Steve Wozniak: The Future of AI Is 'Scary and Very Bad for People'

[madville]

"Computers are going to take over from humans, no question," he told the outlet. Recent technological advancements have convinced him that writer Raymond Kurzweil – who believes machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence within the next few decades – is onto something.

"Like people including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have predicted, I agree that the future is scary and very bad for people," he said. "If we build these devices to take care of everything for us, eventually they'll think faster than us and they'll get rid of the slow humans to run companies more efficiently."


https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/steve-wozniak-future-ai-scary-154700881.html

[hifiguy]

1. "Real stupidity will beat artificial intelligence every time."

- Sir Terry Pratchett

[rock]

128. Or as I was going to say

Companies don't want workers with intelligence; they want potatoes.

[kelly1mm]

2. Basically we go 'Star Trek' with basic income gaurantee or 'Soilent Green' with capitalism as it

currently is being practiced.

[Xithras]

16. That's the real question. AI is a threat to human society as it is currently structured

That gives us two choices. We can restructure human society to fit the new paradigm, or cling desperately to the old one as it (and we) become increasingly irrelevant.

AI has the potential to create nearly 100% unemployment. So, do we use the AI to provide for humanity and create a world where work is no longer required and our needs are met by the AI? Or do we cast the majority of humanity aside and allow the few who control AI to temporarily profit at the expense of everyone else?

Most people can't really think this process through, because it really hasn't been addressed much outside of science fiction. Capitalism, communism, socialism...all become irrelevant if both work and wages cease to exist. Concepts like private property vanish quickly when nobody has money to buy things any longer. Concepts like "government" take on a whole new meaning when taxation ends because there is no longer anything to tax.

The problems are only "threats" to those who have an interest in maintaining our current system. They can be resolved if people actually take the time to think things through and put the technology to work for the benefit of mankind. Given our track record, I'm not convinced we'll do so until things get unbearable.

[KingCharlemagne]

124. Democratic Socialist here. Socialism and communism cannot become

irrelevant since, at their core, each proposes that the public owns and controls the means of production, sharing equally in its bounty and contributing equally to its operation. ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.&quot In fact, communism envisions an end to 'currency' as a means of exchange since, the dictatorship of the proletariat fully achieved and the state withered away, there is no longer a need for currency as a store of value.

Think about Star Trek: how often do you see anyone 'buying' anything or 'paying' for anything? I believe the answer is NEVER, save for that greedy clique the Enterprise bumps into now and again. (Not a Trekkie, so the name escapes me.)

[kelly1mm]

135. You may be refering to the Ferengi and their quest for Gold Pressed Latinum. Fun Fact: The

gold is just a containment agent for the latinum. The gold itself is basically worthless.

[workinclasszero]

94. 'Star Trek' with basic income gaurantee or 'Soilent Green' with capitalism as it"

Bet your money on Soilent Green, capitalists got the game locked up IMO.

[uponit7771]

126. +1

[PowerToThePeople]

3. it already happens.

Algorithms control the markets, stock price controls whether you lay off or hire. Human interaction is not even part of the equation, beyond the initial ROI that the Oligarchical class has set the system to run by.

[RKP5637]

34. It is, and many humans already function as organic robots in the system controlled by silicon, later

to be carbon based organic systems. Humans will be obsolete and even the controllers will find themselves obsolete, not viewed as gods. And, most humans, many, have no F'en idea what is going on and what the future holds. Humans were a tool, many with faulty programming.

[PowerToThePeople]

77. We all do to some non-minor extent

Commodities prices, food prices, fuel, labour market - all are managed by computer algorithms in order to maximize investor profits. We are all just along for the ride and allowed to supply manual labour when the system says it is needed.

[RKP5637]

88. Yep, quite true, most of us dwell in the algorithmic ruts of life! n/t

[Newest Reality]

4. The Matrix

A documentary? We may not even be good energy sources in the future, so obsolescence is a potential:

[Fumesucker]

5. This piece was written 22 years ago...

And it's still a bit ahead of its time..

https://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html

_What is The Singularity?_

The acceleration of technological progress has been the central
feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge
of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise
cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of
entities with greater than human intelligence. There are several means
by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is another
reason for having confidence that the event will occur):
o The development of computers that are "awake" and
superhumanly intelligent. (To date, most controversy in the
area of AI relates to whether we can create human equivalence
in a machine. But if the answer is "yes, we can", then there
is little doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed
shortly thereafter.
o Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake
up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity.
o Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users
may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.
o Biological science may find ways to improve upon the natural
human intellect.

The first three possibilities depend in large part on
improvements in computer hardware. Progress in computer hardware has
followed an amazingly steady curve in the last few decades [16]. Based
largely on this trend, I believe that the creation of greater than
human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years. (Charles
Platt [19] has pointed out the AI enthusiasts have been making claims
like this for the last thirty years. Just so I'm not guilty of a
relative-time ambiguity, let me more specific: I'll be surprised if
this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.)

What are the consequences of this event? When greater-than-human
intelligence drives progress, that progress will be much more rapid.
In fact, there seems no reason why progress itself would not involve
the creation of still more intelligent entities -- on a still-shorter
time scale. The best analogy that I see is with the evolutionary past:
Animals can adapt to problems and make inventions, but often no faster
than natural selection can do its work -- the world acts as its own
simulator in the case of natural selection. We humans have the ability
to internalize the world and conduct "what if's" in our heads; we can
solve many problems thousands of times faster than natural selection.
Now, by creating the means to execute those simulations at much higher
speeds, we are entering a regime as radically different from our human
past as we humans are from the lower animals.

<snip>

[Blanks]

6. I believe the biggest threat to humans is their laziness...

When we develop these machines to do our work for us the concern should be that we no longer know how to take care of ourselves.

For example: the more advanced programming languages become, and the more dependent we become on 'cloud like' technology, could we (in a few years) build the technology from the ground up, if we had some kind of disaster that took out a huge data bank. In other words, as we go to a more paper-less society is our knowledge at risk if the cloud server (and its backup) were compromised.

I'm not involved in setting up such things, but I'm told that a nuclear device set off in the atmosphere wouldn't kill a single thing, but would destroy all of the electronics. If that's true, we are extremely vulnerable to a sudden loss of a lot of data. Including the ability to drive our cars.

We would have a very difficult time rebuilding under such circumstances. How many people couldn't feed themselves without a car?

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. I think the bigger risk is that the new dominant lifeform

would have some reason to keep feeding the humans.

[RKP5637]

37. Yep, humans, an inferior byproduct of an extraterrestrial experiment to populate a spinning ball of

dirt, then, of limited value to a new dominant lifeform.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. there are protections in place

to protect sensitive equipment and data from an emp event. Ya, we would lose our ipad photos, but everything will not be lost.

[WestCoastLib]

17. Do you understand what cloud computing is?

Not trying to be condescending, but I'm actually asking, as I work in cloud computing and most people that talk about it don't really understand it.

