THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HOW LONG UNTIL COMPUTERS HAVE THE SAME POWER AS A HUMAN BRAIN?

24 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Evolution, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Technology, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HOW LONG UNTIL COMPUTERS HAVE THE SAME POWER AS A HUMAN BRAIN?

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Evolution, Technological revolution, The Future of Mankind

( A six-minute evolutionary read)

It took billions of years to go from the first tiny DNA replicators to Homo Sapiens.

It hit you pretty quickly that what’s happening in the world of AI is not just an important topic, but by far THE most important topic for our future.

Our long-term evolutionary success is still to be determined.

When you ask the question is our human intelligence in any way the current peak of evolutionary progress. You also have to ask what is the nature of evolution?

It can not is no longer be that the process of evolution’s only “goal” seems to be self-propagation.

Why?

Because: Technologies already exist which allow genomic selection of embryos during in vitro fertilization—an embryo’s DNA can be sequenced from a single extracted cell. Recent advances such as CRISPR allow highly targeted editing of genomes, and will eventually find their uses in human reproduction.

Because: Artificial Intelligence and Technology like Deep Learning are changing the way we are looking at evolution. It’s no longer a process with a definite goal or even an endpoint.

Because: We may already be running into the genetic limits of intelligence.

The potential for improved human intelligence is enormous. Smarter people and smarter machines—will inevitably intersect.

Naively, one would expect the rate of advance of machine intelligence to outstrip that of biological intelligence. Tinkering with a machine seems easier than modifying a living species, one generation at a time. But advances in genomics—both in our ability to relate complex traits to the underlying genetic codes, and the ability to make direct edits to genomes—will allow rapid advances in biologically-based cognition.

So will AI or genetic modification have the greater impact in the year 2050?

The answer is both.

The feedback loop between algorithms and genomes will result in a rich and complex world, with myriad types of intelligences at play: the ordinary human (rapidly losing the ability to comprehend what is going on around them); the enhanced human (the driver of change over the next 100 years, but perhaps eventually surpassed); and all around them vast machine intellects, some alien (evolved completely in silico) and some strangely familiar (hybrids).

Considering one without the other neglects an important interaction.

Researchers have recently linked mouse and monkey brains together, allowing the animals to collaborate—via an electronic connection—to solve problems.

This is just the beginning of “shared thought.

Better human minds invent better machine learning methods, which in turn accelerate our ability to improve human DNA and create even better minds.

Rather than the standard science-fiction scenario of relatively unchanged, familiar humans interacting with ever-improving computer minds, means we will experience a future with a diversity of both human and machine intelligences.

For the first time, sentient beings of many different types will interact collaboratively to create ever greater advances, both through standard forms of communication and through new technologies allowing brain interfaces.

We may even see human minds uploaded into cyberspace, with further hybridization to follow in the purely virtual realm. These uploaded minds could combine with artificial algorithms and structures to produce an unknowable but humanlike consciousness.

It may seem incredible, or even disturbing, to predict that ordinary humans will lose touch with the most consequential developments on planet Earth, developments that determine the ultimate fate of our civilization and species.

Or will it be that we will augment or brains with AI.

Today, no more than a fraction of a percent of the population has a good understanding of quantum physics, although it underlies many of our most important technologies:

Some have estimated that 10-30 percent of modern gross domestic product is based on quantum mechanics. In the same way, ordinary humans of the future will come to accept machine intelligence as everyday technological magic, like the flat screen TV or smart phone, but with no deeper understanding of how it is possible.

AI will be a disaster for humanity…there is no doubt about it...unless (and this is a small hope) that humans start to treat each other with love and dignity, and that would take a (potentially biological) change in human nature itself which only highly controversial genetic engineering might muster.

Our ability to destroy anything we want to destroy will have to be removed.

It might be nice to fantasize about a star trek scenario, but in reality if we are even 1% as selfish and violent as we are now, and have even 1% of that kind of technology, we would annihilate our self in a matter of days.

Intelligence is synonymous with exploitation, and at every turn where more control is exerted on our world, from primitive fire and harnessing chemistry (bombs and munitions) (<.000001% of mass-energy), to nuclear (0.1%) of turning mass into energy, we get closer and closer to our annihilation the more control we have over our world.

Our intelligence has survived this long partly because we are a necessarily a bit stupid and limited as well. Once AI bridges that deficiency, we will short-circuit and end without taking drastic measures for peace.

If all were simultaneously improved, it would be possible to achieve, very roughly, about 100 standard deviations of improvement, corresponding to an IQ of over 1,000. We can’t imagine what capabilities this level of intelligence represents, but we can be sure it is far beyond our own. Cognitive engineering, via direct edits to embryonic human DNA, will eventually produce individuals who are well beyond all historical figures in cognitive ability.

By 2050, this process will likely have begun.

How and who will determine which kinds of intelligence are “most important” for both machines and humans? Will it be “free” market forces? Government panels? Or what?

What we do know is that humans’ utter dominance on this Earth suggests a clear rule: with intelligence comes power. Which means an ASI, when we create it, will be the most powerful being in the history of life on Earth, and all living things, including humans, will be entirely at its whim—and this might happen in the next few decades.

Once real AI takes over, it will share the same motivations (essentially emotions) that we install in this first oppressive wave of AI, and then I doubt we will be going along with it anywhere.

At the moment we all have a plaza attitude to technology and AI.

We seem to think that once machines reach human levels of intelligence, our ability to tinker starts to be limited by ethical considerations. This is totally foolish as by the time it has surpassed human performance (It has already done so on a number of narrowly defined tasks, such as image or character recognition.) it will be well beyond any ethical considerations.

Rebooting an operating system is one thing, but what about a sentient being with memories and a sense of free will? Eugenics will be all the rage.

Thanks to recent advances, we can predict a phase transition in the behavior of these learning algorithms, representing a sudden increase in their effectiveness.

It is expected that this transition will happen within about a decade, when we reach a critical threshold of about 1 million human genomes worth of data.

While silicon-based technologies are increasingly capable of simulating a mammalian or even human brain, we have little idea of how to find the tiny subset of all possible programs running on this hardware that would exhibit intelligent behavior. The detailed inner workings of a complex machine intelligence (or of a biological brain) may turn out to be incomprehensible to our human minds—

The first truly smart machines will be used just as dumb machines have been, to oppress many and enrich a few.

Its time to wake up if we all don’t want to end up on the garbage heap of Technology that is given Artificial Intelligence with the sole intention of making profit for Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, all monopolies jockeying for position.

Intelligence whether it is Artificial in a robot, or a smart phone is multidimensional, and must be vet to ensure it complies with our core values.

WE NEED A NEW TOTALLY TRANSPARENT WORLD ORGANISATION THAT IS SELF FINANCING TO VET ALL TECHNOLOGY BEFORE THEY’RE RELEASED INTO OUR FUTURE EVOLUTION.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the rubbish bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Sticking to the creativity killing industrial models of education and business certainly aren’t going to produce significant breakthrough technologies.

that

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: DEMOCRACY IS RAPIDLY BECOMING OUT OF DATE.

19 Sunday Mar 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Populism., Scientific., Technology, The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: DEMOCRACY IS RAPIDLY BECOMING OUT OF DATE.

Tags

Algorithms trade., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data, Computer technology, Technology, Technology age, Technology versus Humanity

( Four to Five minute read.)

Technology is transferring society and the way it is organised.

The Internet and social media have ended the monopoly of information previously enjoyed by authoritarian governments.

In 2017, over half of humanity will be online – one of the biggest societal shifts in history. Citizens expect their governments, political parties and civic groups to keep up.

The amount of data we produce doubles every year revealing how we think and feel. In another ten years there will be sensors measuring everything and the amount of data will double every 12 hours. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of democracy in ancient greece"

Hope disease will be all that is left.

To day 70% of all financial transactions are performed by Algorithms.

News content is more and more automatically generated.

Half of to days jobs are threatened to disappear.

It is beyond a doubt that the world economy and society will change fundamentally.

Smart artificial intelligence is learning to recognize patterns.

Take the wrong decisions now and we are all Fucked.

To day Algorithms know pretty well what we do and what we think and how we feel with the resulting decisions feeling like they were our own.

We are on the threshold of being remotely controlled.

Individual monitoring will lead to citizen score.

And it won’t stop there.

Mark my words:

Persuasive computing is just around the corner. Data – empowered “Wise Kings” with manipulation technologies used by Google Facebook Twitter Amazon Snapshot and the like will be nudging us and our governments without Democracy to do things in their opinions and not ours.

We already have a world where Hope disease is rampant and by the time technology can win elections it will be too late for a vaccine.

