Washington needs to adopt AI soon or we will lose millions
2018 Jun 12, 12:41pm 2,677 views 17 comments
http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2018/06/12/rep-will-hurd-artificial-intelligence
« First « Previous Comments 10 - 17 of 17 Search these comments
10
CBOEtrader
2019 Mar 4, 2:53am
CBOEtrader
2019 Mar 4, 2:53am
Quigley says
AI doesnt think. It computes. AI will always require a human to define variables.
An augmented, cyborg-humanity is our future. A star trek-like Borg w HRC's grandchild at the controls is our future, if we can't stop the group-think technocrat tyrannists from controlling us all.
AI is the future, assuming they ever get it to work properly. It also might spell the doom of humanity. All depends on how the singularity goes!
AI doesnt think. It computes. AI will always require a human to define variables.
An augmented, cyborg-humanity is our future. A star trek-like Borg w HRC's grandchild at the controls is our future, if we can't stop the group-think technocrat tyrannists from controlling us all.
11
anonymous
2019 Mar 4, 2:58am
The Unbearable Conundrum of AI Consciousness - Will machines one day become self-aware?
Machine learning is an application of artificial intelligence (AI) where computers can learn without being explicitly programmed. Technology is advancing towards artificial general intelligence (AGI), where machine intelligence is able to do any intellectual endeavor that a human is able to perform. This trend is fueled by the rising ubiquity of cloud computing, which enables greater computing power, the increasing sophistication of algorithms, the falling costs of data storage and acquisition, and the increasing general availability of data. Futurist Ray Kurzweil, Director of Engineering at Google, predicts that by 2029 computers will have human-level intelligence [1]. Since the 1990s Kurzweil has made 147 future predictions with 86 percent accuracy [2]. If a computer is able to learn over time, and eventually becomes cognitively as powerful as humans, can it learn to be aware of itself?
In humans, self-awareness is developed during early childhood. Reflective self-awareness, when children are able to match their movements with reflections in a mirror, generally starts around the ages of 15-18 months and becomes a trait of a typically developing child by the age of 24-26 months [3]. The same does not necessarily hold true for animals.
In 1970, psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. devised a method to test if animals could recognize themselves in mirrors with inconclusive results [4]. A few species, such as Asian elephants, orangutans and chimpanzees passed, but only inconsistently [5]. Bottlenose dolphins, killer whales and two captive manta rays passed, but those results are subject to interpretation [6]. Most animals are not self-aware and would not be able to recognize their own reflections in the mirror [7]. In 2008, two European magpies passed the mirror test (administered by Helmut Prior from Goethe University), but not other corvids [8]. There are myriad possible reasons for the mixed results of the animal mirror test. More studies are necessary to reach a conclusive answer.
It goes without saying that inanimate objects such as a rock and toaster are not self-aware, lacking both a brain and sensory input. But can a computer robot outfitted with sensory input capabilities similar to human vision, hearing, touch, taste, and smell be able to recognize itself in a mirror?
Technically, the answer is yes. The robot’s computer brain could be programmed in such a way that if the reflection in the mirror meets a defined sensory input criteria, then a variable “self” is established. The unique identifier could be as simple as a barcode or as sophisticated as a combination of unique physical characteristics similar to the human thumbprint, face, and body. But recognition of a programmed “self” doesn’t make a robot self-aware in the same sense as a human, and hard-coding variables in a computer program is not machine-learning.
Let’s examine the example of a robot with machine-learning capabilities that is also outfitted with sensory input capabilities, and has been given enough training and data to identify a robot, but has not been explicitly programmed to recognize itself. Now set it in front of a mirror. If the robot commands itself to raise its arm in front of the mirror, and it sees the expected movement, would the robot eventually develop a sense that the arm it sees in the reflection is its own and not that of a different robot mimicking its moves? Through learning and experience via multiple iterations of trial and error, can a machine eventually develop a sense of self and become aware?