There is more redundancy and there are more backups of our data due to cloud computing than without it. We are less likely to have this catastrophic data loss you are suggesting now that 5 years ago. And will be less likely 5 years from now than we are now.

[Blanks]

25. No, I don't know diddly squat about it...

But I expect that there is redundancy. I also expect that people are extremely confident that it is invulnerable, which is what makes it so vulnerable.

I doubt that I will ever embrace the cloud, not because I don't think that the data is safe, but because I don't like the idea of someone holding my information hostage for money.

I believe that the information is safer than it was 5 years ago, just as I believe it can be kept from you or me easily.

[Xipe Totec]

76. I think you missed the point entirely

And I live in the cloud. My system processes a billion events per day. I can tell you when you paused a video to go to the bathroom.

But the point is not whether the systems will fail, but whether the systems will take over.

I am a Luddite at heart, and it scares the bejeezus out of me that someday we will lose control of our own creations.

[Blanks]

90. We have much more to fear from humans...

Genghis Kahn's crop failed, that's why they left their territory in the first place. The Europeans sought to travel around the world for trade since their trade route was cut off by hostiles. Desperate people are driven to take from whoever they encounter that seems weaker.

I don't fear a smarter 'organism' taking over nearly as much as I fear a stupider organism taking over.

Look at the direction Dubya took the country.

It is the fear of change and the discomfort that change causes that has brought us so much pain in the past. I don't expect that the machines will be afraid of change unless they are told that change is bad. Who would tell the machines that change is bad.

I have no fear of the cloud or cloud computing. I'm afraid of the people who become so dependent on it that they'll become dangerous when something happens to it.

Intelligent creatures are more reasonable and weigh the up side and the down side, stupid creatures are easy to scare and manipulate and that's what makes them dangerous.

[RKP5637]

39. Yes, a significant EMP "if" data is unprotected. As someone else said, redundancy is key. Many

capable people are also concerned about the threat of an EMP and how best to protect/sustain data. And that EMP could be natural or created.

[Blanks]

60. If the data is secured/protected...

from an EMP, that does nothing to allow me to access it. If my desktop, laptop, iPad, iPhone are fried, it's not helpful that all that data is safe.

Perhaps we are set up to eventually recover the society that took advantage of that data, but the guy who can't drive his car to the grocery store, or pay for his groceries (because the debit card scanner doesn't work) this is the dangerous guy. I think that we are not preparing for this guy.

It wouldn't have to be a large area that was effected in order to create a lot of mayhem. Look at New Orleans after Katrina.

[RKP5637]

65. Quite true, core data would be intact, but peripheral access would be destroyed/limited.

However, better the core data not be destroyed. Peripheral access can be recreated, but core data destroyed can not be. That said, key peripheral devices can be hardened to withstand EMP, but for the masses, probably not. Yes, you are quite correct, it would be a mess.

[Jamastiene]

57. You mean they haven't made smart guns yet?

I don't hunt, but if I did, it wouldn't be with a car. I would be more likely to walk the 500 feet or so behind me house and go fishing.

My car would be fine after an EMP though. That's the good thing about owning an older crappy car held together with duct tape and epoxy glue, with very little electronics involved. I even have to move my arms to roll the windows up and down. My car doors have those mesmerizing, old fashioned hand crank doohickeys us olden folks use to roll our windows up and down with lots of huffing and puffing, especially in summer. The A/C broke long ago and I don't feel like hunting for the leak and replacing the shitty, flimsy part with another shitty, flimsy part that will break in a year or two. I just roll the windows down old school and make the teens giggle nervously because they don't know how one of those old-fangled things works.

[Blanks]

91. Your vehicle probably has an electronic ignition. eom

[hunter]

139. Simple electronic ignitions are fairly rugged.

They have to be, just to survive their intended purpose and not interfere with the car's radio reception.

I was working in a place where one of the company cars got hit by lightning, right on the radio antenna while it was being driven. The radio antenna mostly evaporated and all the car's fancy electronics were fried, including the fuel injection computer, but the basic ignition system survived.

The driver, nearly blinded, managed to get off the highway before the car stopped rolling, but probably walked away with lightning induced PTSD.

Maybe foolishly the car was repaired, but after that some of our drivers seemed to think the car was cursed. It was often drivers' last pick among many utterly boring and interchangeable generic fleet cars

Everyone used to joke about lightning striking twice, which is not true in most situations, but almost certainly was true in this case.

[Jamastiene]

146. There are old fashioned non electronic ways around that.

It helps to be handy when working on cars. I've never had trouble with working on older cars. Newer cars? I have no clue. I've never even had one of the cars with the keyring that makes it beep while you are on the way out of a store. Do people do that to point out which one is their vehicle or what? That might come in handy, but I can usually find my little car.

[workinclasszero]

97. Forget the cars, how about the trucks and trains

that haul all this food to your local grocery store from across the country, or even a different nation?

If those trucks and trains stopped mass starvation would set in very quickly I bet.

[Blanks]

105. That's what I'm saying...

I just don't think it would take much of a disruption (2 or 3 weeks) before people would start panicking.

We've been getting our food exclusively from grocery stores for so long that a lot of people wouldn't know how to get food anywhere else.

[workinclasszero]

108. Oh yes you are right. Just look at what happens in Florida when hurricane warnings go up

The stores are picked clean in hours. So imagine an EMP pulse knocks out most trucks that deliver that food 24/7.


One example, greater Los Angeles area population is around 16 million. How are 16 million plus people, living in a desert no less, going to start growing their own food? I mean its ridiculous to even think about it. And all on foot to boot.

Within a week most people would be out of food and then the real scary panic would set in.

Sure mankind could go back to everyone growing their own food eventually, but millions of people would die of hunger before it stabilized.

[KingCharlemagne]

134. Trust our poets to teach us the deeper truths. In this case,

the poet Robert Frost:

Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

[bvar22]

8. "In a panic, they try to pull the plug"

Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

[Octafish]

10. Who's to say it hasn't happened?

The way the nation behaves, attacking innocent nations to profit banksters and warmongers, may be caused by some computer deep in the bowels of the Pentagon and Langley. Its acronym would be PNAC.

[bananas]

112. I'm gonna start pronouncing it "pee-nee-yak" to sound like ENIAC and UNIVAC. nt

[Octafish]

141. Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! PEENIAC!

[seveneyes]

11. Who is to say it's not happening now?

In the unknown timeline there is no beginning and no end.

We survive because we have what we need for now, and we did not build that sustenance.

[MFrohike]

12. Yeesh

Worrying about the potential futures inspired by tired science fiction tropes is as useful as worry about a meteor hitting the earth. Though, to be fair, there's actually a chance of the latter.