Manipulation will be the rage and undesirable side effects can be expected.

Social polarization is only just beginning destroying social cohesion.

Brexit- Donald Trump.

The question is: Why are we and our elected representatives so blind to this come age.

The reason is because it is happening at a pace of digital slavery. Slowly enough that there is little resistance from the population, who are loosing their freedom and fast enough to be unstoppable.

Its time to sit up and pay attention.

The right of individual self-development can only be exercised by those who have control over their lives. A democracy cannot work unless these rights are respected. If constrained, this undermines our society and the power state.

The current collecting and processing of personal data is certainly not compatible with the application data laws.

A single click to confirm that we agree with the contents of a hundred page ” terms of use” agreement is woefully inadequate.

Without transparency, legal responsibility and ethical constraints Algorithms for profit are replacing thinking of all citizens. Computer cluster will control our lives.

This is to be avoided at all costs.

But there is little outcry that decisions by powerful algorithms are undermining the basis of ” Collective intelligence” Big Data, artificial intelligence, cybernetics, and behavioral economics are shaping our society for better or worse.

If we do not put in place a New World Organisation that exams all technology to be fit for purpose, to be compatible with society’s core values we will be living in a digital prison, under a digital dictatorship that sooner than later will cause extensive damage.

An automated society with totalitarian features owned by Google and its Tech buddies.

Collective intelligence requires a high degree of diversity. Image associée

The current moment confronts us with a paradox.

The unprecedented advance of technologies that facilitate individual empowerment and the overall lack of advance of democracy worldwide?

Many democracies, both long-established ones and newer ones, are experiencing serious institutional debilities and weak public confidence.

The next decade or two may well produce a different overall picture of global democratic change as technology-enabled patterns of political innovation spread to high-density urban environments, making mayors and local councils the spearhead of broader democratic change.

Moreover, new technologies are empowering individuals in many facets of their lives not directly related to politics, for example by giving the poor access to previously unattainable banking services and helping map the property rights of the poorest communities.

These slow-burn socioeconomic forms of empowerment will likely also have significant larger political effects in the years immediately ahead.

Facebook and Twitter exchanges will not automatically create a democracy or an economy.

Ask yourself why with all the technological development of recent years, which seemed to promise all sorts of economic leaps and bounds, has coincided with economic slow growth and rising inequality, especially in the countries most enjoying this technology.

It’s because of Hope Disease.

All comments appreciated. All Like clicks chucked in the Bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: GOOGLE IS MAKING OUR KNOWLEDGE VALUELESS.

13 Monday Mar 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Google, Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Technology, The Internet., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: GOOGLE IS MAKING OUR KNOWLEDGE VALUELESS.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Google, Google ambitions, Google knowledge., Google/Amazon/Facebook/Twitter

( A five-minute read if you don’t want to be Googled)

Artificial intelligence is changing the world we live in but are we all going to end up scratching our behinds wishing we were dead. Turned into “‘pancake people’—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.

Our thoughts and actions scripted as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm.

As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.

The perfect coordination and optimization of our day- to – day lives controlled by Google Monopoly inc.

Google is draining of our “inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,”

Why because we will be in a state of constant Google observation with the entire world connected to the world they wish to present.

At the moment Google control over 65% of all searches, ( WHICH NO ONE KNOWS HOW IT WORKS)

Google is not required by Law to serve everyone nor for that matter is Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Snapchat, or Twitter.

Nearly every iPhone operates on its Android operating system.

WE ARE ESSENTIALLY SENTENCED TO A GOOGLE DIGITAL DEATH.

They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought.

For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.

The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.

The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.

Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.

Google’s headquarters, in Mountain View, California—the Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church, and the religion practiced inside its walls is Taylorism.

Taylor created a set of precise instructions—an “algorithm,” we might say today—for how each worker should work.

Taylor’s system is still very much with us; it remains the ethic of industrial manufacturing. And now, thanks to the growing power that computer engineers and software coders wield over our intellectual lives, Taylor’s ethic is beginning to govern the realm of the mind as well.

Google, is “a company that’s founded around the science of measurement,” and it is striving to “systematize everything” it does.

Drawing on the terabytes of behavioral data it collects through its search engine and other sites, it carries out thousands of experiments a day, according to the Harvard Business Review, and it uses the results to refine the algorithms that increasingly control how people find information and extract meaning from it.

What Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind.

The company has declared that its mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

It seeks to develop “the perfect search engine,” which it defines as something that “understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want.”

In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.

Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling.

It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. In Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.

And because we would be able to “receive a quantity of information without proper instruction,” we would “be thought very knowledgeable when we are for the most part quite ignorant.” We would be “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” This is not good, as the world is in need of wisdom more than ever.

I come from a tradition of Western culture, in which the ideal (my ideal) was the complex, dense and “cathedral-like” structure of the highly educated and articulate personality—a man or woman who carried inside themselves a personally constructed and unique version of the entire heritage of the West. [But now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available.”

If we lose quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only in ourselves but in our culture. In a recent essay, the playwright Richard Foreman eloquently described what’s at stake:

As Richard Foreman so beautifully describes it, we’ve been pounded into instantly-available pancakes, becoming the unpredictable but statistically critical synapses in the whole Gödel-to-Google net. Does the resulting mind (as Richardson would have it) belong to us? Or does it belong to something else?

Will this produce a new kind of enlightenment or “super-consciousness”? Sometimes I am seduced by those proclaiming so—and sometimes I shrink back in horror at a world that seems to have lost the thick and multi-textured density of deeply evolved personality.

Reading, is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It’s not etched into our genes the way speech is.

The media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains.

Circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.

The tools that extend our mental rather than our physical capacities—we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies.

Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today.

Where does it end?

Mr Page of google said in a speech a few years back. “For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.”

The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements.

The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.

There’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, there’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine.

Google as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.”

I know that Google will argue the toss and indeed other than they becoming a monopolizing influence I would have great praise.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the Bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY ASKS: WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO ENACT THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS.

07 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Donald Trump Presidency., European Union., Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASKS: WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO ENACT THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., European Union, Social Media, Technology, The Future of Mankind, The Obvious.

( A Ten Minute read that might open your eyes to the Obvious)

I am sure like me you often wonder why it is that when something is obvious we humans are unable to react. It is obvious that Technology is changing the world and us but nothing hides like the obvious. The obvious is best disguised into itself. One obvious hides another.

Intelligent reason should visit its basic assumptions, regularly; but it doesn’t.

We all know that an own goal is an accident when it comes in sport unless there is some ulterior motive.

In the course of our own lives we have many own goals, some obvious, some accidental, but when it comes to collective action on one hand we cannot bear to notice our children becoming strangers and our parents growing senile. However on the other we are less concerned about Nations heading to war, companies going bust, greed and technology ruining our civilisation.

The obvious turns perverse.

We have too much stake in them to see clear and hear change ringing.

Is this the reason we cannot enact the obvious.?

We do not see what we do not wish to see, hoping that it will go away or solve itself. We grow blind to things we cannot cope with. We see and hear but we keep forgetting at once as if under a spell of neglect.

Our attention is so easily diverted… we just move on with inertia and sleep-walk unable to draw the undesired conclusion and to do something.

We do not grasp the incommensurable, out of proportion with us, with which we have no common standard of measurement: the trillions of billions, the hazy dots shown by the electronic microscope in a cell, or all the same, the blurred dots being huge stars of the infinite, mean nothing to us, exactly like the hypocrite warnings of cancer and death on cigarette packs. Is this because the things smalled below our threshold or amplified huge – in proportions or in meaning – we do not grasp;

If this is so we have a narrow human window of perception and judgement with limited parameters in wavelength, amplitude, intensity and nature.

However we are the measure of all things we conceive.

Whether it be demographic and social change, shifts in economic power, technological breakthroughs or natural resource scarcities, climate change – the world, and those of us in it, need to be more adaptable than ever before.

Overwhelmed by the creativity of Artificial Intelligence, our governments do not protect us anymore, so that the risk is now our own business.

Reason has become asks references, with a hidden price of selective blindness and thus freedom diminished. It is easier to observe other people’s basic assumptions than yours.

If that which is not there is difficult to see, that which is obvious, plain and evident, is at times even harder to notice.

For instance:

Is it not blinding obvious that Twitter now holds unmitigated power when it comes to posting Donald Trump’s tweets.

Is it not bleeding obvious that Google wants to control all knowledge. Very few of us spending an instant to examine Google Fraud answers.

It is beyond the obvious that in a world that is getting more complex and multipolar each and every single day the truth does not cease to exist when it is ignored.

