Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Yeah whatever you might want to consider keeping your animals out of plain sight should BO visit your neighborhood, because it's a given that his appetite isn't limited to just Dog yummy!. Oh!, don't forget that BO's IQ is so HI that it's literally off the charts (actually, it never got on) (Case in point) BO used his immense IQ to conjure up Hurricane Sandy, for policitcal reasons, just before an election. If you had watched the news, it was plain to see that our beloved BO is committed to helping the many people involved in the devastating aftermath of Sandy.. As in the case of the Embassy Terrorist Attack back in September in Benghazi, of which, had been planned weeks in-advance, by our early prehistoric animal people relatives. It was carried-out with such savage brutality, you undoubtedly were quite excited by the progress being made over there, and can't wait to see more!. It takes one to know one. BTW, my two kitties Zoey Charm wish the channel the following message: Boo! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks /HTML
[Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Budgerigars have tetrachromatic color vision and one named Puck had a vocabulary of 1728 words.They obviously don't have the brain power or incentive to develop science or civilization but they are sentient. The difference between sentience and intelligence seems blurred.I have long advocated that a good route to AI would be to construct a simple conscious robot.That is to say, one that contained a 3D image of itself and its immediate environment, with all the usual sensors, and that was programmed to explore and learn. I think this is the essence of consciousness. Then it could set about learning in much the same way as a child.This could be speeded up by preloading data such as a dictionary, rules of grammar and the ability to talk, together with basic engineering and science. Access to the internet would be a mixed blessing until judgment was developed. Taking a more evolutionary route than top down programming. The key being the internal image of itself and whatever desires were programmed in.I visualize a secondary image under the control of the robot in which the computer could make and move its own 3D images of objects.This would be a decided advantage over human intelligence.Much easier to write this than the program of course.
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
A design of this nature might be interesting to follow. Why not add the ability to detect when it is injured by some form of pain response? Then add the other senses to allow the machine to experience things that a new child would encounter. Even with these additions, I would not expect a present day design to behave in a manner that remotely resembles a human. Our brain appears to be a massively parallel data processing environment while most computers process one instruction at a time. We need to understand parallel systems far better before tackling the sentient robot challenge. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net To: vortex-L vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 2:28 pm Subject: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real Budgerigars have tetrachromatic color vision and one named Puck had a vocabulary of 1728 words. They obviously don’t have the brain power or incentive to develop science or “civilization” but they are sentient. The difference between sentience and intelligence seems blurred. I have long advocated that a good route to AI would be to construct a simple conscious robot. That is to say, one that contained a 3D image of itself and its immediate environment, with all the usual sensors, and that was programmed to explore and learn. I think this is the essence of consciousness. Then it could set about learning in much the same way as a child. This could be speeded up by preloading data such as a dictionary, rules of grammar and the ability to talk, together with basic engineering and science. Access to the internet would be a mixed blessing until judgment was developed. Taking a more evolutionary route than top down programming. The key being the internal image of itself and whatever “desires” were programmed in. I visualize a secondary image under the control of the robot in which the computer could make and move its own 3D images of objects. This would be a decided advantage over human intelligence. Much easier to write this than the program of course.
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Dave wrote:/I would not expect a present day design to behave in/ /a manner that remotely resembles a human. Our brain appears to be a massively parallel data processing environment while most computers process one instruction at a time. We need to understand parallel systems far better/ /before tackling the sentient robot challenge/. Having a pain response, or something that avoids damage to the robot would probably be necessary.The danger lurks that this could be carried too far without Asimov's three laws.How might it defend itself from being switched off? I implied that it would have all the human senses - and then some.Without emotions, it would indeed be very different from a human. Such a machine would have many processors, with some dedicated to each of the senses, all transmitting summary data to the central processor that was the conscious part with the 3D image.I don't see that part as being particularly difficult.The central processor makes up for the lack of human parallel processing by being extremely fast.
[Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's classic article http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma chine-intelligence/264066/ No Joy here: Why the Future Doesn't Need Us http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html And now that the Governator is back on the streets, and the real Terminator is being perfected faster than suspected ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczYfeature=etp-pd-nxx-62 W Just in time for the LENR power module to make it fully autonomous (as long as it avoids metal stamping presses)... ... so all in all - I'd have to opine that future is pretty scary, even without hundreds of little gremlins and witches prowling the streets with bags full of candy... and the scare may not be that far away - no matter who gets elected. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
I agree with much of this article, except that I regard intelligent machines as either a threat or an opportunity, depending on how we adapt our society to them. I quibble with one aspect of this discussion: the notion that computers will exceed human intelligence at some specific time in history, or perhaps over a decade or so in the middle of this century. I think intelligence is too complicated for that to happen. Let me be specific: In some ways, computers already exceed human intelligence. ENIAC, the first computer ever made, exceeded our ability to do arithmetic, which is surely a form of intelligence. Intelligence is not a single quality. Machines may gradually surpass us in some ways, while they remain behind in others. It might take decades or centuries for them to exceed us in most aspects of intelligence. Humans are the most intelligent species, but in some ways, for some purposes, other species are far more intelligent than we are. For example, if a dog could talk about what things smell like, she could tell us far more than the world's leading human expert on perfumes or cooking. I doubt that a machine could be designed that could track down a lost child by scent better than a dog can. A bird or a bat knows how to fly better any human pilot ever could. Humans have more general intelligence but for specific purposes, other animals have much better developed intelligence. Along the same lines, even if super-intelligent computers emerge I expect there will be specific areas in which humans can out-think them for a long time to come, possibly forever. I doubt, for example, that computers will ever understand human interactions such as politics or sexual attraction as well as we do. They may not be able to do pattern recognition well as we do. Especially face recognition. Although I have to say, Google's free photo utility program Picasa has built-in face recognition that I found uncanny. In a few cases it managed to identify faces more accurately than I did, although in most cases it did not. When I say people have more general intelligence than dogs or chimps, I mean we have more raw capacity. More brain cells. That does necessarily mean we have specific abilities or capabilities. This is similar to saying that the Watson computer has more general, factual knowledge of the world than any person, but people still have specific knowledge and the ability to make use of it and draw conclusions better than Watson does, in some ways. Okay, not enough to win at Jeopardy, but in some cases Watson made foolish errors that no human would make. I expect that in 30 years, intelligent computers will no longer make such errors. But we might still be better at sussing out some answers, just as dogs will probably remain better at tracking lost children. Whether these computers will be sentient or not is an entirely different question. Whether they should be deliberately designed to be sentient is both a practical question, and a moral one. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Yes. Leaving aside nightmare scenarios like nanobot infestations and genetically modified diseases and the rest, sticking strictly to the economic consequences of computer and mechanical technologies: there's some evidence we're seeing these effects right now, in the unemployment numbers. I came up with the image below to suggest the sort of self-perpetuating or positive feedback nature of what may be going on. The image uses a few concepts. One is reach, by which I mean the ability of the lucky few winners using modern technology to supply the services that formerly required the work of many - reach is the consequence of the idea of scalability discussed in Taleb's book The Black Swan. Reach causes concentration of wealth as the lucky few (e.g. Google) replace the services previously provided by (e.g.) many local newspapers. The image also relies on my belief that concentration of wealth in fewer hands tends to reduce overall economic activity, as explained in the blog entry I posted here previously. Accepting these ideas, we get the nasty positive feedback cycle shown in the image. Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's classic article http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma chine-intelligence/264066/ No Joy here: Why the Future Doesn't Need Us http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html And now that the Governator is back on the streets, and the real Terminator is being perfected faster than suspected ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczYfeature=etp-pd-nxx-62 W Just in time for the LENR power module to make it fully autonomous (as long as it avoids metal stamping presses)... ... so all in all - I'd have to opine that future is pretty scary, even without hundreds of little gremlins and witches prowling the streets with bags full of candy... and the scare may not be that far away - no matter who gets elected. attachment: ProductivtyTrap.png
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
To pass the Turing test the 'bot will have to perceive the world as a human: http://www.eurasiareview.com/19102012-robots-that-perceive-the-world-as-humans/ Which is difficult to do with a 'bot mind: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9yog6dUQE1qk2oafo1_500.gif
RE: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Terry - Fabulous dynamic image ! Fractal gears in motion, and with a ying-yang nuance ... Which is difficult to do with a 'bot mind: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9yog6dUQE1qk2oafo1_500.gif