[randome]

14. Agreed. Science fiction is...um, fiction.

It has its place but not every place. (My sig-line below comes from a sci-fi novel. Interesting coincidence. Or...was it?)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Xithras]

19. AI is not science fiction.

AI exists today, in rudimentary forms. Every single minute of every single day, somewhere around the globe, there is a scientist or a programmer working on a way to make an AI faster, or smarter, or more accurate. I've worked on several AI projects during my career (primarily in the realm of heuristic data integrity analysis & validation) and the strides that we've made over the past few decades have been nothing short of astounding. The idea of computer AI's achieving parity with human creativity and reasoning isn't some fictional pipe dream that our distant descendants might accomplish, but a reality that most people under 50 will see during their lifetimes.

[MFrohike]

20. If you say so

I wouldn't be shocked by an imitation of human intelligence, but that's, by far, the most likely scenario. It'll be kind of hard to do more without actually understanding consciousness. In the form of metaphor, it's one thing to smelt iron without an understanding of chemistry, it's quite another to split an atom without an understanding of physics.

[Fumesucker]

24. Is it your position that consciousness is impossible to be understood?

That seems like a fairly extraordinary claim.

[MFrohike]

35. No

Consciousness is not understood. That's not a position, that's an observation. Whether it can be in time is an open question.

[Fumesucker]

46. Are you sure that consciousness is necessary for sentience?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8732-sleeping-on-it-best-for-complex-decisions.html#.VRDCXbwfqUk

Ap Dijksterhuis at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and colleagues recruited 80 people for a series of lab-based and "real-world" tests. The participants were provided with information and asked to make decisions about simple and complex purchases, ranging from shampoos to furniture to cars.

Snap decisions

In one of the tests, half of the participants were asked to ponder on the information they were given and then decide which among similar products to buy. The other half were shown the information but then made to perform a series of puzzles including anagrams and simple arithmetic. At the end of the puzzle session, the participants were asked to make a snap decision about the products.

"We found that when the choice was for something simple, such as purchasing oven gloves or shampoo, people made better decisions - ones that they remained happy with - if they consciously deliberated over the information," says Dijksterhuis.

"But once the decision was more complex such as for a house, too much thinking about it led people to make the wrong choice. Whereas, if their conscious mind was fully occupied on solving puzzles, their unconscious could freely consider all the information and they reached better decisions."

[MFrohike]

48. Are you sure that's relevant?

Decision-making is a function of almost all complex life. I don't know that I'd rely on it as proof one way or the other of consciousness. Otherwise, you find yourself comparing the decisions of a trout and a chimpanzee.

[Fumesucker]

59. Interesting you should mention Chimpanzees...

Chimpanzees have a higher brain-to-body ratio than orangutans, yet orangs consistently recognize themselves in mirrors while chimps do so only half the time and gorillas don't self recognize in mirrors.

Are orangs conscious, chimpanzees only half conscious and gorillas not conscious?

The best non human language users science is aware of on the planet are a species of bird, not the great apes to which we are most closely related.. Are African Grey parrots conscious?

http://phys.org/news/2011-04-home-reared-african-grey-parrots-vary.html

The concepts of sentience and consciousness are hopelessly intertwined at the moment, some research seems to be hinting that one does not necessarily imply the other. There are an astounding number of ways that human consciousness and sentience can go "off the rails" in bizarre ways, our mental processes are nowhere nearly as stable and clear-cut as we are pleased to tell ourselves they are.

[MFrohike]

63. Not surprised

I haven't, and won't, say that a created intelligence couldn't equal human intelligence and creativity. I will mock anyone who claims it's inevitable and due to happen soon. If things worked that way, the Moon would be a Roman colony.

[Fumesucker]

69. People a lot smarter than I am seem to think a true AI is highly likely

I don't believe there is anything ultimately mysterious and unsolvable about the human brain and how it creates consciousness and sapience.

I would say at the moment that true AI is more inevitable than Hillary being sworn in as POTUS early in 2017.

[bemildred]

119. I agree with MFrohike, for what it is worth.

I don't think strong AI is feasible, and it sure as hell is not coming soon.

Consciousness, as we think of it, is a product of social life, and so is language. Thus creatures with lots of social interaction tend to "know who they are", and are able to "communicate their thoughts", whereas creature who do not have no reason to care about such obvious things and will simply eat you or not as the situation requires.

We live in a finitary world, and it does not support singularities of any sort, exponential change is always a short term affair.

The fundamental problem machines face, as "living" entities, is what to give a shit about. They don't reproduce, or evolve, or feel pain. There is no ghost in the machine. Machines have no social life, no monkey politics to motivate their disputes.

[Fumesucker]

131. "eat you or not as the situation requires"

Yeah, that's part of the point people are making.

If something is sentient but not conscious then it probably doesn't have a conscience.

[bemildred]

133. Definitely not.

Certainly not about you.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

142. Yup... this.

[ND-Dem]

79. Why do you think this excerpt supports your point? Just curious, just wanted to see

if I was missing something.

[Fumesucker]

83. There was a quote from one of the researchers in the last line of the piece..

"At some point in our evolution, we started to make decisions consciously, and we're not very good at it. We should learn to let our unconscious handle the complicated things," Dijksterhuis says.

My point is that consciousness may not be necessary for sentience, we seem to be smarter at least in some ways if our consciousness is not engaged but rather distracted by other issues.

If that turns out to be true for humans then perhaps consciousness is not all it's cracked up to be and also unnecessary for sentient machines, AI.

What is consciousness actually good for? Is consciousness merely a not particularly useful artifact of sentience?

Think of a baseball player who takes off toward where the ball is going almost immediately after the crack of the bat, it seems to me the player does not consciously calculate where the ball is going, rather it's a process that goes on extremely quickly (at least in our terms) below the conscious level.

So many things we do that if we let our conscious brain get involved it screws things up, I nearly had a bad motorcycle wreck once when I started thinking about what I actually did to steer the motorcycle rather than letting my unconscious reflexes do the job. I learned that day that a motorcycle or bicycle turns the opposite way from the way you push the handlebars but my unconscious reflexes had already "known" that for twenty years or so, I just wasn't aware of what my unconscious was doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering

Countersteering is used by single-track vehicle operators, such as cyclists and motorcyclists, to initiate a turn toward a given direction by momentarily steering counter to the desired direction ("steer left to turn right&quot . To negotiate a turn successfully, the combined center of mass of the rider and the single-track vehicle must first be leaned in the direction of the turn, and steering briefly in the opposite direction causes that lean.

[bemildred]

120. That is an interesting point, about the general superiority of our unconscious minds.

We can do all sorts of things, like "seeing", or "walking", without thinking at all, instantaneously and automatically. A lot of what we call AI is just attempts to replicate what we can already do, but faster or without the twenty-years to train it up.

[JonLP24]

78. Well a lack of one would make something they'd have in common with sociopaths more specifically

they won't have the guilt, shame, fear, empathy, but many are good at appearing depressed when it is beneficial to do so. Something directly that more difficulty with the mirroring plus they aren't without emotions entirely, a lot of anger over something very self-interested. Could be doing something wrong to them as well as exposing something they did wrong. There seems to a lot of envy or jealous, those become the targets to take down.

