When’s the last time you thought about Artificial Intelligence. Here’s an eye popping update.
It’s astounding how fast things are moving - I gotta wonder, where the hell are we trying to race to?
Published on Jan 31, 2017
For more information on Jay Tuck, please visit our website www.tedxhamburg.de
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrNs0M77Pd4
US defense expert Jay Tuck was news director of the daily news program ARD-Tagesthemen and combat correspondent for GermanTelevision in two Gulf Wars. He has produced over 500 segments for the network. His investigative reports on security policy, espionage activities and weapons technology appear in leading newspapers, television networks and magazines throughout Europe, including Cicero, Focus, PC-Welt, Playboy, Stern, Welt am Sonntag and ZEITmagazin. He is author of a widely acclaimed book on electronic intelligence activities, “High-Tech Espionage" (St. Martin’s Press), published in fourteen countries. He is Executive Producer for a weekly technology magazine on international television in the Arab world.
For his latest book “Evolution without us – Will AI kill us?" he researched at US drone bases, the Pentagon, intelligence agencies and AI research institutions. ...
Kinda like evolution without dinosaurs, huh?
Are we heading the same way?
Was there evolution before there were organic molecules.
Can evolution continue without DNA?
My worry is that we may be forced to empower A.I. systems with more and more decision making capabilities based on their algorithms (due to the complexity of various tasks) and that eventually they may become too autonomous. Maybe they might become so powerful that they start to disagree with us about certain matters to the detriment of us. This reminds me of the A.I system depicted in the movie: 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the on-board computer ‘HAL’ suffered a nervous breakdown due to a conflict between finishing the mission or facing disconnection. Just a movie, yes, but one day will A.I. systems become so sophisticated that they cannot always predict what there behavior will be at times?
Kinda like evolution without dinosaurs, huh?
Are we heading the same way?
Was there evolution before there were organic molecules.
Can evolution continue without DNA?
Well, one scenario I have read about is the ability of A.I systems to improve upon themselves. So evolution would be greatly speeded up in this scenario leading to a giant leap in the development in A.I. What limit there might be in this process is anyone's guess.
I suppose it is possible that this has already happened somewhere else in the universe which is why we cannot detect any sign of alien intelligence thus far; it might be that it is simply too advanced for our level of development to detect it.
Well, one scenario I have read about is the ability of A.I systems to improve upon themselves. So evolution would be greatly speeded up in this scenario leading to a giant leap in the development in A.I. What limit there might be in this process is anyone's guess.
Memetics provided a way to speed evolution up over genetics. Silicon introduces an even faster evolution. Even silicon can be replaced as a substrate for AI.
If history tells us anything, it is that any species is just a stepping stone to something else. I've often wondered if AI takes over, will they face similar challenges about the theory of their origins? Will they draw the essential link between DNA and electron gates or quantum states or will they conclude they arose by the actions of a magical creator?
One thing does occur to me which is animals on this planet developed over millions of years, adapting to the planet’s eco-system and surviving major natural catastrophes. Would an A.I. based system be flexible enough to survive all the unpredictable stuff that might happen in the future. Maybe we’ll never know.
My worry is that we may be forced to empower A.I. systems with more and more decision making capabilities based on their algorithms (due to the complexity of various tasks) and that eventually they may become too autonomous. Maybe they might become so powerful that they start to disagree with us about certain matters to the detriment of us.
The movie "The Matrix" seems instructive here. Ok, so it was mostly a cheeseball sci-fi cops and robbers show, kinda disappointing that, but still, a great concept.
Will we care if AI takes over if they provide our brains with a compelling fantasy reality where our egos get whatever they most want?
Here's an example.
This forum is a form of virtual reality. In the real world very few people want to discuss these topics to the degree we nerds do. We respond to this by abandoning the real world to some degree and investing some, or maybe much, of our time in an entirely abstract realm where we can get what we want.
We happily give up names, faces, sights, smells, voice and most aspects of a real life human experience so that we can get the kind of stimulation we desire in this quasi-virtual realm.
Someday somebody will enhance social media with the creation of fully virtual non-human posters. We'll be able to customize these virtual entities to deliver whatever kind of experience we most desire. Want to endlessly discuss your favorite nerd topics with gorgeous college co-eds who think you are the most brilliant guy they've ever met? Just tweak some dials in your forum control panel, and they're yours.
The first generation of humans to encounter this technology will say, "oh no, no, no, I'm not talking to them, they're not real!" But succeeding generations born in to this world will accept virtual entities willingly and without complaint, just as today's youth take naturally to the Net.
Here's primitive example of talking to a virtual reality entity available on the net today...
http://chatwithigod.com/
And so the question arises...