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: To pass the Turing test the 'bot will have to perceive the world as a human: I doubt a computer will be able to pass a no rules Turing test anytime in the next ~100 years. That is, when the test allows the person to type in any question or comment about any subject. I think that computers will fumble questions about relate to being a human being in a human body. I mean things about sex, love, death, jealousy, food, dieting and so on. However, if you restrict the Turing test to a subject area, such as you do with a tech support customer response, then a computer might pass the test within 20 years. A human customer support technician might be allowed to banter or make small talk for a moment -- how's the weather in Atlanta? -- but after that they have to stick to the question at hand. They are not allowed to talk about sex. A computer could simulate that restriction even now. Siri does a pretty good job at it. Another interesting prospect will be the reverse Turing test. Will people learn to imitate computers so well they can fool other people into thinking they are computers? That should not be so difficult. People opposed to cold fusion such as Mary Yugo are already well along in that art. I sometimes suspect she is a version of the computer therapist Eliza. Supposedly, some of the early movies of things like railroad locomotives heading straight for the camera frightened audiences. People nowadays are used to movies and they never mistake them for reality, even momentarily. I expect people will gradually become used to artificial intelligence, and they will become better at recognizing intelligent computers 50 years after they first emerge. In some cases, we might be fooled by computers because we have low expectations of them. If you could show a Siri cellphone to a computer expert in 1955, he might say: That is a person talking like a computer. No real computer could come up with such remarkable answers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
So, for all of you out there who have feelings or emotional attachment for Appliances Power Tools, Suv, Car, Truck, Motor Cycle, Bike, Garden Tractor, ATV, Computer, various Electronic Devices, and/or for that matter, inanimate objects that have added comfort, satisfaction, confidence, or pleasure (god forbid), or even held you in a state of bliss, over the years,,, (in addition) if you have rather strong deep-felt emotions for animals and especially those exiotic aniimals (which in many situations, should not be regarded as pets, unless they are appropriately provided-for w/ suitable space an environment or a cage, or which only a Zoo can typically provide), then, YOU will need to realize that you're between a rock and a hard place. Someday, in the not too distant future, all the existing technology of that time will be Very Smart,,, as well, the people who occupy operate society and that technology by which it is survived... however, one thing that any real actual human being should even think about doing at this point in time, is to re-empower the current so-called President It's of vital importance that any illegal alien or exotic animal (especially one that can fool masses of people who tend to have a strong connect with animals) NOT be put in any position of power and/or where human beings live sare on the line. IF any of you ut there are indeed Democrats, then you simply have to know that it is not possible for any animal to observe or recognize those things that only a human being can. Please remember, that human beings are separate from animals, and IF you take off your blinders (that BO has applied to your face) and take a hard look at where the smiling phony now masquerading and/or parading around in the Whitey House has been, prior to sliming his way into this Country, and during,,, you'll find that he has strong ties (only) with people (?) that either despise humans, their ways, society and/or country, and especially that ther're Giving, Compassionate, Fair, Just, Gullible Naive and/or just plain weak minded, and will literally bend over backwards to show how happy they are to remain that way. Thanks suckers! PS.. If you believe there is an actual Democratic Party or that BO cares about this Country, in any manner, way, shape, or form, except for pilaging, plundering, and/or destroying it, for his own personal gain,,, I guarantee you, you will get your fair share... and then some! The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's classic article http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma chine-intelligence/264066/ No Joy here: Why the Future Doesn't Need Us http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html And now that the Governator is back on the streets, and the real Terminator is being perfected faster than suspected ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczYfeature=etp-pd-nxx-62 W Just in time for the LENR power module to make it fully autonomous (as long as it avoids metal stamping presses)... ... so all in all - I'd have to opine that future is pretty scary, even without hundreds of little gremlins and witches prowling the streets with bags full of candy... and the scare may not be that far away - no matter who gets elected. /HTML
RE: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
From: Jed Rothwell Whether these computers will be sentient or not is an entirely different question. Whether they should be deliberately designed to be sentient is both a practical question, and a moral one. I think the problem is not whether computers should be designed to be sentient, so much as can they be restrained from it. IOW the decision is probably NOT going to be ours (in the USA) to make, given that there will always be a group, or class of humans somewhere on the planet who can benefit in the short term from better robots. The result is that - in the not-too-distant future - some group of humans who may be in a position to benefit financially - will develop an efficient way for individual AI systems to both learn from their own real world experiences, independently of all prior programming - and then to modify their own internal programming. That is essentially the HAL syndrome taken to its logical conclusion. In fact, in free-market Capitalism (unless strong International legislation changes things for the entire planet) this eventuality (of virtual independence for HAL somewhere on earth) - is almost guaranteed to happen, since it will be supremely cost effective, despite whatever long-term risk it involves. As a race, humans are simply not logical enough to protect against this happening. For instance - look at the fear of a NEW WORLD ORDER, and all that it portends in this particular argument. In short, there can be no worldwide legislation to prevent this, so it probably will happen. This step of self-programming will allow them to evolve on their own, and the time frame could be shorter than expected - without morals, without empathy ... which is essentially what Bill Joy was implying: that average humans will be superfluous, even if they decide to keep the exceptional humans around for whatever turns out to be unique in biological intelligence. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