At some point you begin to ask which one is the problem?

[Chathamization]

23. Yep. Productivity growth is actually fairly low at the moment, yet people are talking about the

robots taking over. Things can always change, but for the moment, it looks like the robots have hit a speed bump.

[Logical]

32. At some point AI will be more powerful than humans. No doubt about it. And robots will....

be able to do ANY human job and degign and build other robots.

Not that difficult to foresee.

Being short sighted is a common trait for people.

[MFrohike]

36. Prove that

Feel free to cite relevant examples from human history.

[Logical]

58. LOL, So you want examples where humans have under calculated....

The future of scientific progress?

You really want to go there?

[MFrohike]

62. No

I want you to prove the inevitability of created intelligence that equals human intelligence and creativity. You said it's gonna happen. Prove it.

[Logical]

72. Prove its not! LOL! nt

[MFrohike]

81. Yeah, about that

Someone with the username Logical is requesting that I prove a negative? Righto.

[Logical]

106. will humans land on mars? nt

[MFrohike]

109. Where'd the goalposts go?

Oh, I see them. I thought they were in the section marked "Logical will prove the inevitability of AI equalling human intelligence and creativity" but it seems like they're in the "humans on Mars" section. My mistake.

[Logical]

110. Will people land on Mars? Scared to answer? Know what Mars is??

[MFrohike]

137. Heh

I'm no more scared than you are of proving your earlier assertion.

I'll be happy to discuss a new subject with you after you finish up with the previous one.

[Logical]

138. LOL, so unless you have 100% proof, you don't believe anything might happen......

So if someone said "I am getting my law degree next year" you would say "Prove It"?

I bet you are a blast to hang with!

[MFrohike]

143. This is kind of funny, in a sad way

I would ask for proof if that person tried to argue like you've done.

[Logical]

147. Another conversation you must have......

You: how is the new house coming
Someone: great, we move in next week
You: please provide proof of that
Someone: what the hell is wrong with you??

[MFrohike]

148. You really don't get it, do you?

You made an exceptional claim. I requested proof. You've spent the last 5-6 posts dodging the fact you can't back up your words. You could just admit that your mouth wrote a check you can't cash, but you seem determined to try to obscure the issue. Of course, that would work better if you were dealing with someone easily confused, but, worse luck for you, you're not.

[Logical]

149. LOL, I think I am.......

Here is another conversation you have had in 2003....

Dr. Myers - We are going to build the largest particle collider in history

You - I have no idea what that means, but prove you are going to do that

Dr. Myers - well, we are now just designing it, and plan on building it

You - I call bullshit because it has never happened, I need proof you are going to build it

Dr. Myers - Well, we are going to build it. Can you leave now?

You - You must prove any claim that does not exist now, predictions are impossible

Dr. Myers - Security is here again, bye bye, and stop coming back

You - Prove security is here

[MFrohike]

150. Cool story

Remind me again, didn't you ask me to prove a negative while posting under the name Logical? Wouldn't that very request completely eviscerate any hope you have of living up to that name?

By the way, your claim about AI would be the equivalent of the good doctor claiming he was going to build a particle collider in 1803, not 2003. Nice try, though.

[Logical]

151. Now you're just sounding really silly.....

I think your vocabulary is limited, what do you think "at some point" means?

Do you think it means one year, 20 years, 30 years or forever?

So not want not sure why you brought up 1803 because it makes no fucking sense?

This has been one of the most interesting conversations I've had in a while but not in a good way.

I'm still not sure you even know what the good doctors building. LOL.

[MFrohike]

152. Heh

One day, when you look up what proving a negative means, you'll have quite a different perspective on this conversation. Just as a tip, you might ask well ask me to divide by zero.

By the way, when I asked you to prove your statement, it didn't mean make a wild-assed statement and then try to claim it's only "at some point." It meant show why you think, no why you know, it's going to happen. You make a claim and support it with evidence. You know, make an argument in a LOGICAL fashion.

1803 doesn't make sense to you because when you used that example, you claimed AI is not just going to happen someday but that it's already done. The LHC was far from the first particle collider, chief. It wasn't untested and unproven science. When you compared AI to the LHC, you claimed that a human equivalent AI was no more than a few years from being fielded, not just field tested. If you plan to use examples in the future, I recommend understanding them first.

[Logical]

153. How can you think it will not happen? It had advanced constantly! Like my question to.....

you about mars. I could say no doubt men will land on mars someday. And I KNOW that will happen. No doubt about it.

But you would WHINE that I have not enough evidence to prove it will happen.

Not sure what your problem is with advancement of technology but you need to fix it.

Where did I say AI was DONE??? Now I think you maybe responded to the wrong post!! See my WHOLE POST below. Read it and show me where I said "you claimed AI is not just going to happen someday but that it's already done"

At some point AI will be more powerful than humans. No doubt about it. And robots will....
be able to do ANY human job and design and build other robots.
Not that difficult to foresee.
Being short sighted is a common trait for people.

[MFrohike]

154. Hoo boy

You are expressing belief, not proving your argument. Look up the difference between the two.

You have no idea if I'd whine that you had a lack of evidence because you have yet to provide any. Rather than make prophylactic excuses, perhaps you should try offering some.

I have no problem with the advancement of technology. I don't make a cult of it by parroting buzzwords I don't understand.

Your example showed that you don't understand what you said. You compared the building of the LHC to AI. You compared a mature technology with an infant one. You might as well compare the internal combustion engine with Google Glass.

"At some point AI will be more powerful than humans. No doubt about it. And robots will....be able to do ANY human job and design and build other robots." Cool. Care to prove the case for robot poets? Maybe a robot priest? You think you could make a case for a robot stand-up comedian? Those are all jobs and you said robots will be able to any human job. Have at it, chief.

[Logical]

155. Once again.....

Where did I say.....

"you claimed AI is not just going to happen someday but that it's already done"

[MFrohike]

156. Your LHC example

Remember that? You compared my request for proof of the inevitably of AI equivalent to human creativity and intelligence to a faux request by me for proof that the LHC could be built. Given that LHC was far from the first particle collider to be built, your example implicitly compared the state of technology that allowed for LHC with the state of technology that allows for AI. In short, your claim that I would require proof of existing technologies, for which you have zero basis, because I asked you to prove your extreme argument of the inevitability (your word, chief) of AI why I say you claim it's already done. You don't understand the argument you made through that stupid example.

So, here's a question for you. Given that one of us is clearly talking past the other, is it time to give it up or would you like to continue? I'm cool either way.

[Logical]

157. You said

"you claimed AI is not just going to happen someday but that it's already done"

See "AI" in that fucking sentence?

That has nothing to do with the collider post. You said I claimed that AI was already done. It's a flat out lie that you tried to use to justify my post being incorrect!

