of scott Ford Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... Joel, I agree I am a huge sci-fi fan and believe in the sciences over utter stupidity. Lionel your point is well taken. I am guilty too, but when you have strong feelings , which sometimes part of ADHD , it’s called RSD ( Reject Sensitive Dysphoria ). I have both ... Scott On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22 AM Lionel B Dyck wrote: > Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I > wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests > and that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in > money, influence, etc.). > > There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the > development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software > developers who implement the code for the three laws. > > > Lionel B. Dyck < > Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com > > "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is > what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John > Wooden > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when > I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of > robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. > Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a > robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when > there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one > group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of > "protecting" > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or > scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were > given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that > they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a > menace to humanity. > Joel C Ewing > > On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about > > the future of AI. > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > Scott > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > > > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. > >> was to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and > >> non-programmers (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting > >> lethal force in the hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous > >> machine is something with incredible potential to go wrong. We all > >> know that even if the hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably > >> will, that all software above a certain level of complexity is > >> guaranteed to have bugs with unknown consequences. > >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about > >> society becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge > >> to understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total > >> collapse when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my > >> oldest sister > reading E.M. > >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. > >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. > >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the > >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by > >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal > >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian > >&
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
I was on a chemistry site, and posted asking about a source of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline . Someone actually emailed me they had some, so I asked how quick did it dissolve in water. They didn't reply. At the end of his Chemistry PhD Thesis defense, the questioners asked about it too. Then grinned and announced he had passed. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 8:16 PM Seymour J Metz wrote: > > Remember that it was fiction, and that Asimov's field was biochemistry. His > stories have a good deal of bafflegab in them, but the key question is > whether you enjoyed them; I did. I found the gimmick of laws that we don't > even know how to interpret, never mind implement, far less distracting than, > e.g., the faulty counting of electrons in "The Gods Themselves". > > Likewise the Galactic Empire stories. Did the handwaving prevent you from > enjoying them. > > And for all of you that enjoyed any of Asimov's stories, I strongly recommend > that you look up Thiotimoline on wike; put down your hot coffe and your cat > before you start reading those stories. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of > Joel C. Ewing [jcew...@acm.org] > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:11 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I > step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics > would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if > well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the > concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have > always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of > humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or > scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given > the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they > perceived offered some short-term political advantage? > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace > to humanity. > Joel C Ewing > > On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > > future of AI. > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > Scott > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > > > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was to > >> try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers (all > >> of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the hands of > >> any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something with > >> incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the hardware > >> doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software above a > >> certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with unknown > >> consequences. > >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society > >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to understand > >> and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse when the machines > >> inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister reading E.M. > >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. > >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. > >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the > >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by > >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal > >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian > >> suggests why that may be an even worse idea. > >> Joel C Ewing > >> > >> On 5/11/20 4:54 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > >>> Strangelove was twisted because the times were twisted. We're ripe for a > >> similar parody on our own times. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Shmue
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Remember that it was fiction, and that Asimov's field was biochemistry. His stories have a good deal of bafflegab in them, but the key question is whether you enjoyed them; I did. I found the gimmick of laws that we don't even know how to interpret, never mind implement, far less distracting than, e.g., the faulty counting of electrons in "The Gods Themselves". Likewise the Galactic Empire stories. Did the handwaving prevent you from enjoying them. And for all of you that enjoyed any of Asimov's stories, I strongly recommend that you look up Thiotimoline on wike; put down your hot coffe and your cat before you start reading those stories. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Joel C. Ewing [jcew...@acm.org] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:11 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to humanity. Joel C Ewing On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > future of AI. > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > Scott > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was to >> try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers (all >> of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the hands of >> any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something with >> incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the hardware >> doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software above a >> certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with unknown >> consequences. >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to understand >> and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse when the machines >> inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister reading E.M. >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian >> suggests why that may be an even worse idea. >> Joel C Ewing >> >> On 5/11/20 4:54 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>> Strangelove was twisted because the times were twisted. We're ripe for a >> similar parody on our own times. >>> >>> -- >>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >>> >>> >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on >> behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 [peter.far...@broadridge.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:39 PM >>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>> Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' >> programming language of 2020 >>> For relatively recent fare, I agree 100% - "Person of Interest" leads >> the pack. My favorite oldie -- "Let's play Global Thermonuclear War . . . >> " (War Games), right after Dr. Strangelove of course, simply because it was >> so twisted. >>> Mutual Assure