Not missing the things right under our nose is our last protection against danger, loss and disappointment; it grants our judgement to be sound and wise, with feet on ground.

You will agree though that the obvious is the very face of reality.

Take notice of the obvious and suddenly, instead of nodding sheepishly “This is how things are.” you gain the power to make choices which you and most people around you ignored before.

The obvious known, comes alive for us to do something about it only when understanding turns it into personal image, vivid and simple enough to be of our size; otherwise we stay paralysed and dumb.

If you are like me, we need to let people participate in democracy and get collective decisions that are reasonable.

I often think when it comes to politics and our governments that there are things that are so blinding obvious (when all the bullshit is set aside) to do.

For example to reform the European Union.

Is it not blinding obvious that we should stop the moving of the £130 million travelling circus that sees MEPs decamp once a month from Brussels to Strasbourg.

Why should we all be held to ransom by France. On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense. If France want it let them pay for it. “Its madness.” Just think how many better ways there are to spend this money.

It boggles my mind as to why we put up with it.

God only knows what the cost of Brixit will be.

There is no doubt that seething resentment over widening inequalities in the wake of the financial crisis played a big role in boosting the Brexit vote but it is also blinding obvious that England is now facing a major realignment that will need the EU market and the free movement of people to survive economically.

There is NO simple solution – if there was it would have been done by now.

How do you know a politician is being dishonest? He blames something on “special interests.” What is a special interest? Why, it is an interest opposed to the “general interest” or collective will. There ain’t no such thing.

That might not be possible. The challenge for me – and you – is to sort out which is which.

But this is not the purpose of this post, rather to examine the broader question.

I am also all too conscious that there are any number of people out there who have deeply held convictions about what’s right and what’s wrong. I may just be right about some things, I may be wrong about others.

In a world predominated by power of a more self-interest nature, has the obvious being consigned to the rubbish bin of politics.

Without having read and understood the instructions book of life, algorithms are switching on an immensely complicated machine.

Once injected into to the political system they can develop a life of their own.

Politics stems from human misbehaviour, which clashes with the terms of modern democratic belief systems in which all adults are assumed to be entitled to behave as they feel inclined, at least within the scope of their income and the constraints of public law and insofar as they refrain from damaging the opportunities of their fellow citizens to do likewise. Algorithms have none of these constraints.

” It is blinding obvious with the election of Donald Trump a man who revels in his own ignorance, racism and misogyny, that there is no single way of acting.”

Even if there was how would we set about determining what it is? Whom can we trust to do so?

Whom is to be judge? What is an advantage to one group of human beings and what is not to the advantage of another.

Until recent times politics and science usually managed to ignore each other.

Not any more:

Social Media which is riddled with algorithms are now blindly leading us down the road of Technological Inequality by turning the obvious into Fake News.

As a result politics appears where the main contours of collective and social life set the principal interests of groups of humans beings against one another.

Where they do not Conflict politics will not occur.

Social Media politics by Twitter will achieve conflict with a plum. Watch this Space.

So where does this leave us.

You would think that when something becomes blatantly obvious it would be common sense with no need for political input to enact or rectify it.

Isn’t that blindingly obvious to everyone except our politicians.

Contrary to popular belief, “the capacity to err is crucial to human cognition” and that “wrongness is a vital part of how we learn and change.” DONALD TRUMP’S LEGACY. Politicians and bureaucrats, naturally, don’t enjoy being criticised. But if the response is to shut out those who criticise then they are making their work even harder and setting themselves up for more criticism.

The view that to understand politics we first need to know what politics is has a certain immediate force. BUT WHAT IS NEEDED is something which reaches beyond the tribe and doesn’t rely on conventional party politics within the existing structures. Instead of “to me” we need to change it “to us”.

I know that people drown in stats and often put their fingers in their ears when it comes to the blinding obvious. The fact of the matter is that all wisdom does not, and never has, resided in government’s. Changes must be initiated with Indigenous people’s informed consent, in ways that resonate with their views of what is legitimate and in ways that gain their support.

This will not happen by coercion and imposition.

Consider this:

The most incontrovertible long-range social observation ever made? Was the Galilean carpenter Jesus’ comment that “The poor will be with you always”

Governments have had 222 years to get this right. On any evaluation, governments have fallen seriously short. Every indicator says government is not capable of solving this alone.

The words that feature prominently in Politic confronted with the squalor are appalling, dismal, neglect, waste.

Without comprehending the magnitude of different cultural outlooks – and without often understanding our own – we make it artificially difficult to create the kind of society we think we are as a nation – or the one we want to be.

It’s blatantly obvious that to solve the world’s problems we need a renewed reformed United Nations that is fully funded. (See previous Posts)

I do speak as someone who gives a damn, I don’t share is any thought that nothing can be done. “ Not bleeding hearts, just the bleeding obvious”

Or will we dare create something that people can point to and say “Now that’s what justice and decently looks like?” The answer, I am convinced, lies with us working – together – for humanity. And that, to me, is just “bleeding obvious”.

Let me conclude by being so bold as to suggest the “bleeding obvious”…..

I avoid the word “solutions” We’ve got to look to the future.”

All Technology must be vetted by a new World Organisation that is totally transparent to ensure that it complies to enhancing our lives, and that is has a source of responsibility.

We cannot have various visionaries tell us that the real world is not what we experience but the one they reveal and proclaim, so that we must follow them.

I invite government to let go of the idea of imposing universal solutions and support those programs that respect and honour the multiplicity of cultural differences.

The useless conclusion is that our senses and memories cheat us, our common sense is no good and our judgement false.

Science does almost the same in all good faith; it invites us not to believe our impressions and intuitive reasoning but to delegate all-knowing to its specialists, the knowers and witnesses of verified truth too-complicated- for- common- people- to-understand.

Knowing our history is part of being human.

What are the seeds our common humanity? What right and decent? And so I ask will our final words be tragic, like those Henry Dunant “Where has humanity gone?”

The passion and commitment of so many decent people out there is constantly being tested. Keeping up the energy and the enthusiasm is a constant battle and it shouldn’t be obvious.

Liberty is not about thinking or saying or doing whatever we want. It is about exercising our freedom in such a way as to make a difference in the world and make a difference for more than just ourselves.

That should be obvious to one in all.

All comments obviously welcome. All like clicks chucked in the Bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

I am still pissed off.

We need Bottom up development. If Europe does not set social limits to competition then the market outcome will be exploitation of workers and not innovation. European social standards together with massive investment in skills are more than ever necessary.

The Syria crisis will only make things worse for Europe, which remains incapable of fixing its broken migration policy, and the chance for migration reform in the United States has faded away.

Globalisation-induced changes in the sharing of wealth in the world, combined with the demographic trends of the continents will soon generate new needs for regulation

All this is easy to say but what to do about it?

Detecting the obvious, the one which we do not notice any more, is a vital art of liberation; glimpses that can change the world.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GOES WRONG.

02 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GOES WRONG.

Tags

AI systems., Artificial Intelligence., Computer technology, Current world problems, Machine learning., quantum computing, Robots., Smart machine, The Future of Mankind

( Twelve minute read for all programmers, code writers.)

I think most people are worrying about the wrong things when they worry about Robots and AI. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of legal robots"

However with AI and robotics positioned to impact all areas of society, we are remiss not to set things in motion now to prepare for a very different world in the future.

The danger is not AI itself but rather what people do with the AI. The repercussions of AI technology is going to be profound, limited by biological evolution we will be unable to keep up.

So we were all making a very basic mistake when it comes to ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

Like every advance in technology AI has the potential to do amazing things, on the other hand it also has the potential to do dangerous things and there is little that can be done to stop or rectify it once it’s unleashed. For example its use in weaponizing.

(Recently I read where it is now almost possible to physically create a computer made of DNA using DNA molecules. A computer that can be programmed to compute anything any other device can process.

Electronic computers are a form of UTM, but no quantum UTM has yet been built, if built it will outperform all standard computers on significant practical problems. This ‘magical’ property is possible because the computer’s processors are made of DNA rather than silicon chips. All electronic computers have a fixed number of chips.

So what?

As DNA molecules are very small a desktop computer could potentially utilize more processors than all the electronic computers in the world combined – and therefore outperform the world’s current fastest supercomputer, while consuming a tiny fraction of its energy.

It will definitely bring about moral and philosophical issues that we should be concerned about right now.)

Back to today:

It’s no longer what or when Artificial Intelligence will change our lives, but how or what and who is going to be help responsible.

We are at a crossroads. We need to make decisions. We must re-invent our future.