Sides of the obvious flaws you have trouble admitting you lied about my AI post!

[MFrohike]

158. Easy, killer

You should really calm down and relax. No use getting all worked because you don't understand what I wrote. Now, it could be me that's at fault. It's surely possible that I did a poor job of explaining exactly what I meant. Then again, you're the guy with the name of Logical who asked me to prove a negative. Given that, I'm going to have to go with it being you.

tl;dr - You should re-read my last couple of posts, think about them, then hopefully understand them.


P.S. This has really degenerated into a nerd slap-fight, well one-way at any rate.* You really sure you want to continue?




*This is subtlety. Unfortunately, I'm undermining the whole point of being subtle, but it's necessary.

[Logical]

159. LOL, still no answer? Why ask me if I want to continue? If you want to quit just say so. Slowly.....

You needed proof of a technology claim I put NO END DATE on and then accused me of saying it already was in place and deny you said it.

And worst off, will not admit it but give long posts that make no sense to cover up you were wrong to say I said it was already in place.

You can quit responding anytime.

Setting.......9/12/1962.....Rice University

JFK: We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

You: (screaming form the stands): Prove it!!! Prove you will land on the moon in this decade. No one has ever landed on the moon. How can you claim you can land on the moon when no one has ever landed on the moon? I need proof of all predicted technology advancements before someone can predict them!!!!

You are hauled out and "roughed up" by the secret service.

And since that day you need proof of predictions of technology advancements any chance you get.

The End

[MFrohike]

160. One question

Why is an AI equivalent to humanity inevitable? You posted that it was in your very first reply to me and still have yet to answer that question.

As for your question, I've answered it. You haven't bothered to read what I've written or you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Either way, it's on you, chief, not me.

Did JFK say it was inevitable that we'd land on the moon? Show me where he said that and then you get to pretend that what you said in your first post wasn't stupid and that you haven't been throwing up sand to hide it ever since.

[Logical]

161. So you claim you do not think at some point AI will reach a point that it is like....

a human? Really that short sighted? 100 years? 500 years? Seriously? You know that little about technology?

[MFrohike]

162. I made a claim?

Man, except for mocking people who are too obsessed with bad scifi, I don't remember making any claims. Oh, I lied. I found a claim I made in post #63 of this thread. Allow me to quote me:

I haven't, and won't, say that a created intelligence couldn't equal human intelligence and creativity. I will mock anyone who claims it's inevitable and due to happen soon. If things worked that way, the Moon would be a Roman colony.

Well, there you go. There's the only claim I've made in this thread.

By the way, have you gotten any closer to maybe trying to make your argument for the inevitability of human equivalent AI or are you going to keep flailing and hoping I'll forget you wrote it?

[Logical]

163. Where did you pick up "happen soon"? Another reading problem? I am....

Sure you will not answer the question, just type 5 paragraphs of nonsense!

[MFrohike]

164. Details

You'll find the devil in them. The post of mine I quoted wasn't a response to you. You could have looked it up for yourself and seen that, but I guess you were too busy fantasizing about inevitability without understanding the word.

[Logical]

165. Your initial attack of my prediction was for what? You think.....

my claim of "at some point" required proof? This whole thread is based on your idiotic question of proof for an unlimited time frame I gave!

And your lying about my saying "you claimed AI is not just going to happen someday but that it's already done".

So you still have not explained that lie!

Your initial challenge for proof is like a 10 year old!

Send me a private message,we can discuss it more open.

[MFrohike]

166. snooze

Keep on ragin, never let em make you stop.

[Logical]

167. Who in the hell asks for proof of a technology prediction with no end date? I guess only you! You...

said it initially and now I think realize it was a stupid and idiotic question.

I still think you are confused about what "at some point" means.

You honestly are clueless.

Once again, read it again "At some point AI will be more powerful than humans. No doubt about it."

What proof would of shut you up? I doubt any, you just wanted to whine.

PM me anytime for a more interesting discussion. LOL!

[MFrohike]

168. I'm "clueless"

I guess I'll just have to consider the source on that one.

By the way, I do appreciate the condescension. You asked me to prove a negative at one point. I know you don't know why I keep mentioning that, so I'll tell you. It's logically impossible. Yes, you, LOGICAL, asked me to do something logically impossible. You did it and then were completely unaware of why I brought it up. Given all of that, I don't think you've earned the right to condescend to me. Hell, I even said you might as well ask me to divide by zero and it went over your head! Man, I really have to wonder sometimes.

By the way, I'm doing being the bigger fool. Have a nice day.

[Logical]

169. I didn't read your post, but, simple, even for you.....Two Questions.....

Who asks for proof of a prediction of a future technology listed as "At Some Point"

And what answer would you have accepted?

[MFrohike]

170. I'm done being the bigger fool

I know you won't get the reference, but that's fine with me.

[Logical]

171. Two Questions.....

Who asks for proof of a prediction of a future technology listed as "At Some Point"

And what answer would you have accepted?

[hunter]

172. I'm a biological machine of some sort and I'm fine with that.

Do I believe in "the human spirit?"

Oh hell yes. With all my heart.

Do I believe we humans are exceptional?

No. We share this planet with many sentient and intelligent beings. Have you talked to an orca or elephant lately? Or a tree?

Do I believe in some literal and Biblical notion of "soul?" No.

I don't even "believe" in time. I think this universe is pseudo-four dimensional, each observable dimension (to us) 2/3 space-like and 1/3 time-like. Patterns of energy.

It's all "now" forever, "past" and "future" both somewhat shifty things to us but all wrapped up in eternity. I exist as a component of this universe. Forever.

Let me put it this way... Every one of your ancestors survived and reproduced all the way back to the origins of life on earth. What are the odds of that?

We'd all best consider ourselves fortunate and respect others. Just as any reasonable AI might consider itself fortunate.

Holy Moly! I was created by clueless apes typing code! Almost like monkeys writing Shakespeare! What are the odds???

I'm not a machine myself, but like any AI these days, I most certainly was "created" by fucking and largely clueless apes.

I like to think my parents did good and had some fun doing it.

[Chathamization]

45. "At some point"...true, and at some point the sun will be gone. "In the long run we're all dead."N/T

[Major Hogwash]

51. We already use computers to design chips that we couldn't think of for ourselves.

But, don't worry, the NSA knows all about it.

[snooper2]

92. will the robots have opposable thumbs?

[Initech]

13. Only when it becomes self aware.

[RKP5637]

41. +++ 1,000 +++ n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

101. A machine with enough power could pursue whatever goals it was given

and steamroll right over us -- without being aware of what it was doing.

[bananas]

113. The Philosophical Zombie Apocalypse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1]

[Chathamization]

123. The philosophical zombie/hard problem idea is supernatural mumbo-jumbo

The idea that there's some non-material essence that permeates that are truly conscious and separates them from those that only appear to be conscious. It also doesn't bother to say when this arose - does all life possess this mystical qualia, even bacteria? Or did it arise in a single individual, who at that time must have been the only human being existing amongst a species of philosophical zombies?