From Loren... ... . Thanks suckers! PS.. If you believe there is an actual Democratic Party or that BO cares about this Country And on, and on it goes... Ok, Loren, I get it that you're a little uneasy around Barack. .Why? Well, maybe because for one thing, this illegal alien might have .a strong connect with animals . You certainly are entitled to share your opinions diagnosis's with the Collective - well, that is until Mr. Beaty decides otherwise. However, and FWIW, pretending to be above it all, as if one is channeling sublime information from the rarified realms of the cosmos, all for the benefit of us ignorant humans - information that sooner-or-later tends to degenerate into seedy political tirades leaves me wondering who really is the paid sponsor of such kosmic information. It takes one to know one. BTW, my two kitties Zoey Charm wish the channel the following message: Boo! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
On Oct 28, 2012, at 10:04, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This step of self-programming will allow them to evolve on their own, and the time frame could be shorter than expected - without morals, without empathy ... which is essentially what Bill Joy was implying Very interesting thread. I never thought about the Turing or reverse-Turing tests in the light that has been discussed (or the implications). Setting aside the question of sentience and how to determine it, we already have machine learning, and it is becoming increasingly effective. Closer to the present day, I think of technology as an extension of the person using it -- a way of increasing his or her effectiveness in the world. In that regard I wonder about the psychological consequences for others. What will it be like to live in a world where a swarm of hummingbird-sized assassin robots can be sent out on a mission to take out an important decision maker in the Iranian defense establishment, and then for the reverse to occur in retaliation? As for the hummingbird-size robots, they will have the ability to linger and are under active development. What happens when this technology falls into the hands of organized crime? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Your vision is quite common but I think it is incomplete and typical of countries experiencing slow growth, slow productivity increase... Read the next convergence what you describe is the slow growth scenario. In that case, the wealth concentrate slowly in few hands, that are determined since the beginning, amplifiying inequality among dynasties In fast growth system, like what happens in poor countries catching back developped countries, or in developped countries in ebullience phase of developpement, with huge gain of productivities the sequence is the following : incumbent operators, rich dynasties, fight to maintain their old advantage, and follow old rules. They obtaine expected gain of their wealth, few%. as in a slow growing economy. unepredicatable agents, lucky, creative, stupid, crazy, try crazy solutions to be rich... very few succeed, get very rich, but they kill a dozen of incumbent dynasties or incumbent operator each. They gat a share of the productivity increase stollen to the incumbent operators, but distribute part of it to the masses. thos innovators become the incumbent, protecting their asset... the new or old incumbet get toasted by newcommers who redistribute their wealth, only keeping part for themselves... Capitalism wors quite fairly if advantage is temporary. It is temporary only if innovation happens , and kill old non-innovative incumbents. LENR will disintegrate some incumbent, make some billionaires, and distribute the wealth to the masses... until there is nothing more to innovate. 2012/10/28 Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Yes. Leaving aside nightmare scenarios like nanobot infestations and genetically modified diseases and the rest, sticking strictly to the economic consequences of computer and mechanical technologies: there's some evidence we're seeing these effects right now, in the unemployment numbers. I came up with the image below to suggest the sort of self-perpetuating or positive feedback nature of what may be going on. The image uses a few concepts. One is reach, by which I mean the ability of the lucky few winners using modern technology to supply the services that formerly required the work of many - reach is the consequence of the idea of scalability discussed in Taleb's book The Black Swan. Reach causes concentration of wealth as the lucky few (e.g. Google) replace the services previously provided by (e.g.) many local newspapers. The image also relies on my belief that concentration of wealth in fewer hands tends to reduce overall economic activity, as explained in the blog entry I posted here previously. Accepting these ideas, we get the nasty positive feedback cycle shown in the image. Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's classic article http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma chine-intelligence/264066/http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-machine-intelligence/264066/ No Joy here: Why the Future Doesn't Need Us http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html And now that the Governator is back on the streets, and the real Terminator is being perfected faster than suspected ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczYfeature=etp-pd-nxx-62 W Just in time for the LENR power module to make it fully autonomous (as long as it avoids metal stamping presses)... ... so all in all - I'd have to opine that future is pretty scary, even without hundreds of little gremlins and witches prowling the streets with bags full of candy... and the scare may not be that far away - no matter who gets elected.