It is the role of AI in future, truly hybrid societies, or socio-cognitive-technical systems, that will be the real game changer.

The real potential of AI includes not only the development of intelligent machines and learning robots, but also how these systems influence our social and even biological habits, leading to new forms of organization, perception and interaction.

In other words, AI will extend and therefore change our minds.

Robots are things we build, and so we can pick their goals and behaviours. Both buyers and builders ought to pick those goals sensibly, but people who will use and buy AI should know what the risks really are.

Understanding human behaviour may be the greatest benefit of artificial intelligence if it helps us find ways to reduce conflict and live sustainably.

However, knowing fully well what an individual person is likely to do in a particular situation is obviously a very, very great power. Bad applications of this power include the deliberate addiction of customers to a product or service, skewing vote outcomes through disenfranchising some classes of voters by convincing them their votes don’t matter, and even just old-fashioned stalking.

Machines might learn to predict our every move or purchase, or governments might try to put the blame robots for their own unethical policy decisions.

It’s pretty easy to guess when someone will be somewhere these days.

Robots, Artificial Intelligence programs, machine learning, you name it, all seem to be responsible for themselves.

However increasingly our control of machines and devices is delegated, not direct. That fact needs to be at least sufficiently transparent that we can handle the cases when components of systems our lives depend on go wrong.

In fact, robots belong to us. People, governments and companies build, own and program robots. Whoever owns and operates a robot should be responsible for what it does. AI systems must do what we want them to do.

In humans consciousness and ethics are associated with our morality, but that is because of our evolutionary and cultural history. In artefacts, moral obligation is not tied by either logical or mechanical necessity to awareness or feelings. This is one of the reasons we shouldn’t make AI responsible: we can’t punish it in a meaningful way, because good AI systems are designed to be modular, so the “pain” of punishment could always be excised, unlike in nature.

We must get over our over-identification with AI systems and start demanding that all Technologies that is not designed for the betterment of humanity and the world we live in be verify AI safe and companies need to make the AI they are inserting in their products visible.

We need a world Organisation that is totally transparent and accountable to VET all technology to ensure that :

To minimise social disruption and maximise social utility.

Robots should not be designed as weapons, except for national security reasons.
Robots should be designed and operated to comply with existing law, including privacy.
Robots are products: as with other products, they should be designed to be safe and secure.
Robots are manufactured artefacts: the illusion of emotions and intent should not be used to exploit vulnerable users.
It should be possible to find out who is responsible for any robot.
Robots should not be human-like because they will necessarily be owned.
Robots do not need to have a gender. We should consider how our technology reflects our expectations of gender. Who are the users, and who gets used?
We should not creating a legal status for robots that will dub them as “electronic persons,” implying that machines will have legal rights and obligations to fulfill. This means that robots will have to take responsibility for decisions they make, especially if they have autonomy.
We should insist on a kill switch for all robots that would shut down all functions if necessary.
We should have restrictions on robots to ensure they obey all commands unless those commands would force them to physically do harm to humans or themselves through action or inaction.
We should not use robots to reason about what it means to be human, calling them “human” dehumanize real people. Worse, it gives people the excuse to blame robots for their actions, when really anything a robot does is entirely our own responsibility.

There are also ethical issues with AI, but they are all the same issues we have with other artifacts we build and value or rely on, such as fine art or sewage plants.

Yesterday, the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee voted to pass a report urging the drafting of a set of regulations to govern the use and creation of robots and AI.
legal liability may need to be proportionate to its level of autonomy and “education,” with the owners of robots with longer training periods held more responsible for those robots’ actions.
A big part of the responsibility also rests on the designers behind these sophisticated machines, with the report suggesting more careful monitoring and transparency. This can be done by providing access to source codes and registration of machines. The forming an ethics committee, where creators might be required to present their designs before they build them.
We should have to have a league of programmers dedicated to opposing the misuse of AI technology to exploit people’s natural emotional empathy.

As AI gets better, these issues have gotten more serious.

So to wrap up this blog :

First, here are many reasons not to be worry. However it is not enough for experts to understand the role of AI in society it is also imperative to communicate this understanding to non-experts.

Secondly, we shouldn’t ever be seen as selling our own data, just leasing it for a particular purpose.

This is the model software companies already use for their products; we should just apply the same legal reasoning to we humans. Then if we have any reason to suspect our data has been used in a way we didn’t approve, we should be able to prosecute. That is, the applications of our data should be subject to regulations that protect ordinary citizens from the intrusions of governments, corporations and even friends.

These problems are so hard, they might actually be impossible to solve.

But building and using AI is one way we might figure out some answers. If we have tools to help us think, they might make us smarter. And if we have tools that help us understand how we think, that might help us find ways to be happier.

The idea that robots, being authored by us, will always be owned—is completely bonkers. It is the duty of all of us to make AI researchers ensure that the future impact is beneficial, not making robots into others, but accepting them as part of ourselves – as artefacts of our culture rather than as members of our in group.

Unfortunately, it’s easier to get famous and sell robots if you go around pretending that your robot really needs to be loved, or otherwise really is human – or superhuman!

Just because they are shaped like a human and they’d watched Star Wars, passers-by thought it deserved more ethical consideration than they gave homeless people, who were actually people.

Because we build and own robots, we shouldn’t ever want them to be persons.

I can hear you saying that our society faces many hard problems far more pressing than the advance of Artificial intelligence. AI is here now, and even without AI, our hyperconnected socio-technical culture already creates radically new dynamics and challenges for both human society and our environment.

AI and computer science, particularly machine learning but also HCI, are increasingly able to help out research in the social sciences. Fields that are benefiting include political science, economics, psychology, anthropology and business / marketing. All true but automation causes economic inequality.

Blaming robots is insane, and taxing the robots themselves is insane.

This is insane because no robot comes spontaneously into being. Robots are all constructed, and the ones that have impact on the economy are constructed by the rich which is creating a fundamental shift in the power and availability of artificial intelligence, and its impact on everyday lives. It creates a moral hazard to dump responsibility into a pit that you cannot sue or punish. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of legal robots"

Some people really expected AI to replace humans. These people don’t have enough direct, personal experience of AI to really understand whether or not it was human in the first place.

There is no going back on this, but that isn’t to say society is doomed.

The word “robot” is derived from the Czech word for “slave.”

Lets keep it that way: I am all for Technological self-reproduction – Slaves.

Unless we can re calibrate our tendency to exploit each other, the question may not be whether the human race can survive the machine age – but whether it deserves to.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: Artificial intelligence wasn’t supposed to work this way.

27 Monday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: Artificial intelligence wasn’t supposed to work this way.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence.

(Get Intelligent with a six-minute read)

OUT of the way, human. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture machine learning"

AI programs are starting to become smart enough and capable enough to replace human beings in our traditional and long-held professional roles—and beyond basic functions like taking food orders or processing simple transactions.

As each day passes by, Artificial Intelligence is getting smarter. A new AI program has now gained the ability to write its own code, by stealing code from other programs.

One advantage of letting an AI loose in this way is that it can search more thoroughly and widely than a human coder but the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.

A world run by neural networked deep-learning machines requires a different workforce. Of course, humans still have to train these systems. But for now, at least, that’s a rarefied skill.

The code that runs the universe may defy human analysis. Another words the code will become less important than the data we use to train it.

First we write the code, then the machine expresses it. Machine learning suggests the opposite, an outside-in view in which code doesn’t just determine behavior, behavior also determines code but code does not exist separate from the physical world; it is deeply influenced and transmogrified by it. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture machine learning"

So it is fair to conclude that we are about to have a more complicated but ultimately more rewarding relationship with technology.

I don’t think so. Machine learning will have a democratizing influence. Instead of being masters of our creations, we will have learned to bargain with them, cajoling and guiding them in the general direction of our goals.

We are in the process of building our own jungle, and it has a life of its own. The rise of machine learning is the latest—and perhaps the last—step in this journey.

Computers are becoming devices for turning experience into technology and we may well go from commanding our devices to parenting them.

Already the companies that build this stuff find it behaving in ways that are hard to govern. Last summer, Google rushed to apologize when its photo recognition engine started tagging images of black people as gorillas and it is facing an antitrust investigation in Europe that accuses the company of exerting undue influence over its search results.

One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.

As networks grow more intertwined and their functions more complex, code has come to seem more like an alien force, the ghosts in the machine ever more elusive and ungovernable. Planes grounded for no reason.

Whether you like this state of affairs or hate it—whether you’re a member of the coding elite or someone who barely feels competent to futz with the settings on your phone—don’t get used to it. Our machines are starting to speak a different language now, one that even the best coders can’t fully understand.