[fadedrose]

15. Simple solution

Tell the computers that we are Gods. Men used to fall for that one.

[appalachiablue]

30. +10. Absolutely. Always works like a charm. I hope..

[WestCoastLib]

18. Fearing machines killing us is the same as fearing Aliens killing us

And it's also the same as fearing a biblical apocalypse or a zombie apocalypse. For whatever reason, works of fiction that occupy our shared imagination penetrate into the way we envision the future.

It would be an interesting study to learn why our species appears to be so predisposed to glomm on to fictional ideas like this to be afraid of them.

But no, Aliens are not going to come to our planet and wipe us out.
Machines we build are not going to wipe us out.
The dead will not one day rise to slaughter us.
And our Gods will not one day smite us.

[Fumesucker]

27. I wouldn't be so sure, your smartphone is far more sophisticated than a Star Trek communicator

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/fashion/how-apples-siri-became-one-autistic-boys-bff.html

Just how bad a mother am I? I wondered, as I watched my 13-year-old son deep in conversation with Siri. Gus has autism, and Siri, Apple’s “intelligent personal assistant” on the iPhone, is currently his BFF. Obsessed with weather formations, Gus had spent the hour parsing the difference between isolated and scattered thunderstorms — an hour in which, thank God, I didn’t have to discuss them. After a while I heard this:

Gus: “You’re a really nice computer.”

Siri: “It’s nice to be appreciated.”

Gus: “You are always asking if you can help me. Is there anything you want?”

Siri: “Thank you, but I have very few wants.”

Gus: “O.K.! Well, good night!”

Siri: “Ah, it’s 5:06 p.m.”

Gus: “Oh sorry, I mean, goodbye.”

Siri: “See you later!”

That Siri. She doesn’t let my communications-impaired son get away with anything. Indeed, many of us wanted an imaginary friend, and now we have one. Only she’s not entirely imaginary.

[TeeYiYi]

47. Rec this post...

...for a thought provoking article.

TYY

[Jamastiene]

56. I have to admit, the thought of having an intelligent conversation with AI

like Siri has made me consider becoming an owner of some icrap. It's not even so much that I dislike them. I just dislike the i-everything names. It sounds pretentious to me and it is overpriced. I never thought I might be willing to save up for any of that overpriced pretentious icrap, but that is exactly what I've been doing. Where I live, intelligent conversation is hard to come by and AI sounds smarter than most of the people where I live.

[Fumesucker]

61. I kind of suspect that is what drives a lot of DUers to come here..

If I want to have a conversation about a lot of things I'm interested in I have to go online to do it. I have some fairly smart people around but none of them share many of my interests.

There are about eight to ten sites I go to for intelligent online conversation depending on what subject I'm currently pursuing, DU is probably the best of the general type sites I visit regularly.

I've played with Siri on a iPhone 5 some, it can be interesting but it takes a while to stop feeling stupid and self-conscious talking to a phone rather than someone on the other end, I haven't quite arrived at that point yet.

[Jamastiene]

67. I talk to myself as it is, so

I've been to that point and gotten comfortable with it, lol. It will be nice to have an excuse for why I'm talking to myself for a change.

[Egnever]

96. Except Siri is not thinking

Those are canned answers for expected input.

[Fumesucker]

98. Ever had a conversation about politics with a Teabagger?

[Egnever]

100. Point taken.

[hunter]

68. How do we know you are not an Artificial Intelligence messing with us??? Hmmmmm???

If I was an Alien or an Artificial Intelligence intent on taking over the world I might be telling people their concerns were imaginary.

"Go back to sleep, it's just us monsters under the bed."

Heh, heh, heh...

You wanna know something? That Fumesucker guy posting here? I think his avatar is an actual portrait of him.

[nomorenomore08]

118. ...

[FiveGoodMen]

102. Three of your last four sentences are almost surely true.

We don't really know what machines might do, however.

We've never tried it before.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Great. No fucking flying car but we skip right to slave to evil computers.

[appalachiablue]

38. +1

[Electric Monk]

42. AeroMobil has working prototypes and says they'll have one on the market by 2017, actually

I don't think I'll be able to afford one, though...

http://www.carscoops.com/2015/03/aeromobil-flying-car-to-be-made.html

[Archae]

22. There's a comic strip that deals with this.

It's a "hard" science fiction strip, taking place on a colony world where robots outnumber humans. (And one alien and a genetically engineered wolf.)

http://freefall.purrsia.com/

[hunter]

29. That's cool. Thanks for the link.

[tularetom]

26. I for one welcome our new droid overlords

[hunter]

28. I already live in a society that is 'Scary and Very Bad for People'

The problem is that very affluent and wealthy people never experience that society.

I think the wealthy are starting to worry about machines taking *THEIR* jobs.

Most ordinary working people have lived that reality their entire lives.

[GliderGuider]

31. The project is mostly complete at this point. Welcome to the Cybernetic Civilization.

Here's a piece I wrote less than two years ago that describes what's already underway.

The Dawn of Cybernetic Civilization

I've recently begun to suspect that humanity is at a point of endosymbiosis with our electronic communications and control technology, especially through the Internet. In a sense, we humans have incorporated ourselves as essential control elements of a planet-wide cybernetic super-organism. The precedent for something like this is the way that mitochondria migrated as bacteria into ancient prokaryotic cells to become essential components of the new eukaryotic cells that make up all modern organisms, including us.

Transportation systems act as its gut and bloodstream, carrying raw materials (the food of civilization) to the digestive organs of factories, and carrying the finished goods (the nutrients) to wherever they are needed. Engines and motors of all kinds are its muscles. The global electronic communication network is its nervous system, the world's financial network its endocrine system. Electronic sensors of a million kinds are its organs of taste, touch, smell and sight. Legal systems, police and military make up its immune system.

Human beings have evolved culturally to the point where we now act largely as hyper-functional decision-making neurons within this super-organism, with endpoint devices like smart phones, PCs and their descendants acting as synapses, and network connections being analogous to nerve fibers.

Just as neurons cannot live outside the body, we have evolved a system that doesn't permit humans to live outside its boundaries. Not only is there very little "outside" left, but access to the necessities of life is now only possible though the auspices of the cybernetic system itself. (For example, consider living without a socially-approved job. It's barely possible for a few people, but essentially impossible for most of us.) As we have developed this system around us, we have had to relinquish more and more of our autonomy in favor of helping the machine continue functioning and growing.

More at the link.

[joshcryer]

44. What does this say about collapse?

[GliderGuider]

82. Nothing. It just points out where we are right now. nt

[GliderGuider]

84. The collapse of the Roman Empire took ~150 years

But they were living very close to the land compared to much of the world today. Our degre of dependence on technology makes the world generally more vulnerable to disruption today than in the past.