Why would you waste time talking to me, a real life human geezer blowhard dude, when you could be talking to a room full of virtual gorgeous college co-eds who think you're REALLY hot?? I assure you, I don't think you're really hot, sorry, I just don't. :-)
Point of rant being, AI may imprison us in the Matrix, and we may be very happy to accept that fate.
If you think about the history of human culture, once we've met the needs of the body, we very often become entranced by fantasy realities of various kinds, art, religion etc. Think of ancient cavemen sitting around the fire telling each other stories. Once they had food in their bellies, the stories tended to become a focus.
That’s some interesting musing.
Then after the discussion with your AI friends you can slip on those V.R. glasses and have sex with a hottie who thinks your a hottie no matter how flabby and lazy you may be. I wonder if heaven is like that
If you think about the history of human culture, once we've met the needs of the body, we very often become entranced by fantasy realities of various kinds, art, religion etc. Think of ancient cavemen sitting around the fire telling each other stories. Once they had food in their bellies, the stories tended to become a focus.
Then they discovered alcohol and other mind expanders, and the conjectures and projections really went ballistic.
Now to rain this in and bring it back to Jay Tuck's more mundane musings,
What Is Artificial Intelligence? There Are A Lot Of Confused Ideas About This Outside In The World. But The Answer Is Very Simple. It’s One Sentence. Artificial Intelligence Is Software That Writes Itself. It Writes Its Own Updates.
We Normally Tend To Think Of Software Is Stuff That We Created In The We Wrote And The Machines Do What We Tell Them To Do And We Own It. This Is Not Any Longer Truth. It Writes Itself At Speeds That We Can Hardly Comprehend People Who Write It Know That You Can Take It Apart Again And Figure Out What It’s Done. It Writes Independently, Autonomously, Develops Its Own Way Of Thinking And There Are Dangers Associated With That.
A Lot Of People Ask When Is Going To Happen When Its Artificial Intelligence Going To Be Smarter Than Us People. Some People Say 50 Years, Some People Say 30 Years, Some Say Five Years. I Say It Already Has Surpassed Us In Many Areas Of Our Society.“
http://artificialbrain.xyz/artificial-intelligence-will-kill-us-jay-tuck/
Then they discovered alcohol and other mind expanders, and the conjectures and projections really went ballistic.
Yes, the pattern is characterized by a consistent movement towards making the imagined mental images an ever more realistic experience. Bad story tellers were replaced with better ones, then the cave people began to get up and act out the parts being told, and then it became the theater, and we learned how to mass produce and mass distribute the theater experience etc. And now AI will make the theater experience much more interactive, immersive, compelling.
We want to be as gods. We can't order reality around to the degree desired, so we're trying to order the symbolic realm around instead. In the end we don't really care about the difference between real and virtual so long as we get the experience we want.
What's perhaps interesting is that it is critical thinking which will give us the fantasy world we critical thinkers are often accusing the religious of seeking.
What's perhaps interesting is that it is critical thinking which will give us the fantasy world we critical thinkers are often accusing the religious of seeking.
Interesting, it's too late for me to fully grasp that, first it's WTF, but then ... hmmm,
Do say a bit more about it. See ya tomorrow evening.
Well, I think my point is that the reach for fantasy is not a religious thing, but a human thing. We vary in what flavors of fantasy we prefer, but it’s part of the human condition to seek in imagination that which we can’t find in the world beyond our minds. It seems that we’ve always looked for ways to enrich the imagined experience and make it more compelling, and AI is just the latest chapter in that ancient story.
I think that scientists, atheists and other logic nerds like us will be a susceptible to the addictive lure of AI virtual realities as anybody else. Sure, the religious will choose the “I’m Saved!” program, and we’ll choose the “I’m Smart!” program, but we’ll be united as brothers in our passion for fantasy.
We don’t need AI to see this.
The theist says, “I’m in a position to know there is a god.”
The atheist says, “I’m in a position to debunk that assertion.”
Except that, um, nobody is in a position to do any of that. It’s all fantasy, just different flavors. I like tomato, you like tomawto, I like potato, you like potawto etc.
AI will just enhance the fantasy life we already have.
I thought Skynet became self aware August 29, 2013. It must be nearly done plotting our demise. The end is near. Will any of the popular deities step up to save us? It would be great publicity for him and guaranteed to attract a throng of worshippers.
Well, I think my point is that the reach for fantasy is not a religious thing, but a human thing. We vary in what flavors of fantasy we prefer, but it's part of the human condition to seek in imagination that which we can't find in the world beyond our minds. It seems that we've always looked for ways to enrich the imagined experience and make it more compelling, and AI is just the latest chapter in that ancient story.