To my mind this state of affairs is totally unacceptable because the digital revolution wormed its way into every part of our lives, it also seeped into our language and our deep, basic theories about how things work.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has gone so far as to suggest there might be a “fundamental mathematical law underlying human relationships that governs the balance of who and what we all care about.”

If you control the code, you control the world,” wrote futurist Marc Goodman.

Paul Ford was slightly more circumspect: “If coders don’t run the world, they run the things that run the world.”

Code is logical. Code is hackable. Code is destiny. These are the central tenets (and self-fulfilling prophecies) of life in the digital age, declaring the end of the age of Enlightenment, our centuries-long faith in logic, determinism, and control over nature.

We are surrounding ourselves with machines that convert our actions, thoughts, and emotions into data—raw material for armies of code-wielding engineers to manipulate.

With machine learning, programmers don’t encode computers with instructions. They train them by constantly deriving the relationship between billions of data points—generate guesses about the world.

Legal, medical, marketing, education, and even technological industries will all slowly be driven forward by machine workers and behind-the-scenes machine learning algorithms that can make the AI even better with minimal human interference.

What does this mean for the average worker? Are we all going to be jobless and homeless if we aren’t able to make any money?

Over the course of several years, which isn’t very long from a cultural transition standpoint, AI programs will become sophisticated enough to fully replace the roles most of us currently fill.

The top thinkers—the leaders, visionaries, and most experienced among us—will likely be “irreplaceable,” at least to preserve a cautious system of checks and balances to the still-relatively-new AI landscape, but the vast majority of us will be out of a job in our current capacities.

If you’re thinking to yourself, “there’s no way a machine can replace my job,” due to its demand for sophisticated processes like abstract thought or the use of language, consider three jobs already being replaced by AI programs, previously thought to be irreplaceable:

Automated investors and financial advisors—robotic programs to track medications- the news. (You’ve probably already read at least one article written by them without noticing.)

We have come to see life itself as something ruled by a series of instructions that can be discovered, exploited, optimized, maybe even rewritten.

Companies use code to understand our most intimate ties.

This, however, is going to create significant economic inequality world wise.

A disproportionate emphasis would fall on one niche skill set, and even though resources may be more plentiful (thanks again to AI-regulated processes in energy and agriculture), there could still be a serious discrepancy creating a rift between economic classes. Most of these debates were based on fixed beliefs about how the world has to be organized and how the brain worked.

All living cells that we know of on this planet are DNA-software-driven biological machines.

Even self-help literature insists that you can hack your own source code, reprogramming your love life, your sleep routine, and your spending habits but this no longer holds water.

The big urgent question is Artificial intelligence that is designed with profit overriding its code.

The world needs now not to-morrow a new Independent Organisation to vet all technology. If not we will have a world with all its present difficulties amplified ten fold.

The above is highly unlikely to happen. So if you don’t want to ripped off here is a small practical piece of advice.

Artificial Intelligence is currently able to recognise your face, your voice, your most intimate ties, the balance of who and what we all care about.

Recently a voice recognition app was used by criminals to phone an individual with the authentic voice of a loved one. This person naturally responded to a request made by that voice loosing his or hers life savings.

The Advice: Is to put in place a family code word that when requested or used authenticates all contacts.

I leave you with this. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of god's creation"

The practice of matching letters to numbers in any language is called Germatria and it is particularly prevalent in Judaism, which believes that the holy book, the Torah is the word of God-given to Moses, and that Gods messages are coded numerically in the Hebrew word of the Torah. Thus the number 7 is intrinsically linked with Creation and is regarded as God’s number.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHERE IS TECHNOLOGY GOING?

24 Friday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Modern day life., Technology, The Future, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHERE IS TECHNOLOGY GOING?

Tags

Communication Technology, Technium., TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT, Technology age, Technology versus Humanity, technophilia

( If you own a Smartphone this is a disturbing seven minute read)

I am sure because the major predecessor system to technology is organic life many questions as to the effects of technology have been asked.down the centuries.

I am also sure that in the end, history will record that human evolution is directly correlated to technology evolution. Evolution has a bias and that is to survive.
Can we see the direction of technology in the direction of life and evolution?

Many argue that technology has mostly caused a positive effects to our lives but I beg to differ.

Because to days technology has forces us to redistribute our time. Because we have become so heavily involved in what’s going on somewhere else and not so involved in our immediate environment we can barely fight back. We just do whatever technology wants us to.

Today’s society is becoming more and more addicted to technology that people are not appreciating what the world has to offer.

The more advanced technology becomes, the more it seems to have control over our lives.

So, looking at the evolution of life and the long-term histories of past technologies, what is the long-term trajectories of the technium?

What does technology want?

In general the long-term bias of technology is to increase the diversity of artifacts, methods, techniques. More ways, more choices.

Over time technological advances invent more energy-efficient methods, and gravitate to technologies which compress the most information and knowledge into a given space or weight. Also over time, more of more of matter on the planet will be touched by technological processes.

Knowledge is at the tip of our fingers.

Technology impacts a million basic things that we take for granted every day.

But is this really good for us?

Many including me will argue that technology is making us dumber. ( See previous posts)

We can no longer remember much because we store everything we need to remember on our phone or look it up when needed. Nowadays, people are becoming too reliant on their phones and other technology that they don’t realize what they are missing.

Our absurd addictions to technology, social media and our smartphones is starting to affect our brains. Technology has brought us to the point where we can become so socially awkward that we would consider a relationship with a robot in the not so distant future.

It is increasing so much that you don’t even realize what you are trusting on!

We can’t control it anymore. Every minute of our lives we are distracted by an electronic device. The more automated we become, the more technology takes over our lives both now and in the future.

It is obvious that over time technologies will require more surrounding technologies in order to be discovered and to operate; some technologies becoming eusocial – a distributed existence – in which they are inert when solitary.

Also, technologies tend toward ubiquity and cheapness with new levels of complexity (though many will get simpler, too).

In the long run, technology increases the speed at which it evolves and encourages its own means of invention to change.

It aims to keep the game of change going.

What this means is that when the future trajectory of a particular field of technology is in doubt, “all things being equal” you can guess several things about where it is headed:

•The varieties of whatever will increase. Those varieties that give humans more free choices will prevail.

•Technologies will start out general in their first version, and specialize over time. Going niche will always be going with the flow. There is almost no end to how specialized (and tiny) some niches can get.

•You can safely anticipate higher energy efficiency, more compact meaning and everything getting smarter.

•All are headed to ubiquity and free. What flips when everyone has one? What happens when it is free?

•Any highly evolved form becomes beautiful, which can be its own attraction.

•Over time the fastest moving technology will become more social, more co- dependent, more ecological, more deeply entwined with other technologies. Many technologies require scaffolding tech to be born first.

•The trend is toward enabling technologies which become tools for inventing new technologies easiest, faster, cheaper.

•High tech needs clean water, clean air, reliable energy just as much as humans want the same.

These are just some of the things technology wants.

Technology isn’t done transforming the world’s landscape. As a whole it is not just a jumble of wires and metal but a living, evolving organism that has its own unconscious needs and tendencies. By aligning ourselves with the long-term imperatives of this near-living system, we can capture its full gifts.

We don’t always have to do what technology wants, but I think we need to begin with what it wants so that we can work with these forces instead of against them.

Are we prepared? I think not.

We are still in a very early evolutionary state of this technology we call ‘society’.

Humans can be seen as dumb cogs:

It is only on the scale of statistics with millions of particles that a particle’s choice shapes up as a predictable radiation half-life. But even individual human wants and desires average out to weirdly predictable laws in aggregate.

The question is, if the earth (nature, human society topped with technology) is a body of a ‘technium’, who will she communicate, who will she mate?

AI already exists and its name is “Progress”.

It exists now in an embryonic state. It is dependent on nourishment through its virtual umbilical cord from its nurturing mother which is human civilization. The Singularity will be the moment of its birth, but it is already alive.

It is on the threshold of taking on a life of its own. It is beyond our control and it is hurtling the human race towards a singularity that will cause the overthrow of humanity by an AI.

Of course we humans want certain things from the technium, but at the same time there is an inherent bias in the technium outside of our wants. Beyond our desires, there is a tendency within the technium that – all other things being equal — favors a certain solutions. Technology will head in certain directions because physics, mathematics, and realities of innovation constrain possibilities.

What are the most awesome technology creations that have changed the world that we live in? It’s impossible to list them all.

Let’s start to see where we are going with some of the below Technological inventions.