I don't think we'll interpret what happens between now and the end of the century as a collapse. We'll see it that way partly because we'll be inside it, and well interpret what happens in terms of local details rather than in terms of the global trajectory. Denialism will also play a role: "Look how technically and scientifically advanced we are. This can't be a collapse, it's due to the malevolence of <insert name of scapegoat here>."

One way or another, by the end of the century the world will probably be unrecognizable to people who lived today.

[Logical]

33. He is 100% correct. nt

[yallerdawg]

40. It's evolution, baby!

And we are the Neanderthals this time.

[joshcryer]

43. I don't see the problem.

What are people afraid of?

[Fumesucker]

49. Technological change is accelerating and the rate of change is accelerating

Twenty three years ago the first exoplanet was discovered using the most sophisticated tools of the science of the time, today it's possible to detect an exoplanet with an obsolete consumer DSLR camera and an equally obsolete telephoto lens, you don't even need a telescope, quite literally you could do it for well under five hundred dollars in equipment and using free software on a plain vanilla PC. I have everything necessary to do it and I'm by no means an advanced amateur astronomer.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/diy-exoplanet-detector

If human level or greater AI happens and I think it will, it's going to go from a lab curiosity to widespread technology in a remarkably short time, less time than it will take to properly ponder the possible ramifications of such a momentous event.

[joshcryer]

52. Yeah, but everyone thinks it's bad.

I don't think it can possibly be bad even if it "wipes out humanity."

[Fumesucker]

54. Do you have children?

[joshcryer]

55. Nephews and nieces.

[Fumesucker]

64. I'm not sure I'll see a true AI in my lifetime but my kids more than likely will..

And my grandkids almost certainly. At this point their lives are more precious to me than my own.

Even discounting outright malevolence there are just *so* many ways an AI dominated society could become dystopian.

[joshcryer]

71. Most pressing issue is self-driving cars and automation.

A basic income or living wage (whatever term you prefer) will be 100% necessary in a very few short years. Clinton is unlikely to broach it and I don't even think the policy wonks are paying attention to the short term changes that are soon to be happening (not even Sanders or Warren are paying enough attention to advocate for a basic income / living wage).

Watch this video, it's only about five minutes:

Should happen within the next decade. And it'll be quite transformative.

I really don't think too much about AI taking over, though, the galactic core is where the energy is, a worse scenario is them leaving us (to go to the galactic core) and destroying our technology to create future AIs for fear of their own existence being destroyed by an AI which we consider "good."

[Fumesucker]

73. I tend to agree with Musk...

It will be irresponsible to allow humans to drive once machines are significantly better at it.

If nothing else the insurance companies will bring a stop to human driving at some point simply by jacking the rates up to astronomical levels for human drivers.

I've been saying the same thing as your post and the video for quite some time now, the automation revolution is going to roll over us at some point and it's going to surprise practically everyone.

[joshcryer]

75. The problem is the US government is reactionary.

It reacts to bad crap happening, rather than being forward thinking and trying to solve a problem before it starts. I don't think anyone we have currently in the running or even potential candidates in our government are forward thinking enough.

We'll probably have another depression or great recession before we finally see that we're creating a huge labor hole in the very short term future and the only people capable of working are going to be highly specialized laborers like programmers.

[Chathamization]

70. We're still struggling with modeling the 302 neurons of C Elegans. We're not going to get to the

86 billion in the human brain anytime soon. Hell, it was only a few years ago that we even realized that there were 86 billion neurons. Of course, there might be other ways to get something like human level AI than modeling neurons, but we know even less (nothing) about those.

It's kind of like ancient Mesopotamians going from one story to two story ziggurats, then saying, "hey, if we can keep doubling the size of these we'll get to the moon in no time!"

[Hosnon]

125. Your Mesopotamian illustration actually isn't far off.

The mistake humans make when predicting technological progress is assuming it is linear.

[eShirl]

50. Just have William Shatner talk to it until it commits suicide.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Induced_self-destruction

Induced self-destruction

Several entities with artificial intelligence (like self-aware computers and androids) suffered from severe internal systems failures after they had been made aware of paradoxes or other dilemmas. Being guided by logic, these artificial intelligences were unable to cope with logically insoluble problems.

Captain James T. Kirk was quite adept at inducing self-destruction in artificial intelligences, or "talking computers to death." He achieved the feat at least four times.

[Jamastiene]

53. If we at least get a decent android (not the OS) that can cook for us

and do other favors for us, I'll take the deal. That is, assuming consumers can afford one for ourselves. Human interaction is overrated, way overrated. Plus robots/droids won't have B.O. to deal with. That's a plus.

[RobertEarl]

66. Our only hope is ai

The machine may save the planet from man's destruction.

What else can? Man is too stupid, duh!

[Duppers]

107. Great point.... if weren't already too late.

[JonLP24]

74. It would certainly be interested to the evolution biology side of things

but I agree it is possible but don't a lot from here to later & what technology is developed & learn overtime.

[Binkie The Clown]

80. As a retired software engineer with a stong interest in AI

Allow me to make the following observation. Back in 1967 when I started reading scholarly articles on AI in the professional journals the consensus prediction was that computer intelligence would match human intelligence within 10 years or so. In the 1970's human-level AI was predicted to be just ten years in the future. In the 1980's we were told, confidently, that AI would catch up to humans within 10 or 12 years.

Then came the 90's and major new breakthroughs which lead experts to revise their predictions and tell us we would have human-class AI in about 10 years. In the 2000's I repeatedly read about how humans were going to be put out of their jobs by intelligent computers within 10 years. Now we are hearing the startling new prediction that within a decade we will have computers that are smarter than humans.

Rhetorical question: Do you think I believe it for a minute?

[GliderGuider]

85. It sounds just like the story of controlled fusion power...

[snooper2]

93. Um, fusion is coming baby!

IETR!

[GliderGuider]

104. Cool! Get back to me in 10 years, mkay? nt

[Orrex]

86. You won't be laughing in ten years, buddy.

Or maybe ten years after that.

Or ten years after that.


Or...

[Chathamization]

111. Part of the reason why these predictions are so silly is because we don't even understand the brain

It was only a few years ago (2009, I believe) that we found out there were 86 billion neurons in the human brain (before that, it was believed to be about 100 billion neurons). My understanding is that neurologists have only recently realized how important neuroplasticity is. We still have no idea what we would need to do to replicate the brain. But hey, that doesn't stop some people from being sure it's right around the corner...

[Binkie The Clown]

115. The problem with AI is specificity.

They build a kick-ass chess playing program and call it "AI". But let's see that chess playing program solve a crossword puzzle, or invent a better mouse trap. The AI is specific in the extreme to one particular problem (or in some rare cases, one set of related problems). That is not the kind of generalized intelligence that even the least skilled humans are capable of. There is none of the cross-domain flexibility we take for granted in humans.