“Cogito ergo sum” is a Latin philosophical dictum by the French mathematician, scientist, and philosopher of metaphysics, René Descartes (1596-1650) that means “I think, therefore I am” [8]. Descartes, generally known as the father of modern philosophy, studied the fundamental nature of reality and existence itself [9]. He defines thoughts in terms of consciousness [10]. If artificial general intelligence is achieved, and the cognitive capabilities of a machine become indistinguishable from that of a human, technological singularity may reshape the very definition of what it means to be conscious and to exist, forever altering the course of humanity
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-future-brain/201801/the-unbearable-conundrum-ai-consciousness
Machine learning is an application of artificial intelligence (AI) where computers can learn without being explicitly programmed. Technology is advancing towards artificial general intelligence (AGI), where machine intelligence is able to do any intellectual endeavor that a human is able to perform. This trend is fueled by the rising ubiquity of cloud computing, which enables greater computing power, the increasing sophistication of algorithms, the falling costs of data storage and acquisition, and the increasing general availability of data. Futurist Ray Kurzweil, Director of Engineering at Google, predicts that by 2029 computers will have human-level intelligence [1]. Since the 1990s Kurzweil has made 147 future predictions with 86 percent accuracy [2]. If a computer is able to learn over time, and eventually becomes cognitively as powerful as humans, can it learn to be aware of itself?
In humans, self-awareness is developed during early childhood. Reflective self-awareness, when children are able to match their movements with reflections in a mirror, generally starts around the ages of 15-18 months and becomes a trait of a typically developing child by the age of 24-26 months [3]. The same does not necessarily hold true for animals.
In 1970, psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. devised a method to test if animals could recognize themselves in mirrors with inconclusive results [4]. A few species, such as Asian elephants, orangutans and chimpanzees passed, but only inconsistently [5]. Bottlenose dolphins, killer whales and two captive manta rays passed, but those results are subject to interpretation [6]. Most animals are not self-aware and would not be able to recognize their own reflections in the mirror [7]. In 2008, two European magpies passed the mirror test (administered by Helmut Prior from Goethe University), but not other corvids [8]. There are myriad possible reasons for the mixed results of the animal mirror test. More studies are necessary to reach a conclusive answer.
It goes without saying that inanimate objects such as a rock and toaster are not self-aware, lacking both a brain and sensory input. But can a computer robot outfitted with sensory input capabilities similar to human vision, hearing, touch, taste, and smell be able to recognize itself in a mirror?
Technically, the answer is yes. The robot’s computer brain could be programmed in such a way that if the reflection in the mirror meets a defined sensory input criteria, then a variable “self” is established. The unique identifier could be as simple as a barcode or as sophisticated as a combination of unique physical characteristics similar to the human thumbprint, face, and body. But recognition of a programmed “self” doesn’t make a robot self-aware in the same sense as a human, and hard-coding variables in a computer program is not machine-learning.
Let’s examine the example of a robot with machine-learning capabilities that is also outfitted with sensory input capabilities, and has been given enough training and data to identify a robot, but has not been explicitly programmed to recognize itself. Now set it in front of a mirror. If the robot commands itself to raise its arm in front of the mirror, and it sees the expected movement, would the robot eventually develop a sense that the arm it sees in the reflection is its own and not that of a different robot mimicking its moves? Through learning and experience via multiple iterations of trial and error, can a machine eventually develop a sense of self and become aware?
“Cogito ergo sum” is a Latin philosophical dictum by the French mathematician, scientist, and philosopher of metaphysics, René Descartes (1596-1650) that means “I think, therefore I am” [8]. Descartes, generally known as the father of modern philosophy, studied the fundamental nature of reality and existence itself [9]. He defines thoughts in terms of consciousness [10]. If artificial general intelligence is achieved, and the cognitive capabilities of a machine become indistinguishable from that of a human, technological singularity may reshape the very definition of what it means to be conscious and to exist, forever altering the course of humanity
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-future-brain/201801/the-unbearable-conundrum-ai-consciousness
12
anonymous
2019 Mar 4, 3:02am
Intelligent Robots Will Overtake Humans by 2100
Are you prepared to meet your robot overlords?
The idea of superintelligent machines may sound like the plot of "The Terminator" or "The Matrix," but many experts say the idea isn't far-fetched. Some even think the singularity — the point at which artificial intelligence can match, and then overtake, human smarts — might happen in just 16 years.
But nearly every computer scientist will have a different prediction for when and how the singularity will happen.
Some believe in a utopian future, in which humans can transcend their physical limitations with the aid of machines. But others think humans will eventually relinquish most of their abilities and gradually become absorbed into artificial intelligence (AI)-based organisms, much like the energy making machinery in our own cells. [5 Reasons to Fear Robots]
Singularity near?