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
I hated it; that level of AI on a 360/75? To say nothing of just reeking of sympathetic magic. BTW, the wiki article got the origin of the name wrong; it was P-1 because it ran in partition (remember those) 1. Does anybody know whether Waterloo was actually running MVT on their 75, as seems likely? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Joe Monk [joemon...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... An even better story ... https://secure-web.cisco.com/1uc-VlaG4d4DXKhOogYOQ-R2xx23bgRDSC_wr66amqQiP3JV4iUeulIhLwneXEMLW355gnqlB4IoI-jRG1gHFALOCJZl9sQ8e8Nr73-c6782R0WU_Os6gnDwja6mrvo4oEbL_nk2DGPA9VLQ0Exe0S-dzkqkiR_QD2TMZp1ymyy3ZzbvqQ2uiBr5AmjZv-6YN8D0t2QERQ6sxkP0CFe1y-bKP5oa-K6nXaOZvYymMe8_X-Gnzb7rd8PtAbJ_nvUVGQctCvIdNwiMB_Tb1TlHYTKd8P1v_Zq4JS8jYMxAfLtQ49SLQcp0C0xEMv2pyFjwP2GOpn9yn8xV2rI9EVHenvEEfd-6c-5YfcmqkJa9MsVz_4CuDg0PNqognkeutg5ISRDq5JWK6JkARt0mTZwVY_qRY4iaPoAlTaoLO_WuISso16sZExEaDfLksVO16Dw6a/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Adolescence_of_P-1 Joe On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:31 AM Bob Bridges wrote: > I'll cheerfully leave political partisanship aside. But if I may > attribute this equally to both sides (and thus avoid partisanship), I'm > with Joel ~and~ Lionel on this. Most folks who misuse their power start > out, at least, in hopes of doing good. What I'm saying is that although we > value altruism, I don't trust even altruists in the matter of exercising > power, especially when in pursuit of The Good of Humanity. > > Doesn't mean we won't keep building robots. Doesn't even mean we > shouldn't. But even altruists can be villains. Ultron and Colossus both > wanted to save the world, after all. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* The historian Macaulay famously said that the Puritans opposed > bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave > pleasure to the spectators. The Puritans were right: Some pleasures are > contemptible because they are coarsening. They are not merely private > vices, they have public consequences in driving the culture's downward > spiral. -George Will, "The challenge of thinking lower", 2001-06-22 */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Lionel B Dyck > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:22 > > Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I > wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests and > that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in money, > influence, etc.). > > There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the > development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software > developers who implement the code for the three laws. > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I > step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics > would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if > well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the > concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have > always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans > as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific > recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the > opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived > offered some short-term political advantage? > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to > humanity. > > --- On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > > future of AI. > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > --- On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing > wrote: > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was > >> to try to make it
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Hi Joe, You beat me to it! Regards, David On 2020-05-11 12:57, Joe Monk wrote: An even better story ... https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Adolescence_of_P-1&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca75858d79d87417845d108d7f5cc8165%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637248130998340065&sdata=NhAxRmAC4HmPk73MgwB1TITh%2BMtPZ5Y3a5hDvhnSV0Y%3D&reserved=0 Joe On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:31 AM Bob Bridges wrote: I'll cheerfully leave political partisanship aside. But if I may attribute this equally to both sides (and thus avoid partisanship), I'm with Joel ~and~ Lionel on this. Most folks who misuse their power start out, at least, in hopes of doing good. What I'm saying is that although we value altruism, I don't trust even altruists in the matter of exercising power, especially when in pursuit of The Good of Humanity. Doesn't mean we won't keep building robots. Doesn't even mean we shouldn't. But even altruists can be villains. Ultron and Colossus both wanted to save the world, after all. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The historian Macaulay famously said that the Puritans opposed bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. The Puritans were right: Some pleasures are contemptible because they are coarsening. They are not merely private vices, they have public consequences in driving the culture's downward spiral. -George Will, "The challenge of thinking lower", 2001-06-22 */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lionel B Dyck Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:22 Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests and that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in money, influence, etc.). There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software developers who implement the code for the three laws. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to humanity. --- On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the future of AI. a bit of Isaac Asimov --- On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with unknown consequences. There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister reading E.M. Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian suggests why that may be an even worse idea. -Original Message- From: Bob Bridges Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:21 PM I've always loved "Colossus: The Forbin Project". Not many people have seen it, as f
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Joe, Yeah I read it, it’s a great book along with “The Martian”, couldn’t put the Martian down. Scott On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:58 PM Joe Monk wrote: > An even better story ... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adolescence_of_P-1 > > Joe > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:31 AM Bob Bridges > wrote: > > > I'll cheerfully leave political partisanship aside. But if I may > > attribute this equally to both sides (and thus avoid partisanship), I'm > > with Joel ~and~ Lionel on this. Most folks who misuse their power start > > out, at least, in hopes of doing good. What I'm saying is that although > we > > value altruism, I don't trust even altruists in the matter of exercising > > power, especially when in pursuit of The Good of Humanity. > > > > Doesn't mean we won't keep building robots. Doesn't even mean we > > shouldn't. But even altruists can be villains. Ultron and Colossus both > > wanted to save the world, after all. > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > /* The historian Macaulay famously said that the Puritans opposed > > bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave > > pleasure to the spectators. The Puritans were right: Some pleasures are > > contemptible because they are coarsening. They are not merely private > > vices, they have public consequences in driving the culture's downward > > spiral. -George Will, "The challenge of thinking lower", 2001-06-22 */ > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > > Behalf Of Lionel B Dyck > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:22 > > > > Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I > > wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests > and > > that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in money, > > influence, etc.). > > > > There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the > > development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software > > developers who implement the code for the three laws. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > > Of Joel C. Ewing > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > > > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I > > step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics > > would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if > > well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the > > concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have > > always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of > humans > > as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" > > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or > scientific > > recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the > > opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived > > offered some short-term political advantage? > > > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace > to > > humanity. > > > > --- On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > > > future of AI. > > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > > > --- On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing > > wrote: > > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was > > >> to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers > > >> (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the > > >> hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something > > >> with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the > > >> hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software > > >> above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with > > >> unknown consequences. > > >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society > > >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to > > >> understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse > > >> when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister > > reading E.M. > > >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. > > >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. > > >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the > > >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by > > >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk > lethal > > >> machine may be with another lethal ma
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
An even better story ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adolescence_of_P-1 Joe On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:31 AM Bob Bridges wrote: > I'll cheerfully leave political partisanship aside. But if I may > attribute this equally to both sides (and thus avoid partisanship), I'm > with Joel ~and~ Lionel on this. Most folks who misuse their power start > out, at least, in hopes of doing good. What I'm saying is that although we > value altruism, I don't trust even altruists in the matter of exercising > power, especially when in pursuit of The Good of Humanity. > > Doesn't mean we won't keep building robots. Doesn't even mean we > shouldn't. But even altruists can be villains. Ultron and Colossus both > wanted to save the world, after all. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* The historian Macaulay famously said that the Puritans opposed > bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave > pleasure to the spectators. The Puritans were right: Some pleasures are > contemptible because they are coarsening. They are not merely private > vices, they have public consequences in driving the culture's downward > spiral. -George Will, "The challenge of thinking lower", 2001-06-22 */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Lionel B Dyck > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:22 > > Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I > wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests and > that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in money, > influence, etc.). > > There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the > development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software > developers who implement the code for the three laws. > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I > step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics > would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if > well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the > concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have > always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans > as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific > recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the > opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived > offered some short-term political advantage? > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to > humanity. > > --- On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > > future of AI. > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > --- On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing > wrote: > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was > >> to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers > >> (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the > >> hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something > >> with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the > >> hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software > >> above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with > >> unknown consequences. > >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society > >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to > >> understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse > >> when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister > reading E.M. > >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. > >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. > >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the > >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by > >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal > >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian > >> suggests why that may be an even worse idea. > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Bob Bridges > >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:21 PM > >>> > >>> I've always loved "Colossus: The Forbin Project". Not many people > >>> have seen it, as far as I can tell. The only problem I have with > >>> that movie
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
I'll cheerfully leave political partisanship aside. But if I may attribute this equally to both sides (and thus avoid partisanship), I'm with Joel ~and~ Lionel on this. Most folks who misuse their power start out, at least, in hopes of doing good. What I'm saying is that although we value altruism, I don't trust even altruists in the matter of exercising power, especially when in pursuit of The Good of Humanity. Doesn't mean we won't keep building robots. Doesn't even mean we shouldn't. But even altruists can be villains. Ultron and Colossus both wanted to save the world, after all. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The historian Macaulay famously said that the Puritans opposed bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. The Puritans were right: Some pleasures are contemptible because they are coarsening. They are not merely private vices, they have public consequences in driving the culture's downward spiral. -George Will, "The challenge of thinking lower", 2001-06-22 */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lionel B Dyck Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:22 Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests and that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in money, influence, etc.). There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software developers who implement the code for the three laws. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to humanity. --- On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > future of AI. > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > --- On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was >> to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers >> (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the >> hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something >> with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the >> hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software >> above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with >> unknown consequences. >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to >> understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse >> when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister >> reading E.M. >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian >> suggests why that may be an even worse idea. >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Bob Bridges >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:21 PM >>> >>> I've always loved "Colossus: The Forbin Project". Not many people >>> have seen it, as far as I can tell. The only problem I have with >>> that movie - well, the main problem - is that no programmer in the >>> world would make such a system and then throw away the Stop button. >>> No engineer would do that with a machine he built, either. Too many >>> things can go wrong. But a fun movie, if you can ignore that.