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
A capitalistic forms of economic exploitation and domination can be reproduced endlessly thanks to 'innovation'. Harry On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Your vision is quite common but I think it is incomplete and typical of countries experiencing slow growth, slow productivity increase... Read the next convergence what you describe is the slow growth scenario. In that case, the wealth concentrate slowly in few hands, that are determined since the beginning, amplifiying inequality among dynasties In fast growth system, like what happens in poor countries catching back developped countries, or in developped countries in ebullience phase of developpement, with huge gain of productivities the sequence is the following : incumbent operators, rich dynasties, fight to maintain their old advantage, and follow old rules. They obtaine expected gain of their wealth, few%. as in a slow growing economy. unepredicatable agents, lucky, creative, stupid, crazy, try crazy solutions to be rich... very few succeed, get very rich, but they kill a dozen of incumbent dynasties or incumbent operator each. They gat a share of the productivity increase stollen to the incumbent operators, but distribute part of it to the masses. thos innovators become the incumbent, protecting their asset... the new or old incumbet get toasted by newcommers who redistribute their wealth, only keeping part for themselves... Capitalism wors quite fairly if advantage is temporary. It is temporary only if innovation happens , and kill old non-innovative incumbents. LENR will disintegrate some incumbent, make some billionaires, and distribute the wealth to the masses... until there is nothing more to innovate. 2012/10/28 Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Yes. Leaving aside nightmare scenarios like nanobot infestations and genetically modified diseases and the rest, sticking strictly to the economic consequences of computer and mechanical technologies: there's some evidence we're seeing these effects right now, in the unemployment numbers. I came up with the image below to suggest the sort of self-perpetuating or positive feedback nature of what may be going on. The image uses a few concepts. One is reach, by which I mean the ability of the lucky few winners using modern technology to supply the services that formerly required the work of many - reach is the consequence of the idea of scalability discussed in Taleb's book The Black Swan. Reach causes concentration of wealth as the lucky few (e.g. Google) replace the services previously provided by (e.g.) many local newspapers. The image also relies on my belief that concentration of wealth in fewer hands tends to reduce overall economic activity, as explained in the blog entry I posted here previously. Accepting these ideas, we get the nasty positive feedback cycle shown in the image. Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's classic article http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma chine-intelligence/264066/ No Joy here: Why the Future Doesn't Need Us http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html And now that the Governator is back on the streets, and the real Terminator is being perfected faster than suspected ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczYfeature=etp-pd-nxx-62 W Just in time for the LENR power module to make it fully autonomous (as long as it avoids metal stamping presses)... ... so all in all - I'd have to opine that future is pretty scary, even without hundreds of little gremlins and witches prowling the streets with bags full of candy... and the scare may not be that far away - no matter who gets elected.