In his book "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" (Viking, 2005), futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that computers will be as smart as humans by 2029, and that by 2045, "computers will be billions of times more powerful than unaided human intelligence," Kurzweil wrote in an email to LiveScience.
"My estimates have not changed, but the consensus view of AI scientists has been changing to be much closer to my view," Kurzweil wrote.
Bill Hibbard, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, doesn't make quite as bold a prediction, but he's nevertheless confident AI will have human-level intelligence some time in the 21st century.
"Even if my most pessimistic guess is true, it means it's going to happen during the lifetime of people who are already born," Hibbard said.
But other AI researchers are skeptical.
"I don't see any sign that we're close to a singularity," said Ernest Davis, a computer scientist at New York University.
While AI can trounce the best chess or Jeopardy player and do other specialized tasks, it's still light-years behind the average 7-year-old in terms of common sense, vision, language and intuition about how the physical world works, Davis said.
For instance, because of that physical intuition, humans can watch a person overturn a cup of coffee and just know that the end result will be a puddle on the floor. A computer program, on the other hand, would have to do a laborious simulation and know the exact size of the cup, the height of the cup from the surface and various other parameters to understand the outcome, Davis said. [10 Cool Facts About Coffee]
Infinite abilities
Once the singularity occurs, people won't necessarily die (they can simply upgrade with cybernetic parts), and they could do just about anything they wanted to — provided it were physically possible and didn't require too much energy, Hibbard said.
The past two singularities — the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions — led to a doubling in economic productivity every 1,000 and 15 years, respectively, said Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University in Washington, D.C., who is writing a book about the future singularity. But once machines become as smart as men, the economy will double every week or month.
This rapid pace of productivity would be possible because the main "actors" in the economy, namely people, could simply be replicated for whatever it costs to copy an intelligent-machine software into another computer.
Earth's destruction?
That productivity spike may not be a good thing. For one, robots could probably survive apocalyptic scenarios that would wipe out humans.
"A society or economy made primarily of robots will not fear destroying nature in the same way that we should fear destroying nature," Hanson said.
And others worry that we're barreling toward a future that doesn't take people into account. For instance, self-driving cars could improve safety, but also put millions of truck drivers out of work, Hibbard said. So far, no one is planning for those possibilities.
"There are such strong financial incentives in using technology in ways that aren't necessarily in everyone's interest," Hibbard said. "That's going to be a very difficult problem, possibly an unsolvable problem."
Human devolution?
Some scientists think we are already in the midst of the singularity.
Humans have already relinquished many intelligent tasks, such as the ability to write, navigate, memorize facts or do calculations, Joan Slonczewski, a microbiologist at Kenyon college and the author of a science-fiction book called "The Highest Frontier," (Tor Books, 2011). Since Gutenberg invented the printing press, humans have continuously redefined intelligence and transferred those tasks to machines. Now, even tasks considered at the core of humanity, such as caring for the elderly or the sick, are being outsourced to empathetic robots, she said.
"The question is, could we evolve ourselves out of existence, being gradually replaced by the machines?" Slonczewski said. "I think that's an open question."
In fact, the future of humanity may be similar to that of mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of cells. Mitochondria were once independent organisms, but at some point, an ancestral cell engulfed those primitive bacteria, and over evolutionary history, mitochondria let cells gradually take over all the functions they used to perform, until they only produced energy.
"We're becoming like the mitochondria. We provide the energy — we turn on the machines," Slonczewski told LiveScience. "But increasingly, they do everything else."
https://www.livescience.com/29379-intelligent-robots-will-overtake-humans.html
Humans will eventually be replaced one way or the other and NO - AI will not always require human overlords - we may require AI overlords however to protect us from ourselves and going extinct
Are you prepared to meet your robot overlords?
The idea of superintelligent machines may sound like the plot of "The Terminator" or "The Matrix," but many experts say the idea isn't far-fetched. Some even think the singularity — the point at which artificial intelligence can match, and then overtake, human smarts — might happen in just 16 years.
But nearly every computer scientist will have a different prediction for when and how the singularity will happen.
Some believe in a utopian future, in which humans can transcend their physical limitations with the aid of machines. But others think humans will eventually relinquish most of their abilities and gradually become absorbed into artificial intelligence (AI)-based organisms, much like the energy making machinery in our own cells. [5 Reasons to Fear Robots]
Singularity near?