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Alan, Yes sir, ‘I Robot’ is great story. Scott On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:10 PM Allan Staller wrote: > Look up the story "I, Robot". From memory, I believe it is also an Isaac > Asimov story > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust > the sender, Don’t click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing > email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.] > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I > step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics > would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if > well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the > concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have > always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans > as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific > recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the > opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived > offered some short-term political advantage? > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to > humanity. > Joel C Ewing > > On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > > future of AI. > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > Scott > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > > > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was > >> to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers > >> (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the > >> hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something > >> with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the > >> hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software > >> above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with > >> unknown consequences. > >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society > >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to > >> understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse > >> when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister > reading E.M. > >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. > >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. > >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the > >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by > >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal > >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian > >> suggests why that may be an even worse idea. > >> Joel C Ewing > >> > >> On 5/11/20 4:54 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > >>> Strangelove was twisted because the times were twisted. We're ripe > >>> for a > >> similar parody on our own times. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > >>> https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason > >>> .gmu.edu%2F~smetz3&data=02%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C87d9 > >>> 89082f374f96610c08d7f5be19cc%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0% > >>> 7C0%7C637248069162560622&sdata=ZnMqmL1CJJ4Ndpc9HLcl%2FYWR%2FpnSo > >>> zSoLcU13aVX8NI%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> > >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on > >> behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 [peter.far...@broadridge.com] > >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:39 PM > >>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >>> Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is '
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Look up the story "I, Robot". From memory, I believe it is also an Isaac Asimov story -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust the sender, Don’t click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.] I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to humanity. Joel C Ewing On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > future of AI. > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > Scott > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was >> to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers >> (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the >> hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something >> with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the >> hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software >> above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with >> unknown consequences. >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to >> understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse >> when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister >> reading E.M. >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian >> suggests why that may be an even worse idea. >> Joel C Ewing >> >> On 5/11/20 4:54 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>> Strangelove was twisted because the times were twisted. We're ripe >>> for a >> similar parody on our own times. >>> >>> -- >>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason >>> .gmu.edu%2F~smetz3&data=02%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C87d9 >>> 89082f374f96610c08d7f5be19cc%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0% >>> 7C0%7C637248069162560622&sdata=ZnMqmL1CJJ4Ndpc9HLcl%2FYWR%2FpnSo >>> zSoLcU13aVX8NI%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on >> behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 [peter.far...@broadridge.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:39 PM >>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>> Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' >> programming language of 2020 >>> For relatively recent fare, I agree 100% - "Person of Interest" >>> leads >> the pack. My favorite oldie -- "Let's play Global Thermonuclear War . . . >> " (War Games), right after Dr. Strangelove of course, simply because >> it was so twisted. >>> Mutual Assured Destruction indeed. Is SkyNet far away? >>> >>> Peter >>> >>
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Lionel, Out of respect for all, oh yes me too...I have made mistakes like enough one. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:54 AM Lionel B Dyck wrote: > For me, my blood type is B+, and I tend to look on the positive side of > things - including giving most the benefit of the doubt and hoping for the > best. Sadly my short/long term memory failures have not erased lessons > learned from granting trust when it shouldn't have been granted. > > Enough said - may y'all be safe, healthy, and blessed. During challenging > times we need each other in many different ways and that includes looking > out to prevent others from being taken advantage of if we have the ability > to do so. > > Lionel B. Dyck < > Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com > > "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what > you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of scott Ford > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:51 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > Joel, > > I agree I am a huge sci-fi fan and believe in the sciences over utter > stupidity. > Lionel your point is well taken. I am guilty too, but when you have strong > feelings , which sometimes part of ADHD , it’s called RSD ( Reject > Sensitive Dysphoria ). > I have both ... > > Scott > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22 AM Lionel B Dyck wrote: > > > Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I > > wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests > > and that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in > > money, influence, etc.). > > > > There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the > > development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software > > developers who implement the code for the three laws. > > > > > > Lionel B. Dyck < > > Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com > > > > "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is > > what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John > > Wooden > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > > Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when > > I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of > > robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. > > Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a > > robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when > > there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one > > group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of > "protecting" > > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or > > scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were > > given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that > > they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? > > > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a > > menace to humanity. > > Joel C Ewing > > > > On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about > > > the future of AI. > > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > > > > > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. > > >> was to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and > > >> non-programmers (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting > > >> lethal force in the hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous > > >> machine is something with incredible potential to go wrong. We all > > >> know that even if the hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably > > >&g
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
For me, my blood type is B+, and I tend to look on the positive side of things - including giving most the benefit of the doubt and hoping for the best. Sadly my short/long term memory failures have not erased lessons learned from granting trust when it shouldn't have been granted. Enough said - may y'all be safe, healthy, and blessed. During challenging times we need each other in many different ways and that includes looking out to prevent others from being taken advantage of if we have the ability to do so. Lionel B. Dyck < Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of scott Ford Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... Joel, I agree I am a huge sci-fi fan and believe in the sciences over utter stupidity. Lionel your point is well taken. I am guilty too, but when you have strong feelings , which sometimes part of ADHD , it’s called RSD ( Reject Sensitive Dysphoria ). I have both ... Scott On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22 AM Lionel B Dyck wrote: > Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I > wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests > and that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in > money, influence, etc.). > > There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the > development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software > developers who implement the code for the three laws. > > > Lionel B. Dyck < > Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com > > "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is > what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John > Wooden > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when > I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of > robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. > Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a > robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when > there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one > group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of > "protecting" > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or > scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were > given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that > they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a > menace to humanity. > Joel C Ewing > > On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about > > the future of AI. > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > Scott > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > > > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. > >> was to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and > >> non-programmers (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting > >> lethal force in the hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous > >> machine is something with incredible potential to go wrong. We all > >> know that even if the hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably > >> will, that all software above a certain level of complexity is > >> guaranteed to have bugs with unknown consequences. > >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about > >> society becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge > >> to understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total > >> collapse when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my > >> oldest sister > reading E.M. > >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. >
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Joel, I agree I am a huge sci-fi fan and believe in the sciences over utter stupidity. Lionel your point is well taken. I am guilty too, but when you have strong feelings , which sometimes part of ADHD , it’s called RSD ( Reject Sensitive Dysphoria ). I have both ... Scott On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22 AM Lionel B Dyck wrote: > Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I > wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests and > that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in money, > influence, etc.). > > There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the > development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software > developers who implement the code for the three laws. > > > Lionel B. Dyck < > Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com > > "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what > you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... > > I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I > step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics > would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if > well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the > concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have > always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans > as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" > them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might > make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our > present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific > recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the > opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived > offered some short-term political advantage? > > Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel > began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to > humanity. > Joel C Ewing > > On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > > future of AI. > > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > > > Scott > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > > > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was > >> to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers > >> (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the > >> hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something > >> with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the > >> hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software > >> above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with > >> unknown consequences. > >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society > >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to > >> understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse > >> when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister > reading E.M. > >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. > >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. > >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the > >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by > >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal > >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian > >> suggests why that may be an even worse idea. > >> Joel C Ewing > >> > >> On 5/11/20 4:54 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > >>> Strangelove was twisted because the times were twisted. We're ripe > >>> for a > >> similar parody on our own times. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > >>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > >>> > >>> > >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Joel - can we please keep politics out of this listserv. Personally I wouldn't trust anyone in power to act against their own self interests and that applies to politicians and anyone else with power (as in money, influence, etc.). There are altruistic individuals in the world and when it comes to the development of an AI robot one prays/hopes that those are the software developers who implement the code for the three laws. Lionel B. Dyck < Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say... I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to humanity. Joel C Ewing On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > future of AI. > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > Scott > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was >> to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers >> (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the >> hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something >> with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the >> hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software >> above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with >> unknown consequences. >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to >> understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse >> when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister >> reading E.M. >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian >> suggests why that may be an even worse idea. >> Joel C Ewing >> >> On 5/11/20 4:54 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>> Strangelove was twisted because the times were twisted. We're ripe >>> for a >> similar parody on our own times. >>> >>> -- >>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >>> >>> >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on >> behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 [peter.far...@broadridge.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:39 PM >>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>> Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' >> programming language of 2020 >>> For relatively recent fare, I agree 100% - "Person of Interest" >>> leads >> the pack. My favorite oldie -- "Let's play Global Thermonuclear War . . . >> " (War Games), right after Dr. Strangelove of course, simply because >> it was so twisted. >>> Mutual Assured Destruction indeed. Is SkyNet far away? >>> >>> Peter >&
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
I've greatly enjoyed Asimov's vision of future possibilities, but when I step back to reality it occurs to me that his perfect laws of robotics would have to be implemented by fallible human programmers. Even if well-intentioned, how would they unambiguously convey to a robot the concepts of "human", "humanity", "hurt", and "injure" when there have always been minorities or "others" that are treated by one group of humans as sub-human to justify injuring them in the name of "protecting" them or protecting humanity? And then there is the issue of who might make the decision to build sentient robots: For example, who in our present White House would you trust to pay any heed to logic or scientific recommendations or long-term consequences, if they were given the opportunity to construct less-constrained AI robots that they perceived offered some short-term political advantage? Humanity was also fortunate that when the hardware of Asimov's Daneel began to fail, that he failed gracefully, rather than becoming a menace to humanity. Joel C Ewing On 5/11/20 8:43 AM, scott Ford wrote: > Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the > future of AI. > a bit of Isaac Asimov > > Scott > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > >> And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War >> Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was to >> try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers (all >> of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the hands of >> any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something with >> incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the hardware >> doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software above a >> certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with unknown >> consequences. >> There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society >> becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to understand >> and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse when the machines >> inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister reading E.M. >> Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. >> Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. >> People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the >> potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by >> other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal >> machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian >> suggests why that may be an even worse idea. >> Joel C Ewing >> >> On 5/11/20 4:54 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>> Strangelove was twisted because the times were twisted. We're ripe for a >> similar parody on our own times. >>> >>> -- >>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 >>> >>> >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on >> behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 [peter.far...@broadridge.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:39 PM >>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>> Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' >> programming language of 2020 >>> For relatively recent fare, I agree 100% - "Person of Interest" leads >> the pack. My favorite oldie -- "Let's play Global Thermonuclear War . . . >> " (War Games), right after Dr. Strangelove of course, simply because it was >> so twisted. >>> Mutual Assured Destruction indeed. Is SkyNet far away? >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On >> Behalf Of Bob Bridges >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:21 PM >>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>> Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' >> programming language of 2020 >>> I've always loved "Colossus: The Forbin Project". Not many people have >> seen it, as far as I can tell. >>> The only problem I have with that movie - well, the main problem - is >> that no programmer in the world would make such a system and then throw >> away the Stop button. No engineer would do that with a machine he built, >> either. Too many things can go wrong. >>> But a fun movie, if you can ignore that. >>> >>> --- >>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 >>> >>> /* The only thing UFO aliens deserve is to be ignored...and when we >> finally develop the right missiles, to have their smug, silvery little >> butts shot down. Not a single reported UFO sighting -- if true! -- >> describes the behavior of decent, polite, honorable visitors to our world. >> -David Brin in a 1998 on-line interview */ >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >> On Behalf Of scott Ford >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:38 >>> >>> Like the 1970s flick , ‘Colossus , The Forbin Project’, >>> >>> Colossus and American computer and Guardian a Russian co