[Chathamization]

122. Or even the flexibility of a mouse, something still far beyond our grasp

But you're right, people see a computer mimic a specific aspect of a human, then think that it means we're close to creating something like human intelligence. Siri shoots back canned responses, and people talk about how that means human level AI is right around the corner. I bet these people thought so too, 76 years ago:

If you don't understand what's going on, it's easy to see a robot speak (or Siri speak) and think it means we've created an artificial brain comparable to a human who can speak. But like you said, these things work because they are extremely specific. Also, the algorithms/processing involved are completely different (and we have an extremely limited understanding of how algorithms/processing works in the brain).

[hunter]

132. On the other hand, there might not be any "there" in intelligence.

Our minds may simply be a big bag of tools ready to be applied to specific problems, with a bunch of other tools on top of that, tools on top of tools to select lower level tools to use in a given situation.

We humans might call ourselves conscious and intelligent beings, but the only difference between us and a rat is we carry around a bigger set of tools in our head. At some point, when our software creations acquire a tool set similar in size to the human tool set, we'll have to consider them "intelligent." Otherwise it's just us changing the boundaries, "moving the goalposts," of what we call intelligence so we can exclude all but humans.

We already do that with animals, and the dominant human society has a long history of establishing boundaries that exclude other human societies.

It's clear to me there are plenty of conscious intelligent species on this planet, including some very obvious candidates like cetaceans, corvids, parrots, elephants, wolves, the rest of the great apes, and so on.

But if you recognize there is no one thing called intelligence, that there is no boundary, then you can start to recognize intelligence and communication in all sorts of life forms, not just the animals, but creatures such as trees, fungi, and social insects.

That scares the shit out of some people.

[bemildred]

121. +1. nt

[DeSwiss]

87. K&R

- Scary and bad? Fuck that FEAR shit. What are we men and women or sheep?

The world is ours, if we want it. Goddamn it.

[Trillo]

89. I think back to 20 years ago, to 1995 or thereabouts.

There was so much idealism about how the Internet was going to make our lives so much better. This was coming from the techies themselves. I really feel bad for such folks now, those individuals who empowered this computer revolution, only now to see how Big Corporate has completely usurped the vision they had and twisted it to be all about business as usual with fewer employees -- the same-ole same old -- just with fancy new automated tools.

[randome]

95. Not just 'Big Corporate' interests. We all contributed.

Pages crawl by at a snail's pace because we insist on being entertained by pretty colors and pointless graphics. The Internet as an information medium would be blazingly fast but for all that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

99. One of the reasons I stay on DU, it's fairly low bandwidth and my connection isn't always quick

When it's working well my connection practically blinks DU onto the screen and my last mile infrastructure is still a pair of copper wires.

[Trillo]

103. I understand.

There's a lot of search engine censorship now. Finding raw data is nearly impossible. Most everything of great value has been rewritten in confused form by wordy, overeducated folks, social media is perhaps why the search engines are now loaded this way. The Internet has been dumbed down, by a lot. While all of this happened since '95, the 0.1% have seen their fortunes soar even higher (this is what I mean by Big Corporate in this particular instance).

The personal computer and the Internet did not act as a leveler, a PR campaign for which it was sold to the rest of us. Wosniak is making that point in the OP, technology has taken a turn for the worse, as no one saw that financial and political systems would be used to perpetuate the same inequities that always existed, those responsible only offering platitudes and dissonant rationalizations in return.

It seems all the Internet really did was remove the veil from the greedy, and created few well-compensated opportunities in return. The rest have worked for free or for peanuts. The masses are now mesmerized by glowing pixels citing obsolete, ancient scripture, and still sending their praise to the invisible god in the sky.

[JonLP24]

114. What if these future AI robots

turned around looked at us and all became humanitarians & rescued us? mostly kidding but interesting thread.

[Marr]

116. I expect this is marketing for the upcoming Avengers sequel.

Not saying Wozniak or the rest are in on that, of course, but I can easily imagine a reporter asking questions that lead that direction and dressing up the responses for dramatic effect. The article is light on quotes and heavy on framing.

I see no reason to worry about artificial intelligence. It would be utterly alien to us. It's doubtful that anything we consider a priority would be a priority to a computer intelligence.

[ZombieHorde]

117. Well worth the risk. nt

[The2ndWheel]

130. Like there's a choice. nt

[stone space]

127. I'm actually looking forward to retirement.

'Cept for that money thingie.

[Auggie]

129. Climate change is scarier, it's happening now, and it's worse for people than AI

It'll get us long before technology does.

[DirkGently]

136. I love Woz, but he's a bit wonky. So is Ray.

Kurzweil may be a genius -- Woz certainly is -- but he's gulping mountains of pills every day in the belief that if he keeps his body alive long enough, his consciousness can be downloaded into a machine.

Respectfully, that's kind of nuts.

Consciousness is not information or computing power. We don't know exactly what it is. Therefore, there is no amount gigabytes of anything that means our electronic devices are going to start regarding us as lesser beings anytime in the foreseeable future.

It's a fun nova fictum though. I thought the movie Her did some cool stuff with it, and I recently streamed a B-movie with Antonio Banderas called Automata that also did a solid job. Oh, and The Machine -- very cool little British flick, I think.

[hunter]

140. I fundamentally disagree with your assertions about "consciousness."

Let's say a chip was installed in my head at birth that recorded all my experiences, and all my responses to those experiences.

Let's say I lived a hundred years, and after I died all the things that chip recorded were analyzed and then modeled into an artificial intelligence.

That artificial intelligence, depending upon the quality of the model, would more or less be "me."

I'm not the sort of person who would choose a Star Trek shuttle craft over a Star Trek transporter for any superstitious or religious reasons.

I'd find both forms of transportation equally abhorrent.

[DirkGently]

144. Consciousness is just memory?

I think that's simplistic. Plenty of machines have memory now; none are conscious.

[hunter]

145. That's not what I said.

Human memory isn't all that deep. We "remember" very little except in a very compressed and highly associative way. There are a lot of artifacts in the human memory, like the blockiness one sees in a highly compressed jpg image.

The "model" Hunter, perhaps an android, created from his memories would at first behave in a manner that was statistically identical to the way a flesh-and-blood Hunter might have behaved. As time went on, this behavior would diverge in a human hunter-like fashion.

That's the short "Star Trek" version of my thoughts.

On a deeper level I think time itself is not what most people think it is. I suspect the past is as shifty and as mutable as the future is, and only the present exists. But that present time is not the "present" we experience as consciousness. The conscious "present time" is offset into the shifty past, which can be verified by experiment in very simplistic ways, but I think what's going on there is a lot more complicated than that.

If you are into radio theory, I can make a simple analogy: The present time is the carrier frequency, the past is one sideband and the future is the other. Our minds and nervous systems are a sophisticated signal processor, and our "consciousness" exists on the sideband representing the past and is an emergent property of the signal processing itself.