In his book "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" (Viking, 2005), futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that computers will be as smart as humans by 2029, and that by 2045, "computers will be billions of times more powerful than unaided human intelligence," Kurzweil wrote in an email to LiveScience.
"My estimates have not changed, but the consensus view of AI scientists has been changing to be much closer to my view," Kurzweil wrote.
Bill Hibbard, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, doesn't make quite as bold a prediction, but he's nevertheless confident AI will have human-level intelligence some time in the 21st century.
"Even if my most pessimistic guess is true, it means it's going to happen during the lifetime of people who are already born," Hibbard said.
But other AI researchers are skeptical.
"I don't see any sign that we're close to a singularity," said Ernest Davis, a computer scientist at New York University.
While AI can trounce the best chess or Jeopardy player and do other specialized tasks, it's still light-years behind the average 7-year-old in terms of common sense, vision, language and intuition about how the physical world works, Davis said.
For instance, because of that physical intuition, humans can watch a person overturn a cup of coffee and just know that the end result will be a puddle on the floor. A computer program, on the other hand, would have to do a laborious simulation and know the exact size of the cup, the height of the cup from the surface and various other parameters to understand the outcome, Davis said. [10 Cool Facts About Coffee]
Infinite abilities
Once the singularity occurs, people won't necessarily die (they can simply upgrade with cybernetic parts), and they could do just about anything they wanted to — provided it were physically possible and didn't require too much energy, Hibbard said.
The past two singularities — the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions — led to a doubling in economic productivity every 1,000 and 15 years, respectively, said Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University in Washington, D.C., who is writing a book about the future singularity. But once machines become as smart as men, the economy will double every week or month.
This rapid pace of productivity would be possible because the main "actors" in the economy, namely people, could simply be replicated for whatever it costs to copy an intelligent-machine software into another computer.
Earth's destruction?
That productivity spike may not be a good thing. For one, robots could probably survive apocalyptic scenarios that would wipe out humans.
"A society or economy made primarily of robots will not fear destroying nature in the same way that we should fear destroying nature," Hanson said.
And others worry that we're barreling toward a future that doesn't take people into account. For instance, self-driving cars could improve safety, but also put millions of truck drivers out of work, Hibbard said. So far, no one is planning for those possibilities.
"There are such strong financial incentives in using technology in ways that aren't necessarily in everyone's interest," Hibbard said. "That's going to be a very difficult problem, possibly an unsolvable problem."
Human devolution?
Some scientists think we are already in the midst of the singularity.
Humans have already relinquished many intelligent tasks, such as the ability to write, navigate, memorize facts or do calculations, Joan Slonczewski, a microbiologist at Kenyon college and the author of a science-fiction book called "The Highest Frontier," (Tor Books, 2011). Since Gutenberg invented the printing press, humans have continuously redefined intelligence and transferred those tasks to machines. Now, even tasks considered at the core of humanity, such as caring for the elderly or the sick, are being outsourced to empathetic robots, she said.
"The question is, could we evolve ourselves out of existence, being gradually replaced by the machines?" Slonczewski said. "I think that's an open question."
In fact, the future of humanity may be similar to that of mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of cells. Mitochondria were once independent organisms, but at some point, an ancestral cell engulfed those primitive bacteria, and over evolutionary history, mitochondria let cells gradually take over all the functions they used to perform, until they only produced energy.
"We're becoming like the mitochondria. We provide the energy — we turn on the machines," Slonczewski told LiveScience. "But increasingly, they do everything else."
https://www.livescience.com/29379-intelligent-robots-will-overtake-humans.html
Humans will eventually be replaced one way or the other and NO - AI will not always require human overlords - we may require AI overlords however to protect us from ourselves and going extinct
13
CBOEtrader
2019 Mar 4, 3:19am
CBOEtrader
2019 Mar 4, 3:19am
Please stop w the walls of copy paste text. Try communicating your thoughts only
14
anonymous
2019 Mar 4, 3:44am
CBOEtrader says
Don't like it - don't read it.
Using a smart phone to monitor the forum - sounds like a personal problem
Too many people reacting to headlines and not even bothering to click on the link to see what is contained therein or if they do, stop reading after the first paragraph.
If the link is broken, not enough ambition to go to the source to find the link - easier to complain and toss out a "wonder why that is"
If I put something down be it an article or whatever - that conveys my thoughts. I do the same with my selection of music that I post here. That is another way I convey my thoughts on something. Can' figure it out with music - still not my problem.