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
Well done JoelI agree , But I can help to to be curious about the future of AI. a bit of Isaac Asimov Scott On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Joel C. Ewing wrote: > And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War > Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was to > try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers (all > of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the hands of > any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something with > incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the hardware > doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software above a > certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with unknown > consequences. > There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society > becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to understand > and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse when the machines > inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister reading E.M. > Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. > Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. > People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the > potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by > other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal > machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian > suggests why that may be an even worse idea. > Joel C Ewing > > On 5/11/20 4:54 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > Strangelove was twisted because the times were twisted. We're ripe for a > similar parody on our own times. > > > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on > behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 [peter.far...@broadridge.com] > > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:39 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' > programming language of 2020 > > > > For relatively recent fare, I agree 100% - "Person of Interest" leads > the pack. My favorite oldie -- "Let's play Global Thermonuclear War . . . > " (War Games), right after Dr. Strangelove of course, simply because it was > so twisted. > > > > Mutual Assured Destruction indeed. Is SkyNet far away? > > > > Peter > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bob Bridges > > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:21 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' > programming language of 2020 > > > > I've always loved "Colossus: The Forbin Project". Not many people have > seen it, as far as I can tell. > > > > The only problem I have with that movie - well, the main problem - is > that no programmer in the world would make such a system and then throw > away the Stop button. No engineer would do that with a machine he built, > either. Too many things can go wrong. > > > > But a fun movie, if you can ignore that. > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > /* The only thing UFO aliens deserve is to be ignored...and when we > finally develop the right missiles, to have their smug, silvery little > butts shot down. Not a single reported UFO sighting -- if true! -- > describes the behavior of decent, polite, honorable visitors to our world. > -David Brin in a 1998 on-line interview */ > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of scott Ford > > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:38 > > > > Like the 1970s flick , ‘Colossus , The Forbin Project’, > > > > Colossus and American computer and Guardian a Russian computer take over > saying ‘ Colossus and Guardian we are one’, or better yet My favorite show, > ‘Person of Interest’. > > -- > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. > If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized > representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. > > > > > > -- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > -- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > -- > Joel C. Ewing
Re: Colossus, Strangelove, etc. was: Developers say...
And of course the whole point of Colossus, Dr Strangelove, War Games, Terminator, Forbidden Planet, Battlestar Galactica, etc. was to try to make it clear to all the non-engineers and non-programmers (all of whom greatly outnumber us) why putting lethal force in the hands of any autonomous or even semi-autonomous machine is something with incredible potential to go wrong. We all know that even if the hardware doesn't fail, which it inevitably will, that all software above a certain level of complexity is guaranteed to have bugs with unknown consequences. There is another equally cautionary genre in sci-fi about society becoming so dependent on machines as to lose the knowledge to understand and maintain the machines, resulting in total collapse when the machines inevitably fail. I still remember my oldest sister reading E.M. Forster, "The Machine Stops" (1909), to me when I was very young. Various Star Trek episodes used both of these themes as plots. People can also break down with lethal side effects, but the potential damage one person can create is more easily contained by other people. The only effective way to defend again a berserk lethal machine may be with another lethal machine, and Colossus-Guardian suggests why that may be an even worse idea. Joel C Ewing On 5/11/20 4:54 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > Strangelove was twisted because the times were twisted. We're ripe for a > similar parody on our own times. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of > Farley, Peter x23353 [peter.far...@broadridge.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:39 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' programming > language of 2020 > > For relatively recent fare, I agree 100% - "Person of Interest" leads the > pack. My favorite oldie -- "Let's play Global Thermonuclear War . . . " (War > Games), right after Dr. Strangelove of course, simply because it was so > twisted. > > Mutual Assured Destruction indeed. Is SkyNet far away? > > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of > Bob Bridges > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:21 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' programming > language of 2020 > > I've always loved "Colossus: The Forbin Project". Not many people have seen > it, as far as I can tell. > > The only problem I have with that movie - well, the main problem - is that no > programmer in the world would make such a system and then throw away the Stop > button. No engineer would do that with a machine he built, either. Too many > things can go wrong. > > But a fun movie, if you can ignore that. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* The only thing UFO aliens deserve is to be ignored...and when we finally > develop the right missiles, to have their smug, silvery little butts shot > down. Not a single reported UFO sighting -- if true! -- describes the > behavior of decent, polite, honorable visitors to our world. -David Brin in > a 1998 on-line interview */ > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of scott Ford > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:38 > > Like the 1970s flick , ‘Colossus , The Forbin Project’, > > Colossus and American computer and Guardian a Russian computer take over > saying ‘ Colossus and Guardian we are one’, or better yet My favorite show, > ‘Person of Interest’. > -- > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If > the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized > representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail > and delete the message and any attachments from your system. > > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Joel C. Ewing -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