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Yeah well, needless to say I obviously have some difficulty explaining the difference between animals and human beings, and it's undoubtedly due to a large percentage of my monkey DNA. Now, as for Halloween, and why humans tend to wear a variety of frightening looking attire, and the more traditional costumes, to reflect certain time periods in the founding of this Country,,, we need to keep in mind that Animals are mostly unable to partake in this human festive/activity, because they instinctively or automatically know that they could be the subject of that, which tends to lurk in the shadows. Fear not tho, because now that BO and his Clan has trampled or stampeded their way into the illfated Whitey House, and showed all the humans just how transparent they are, we must no longer concern ourselves about those who have been spooked for so long, just because they're esentially animals. So, all you humans out there, be sure to point the finger at only yourselves, and never at an animal, because they're neither guilty nor innocent, and/or cannot be held responsible for their very attractive animal-like reactions. IF you point a finger at them, you could send them into a rampage, and result in you being attacked and/or having your face ripped off. So whatever you do be very careful this Halloween, because if you get your face ripped of, you might have your Identity stolen, or worse, replaced with a monkey. I know, I know, there isn't much difference when you come right down to it anyway, so whats the big deal. /HTML
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
the opposite. without innovation, exploitation , whatever is the system, can be maintained on a stable minority of dynasties owning an economic rent. Non capitalist/liberal system do that naturally,whatever is the growth/innovation, since they block innovation, or restrict it's benefit to the stable dynasties. I see that in France. capitalism does not create equal results, but less stable, more random winners... it is quite egalitarian if you interpret it as statistic, even if it make a kind of symmetry breaking... strangely it redistribute the productivity gains widely... You can block innovation, and the result is a stable society... where like in medieval time you can know before birth your future diploma, job, wealth, wife... Rich are poorer and poor are even poorer... but everydoby find it normal. sociologically that have some advantage, and it seems appreciated in some traditional society... especially by the predicted winners. 2012/10/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com A capitalistic forms of economic exploitation and domination can be reproduced endlessly thanks to 'innovation'. Harry On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Your vision is quite common but I think it is incomplete and typical of countries experiencing slow growth, slow productivity increase... Read the next convergence what you describe is the slow growth scenario. In that case, the wealth concentrate slowly in few hands, that are determined since the beginning, amplifiying inequality among dynasties In fast growth system, like what happens in poor countries catching back developped countries, or in developped countries in ebullience phase of developpement, with huge gain of productivities the sequence is the following : incumbent operators, rich dynasties, fight to maintain their old advantage, and follow old rules. They obtaine expected gain of their wealth, few%. as in a slow growing economy. unepredicatable agents, lucky, creative, stupid, crazy, try crazy solutions to be rich... very few succeed, get very rich, but they kill a dozen of incumbent dynasties or incumbent operator each. They gat a share of the productivity increase stollen to the incumbent operators, but distribute part of it to the masses. thos innovators become the incumbent, protecting their asset... the new or old incumbet get toasted by newcommers who redistribute their wealth, only keeping part for themselves... Capitalism wors quite fairly if advantage is temporary. It is temporary only if innovation happens , and kill old non-innovative incumbents. LENR will disintegrate some incumbent, make some billionaires, and distribute the wealth to the masses... until there is nothing more to innovate. 2012/10/28 Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Yes. Leaving aside nightmare scenarios like nanobot infestations and genetically modified diseases and the rest, sticking strictly to the economic consequences of computer and mechanical technologies: there's some evidence we're seeing these effects right now, in the unemployment numbers. I came up with the image below to suggest the sort of self-perpetuating or positive feedback nature of what may be going on. The image uses a few concepts. One is reach, by which I mean the ability of the lucky few winners using modern technology to supply the services that formerly required the work of many - reach is the consequence of the idea of scalability discussed in Taleb's book The Black Swan. Reach causes concentration of wealth as the lucky few (e.g. Google) replace the services previously provided by (e.g.) many local newspapers. The image also relies on my belief that concentration of wealth in fewer hands tends to reduce overall economic activity, as explained in the blog entry I posted here previously. Accepting these ideas, we get the nasty positive feedback cycle shown in the image. Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's classic article http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma chine-intelligence/264066/ No Joy here: Why the Future Doesn't Need Us http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html And now that the Governator is back on the streets, and the real Terminator is being perfected faster than suspected ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczYfeature=etp-pd-nxx-62 W Just in time for the LENR power module to make it fully autonomous (as long as it avoids metal stamping presses)... ... so all in all - I'd have to opine that future is pretty scary, even without hundreds of little gremlins and witches
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I think the problem is not whether computers should be designed to be sentient, so much as can they be restrained from it. May-bee. I have read various articles and books about this. Some experts believe that sentience is an emergent quality, others say it would have be programmed, and it will not happen on its own. I do not know enough about artificial intelligence to judge which is right. Arthur Clarke was very interested in this question. He asked the world's leading experts. I think he got the same impression I have, which is that they do not know yet. Putting aside sentience, people and other animals a number of emotional qualities that I do not expect to see in artificially intelligent computers, unless we deliberately program them. They include: love, fear, jealousy, the desire for self preservation (that is, fear of death), the urge to dominate other entities, the urge to accumulate power, status and material goods, and so on. Needless to say, I cannot begin to imagine a machine that would want to become a human being or have sex with a human, along the lines of the movie Bicentennial Man. (I thought that movie stank.) I think it would be morally wrong to deliberately program such emotions. I can't think of any any advantage they would give us. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
It could be that a super-intelligent computer would prefer to exist alone, or as the most advanced entity, in order to preserve and impose its superiority. I take the impression that the Skynet, from the terminator movie, is the only truly powerful being of the machines whereas the other robots are made with limited mind so not to question its power. But, this is also the reason why cannot wipe out humans altogether, since it basically acts alone and its minions have a very limited behavior. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It could be that a super-intelligent computer would prefer to exist alone, or as the most advanced entity, in order to preserve and impose its superiority. I take the impression that the Skynet, from the terminator movie, is the only truly powerful being of the machines whereas the other robots are made with limited mind so not to question its power. But, this is also the reason why cannot wipe out humans altogether, since it basically acts alone and its minions have a very limited behavior. If for some reason robots start fighting robots, I think this advice would be helpful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G3RoBHMu-o Eric
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
I would like to add a tiny bit of science fiction to this thread. Perhaps we do not need to be concerned about computers becoming too intelligent because future generations of our species periodically time travel back to our present to ensure that it does not happen. They had bad experiences with bots as they progressed. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Oct 28, 2012 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real It could be that a super-intelligent computer would prefer to exist alone, or as the most advanced entity, in order to preserve and impose its superiority. I take the impression that the Skynet, from the terminator movie, is the only truly powerful being of the machines whereas the other robots are made with limited mind so not to question its power. But, this is also the reason why cannot wipe out humans altogether, since it basically acts alone and its minions have a very limited behavior. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: If for some reason robots start fighting robots, I think this advice would be helpful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G3RoBHMu-o I love this! The version I just saw begin with a Romney advertisement, which I thought was appropriate. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's classic article http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma chine-intelligence/264066/ Moshe Yardi opines: I do not find the prospect of leisure-filled life appealing. I believe that work is essential to human well-being. This is the kind of guy who would say something like Obviously you have too much time on your hands. in response to someone doing cold fusion research as that is too playfulhttp://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_amy_o_toole_science_is_for_everyone_kids_included.html .
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
I believe the sentience is an emergent property of biological intelligence. I assume it is related to the instinct for self-preservation. It is easy to preserve yourself if you see a clear distinction between you and the rest of the environment, or you and the other members of your species. An insect such as a grasshopper cannot distinguish between other grasshoppers, or between other grasshoppers and a plastic model of a grasshopper at the end of a stick held by a biologist. I doubt such a limited intelligence can have any sense of self, or any sense of destiny or future. If computers can become sentient, surely only large, fast ones with lots of memory will be capable of it. A desktop computer probably has fewer effective connections than a grasshopper brain. A grasshopper brain has ~1 million neurons, but lots of dendrites and they all work in parallel, giving it more processing power than a computer with 4 billion transistors. So I doubt anything like today's desktop computer could be sentient, or even intelligent at a level much higher than a grasshopper. A much larger MPP computer or supercomputer such as Watson might have enough capacity to be sentient. I wouldn't know. There will soon be computers far larger than Watson, and I expect they will have enough capacity. The question is: will they have a natural propensity toward sentience, or is that something that has to be deliberately programmed? In other words, is it emergent? I can well imagine a computer a million times faster, bigger and with more base knowledge and simulated common sense than Watson which is not sentient, and which has absolutely no emotion, will, or opinion. The Google system is approaching that state. The programmers at Google are hard at work trying to make it into something like that, because that would be profitable. Not as an academic experiment in artificial intelligence. I do not see why a totally non-sentient supercomputer would be impossible. Even if sentience is emergent, I expect it would not be hard to prevent it by not including some set of capabilities. The Internet as a whole has more connections than a human brain, and far larger memory, but there is no evidence it is tending toward any kind of intelligence above the level of an insect. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