Fibre optic technology. Graphene. Cellphone technology. Personal Computing. Microchip technology. Smartphone and tablet technology. Nano Robots. Satellite Communications. Solar Cells. The Internet of Things. Transistors. 3D Printing technology. Space flight. Nuclear power. Artificial intelligence. Organ transplants. Digital media. Genetic engineering.

It is obvious that most are only at their beginning such as Drones and Robots, 3D Printing and Artificial Intelligence and Machinery that can fix itself.

You could write a litany on any one, but for the sake of this post I am going to look at one in particular. The Smart Phone.

It is already changing the landscape.

Let’s look at the direction of smart phone technology, the ways smart phone technology changes society, understand the impact of change and manner in which we live our lives, and how smartphones could potentially create hazardous situations.

t1larg.smartphones. unaware

To understand the direction of Smartphone technology we must first except that smartphones phones come with many benefits i.e. they can be used as a library, they can multitask etc. but they can also influence your social life negatively.

Given that the society is heading towards a smart phone world, it is apparent that individuals will be investing more time to their screens tweeting and engaging in Facebook forums than meeting one on one with friends and colleagues.

That is so because increased number of smartphones will share similar mobile applications hence the ability to interact freely with social mates. This also poses a danger to relationships between individuals. Despite individuals being able to make an array of friends and engage in different relationships at a particular time the intensity of those relationships cannot be quantified as some persons in the social media are imposters.

From the above scenarios, it is apparent that despite relating with different people in different social platforms, no real oral communication is enhanced.

Smart phones have been a source of satisfaction to all social platform i.e. Twitter,Facebook, communication requirements. However, the negative effects of these social networks come with serious repercussions to the user.

There are three major areas that are vastly affected by smart phones, and they are business and socialization and wars.

Having said that, because technology explosion cannot be controlled, individuals need to acquire these new gadgets but not let their lives be controlled fully by these objects.

This implies that technology is rapidly changing to match the needs of humanity.

We live in a world today that relies on data communications. Smartphones can assist users in many different ways when it comes to data needs. Since the Smartphone has come into existence, it has constantly evolved into an improving piece of technology. This is something that will always occur in regards to smartphones, because companies have to either keep up or get left behind.

As far as smart phones are revolutionizing the mode of communication and enhancing the levels of interaction between remote and urban people, they are alienating and limiting people interactions, creating inequalities across the globe.

Despite being of importance uniting distant individuals,smart phones have helped extend the gap between close individuals while increasing distance between them.

From the aforementioned, it is apparent that the coming into force of smart phones has hampered oral communication greatly.

In my considered opinion, despite bringing with it advanced computing capability, in the ethic aspect, it is not of much importance to get a smart phone. This is because it will help one distant him/herself from close persons,jeopardized social engagement

Smartphones are addictive phones.

Giving the rapid expansion of the technology industry society is now consuming a lot of technology.

Has their influence and effects now gone to far?

Are they to blame for the deteriorating education levels. Bringing with it advanced learning engines i.e. in build educational information, smart phones is a threat to traditional learning with is heavy influences on individual level of personal development.

At the moment it is evident that not much weight is attached to social media statements as compared to physical statements. Few individual take social media interactions seriously, this is despite the existence of individuals who value social opinion that a real one.

Looking back at history, when a type of technology loses its usefulness, we put it aside for something better.

It’s not really our fault.

There seems to be no doubt then that technology has taken over our lives and many may say for the worse.

I really don’t think that electric cars, VR goggles and new, improved selfie sticks are the true measure of man’s technological progress as a species.

Can a ‘like’ really represent popularity and how others perceive you?’

It is only when we forget that it is us who should be controlling technology and not technology that should be controlling us that we should worry. We have to be accountable to society and ourselves. Or else the very fabric of trust that holds society together can and will fall apart.

All comments welcome. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS TECHNOLOGY STRIPPING US OF LIVING A LIFE OF PURPOSE, LEAVING US WITH ON SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT.

22 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Facebook, Google it., Google Knowledge., Humanity., Life., Scientific., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The Internet., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS TECHNOLOGY STRIPPING US OF LIVING A LIFE OF PURPOSE, LEAVING US WITH ON SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Big Data, Inequility, The Future of Mankind, THE UNITED NATIONS, Visions of the future.

( A Ten minute read, that challenges the reader to leave a comment.)

Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today.

People’s characters, conceptions and behaviour are socially and culturally are being constructed by Data. We are living in a data explosion.

Like every period of significant rupture and change throughout history, the data-evolution we are witnessing is in urgent need of a stronger ethical and critical backbone.

Big Data is creating a new kind of digital divide: “the Big Data rich and the Big Data poor.” Inequality has become an essential part of the system that creates, stores and makes data accessible.

Tech giants like Google are creating what some call an “intellectual monopoly,” as universities’ best brains are hired to work with their exclusive access to privately harvested data to produce scientific results which are often not shared publically if they are profitable.

The Internet, has become an alternative space of consumption, production and social interaction. It is an increasingly influential space where the future divisions and similarities between people are being formed and the political and economic rules and structures that govern this space called Internet deserve our critical attention.

Ninety percent of data that exists in the world today was created in the past two years. This mass explosion of data – and our increasing reliance on it is creating a very disturbed place devoid of human life and filled with whirring fibre optic cables, servers and generators to convey the vastness of the web through binary code and pixels:

The majority of data which exists nowadays is made not by governments or scientific organisations but by ordinary citizens.

It’s the kind of information that most people share without a second thought, but when compiled in physical form, presents a surprisingly discernible narrative from hobbies and habits to musical tastes and conversations.

I am all for Technology but its impact on organisations and institutions will be profound.

Governments, armies, churches, universities, banks and companies all evolved to thrive in relatively murky epistemological environment, in which most knowledge was local, secrets were easily kept, and individuals were, if not blind, myopic.

When these organisations suddenly find themselves exposed to daylight, they quickly discover that they can no longer rely on old methods; they must respond to the new transparency or go extinct.

They are struggling to cope with transparency.

In my last post I asked the question – are we just becoming fodder for Artificial Intelligence, ie Data.

Don’t get me wrong, data is a treasure trove when it comes to health, predicting the climate, space, and the like. Community projects such as Open Street Map and Safecast‘s work to record radiation levels in Japan.

Big data’s impact on politics can also be beneficial such as Madrid City Council site, which acts as an open consultation platform where people can have their say on issues from bull fighting to transport proposals, something we’ll likely see a lot more of over the next few years.

We will see more and more live data streams on a map of the capital, showing Tweets, Instagram posts and TfL updates, while another by Future Cities Catapult asks users to make decisions about housing, energy, transport and building projects, and uses data modelling to predict the effects those decisions would have over the next 20 years.

Now I am no data mining scientist but it seems to me that the data world is not clear-cut, whilst a good data visualisation is worth a thousand words, it does not automatically follow that it tells the whole truth.

Machines are learning to recognize all sorts of patterns in the data at a scale and speed humans couldn’t possibly manage to do on their own. It’s not just data on its own, it’s data from a gigapixel imaging devices that can scan the whole body for indications of cancer, or data captured by sensors installed in self-driving cars about nearby objects and vehicles in motion that can eliminate sources of human error and make self-driving cars possible.

Whole industries are being disrupted by those who know how to tap the new potential of the right information in the right place at the right time.

The whole Big Data thing started with Google.

Some estimates put the total amount of data generated each day at 2.5 quintillion bytes!

While the massiveness of data boggles the mind with ease, the granularity of it is equally staggering when you consider the individual sources of the stuff.

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN generates about 30 Petabytes per year (as a result of 600 million collisions per second generating data in their detectors.

The Synoptic Survey Telescope generates 30 Terabytes of astronomical data per night.

In 2010 the list of largest databases in the world quotes the World Data Centre for Climate database as the largest in the world, at 220 Terabyte (possibly because of the additional 6 Petabyte of tapes they hold, albeit not directly accessible data). By the end of 2014, according to the Centre’s web site, the database size is close to 4 Petabyte (roughly 2 Petabytes of these are internal data).

Every interaction that every user has with any piece of technology produces more of it, and as people are becoming more comfortable using technology and more reliant on the information it provides, they want to use more of that data in simple and rewarding ways.

Although it may be logical to assume that we retain the power to control our digital privacy, like the bar-coded plastic membership cards that dangle from our key chains, our privacy is quickly slipping through our fingers.

As surveillance technologies shrink in cost and grow in sophistication, we are increasingly unaware of the vast, cumulative data we offer up.

Of course not many of us are concerned in an era when cellphone data, web searches, online transactions, and social-media commentary are actively gathered, logged, and cross-compared, we’ve seemingly surrendered to the inevitability of trade-offs in a digital future.