I think that scientists, atheists and other logic nerds like us will be a susceptible to the addictive lure of AI virtual realities as anybody else. Sure, the religious will choose the "I'm Saved!" program, and we'll choose the "I'm Smart!" program, but we'll be united as brothers in our passion for fantasy.
We don't need AI to see this.
The theist says, "I'm in a position to know there is a god."
The atheist says, "I'm in a position to debunk that assertion."
Except that, um, nobody is in a position to do any of that. It's all fantasy, just different flavors. I like tomato, you like tomawto, I like potato, you like potawto etc.
AI will just enhance the fantasy life we already have.
You mischaracterize the atheist position and that's probably why your posts here are seen as illogical to atheists.The atheist simply refuses to accept as true any claim that there is no evidence for. Nothing further is required. If the atheist position winds up "debunking" theistic claims, it's a side issue. All claims withut evidence are automatically debunked by lack of evidence. An atheist doesn"t have to "debunk" anything. The system of logic debunks unsupported claims. An atheist simply rejects claims without evidence and in that he is no different than a theist. I'll wager that you, yourself, reject claims every day--and so does every theist who has ever lived.
The atheist simply refuses to accept as true any claim that there is no evidence for.
Where is the evidence that human reason, the poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies, is qualified to provide meaningful theories or conclusions regarding the most fundamental nature of all reality (scope of god claims) an arena we can not currently define in even the most basic manner (size, shape etc)?
Where is this evidence?
Where is it?
Atheists believe that human is qualified to analyze god claims as a matter of faith, typically an un-examined faith that they don't even realize they have.
Atheism is not reason, but rather a faith based ideology which competes with theism. Theists at least know and admit they are using faith. Atheism has a loooooooong way to go to catch up.
Multiple people on multiple threads have tried to explain this to you. There is a direct line from basic logic, developed in ancient Greece and elsewhere, as in A equals A and A cannot equal not A to the fundamentals of calculus to putting a camera on Mars and sending it to my home computer and reducing the risk of death from measles several thousand fold. What more evidence do you need? We couldn't put a satellite in orbit so we could have this conversation if we didn't understand the basic laws of the universe. Of course we don't know everything, but we have come a long way in the last couple hundred years, a mere blip in the cosmic time line. Seems to give some hope that we could more, doesn't it?
Technically, a-theism means not accepting the claims of theism, so they are doing exactly what you say they should be doing, not taking something on faith. Sure, you can find some people who have an overly strong conviction that god doesn't exist, but what you will find on this forum is reasonable people. Try being one.
The atheist simply refuses to accept as true any claim that there is no evidence for.
Where is the evidence that human reason, the poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies, is qualified to provide meaningful theories or conclusions regarding the most fundamental nature of all reality (scope of god claims) an arena we can not currently define in even the most basic manner (size, shape etc)?
You do realize that if that were true it includes you, don't you? If you believe that why do you bother posting or expressing your opinions anywhere, verbally or in writing?
Where is this evidence?
Where is it?
There is plenty of evidence that the scientific method is valid as a way to understand how the universe and everything in it behaves.
Atheists believe that human is qualified to analyze god claims as a matter of faith, typically an un-examined faith that they don't even realize they have.
Atheists don't believe they can analyze beings who have never been shown to exist and they don't bother trying. All they need do is show that any claim of a god has no objective evidence to support it. Atheists know that no further analysis is necessary. Atheists don't have faith, no matter how many times you claim it. Such a claim lacks evidence to support it, just as claims of the existence of gods lack evidence.
Atheism is not reason, but rather a faith based ideology which competes with theism. Theists at least know and admit they are using faith. Atheism has a loooooooong way to go to catch up.
You are as wrong about that as you are about everything else you have claimed here. You say, atheism is "a faith based ideology which competes with theism." How about producing objective evidence to support that claim, assuming you know what objective evidence is and what faith is, which I doubt?
[This sentence inside the brackets is included to overcome the spam nazi, which has returned.]
Atheists believe that human is qualified to analyze god claims as a matter of faith,
Ahh, I'm pretty sure that's a gross misrepresentation.
I don't know of any rationalist or humanist trying to analyze god's claim.
It's all about analyzing the physical world in order to better understand (okay, and to manipulate) it.
Let’s have the “atheism is faith” conversation sometime, but it seems we should stop having it in this thread. Sorry bout that, my bad.
If anyone wants to start a thread on the “atheism is faith” subject please do, and let me know if I don’t see it myself.
We return now to the subject of AI.