Funny someone in California always shows up on line when someone else (Moi) is three hours ahead of them (Eastern Standard Time) and posts something - why is that ?
Couldn't be someone is looking for an opening to launch an attack now could it ?
Not enough information - too much information - personally I do not have a problem reading. That is one significant way learning occurs.
Want to have a back and forth over headlines - find someone else to do that with.
Please stop w the walls of copy paste text. Try communicating your thoughts only
Don't like it - don't read it.
Using a smart phone to monitor the forum - sounds like a personal problem
Too many people reacting to headlines and not even bothering to click on the link to see what is contained therein or if they do, stop reading after the first paragraph.
If the link is broken, not enough ambition to go to the source to find the link - easier to complain and toss out a "wonder why that is"
If I put something down be it an article or whatever - that conveys my thoughts. I do the same with my selection of music that I post here. That is another way I convey my thoughts on something. Can' figure it out with music - still not my problem.
Funny someone in California always shows up on line when someone else (Moi) is three hours ahead of them (Eastern Standard Time) and posts something - why is that ?
Couldn't be someone is looking for an opening to launch an attack now could it ?
Not enough information - too much information - personally I do not have a problem reading. That is one significant way learning occurs.
Want to have a back and forth over headlines - find someone else to do that with.
16
anonymous
2019 Mar 4, 5:48am
CBOEtrader says
What a wonderful thoughtful response that proves my allegation 100% and then some.
The only people who have opted to "follow" me on this forum are people with whom I disagree on most everything, on my ignore list and are also on PST v EST.
Can not fathom any reason why someone on PST would sign in on a regular basis when I post something at 5:00 A.M. EST for example. Doesn't add up.
The only reason I can discern for someone to follow someone with whom they are in total disagreement is to look and wait for an opportunity to launch an attack on that person,
not because they are interested in the subject matter of what is being posted.
By posting limited text that gives the attacker sound byte ammunition to launch, then go in and carefully select individual sentences etc. from the link to make their case against the other person while keeping the mind numbing game of "gothca" going as long as possible while collecting high fives in the form of upvotes from their allies.
Changing the parameters of the "conversation", moving the goalposts etc. are all part of the gambit.
The only people that I see complaining about walls of text etc. are also on the list of people I have on ignore.
Been around this forum in one fashion or another since 2013 - I know how the games are played, know the players even with the name changes.
Don't want to see my postings - put me on ignore - so then when you are signed in, you won't see it. Problem solved.
Definitely not going to hurt my feelings one iota.
No thoughts of your own. Got it.
Ok, you do you.
What a wonderful thoughtful response that proves my allegation 100% and then some.
The only people who have opted to "follow" me on this forum are people with whom I disagree on most everything, on my ignore list and are also on PST v EST.
Can not fathom any reason why someone on PST would sign in on a regular basis when I post something at 5:00 A.M. EST for example. Doesn't add up.
The only reason I can discern for someone to follow someone with whom they are in total disagreement is to look and wait for an opportunity to launch an attack on that person,
not because they are interested in the subject matter of what is being posted.
By posting limited text that gives the attacker sound byte ammunition to launch, then go in and carefully select individual sentences etc. from the link to make their case against the other person while keeping the mind numbing game of "gothca" going as long as possible while collecting high fives in the form of upvotes from their allies.
Changing the parameters of the "conversation", moving the goalposts etc. are all part of the gambit.
The only people that I see complaining about walls of text etc. are also on the list of people I have on ignore.
Been around this forum in one fashion or another since 2013 - I know how the games are played, know the players even with the name changes.
Don't want to see my postings - put me on ignore - so then when you are signed in, you won't see it. Problem solved.
Definitely not going to hurt my feelings one iota.
17
MolotovCocktail
2025 Aug 20, 10:24pm
MolotovCocktail
2025 Aug 20, 10:24pm
MolotovCocktail says
In the economy, in Oz, ‘CBA U-turns on AI job cuts, calls back humans’; and
‘The warning signs the AI bubble is about to burst’ (Telegraph) where “Shock sell-off after study warns most investments in artificial intelligence get zero returns”;
https://x.com/TheMichaelEvery/status/1958330892210057325
« First « Previous Comments 10 - 17 of 17 Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,363,655 comments by 15,741 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President online now