From Jed: . I do not see why a totally non-sentient supercomputer would be impossible. Even if sentience is emergent, I expect it would not be hard to prevent it by not including some set of capabilities. The Internet as a whole has more connections than a human brain, and far larger memory, but there is no evidence it is tending toward any kind of intelligence above the level of an insect. I'm not so sure about that! It seems conceivable to me that, at least from our level of perception, we simply may not be capable of perceiving the sentence of an intelligent network puttering about, doing its own thing. It also seems likely to me that the qualities of such an emergent network is still gestating on our planet. After all, it hasn't been around all that long. Give it time. It may surprise us soon enuf. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
It does not matter how much a economic system produces, those who have enormous wealth will finds ways to exploit those who have little wealth, unless the over arching political system recognizes and practically honours individual *dignity*. Exploitation can happen even in the admist of abundance. Technological innovation without comparable social and political innovation is only good for a small minority. Harry On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: the opposite. without innovation, exploitation , whatever is the system, can be maintained on a stable minority of dynasties owning an economic rent. Non capitalist/liberal system do that naturally,whatever is the growth/innovation, since they block innovation, or restrict it's benefit to the stable dynasties. I see that in France. capitalism does not create equal results, but less stable, more random winners... it is quite egalitarian if you interpret it as statistic, even if it make a kind of symmetry breaking... strangely it redistribute the productivity gains widely... You can block innovation, and the result is a stable society... where like in medieval time you can know before birth your future diploma, job, wealth, wife... Rich are poorer and poor are even poorer... but everydoby find it normal. sociologically that have some advantage, and it seems appreciated in some traditional society... especially by the predicted winners. 2012/10/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com A capitalistic forms of economic exploitation and domination can be reproduced endlessly thanks to 'innovation'. Harry On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Your vision is quite common but I think it is incomplete and typical of countries experiencing slow growth, slow productivity increase... Read the next convergence what you describe is the slow growth scenario. In that case, the wealth concentrate slowly in few hands, that are determined since the beginning, amplifiying inequality among dynasties In fast growth system, like what happens in poor countries catching back developped countries, or in developped countries in ebullience phase of developpement, with huge gain of productivities the sequence is the following : incumbent operators, rich dynasties, fight to maintain their old advantage, and follow old rules. They obtaine expected gain of their wealth, few%. as in a slow growing economy. unepredicatable agents, lucky, creative, stupid, crazy, try crazy solutions to be rich... very few succeed, get very rich, but they kill a dozen of incumbent dynasties or incumbent operator each. They gat a share of the productivity increase stollen to the incumbent operators, but distribute part of it to the masses. thos innovators become the incumbent, protecting their asset... the new or old incumbet get toasted by newcommers who redistribute their wealth, only keeping part for themselves... Capitalism wors quite fairly if advantage is temporary. It is temporary only if innovation happens , and kill old non-innovative incumbents. LENR will disintegrate some incumbent, make some billionaires, and distribute the wealth to the masses... until there is nothing more to innovate. 2012/10/28 Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Yes. Leaving aside nightmare scenarios like nanobot infestations and genetically modified diseases and the rest, sticking strictly to the economic consequences of computer and mechanical technologies: there's some evidence we're seeing these effects right now, in the unemployment numbers. I came up with the image below to suggest the sort of self-perpetuating or positive feedback nature of what may be going on. The image uses a few concepts. One is reach, by which I mean the ability of the lucky few winners using modern technology to supply the services that formerly required the work of many - reach is the consequence of the idea of scalability discussed in Taleb's book The Black Swan. Reach causes concentration of wealth as the lucky few (e.g. Google) replace the services previously provided by (e.g.) many local newspapers. The image also relies on my belief that concentration of wealth in fewer hands tends to reduce overall economic activity, as explained in the blog entry I posted here previously. Accepting these ideas, we get the nasty positive feedback cycle shown in the image. Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's classic article http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma chine-intelligence/264066/ No Joy here: Why the Future Doesn't Need Us