Mobile devices themselves are becoming the primary access point for information.

There is nothing new about this data digital culture, however significant changes are happening — some are obvious while others are below the surface. We’re only just starting to see how revolutionary big data can be, and as it truly takes off, we can expect even more changes on the horizon.

While digital natives are comfortable with technology, the question is: which technology, in which context?

There are now more mobile phones on Earth than there are people! And most of these phones have cameras. Yet Google Glass feels invasive because of its ability to record video.

As wearable technology is getting its toehold embedded technology, it’s not so much about the technology, but when, all of a sudden, things go from impossible (or immoral) to ubiquitous only a fraction of the world is going to benefit.

The fact is that when we all start to wear wearables, the intimacy level will be much higher that we cannot avoid considering how these devices literally change who we are and our bodily engagement with the world.

For example when one buys a Fitbit because they desire to be seen as fitness-conscious, just as much as they seek truth in quantification. Their exercise routine or daily walks are an act of designing a better self, so the device simply becomes part of that ecosystem.

A teleological view of human nature is inherently dynamic.

We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We know longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: Is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help to bring about a better society or a better world?

In the words of moral and political philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, this teleological view maps out the journey between “man-as-he happens-to-be” and “man-as-he-could-be-if-he realized-his-essential-nature.”

Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

The inevitable price of the convenience of opting in is compromise.

The promise of big data cannot be segregated from this price.

Embracing the radical transparency at our threshold, many see a potentiality that far outweighs the threat—after all, what do we have to hide?

Yet, privacy is not secrecy—and while there are things we should be comfortable bearing, our dignity should not be one of them.

Whistleblower Edward Snowden said his biggest fear was that we “won’t be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things.”

Machines will win our hearts with every step they take in evolution. Undoubtedly, this is a co-evolution.

It’s a symbiotic relationship where we are becoming more and more enmeshed and less aware of the capacity of this evolving interconnection. It’s a compulsory affair built on convenience and reward.

Arguably, we are no more mindful of the bits and bytes that we tap, swipe, and key than we are of our own breathing.

The true heirs of this data are platforms like Facebook, Google, Microsoft and others that we have gifted seemingly insignificant data to—under the guise of “sharing.”

As more mobile devices enter the world, they generate more and more data that needs to be understood, analyzed, presented, and consumed.

There is already so much data stored in the world that we are running out of ways to quantify it.

Data is quickly becoming the primary content of the 21st century.

Humankind is able to store at least 295 exabytes of information. (Yes, that’s a number with 20 zeroes in it.)

For 30 years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: Indeed, this pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose.

The sense of living a life of purpose, meaning, sociality, and mutuality are disappearing. These scenes used to be the backbone to political questions, even if they invited no easy answers.

Modern economics focuses a lot on incentives, but not nearly enough on intrinsic motivation.

Samsung has just warned its customers that their smart televisions may be impinging their privacy.

Facebook is now a public entity. It claims to have upwards of 300 Petabyte of data in their (so-called) data warehouse;

Fortunately there is a series of mixed media installations that encourage visitors to think twice about the information they post online.

If you don’t want them to share your photos and information in your profile updates and statuses you need to issue the following statement. I declare that I have not given my permission to Facebook to use my photos or any information in my profile, my updates and my statuses.

Twitter has produced a millionaire buffoon as president of the USA.

Three examples of a big difference in perception and expectations.

Our lack of control over the data we upload serve as a chilling reminder of global governments’ power to use personal data without our consent, and the extreme lengths used to conceal surveillance programmes.

We must learn once again to pose questions of our governments by taking a fresh look at democracy.

The conversation, both national and world-wide, is terrifically out of balance, with near-total focus on what’s broken and how we should fix it, and so little focus on stories of attractive, desirable possibilities we might agree to work toward.

To tackle social problems in their entirety, organisations need to mount a collective approach. It is the role of statesmanship – always in short supply – to remind us of the enduring commonalities that we are forever in danger of overlooking.

We are currently opting into an unfathomable interdependency with an urgent need to re-evaluate our daily interactions with technology and their impact on the fidelity of our privacy.

What that ecosystem and the devices that inhabit it will look like 20, 10, or even five years from now is anyone’s guess and it’s not at all comfortable.

We need a more controlled understanding of Big Data before headgear and an apps allows users to control products using their brainwaves.

Data itself is of no value if it is just being stored and not converted into useful information or actionable insight.

As I have said in the last post the AI genie is out of the bottle with no way to get it back in. So, knowing what you know now, do you choose the red pill or the blue one?

Red for access to a digital divided world.

Blue for a digital world where all technology is vetted by an Independent totally transparent New World organisation. Called Click.

All comments welcome all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

…

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: AS A SPECIES IF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL WE ARE GOING TO END UP AS FOOD.

18 Saturday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Humanity., Innovation., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: AS A SPECIES IF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL WE ARE GOING TO END UP AS FOOD.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Inequility, Technology, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

The AI genie has already been released from the bottle and there is no way to get it back in. The relationship between the perception of intelligence and thinking is no longer straightforward. Robotic systems continue to evolve, slowly penetrating many areas of our lives, from manufacturing, medicine and remote exploration to entertainment, security and personal assistance.

If we are not careful we are all just becoming food: Called Data.

If the field of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to develop at its current dizzying rate, the singularity could come about in the middle of the present century. So we are left with a couple of decades to re-set the brave new world of artificial intelligence.

Whether you believe that singularity is near or far, likely or impossible, apocalypse or utopia, the very idea raises crucial philosophical and pragmatic questions, forcing us to think seriously about what we want as a species.

While we all stand by in silence, AI is only getting better, as computational intelligence techniques keep on improving, becoming more accurate and faster due to giant leaps in processor speeds.

Regardless of how artificial intelligence develops in the years ahead, almost all pundits agree that the world will forever change as a result of advances in AI.

The singularity presents both an existential threat to humanity and an existential opportunity for humanity to transcend its limitations.

We are entering a period of what I call Non Synergistic Evolution. (SE)

This period requires a species to be aided in its evolutionary process by another species. We are the guinea pigs species feeding AI with data which will act as the food or fuel that allows those higher up the chain to exist and evolve. Once this happens, with the evolution of some very clever tools, weapons, and body parts Ai will become an integral part of the human species tree creating … a new branch on the tree of evolution.

To avoid all of us becoming obsolete we need to create an extension of the human branch and not AI that exploits us which will give us a world with inequalities in every form that you can think of.

The fact that our behaviour can radically change without a shift in either explicit or implicit motivations—with no deliberate decision to refocus—seems insidious for the future of mankind.

Instead of emphasizing formal operations on abstract symbols, I suggests that thinking beings ought be considered first and foremost as acting beings. As such we need to radically change the education of the next generation

The fact that most real-world thinking occurs in very particular (and often very complex) environments, is employed for very practical ends, and exploits the possibility of interaction with and manipulation of external props will never be understood by AI. It will be ignored.

Reason is evolutionary, We, like all animals, are essentially embodied agents, and our powers of advanced cognition vitally depend on a substrate of abilities for moving around in and coping with the world which we inherited from our evolutionary forbears.

Thinking beings ought therefore be considered first and foremost as acting beings, NOT DATA, as it will not be long before we may find ourselves losing individual opportunities for decision-making, as the agency of our collectives become stronger, and their norms therefore more tightly enforced.

THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPLACENCY.

Food is being genetically modified and humans will follow suit. Is it to feed the world or for profit.

Whatever the next step is to be in human cognitive progress, it ought to be based on a better and more thorough understanding of intelligence than we have so far managed.

Humans and human society have so far proved exceptionally resilient, presumably because of our individual, collective and prosthetic intelligence.

But what we know about social behaviour indicates significant policy priorities are required. If we want to maintain flexibility, we should maintain variation in our populations. If we want to maintain variation and independence in individual citizens’ behaviour, then we should protect their privacy and even anonymity.

I just don’t see why it is that anyone would want to live for ever, in a world that is governed by voice recognition. Where you know nobody, and are monitored to see what you are up to.

The potential of Artificial Intelligence is enormous and in fact a 2013 study by Oxford University estimated that Artificial Intelligence could take over nearly half of all jobs in the United States in the near future.

The global workforce would have to transform.

Perhaps the biggest unanswered question is: Will there be enough good jobs to keep the global economy growing? After all, AI systems aren’t consumers and consumers are the sine qua non of economic growth.

Social power is one of the most pervasive social concepts in human societies because of its function as a social heuristic for decision-making.

Re-conception of human cognition has implications not just for the project of creating artificial intelligence, but for the related project of harnessing computation to enhance human intelligence.

AI is changing what collective agencies like governments, corporations and neighbourhoods can do. Algorithms ‘learn’ from past not from the future.

They may well relieve engineers of the need to write out every command, but when they manipulate the Stock Exchange for profit, determine whether you are a viable risk or not, they are encroaching in areas of life that effect all of us.

If automation keeps going at the sped it is, man will atrophy all his limbs but the push button finger. It is crucial vision alone which can mitigate the unimpeded operation of the automatic.

The ultimate vindication of AI-creativity would be a program that generated novel ideas which initially perplexed or even repelled us, but which was able to persuade us that they were indeed valuable. We are a very long way from that.

Now is the time to establish a New World Organisation to vet all technology. ( See previous posts)

All comments appreciated, all push button likes, chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HAVE WE ALL GONE BONKERS.

12 Sunday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HAVE WE ALL GONE BONKERS.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

( Eight minute read.)

I ask this question because, what happens when we share the planet with self-aware, self-improving machines that evolve beyond our ability to control or understand?

What sort of future do you want?

Should we develop lethal autonomous weapons?

What would you like to happen with job automation?

What career advice would you give today’s kids?

Would you prefer new jobs replacing the old ones, or a jobless society where everyone enjoys a life of leisure and machine-produced wealth?

Further down the road, would you like us to create super intelligent life and spread it through our cosmos?

Will we control intelligent machines or will they control us?

Will intelligent machines replace us, coexist with us, or merge with us?

What will it mean to be human in the age of artificial intelligence?

What would you like it to mean, and how can we make the future be that way?

I have lost count of how many similar articles I have seen. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of AI intelligence"

Typically, these articles are accompanied by an evil-looking robot carrying a weapon, and they suggest we should worry about robots rising up and killing us because they’ve become conscious and/or evil.

In fact, the main concern of the beneficial-AI movement isn’t with robots but with intelligence itself: specifically, intelligence whose goals are misaligned with ours.

To cause us trouble, such misaligned superhuman intelligence needs no robotic body, merely an internet connection – this may enable out smarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.

Because AI has the potential to become more intelligent than any human, we have no surefire way of predicting how it will behave.

Even if building robots were physically impossible, a super-intelligent and super-wealthy AI could easily pay or manipulate many humans to unwittingly do its bidding.

Civilization will flourish as long as we win the race between the growing power of technology and the wisdom with which we manage it.

In the case of AI technology, the best way to win that race is not to impede the former, but to accelerate the latter, by supporting AI safety research.

We, that is all of us are so distracted by technology, that we are blind to what is happening with Artificial Intelligence.

WE MUST ESTABLISH A WORLD GOVERNING BODY THAT GIVES ALL FORMS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE A CERTIFICATE OF HEALTH, ESPECIALLY ALL ALGORITHMS THAT PURSUE PROFIT.

The quest for strong AI would ultimately succeed was long thought of as science fiction, centuries or more away.

However, thanks to recent breakthroughs, many AI milestones, which experts viewed as decades away merely five years ago, have now been reached, making many experts take seriously the possibility of super intelligence in our lifetime.

While some experts still guess that human-level AI is centuries away.

With all the wonderful attributes that humans have display , (since we feel out of the trees) for exploration is it not just plain bonkers that we allow the development of Artificial Intelligence to proceed on a willy nilly bases.

It’s smart to start safety research now to prepare for the eventuality.

Many of the safety problems associated with human-level AI are so hard that they may take decades to solve.

So it’s prudent to start researching them now rather than the night before some programmers drinking Red Bull decide to switch one on.

It may be that media have made the AI safety debate seem more controversial than it really is. After all, fear sells, and articles using out-of-context quotes to proclaim imminent doom can generate more clicks than nuanced and balanced ones.

However, physicists know that a brain consists of quarks and electrons arranged to act as a powerful computer, and that there’s no law of physics preventing us from building even more intelligent quark blobs.

You could say that it’s still at least decades away.

We have all walked out of a cinema after viewing a futuristic movie that has had either large floating cities, with space crafts hovering, departing or landing all with swishing doors and hologram screens showing 3D images of the universe.

All controlled by a robot with super artificial intelligence systems that either intentionally or unintentionally cause great harm.

Of course none of this keeps you awake at night because machines can’t have goals!

Wrong:

Machines can obviously have goals in the narrow sense of exhibiting goal-oriented behavior:

The behavior of a heat-seeking missile is most economically explained as a goal to hit a target. If you feel threatened by a machine whose goals are misaligned with yours, then it is precisely its goals in this narrow sense that troubles you, not whether the machine is conscious and experiences a sense of purpose. If that heat-seeking missile were chasing you, you probably wouldn’t sleep well.

Take it a step further:

An AI arms race could inadvertently lead to an AI war that also results in mass casualties. To avoid being thwarted by the enemy, these weapons would be designed to be extremely difficult to simply “turn off,” so humans could plausibly lose control of such a situation.

All of this is in the far unseeable future and the images are a fantasy of the mind.

Not for much longer:

If you ask an obedient intelligent car to take you to the airport as fast as possible, it might get you there chased by helicopters and covered in vomit, doing not what you wanted but literally what you asked for.

A super-intelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals, and if those goals aren’t aligned with ours, we have a problem.

The AI is programmed to do something beneficial, but it develops a destructive method for achieving its goal: This can happen whenever we fail to fully align the AI’s goals with ours, which is strikingly difficult.

Some experts have expressed concern, though, that it might also be the last, unless we learn to align the goals of the AI with ours before it becomes super intelligent.

If a super intelligent system is tasked with an ambitious geoengineering project, it might wreak havoc with our ecosystem as a side effect, and view human attempts to stop it as a threat to be met.

It could potentially undergo recursive self-improvement, triggering an intelligence explosion leaving human intellect far behind.

In the long-term, an important question is what will happen if the quest for strong AI succeeds and an AI system becomes better than humans at all cognitive tasks. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of AI intelligence"

Super intelligent AI is unlikely to exhibit human emotions like love or hate, and that there is no reason to expect AI to become intentionally benevolent or malevolent.

But rest assured AI will show no subjective feelings to the biggest event in human history.

It’s time to take this conversation beyond a few hundred technology sector insiders.

As far as our future is concerned, the narrow domains we yield to computers are not all created equal. Some areas are likely to have a much bigger impact than others.

All the things we humans value (love, happiness, even survival) are important to us because we have particular evolutionary history – a history we share with higher animals, but not with computer programs, such as artificial intelligences.

We don’t yet know exactly what makes human thought different from current generation of machine learning algorithms, for one thing, so we don’t know the size of the gap between the fixed bar and the rising curve. I am not saying that we are all going to be wiped out in the near future by some deranged machine or program.

I am saying that a good first step, would be to stop treating intelligent machines as the stuff of science fiction, and start thinking of them as a part of the reality that we or our descendants may actually confront, sooner or later.

If we dont want a world run by Google Knowledge, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, that have their AI brain in the cloud and will without a doubt move from the legacy world of retrospective data analysis to one in which systems make inferences and predictions, to intent and desire in real time.

All of this only touches the surface of the issues and difficulties that lie ahead.

It isn’t just about making things easier, it will touch and is touching every aspect of our personnel and public lives, which is why we need to thinks carefully and ethically about how we apply, build, test, govern, and experience machine intelligence.

In the end we cannot leave the above to the market place, to the government’s, to the United Nations, or the Scientific world. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of deranged eyes"

We must have an totally independent, transparent, legally responsible, fully funded World Organisation, called for instance; Click World OK where all AI programs are examined and given a World Health Certificate.

You would be right to ask who would fund this Organisation.

Every country would be asked to make a donation. These donations would be repayable by the Organisation placing a World Aid commission on all profit making programs.

This can only be achieved by all of us demanding so.

All comments appreciated . All AI like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

	benmadigan on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE EXP…
	Jason Lawrence on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WIT…
	benmadigan on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHA…
	bobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
	OG on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

Category Archives: Artificial Intelligence.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HOW LONG UNTIL COMPUTERS HAVE THE SAME POWER AS A HUMAN BRAIN?

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: DEMOCRACY IS RAPIDLY BECOMING OUT OF DATE.

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: GOOGLE IS MAKING OUR KNOWLEDGE VALUELESS.

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GOES WRONG.

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: Artificial intelligence wasn’t supposed to work this way.

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHERE IS TECHNOLOGY GOING?

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: AS A SPECIES IF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL WE ARE GOING TO END UP AS FOOD.

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HAVE WE ALL GONE BONKERS.

Thank you for your response. ✨

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this: