Category Archives: Evolution.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WHY IS IT AFTER YONKS OF EVELOUTION THAT WE ARE STILL FIGHTING EACH OTHER?

27 Thursday Jan 2022

Posted by in 2022: The year we need to change., Evolution., The Holocaust.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

This post is so the world remembers the Holocaust, its victims, and those of other attempted acts of genocide throughout history. The Holocaust was one of the most unimaginable crimes in human history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated six million Jewish people.

                                             —————–

I am of the mindset that there is more to this question than just debate itself. One has only to look at the state of the world to see that we have not and will not stop killing each other. 

Since time memorial it has not changed nor will it.

Climate Change with all its pending consequences is going to lead to conflicts all over the world but it might allow us to develop an ” Objective hatred” in which the hate objects are not a human scapegoat but something impersonal like poverty, disease oppression, or natural disasters to turn our destructive energy to creative use.     

It’s not if climate change is going to peel back the layers underlying so many contemporary issues in today’s society, science, and religion, and specifically, creation vs. evolution, ( that hovers very near the surface of the teaching of evolution)

Combined the consequences of climate change with profit-seeking technologies that are already fueling INEQUALITY beyond what we know now and we are looking at a world that no one wants to see. 

Thanks to Hollywood, Smart TV, SmartPhone, and Social Media platforms all containing graphics pictures of killings we are evolving as desensitized humans.

If so, where are we going?

                                    —————

The changes with technology unlike evolution will not be gradual.

“Exciting”, maybe or, indeed, even noticed.

Are we Evolving?

The short answer is “Yes,” we’re still evolving, in different directions but not in ways that excite most people.

Might we be on the verge of a different type of evolution, in which our technological prowess further integrates our biology with machine-like intelligence, processing, and mechanical capabilities? 

We’re sick of hearing “Why are there still monkeys?”

Will evolution be a change in the frequency of genes in populations or will it be with personal genetic engineering?

Then we have another situation with a larger variety of different versions of our species, all still being enslaved by technology.    

Our brain size might increase but it remains pretty useless in stopping wars.

Might the time be at hand in the next few centuries where we create our replacements altogether morphed by our technologies. Something along the lines of hard drives that expand our brains, connectivity to a hive mind, Borg-like capabilities, machine augmentation of our senses, and the like…so that our evolution shifts from natural forces in the environment to digitalized enhancement.   

For many, the Darwinian view of life – a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change is the reason for all the killing. 

When Darwin’s theory of evolution was first published in the late 1800s, it covered only biological evolution. What is profound is that the more complete scientific evolutionary story really only started to come together in the last 50 years!

You cannot change one factor without changing another. 

Evolution and Creation are essentially creative processes they are no longer separate things in themselves.

Therefore in the first place, it would appear now, with gene editing augmentation and technological advances we will indeed survive only to morph into a digitalized species with all that is good and bad, still fighting each other. 

“Nature has shrugged off countless species in the history of the earth, and she will shrug off Homo sapiens with no more concern than any of the rest.” –Louis B. Ziegler

It leaves us with the grand existential question of what meaning it all has for us.Reaper, Grim, Death, Scythe, Dead

Humans are killing the planet and all its inhabitants.

Why?  For what purpose?

Will future population growth along with economic development will be humanity’s fatal flaws, bringing about “unprecedented levels of extinction risk?

The answer is that there is overwhelming evidence that habitat loss and fragmentation, over-exploitation of biological resources, pollution, species invasions, and climate change have increased rates of global species extinctions to levels that are much higher than those observed in the fossil record.

If humans are supposed to be conscious and loving, why do we cause and allow such hideous suffering to happen in our society, including the killing of other fellow humans?

If we are at least partially preprogrammed by evolution to kill our own, what can be done (if anything)? 

Why do we kill each other at all?

The reasons are innumerable. 

Beliefs, love, jealousy, pride, guilt, revenge, mercy killing, honor killing, drugs (altered states), delusion, self-defense, economic gain, suicide, justice, power, psychopathy, and sport… and all in the name of personal gain, nationality (war), religion, sect, caste, creed or gender.

We want something to change as a result of our actions.

Humans have evolved with a propensity to kill one another that is six times higher than the average mammal. (Maybe, we are beginning to recognize we can feel empathy and feel the urge to take action when the subjects of injustice are not human and need somebody to channel their survival urge.)

However, the level of lethal violence has changed through human history and can be associated with changes in the socio-political organization of human populations.

Most sane humans, if given the choice, will not kill their fellow man.

                                           —————

In a world in profound transformation. We have to find alternative activities to give that sense of feeling alive of belonging and purpose. 

The fact that so many societies throughout the world fail to offer equality makes our future prospects of peace look very bleak. 

If these needs are unsatisfied and there is an obvious enemy or oppressor to direst them towards then warfare is almost inevitable.

Instead of focusing on abstract, boring, cold data projects such as The Ocean Cleanup show how huge multilateral issues no government wants to deal with, such as plastic polluting the oceans, can be tackled by building systems that accelerate inequality.

While society provides a hero system that allows us to believe that we transcend death by participating in something of lasting worth the history of life on Earth is a history of extinction and ecological failures, but it is also a story of the formation of new forms.

The best we can hope for society at large is that the mass of unconscious individuals might develop a moral equivalent to war.

No prediction by any expert can tell us whether we will prosper or perish but at what cost do we purchase the assurance that we are heroic? 

Expect no miracle cure. 

All human comments are appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS : WHO ARE YOU? WHAT ARE YOU ? WHERE DID YOU COME FROM ? WHERE ARE YOU GOING ?

03 Monday Jan 2022

Posted by in 2022: The year we need to change., Artificial Intelligence., COVID-19, Covid-19 Vaccines., Dehumanization., Evolution., Genetic engineering, Genetics., Human Collective Stupidity., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Post-Covid-19, Purpose of life., Reality., Technology v Humanity, The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

(Twenty-minute read)

Here we are at the start of another year and we are truly living in a very unique time in the history of our civilization, facing several simultaneous challenges and converging crises:

A deteriorating environment, very unequal distribution of dwindling resources, widespread poverty, wars, climate change, oppression of many peoples, and dissatisfaction with life even in those countries with a surplus of material wealth.

For the most part, these crises we humans have brought upon ourselves over the course of many centuries by our attitudes towards each other and towards nature, and by the concepts, we have developed regarding who we are and the very purpose of our being here — in other words, Our worldview.

Who are we?

Where do we come from?

What is our purpose?

Where are we going?

All of these questions are fundamental to how we individually and collectively make meaning. As such they are questions asked by all spiritual traditions and since the very beginning of our species. Even the first cave paintings suggest that as soon as we were human, we started to ask these kinds of questions.

                               ————–

The only evidence you have that you exist as a self-aware being is your conscious experience of thinking about your existence.

Beyond that, you’re on your own.

You cannot access anyone else’s conscious thoughts, so you will never know if they are self-aware. Nonexistence is the absence of existence, by definition. Therefore there is no such thing as nonexistence.

To say that something does not exist thus seems to be a fallacy since NOTHING does exist.

How are you?

By far the biggest constituent of you is emptiness are atoms, and since all atoms are 99.9% empty space, technically, you’re made of nothing.

We call ourselves humans. We think we behave intelligently but we humans are animals! defined less by rationality and more by stupidity.

At the basic level, you are made of just four types of particles, which have been around for the majority of the lifetime of the Universe.

Atoms make up your body, 12 kg of bones, 33 kg of muscles, and 15 kg of fat. More than half of those cells aren’t exactly your own. They’re bacterial cells that weigh around 2 kg. Your body contains at least 60 chemical elements. For the most part, it’s oxygen and hydrogen forming H2O or water. 99% of the mass of your body is made up of just 6 elements. Of that, 65% is oxygen.

If you wanted to be more poetic, you could say you are made of stardust. All the elements you’re made of were once cooked up in the stars.

By the way, in case you wondered, the uncoiled DNA from all the cells in your body would stretch from here to Pluto and back. 

What are you?

Mentally, humanity was created as a rational, volitional agent.

According to the Bible, you are a god. ( God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26) but God does not have a body so your physical being is nowhere near a god.

Physiologically and anatomically you are an animal struggling for survival on the basis of evolution. 

Within just the past 12,000 years, your species, Homo sapiens, made the transition to producing food and changing our surroundings. We have been so successful that we have inadvertently created a turning point in the history of life on Earth.

We have altered the world in ways that benefit us greatly. But this transformation has unintended consequences for other species as well as for ourselves, creating new survival challenges, with our megacity incubators of viruses such as the flu and now Covid. 

Where are we going?

Will our species go extinct?

The short answer is yes, replaced by Artificial Intelligence, but not life.

Why?

Because mankind will control life through its varied reproductive activities manipulating life, whether it be by cloning, gene splicing, genetic breeding, etc.

Life in its simplest form, a single-celled organism, has microbial intelligence and can learn and adapt behavior to its environment. However, everything starts with something already alive. Only life begets life and intelligence doesn’t come from non-intelligent sources. 

Even the most simple of life forms is beyond our ability to create from non-living sources.

Life is created and is not the result of abiogenesis it controls and regulates the physical processes within each cell.

So since there is no evidence or logical consideration to believe that life is the result of a physical process, we can dismiss the concept of Artificial life as impossible. It isn’t just a gap in our understanding it is a physical impossibility.

However, there may well be life, with or without consciousness, interfacing with the physical components that support life created by an outside intelligence.

This is probably the most pressing and interesting question for the future.  How much of life will be controlled by AI?

                                 —————-

The current Covid pandemic is being fought against by a new form of vacation that instructs our immune systems to operate in a particular way rather than the immune system reacting. A step in evolutionary development towards part AI life.  

Where is this interpretation of behavior taking place?

What part of the cell decides one food-foraging pattern is preferable to another?

Where is the information stored while it’s being coded into an arrangement of molecules and atoms?

The nucleus of a living cell is often referred to as the “brain” of the cell because it controls cellular processes and functions. However, the nucleus is not capable of conscious levels of intelligence. In fact, we can’t point to any cell part and say, that’s where the intelligence has to be coming from.

Signals received by cells must be transmitted effectively into the cell to ensure an appropriate response. This step is initiated by cell-surface receptors.

How do conscious levels of intelligence now suddenly originate or emerge from unconscious atoms and molecules?

We have to bear in mind that in an evolutionary sense, nothing can influence where we wind up biologically unless it affects individual success in passing along genes. When a new behavior is written to the DNA, the information has to be assigned to an arrangement of atoms that advocate that consciousness exists at the microbial level. 

If so, that creates even greater problems, and without going into all of them, the chief problem is that survival sets a pretty low bar.

The question isn’t so much whether humans survive the next three or three hundred thousand years, but whether we can do more than just survive.

The current virus pandemic highlights this problem. The virus hasn’t yet committed to any direction.

However, it is as with all viruses an evolving entity, subject to the same processes of evolution.

With the new mRNA vaccines, we have a choice to make!

Why?

Because it is inevitable that Genome editing is going to be the future. 

Because now being alive is not a prerequisite for experiencing, evolution. 

We either move into a new phase in the evolution of consciousness and a new era of life on the planet, or we will witness the unraveling of the web of life and the immature end of our species and much of the community of life with us. 

The time to make this choice is now!

It starts with a fundamental shift in our dominant worldview.

It is time to grow up! and for us to respect all life. 

What is our purpose? 

This is explained in the following story.

“In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense,” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover, if there is life, then why has no one ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery, there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? Do you actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her, this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

All human comments are appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. WE WILL NEVER HAVE A PERFECT WORLD, BUT WE DO STILL HAVE A WORLD OF INDESCRIBABLE BEAUTY.

21 Thursday May 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2020: The year we need to change., A Constitution for the Earth., Climate Change., CORONA VIRUS., COVID-19, Disasters., Disconnection., Economic Depression., Environment, Evolution., How to do it., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Pandemic, POST COVID-19., Reality., Survival., Sustaniability, Technology v Humanity, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Internet., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, World Aid., World Economic Depression.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read) 

There is no such thing as a perfect world here or anywhere else especially when it is inhabited by a species that thinks that it can survive at the cost of all that surrounds it.

They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

This is true if you can behold what you are looking at while accepting that it can’t be perfect in the true sense of the earthly word. 

We might be living in history’s most peaceful era, with violence of all kinds – from deaths in wars to mass shootings, streets stabbings, in a world as interconnected and algorithmically driven that it could simply spiral out of control with an invisible virus that could kill untold numbers worldwide. 

In some sense, unlike our precedents who had gods for everything, from Wars to Famines we live a great deal of our lives in a reality of only what is visible but there is more and more becoming invisible. 

If all this were really true, it would suggest that an overwhelming proportion of the energy we dedicate to debating the state of humanity – all the political outrage, the warnings of imminent disaster, the exasperated op-ed columns, all our anxiety and guilt about the misery afflicting people all over the world – is wasted.

This is not an irrational thought.

Perhaps we should have or will have enough good reason to assume things will continue to improve but when you live in a world where everything seems to be getting better, yet it could all collapse tomorrow, “it’s perfectly rational to be freaked out,” by COVID-19.

It wasn’t so long ago that dogs gnawed at the abandoned corpses of plague victims in the streets of European cities.

With countries now endeavoring to kick start their economies, lurking behind everything else is our collective inability to act as one, to appreciate or understand that we all live on the same planet with all of its invisibility.  

Rational optimism holds that the world will pull out of the current crisis, but what if it’s the very strength of democracy – and our complacency about its capacity to withstand almost anything – that augurs its eventual collapse. 

We have created – the very engine that is so complex, volatile, and unpredictable that catastrophe might befall us at any moment. If it happens no one will remember the internet.

The worlds we live in are now so self-centered that we see charities begging to save everything from donkeys to starving children, all saturated in a media-era, that is constantly misleading us, with an advertising industry promoting unsustainable consumption for profit.   

Digital technology has unquestionably helped fuel a worldwide surge in economic growth but it has turned us into digital slaves detached from a genuine knowledge of how our world works and concern for the future.  

In these hyper-connected times, our addiction to bad news just leads us to vacuum up depressing or enraging stories from across the globe, whether they threaten us or not, and therefore to conclude that things are much worse than they are.

We live now in the Age of the Take, in which a seemingly infinite supply of blog posts, opinion columns, books, and TV talking heads compete to tell us how to feel about the news. (Including this blog.)

While the usual intractable political disagreements about the state of the planet improvements in sanitation and life expectancy we can’t prevent rising sea levels from destroying your country.

This shouldn’t really come as a surprise:

The internet economy is fuelled by attention, and it’s far easier to seize someone’s attention with emotionally charged argument than mere information – plus you don’t have to pay for the expensive reporting required to ferret out the facts.

Or, worse, is the internet with its social media platforms now counterproductive, insofar as a belief that things are irredeemably awful seems like a bad way to motivate people to make things better, and thus in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The point is that if something does go seriously wrong in our societies, it’s really hard to see where it stops.

We are not merely ignorant of the facts; we are actively convinced of depressing “facts” that aren’t true.

You might argue that comparing the present with the past is stacking the deck.

Of course, things are better than they were. But they’re surely nowhere near as good as they ought to be.

Humanity indisputably has the capacity to eliminate extreme poverty, end famines, or radically reduce human damage to the climate. But we’ve done none of these, and the fact that things aren’t as terrible as they were in 1800 is arguably beside the point.

If you start from the fact that plague victims once languished in the streets of European cities, it’s natural to conclude that life these days is wonderful. But if you start from the position that we could have eliminated famines, or reversed global warming, the fact that such problems persist may provoke a different kind of judgment.

They’d say, the world’s getting better, but it doesn’t feel like that around here.

For people to feel deeply uneasy about the world we inhabit now, despite all most indicators pointing up, seems to be reasonable, given the relative instability of the evidence of this progress, and the [unpredictability] that overhangs it.

And I would say, ‘Yes, but this isn’t the whole world!

Should we be a  little bit cheered by the fact that really poor Africans are getting a bit less poor? There is a sense in which this is a fair point. But there’s another sense in which it’s a completely irrelevant one.

When we don’t see the progress we have made, we begin to search for scapegoats for the problems that remain.

Progress isn’t inevitable, progress is problem-solving but not problem solving that addresses the whole problem.  

Everything really is pretty fragile and it is now beyond a doubt that the world is going into an economic depression. The pandemic has exposed our failings in many ways with the need to reverse that last four decades of the prevailing policies of growth at any cost.

Observations alone, however, will not bring transformation.

God forbid we should be naive to think that once ideas are discussed and made popular they will permeate policymaking and bring about change. In reality in a pandemic it is more than likely with a world economic depression the first thing that happens is not a radical reengineering of the economy. 

What happens is, what is dispensable, how many death can we afford before the economy suffers? Is the loss of life at a level acceptable to big business and the government?

So we will for the foreseeable future lurch forward with broken economies while millions are made scapegoats. Yes, your data will be centralized. The data doesn’t lie. Just look at the numbers, whatever happens, things could always, in principle, have been worse.

If we are not vigilant history shows, that whatever horrors the crises expose they will be covered up in the shattered aftermath.   

It took millions and millions of lives to win your freedom so why should we give it up to AI apps that are non-transparent, non-regulated, owned by you-know-who. 

To save lives Yes. To control lives NO.

We should look at things like climate change and nuclear war and pandemics as problems to be solved, not apocalypses in waiting. But they aren’t newsworthy. And you’ll rarely see a headline about a bad event that failed to occur.

Nature might be healing and the green deal looks like to way to go but a sustainable world requires that we address the world as a whole not just piecemeal solving one problem after another. 

There can be no sustainability with economies that don’t have their activities vetted against the knock-on effects they have on the whole ecosystem of our planet.    

Can this be achieved?

As I have said our problem is that we humans cannot act as one or see ourselves as a whole, inhabiting a planet that is interconnected to each and every one of us.

We will never be able to do so. 

How do we overcome this problem before the damage may not be repairable?

It has to achieve by invisibly means and on a sufficiently long timescale.

There is no reason with the computer power now at our disposal that we could not tap into the greed( profit for profit sake) by placing a world Aid commission of 0.005% on all activities that are not contributing to the health of our planet. ( See previous posts) 

Frankly, we have the knowledge so our prevailing mood of despair is irrational, and a bit self-indulgent.

Stay Alert. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. IT’S TIME TO ASK SOME WHY’S?

25 Wednesday Mar 2020

Posted by in 2020: The year we need to change., CORONA VIRUS., COVID-19, Donald Trump., Evolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Reality., Refugees., Survival., Sustaniability, Technology v Humanity, Telling the truth., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., Universal Basic Income ., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

 

(Four-minute read) 

Don’t answer the questions below, put some thought into their overall meaning.

AGAINST THE QUESTIONS THAT THE CORONA VIRUS IS AKSING OF ALL OF US THEY ARE ACADEMIC. 

We, as humans, ponder about the life around us everything in life contradict itself to the point of confusing all of us?

What we call the modern world has brought its own unique set of problems: from the Coronavirus, huge food waste to climate change to an increasing wealth divide. 

The western belief in ‘progress’, that each generation will be an improvement on its predecessor, for a long time has held true.

However, it seems this might no longer be the case as life at the moment isn’t about finding the answers, it’s about examining our atmosphere. From the nature of the universe (that’s if there is only one) to the purpose of dreams, there are lots of things we still don’t know – but we might do soon.

Leaving the usual unanswerable’s aside, like what is reality, what is life, do we have free will, is the universe deterministic, what is consciousness, will there ever be a theory of everything, what happens after you die, what comes after homo sapiens? the two most common questions at the moment on our lips – Are you alright? How are you? 

Old solutions to solve to run an increasingly chaotic world requires governing elites to spend a lot of time spinning and inevitably tempts them into keeping lots and lots of secrets, to include telling the public exactly what they’re doing.

Even post-Snowden, is an increasingly secretive and intrusive national security state the “new normal”?

The timing is fortuitous because I’m pondering a number of big questions these days and I’ll be interested to see not what some of the nation’s best scholars think about them but you. 

So for what they may be worth, here are my top 10 Why Questions, with plenty of blame to share on all.

There’s a pattern of contradiction in most of them that lead to a series of more ‘why’.

Once there is danger, there is hope; when there’s truth, there are lies.

Why am I asking these question?

Because we all have to, not someone to get serious about real the state of the planet we all live on. 

Do we really value life so much if we make death come to others?

Why is there school when we don’t learn real-world skills?

Why do I have to get up every morning to go to work?

Should the wealth of Economies give us all a Basic Income? 

Why do we demean everything not human if it’s what brought us life?

Taking the coronavirus and climate change are we better together or in isolation?

Will Europe ever get its act together?

If opposites attract, then why is there still war?

Why Bush is president of US?

What is the reality of immigration?

What is a world without Earth?

Go through life knowing that your world could mould into a piece of grey dust at any point; an experience that dust at your high to prepare for your fault, your decline because it will come to snap at you.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it true?

 

 

 

 

 

It’s time to look at the evidence.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS IT TIME TO REVISIT DARWIN ASSERTION OF SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST?

25 Friday Oct 2019

Posted by in #whatif.com, Artificial Intelligence., Dehumanization., Evolution., Humanity., Our Common Values., Reality., Technology., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read)

With technology and new technique in artificial intelligence redefining how life can be created opening a research window into the early moments of a human life perhaps the above question is not so farcical, despite some thorny ethical constraints like artificial embryos.

In a breakthrough that redefines how life can be created, embryologists working at the University of Cambridge in the UK have grown realistic-looking mouse embryos using only stem cells. No egg. No sperm. Just cells plucked from another embryo.

What if they turn out to be indistinguishable from real embryos?

Then there are advances in genomic biotechnology presenting the possibility of bringing back long-extinct species.

To get from the genome work in the lab to herds of Woolly Mammoths would definitely bring the survival of the fittest into question.

Generative adversarial network, or GAN, takes two neural networks—the simplified mathematical models of the human brain that underpin most modern machine learning—and pits them against each other in a digital cat-and-mouse game. It is endeavouring to give machines imagination. 

DNA has linked 206 variants to intelligence. One day, babies will get DNA report cards at birth. BBVA-openmind

Herbert Spencer coined the term “Survival of the Fittest” in 1864.

Darwin intended “fittest” to mean the members of the species best suited for the immediate environment, the basis of the idea of natural selection.

Darwin’s distinctive idea was to emphasize natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution: if certain heritable traits increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction in the struggle for life, then those traits that favour survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations, and thus organisms will become more adapted to their environments, and over a long period of time the differences between varieties of a species can become so great that the varieties become new species.

On the one hand, he tells the reader to disregard his metaphorical personification of Nature as implying “conscious choice” or “intelligent power,” because nature should be understood as “only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws.”

On the other hand, he refuses to give up his personification of Nature, apparently because he senses that this engages the mind of the reader through the poetic imagery of Nature as a person.

The survival of the fittest that determines everything is stuck in our lexicon. With the phrase today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended.

When it comes to technology “Survival of the fittest” is inaccurate for two important reasons.

First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction.

Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. “Fitness” does not refer to whether an individual is “physically fit” – bigger, faster or stronger – or “better” in any subjective sense.

It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.

But in evolutionary terms, survival is only half the picture; you must also reproduce to be “fit” in the Darwinian sense.

The influence of the environment on life expectancy in the future will be far greater political, not a biological issue. It will be the survival of those best able to adapt to change.

Resources, especially those necessary for survival, will become more valued.

Artificial intelligence may gain, along with a sense of imagination, a more independent ability to make sense of what it sees in the world but is the technology ready?

If the AI revolution is going to spread Darwin natural selection it will have to be updated, then the real AI revolution can begin. Darwin always brought in information and made a whole new picture out of it. evolution

Is Darwin still relevant today?   Yes. You’d be hard-pressed to find a biology class that isn’t based on evolutionary biology. Yet the explanatory power of the evolutionary theory is not bound to biology.

Why? Because the theory of evolution is still evolving.

As the late Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Darwin not only made us aware of how nature works, but also of our place within nature. ( Unfortunately for him the discovery of DNA and that Quantum Mathematics  governs all biology had not been discovered)

Evolution now needs to be critically evaluated in the classroom, rather than dogmatically indoctrinated.

Artificial intelligence is and will take both to a whole new level and transform them into something relevant to our time and our discoveries.

Thus, we say that all the individuals of a species comprise a gene pool from which selection (either artificial or natural) can select. The important point is that we cannot select for genes that are not in the gene pool of the species. Only clones have the same genes and are essentially identical—including the same sex.

In the future, the evolutionist must look to mutations, their most ludicrous mechanism of all.

A new DARPA research program is developing brain-computer interfaces that could control “swarms of drones, operating at the speed of thought.” What if it succeeds?

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE WISHES YOU A HAPPY NEW YEAR BY SPREADING SOME GOOD FALSE NEWS FOR 2019.

03 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by in 2019., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Environment, Evolution., Facebook, Fake News., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The new year 2109, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

Despite the dire state of the world today here is some good false news.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "fake news images"

Let’s start with an issue that has not received enough attention in the media and popular understanding.

The Earth is finite and this fact will have real-world physical, economic, social, and political implications.

Thus, we are using an economic theory that is simply incapable and inapplicable for informing an unprecedented transformation of the economy by technology.

We need a discussion as to what political leaders, business leaders, and citizens think is an appropriate distribution of wealth across the entire population of the world. This focuses on the real question (how many people have what, independent of the size of the economy, though the two are linked) instead of discussing how to shape policies and taxes to achieve an unspecified growth target independent of wealth distribution.

Trump, Brexit, and Le Pen are representations that people understand growth only for the elite in the West are no longer tenable. Neoclassical economics ignores this obvious fact, yet it is used to guide most policy (eg, economic projections and scenarios), including that for climate change mitigation.

Perhaps a summary is that the human enterprise has outgrown the long-ability of the planet’s renewable resources to support us at our current numbers and our current rates of consumption and waste generation.

Climate change is just one piece of evidence of this fact.

By 2050, over 7 billion people will live in cities (80% of the world), and cities will be responsible for 75% of global carbon emissions. The battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in cities.

Urban planning needs to incorporate total populations, not simply the rich and middle classes; this is the only way that the economic potential of the majority can be harnessed for the national good.

The reality is that any activity that is not sustainable HAS TO STOP.

So far, non-renewable resources are what is primarily driving our economic engine. But by definition, non-renewables are being depleted and for the most part, will stop being economically available in this century. So we must plan rapidly for the day when humanity can live using just renewable resources while maintaining the biodiversity that makes the planet habitable.

In truth, sustainability is the ultimate environmental issue, the ultimate health issue, and the ultimate human rights issue.

The days when scientists could not care about the impact of their work on cultural, values and society are over. If they ever existed, which they didn’t, but that’s water over the dam.

Data-driven technologies are increasingly being integrated into many different parts of society, from judicial decision-making processes to automated vehicles to the dissemination of news.

Each of these implementations raises serious questions about what values are being implemented and to whom these implementations are accountable.

There is an increasing desire by regulators, civil society, and social theorists to see these technologies be “fair” and “ethical,” but these concepts are fuzzy at best.

As we are developing more and more ways to let computers take over reasoning through adaptive learning, we are faced with an existential question: What is it – long term – that makes us human?

AI, although very useful, will never approach human intelligence until it is embodied.

My #1 issue is not the future of democracy. The future is a complicated subject.  Now more than ever, it’s fast-moving, complicated, increasingly immediate. We can’t keep thinking about the future as a far-off intangible. Today, things move so quickly, that the future already is happening, and already affecting us. And in many ways, we’re struggling to adapt quickly enough.

That’s only the beginning of the genetics, robotics, information and nano revolutions – which are advancing on a curve.

Meanwhile, we humans are trying to process this exponential change with our good old v. 1.0 brains. With precious little help at all from those creating this upheaval.

Algorithms by their very nature reason probabilistically and as uncertainty increases in the world, uncertainty increases in an algorithm’s ability to successfully and safely come to a solution.

Presently we have no commonly-accepted approaches and without an industry standard for testing such stochastic systems, it is difficult for these technologies to be widely implemented.

As technological developments increasingly drive social change, how can democratic societies empower ordinary people to have a say in the decisions that shape the technological trajectories that will, in turn, determine what the future looks like?

How can the public have meaningful input into the character of the algorithms that will increasingly determine both the nature of their relationships with other people on social media and their access to various important social goods?

How can we prevent an underwater arms race involving autonomous submersibles over the coming decades?

How can we ensure that questions about meaning and values, and not just calculations of risks and benefits, are addressed in decisions about human genome editing?

If there are people who are willing to blatantly refuse to believe that something is a lie, no matter how hard you try, they won’t listen. I’m not sure what amount of evidence is needed in this new paradigm of journalism to get newsreaders out of their new bubbles.

Human psychology is the main obstacle, unwillingness to bend one’s mind around facts that don’t agree with one’s own viewpoint.

The fundamental challenge we now face is how to handle a setting where anybody can get their views disseminated without intermediaries to prevent the distribution.

Somehow there still has to be some process of collectively coming to some agreement of what we are going to believe and what we think are consensual facts.

Instead, we have the golden age of the algorithm surveillance, automation, virtual reality, gene editing, the widening gap between wealthy and impoverished people, the worldwide questions of immigration, social media inserting a new level of governance in society, rapid urban growth isolating us from nature, smartphones isolating us from each other.

The challenge now is to make sure everyone benefits from this technology. It’s important that machine learning is researched openly, and spread via open publications and open source code, so we can all share in the rewards.

Our major challenge is related to our new capability of digitizing human beings.

The scale of popular social networks has democratized publishing, which effectively lets anyone – regardless of their intentions or qualifications – produce content that can appear journalistic.

Rather than waiting for politicians to make decisions and then we all argue over whether what they say reflects reality, we could have tools that engage people much earlier in the process so they can be involved in formulating ideas and drafting legislation.

As we begin in 2019 we have only 48.8% worried by Climate change/destruction of nature, 29.2% of us worried by Poverty, 22.7% worried by Government accountability and transparency/corruption, with only 18.2% worried by Food and water security.

Water is a social issue, a political issue, an energy issue, even a gender issue

– and how clean water scarcity triggers a host of problems, from disease

outbreaks to government feuds.

So the challenge before us is to begin to construct a truth signalling layer into the fabric of facts, particularly online. Even if we have structures that impose constraints on people in power and we put pressure on powerful people to be honest with us, in a sense, all of that is being circumvented by social media.

We need to turn social media upside down by changing the algorithms in Facebook or on Google to nudge people into sharing or consuming news that is slightly outside their normal comfort zone. We have to have a setting where we trust other people.

Fix it. Get out of your silo. If you can’t figure out the societal and cultural

implications of what you’re doing, start seeking out people who might.

A major issue most people face, without knowing it, is the bubble they live in.

Our world is far too beautiful to allow Social Media and profit-seeking algorithms to rip it apart.  Happy New year.

All human comments appreciated/ All abuse and like clicks and false news chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHEN HUMANS TRANSCEND BIOLOGY, AUGMENTING IT WITH WIRELESS CLOUD AI – WILL INTELLIGENCE BE DEFINED BY US OR BY THE AI?

09 Tuesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Evolution., Google, Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Reality., Technology, The cloud., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

No system exists in a vacuum; any individual intelligence will always be both defined and limited by the context of its existence, by its environment.

  • Currently, our environment, not our brain, is acting as the bottleneck to our intelligence.
  • The expansion of intelligence can only come from a co-evolution of brains (biological or digital), sensorimotor affordances, environment, and culture — not from merely tuning the gears of some brain in a jar, in isolation. Such a co-evolution has already been happening for eons and will continue as intelligence moves to an increasingly digital substrate. No “intelligence explosion” will occur, as this process advances at a roughly linear pace.

According to Prof Yuval Noah Harari a brain is just a piece of biological tissue, there is nothing intrinsically intelligent about it.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of AI"

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of AI"

In his latest book, he implies that the superhuman AIs of the future, developed collectively over centuries, will have the capability to develop AI greater than themselves?

I say No, no more than any of us can.

Answering “yes” would fly in the face of everything we know — again, remember that no human, nor any intelligent entity that we know of, has ever designed anything smarter than itself.

Prof Harari (in his book Sapiens) describes how wheat with zero intelligence came to con humanity into providing it with its needs, which implies that humans had zero intelligence.

However, I say that you cannot dissociate intelligence from the context in which it expresses itself. The intelligence of an octopus is specialized in the problem of being an octopus. The intelligence of humans is specialized in the problem of being human.

In his latest book and lectures, he explores the possibility of AI combining with data and genome to create the first ultra trained intelligent machine leading to digital dictatorship.

The basic premise is that, in the near future, a first “seed AI” will be created, with general problem-solving abilities slightly surpassing that of humans. This seed AI would start designing better AIs, initiating a recursive self-improvement loop that would immediately leave human intelligence in the dust, overtaking it by orders of magnitude in a short time.

I say it will be the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.

He also states that AI is a major risk, greater than nuclear war or climate change.

I agree.

AI, however, considers “intelligence” in a completely abstract way, disconnected from its context, and ignores available evidence about both intelligent systems and recursively self-improving systems.

This narrative contributes to the dangerously misleading public debate that is ongoing about the risks of AI and the need for AI regulation.

What are we talking about when we talk about intelligence?

Precisely defining intelligence is in itself a challenge.

The intelligence explosion narrative equates intelligence with the general problem-solving ability displayed by individual intelligent agents — by current human brains, or future electronic brains.

Intelligence expansion can only come from a co-evolution of the mind, its sensorimotor modalities, and its environment.

Intelligence is not a superpower; exceptional intelligence does not, on its own, confer you with proportionally exceptional power over your circumstances.

Our environment, which determines how our intelligence manifests itself, puts a hard limit on what we can do with our brains — on how intelligent we can grow up to be, on how effectively we can leverage the intelligence that we develop, on what problems we can solve.

Our biological brains are just a small part of our whole intelligence.

These days cognitive prosthetics surround us, plugging into our brain and extending its problem-solving capabilities. Your smartphone. Your laptop. Google search. The cognitive tools your were gifted in school. Books. Other people. Mathematical notation. Programming.

However the most fundamental of all cognitive prosthetics is of course language itself — essentially an operating system for cognition, without which we couldn’t think very far.

These things are not merely knowledge to be fed to the brain and used by it, they are literally external cognitive processes, non-biological ways to run threads of thought and problem-solving algorithms — across time, space, and importantly, across individuality.

It is civilization as a whole that will create superhuman AI, not you, nor me, nor any individual. A process involving countless humans, over timescales we can barely comprehend. Transcending what we are now, much like it has transcended what we were 10,000 years ago. It’s a gradual process, not a sudden shift.

Civilization will develop AI, and just march on to be ruled by an oligarchy of two or three large, general-purpose cloud-based commercial bits of software.

This is why we need to be sure that the decision logic that we programme into systems is what we perceive to be ethical. If not we will have a world full of schizophrenia.

Of course, the sensors will have to actually detect the world as it is.

Cognitive prosthetics, not our brains, will be where most of our cognitive abilities reside.

However, man cannot get rid of his body even if he throws it away. There can be no absolute transcendence of the species role while man lives.

In this case, you may ask, isn’t civilization itself the runaway self-improving brain?

Is our civilizational intelligence exploding?  No. 

Unless we are talking here about immortality one is merely talking about an intensification of the character defenses and superstitions of man.

These artificially intelligent systems never perform the same way twice, even under the exact same conditions, so how do we test that? How do we know there are any guarantees of safety? This is going to become a thornier issue as we go forward.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of AI"

 

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

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: ARE WE ALL BECOMING ALGORITHMICALLY BLIND.

02 Sunday Sep 2018

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Communication., Evolution., Facebook, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Reality., Robot citizenship., Sustaniability, Technology, The cloud., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( A four-minute read)

We now live in a world where bite-sized chunks of mathematical data have become central to how we live our daily lives.

When programs pass into code and code passes into algorithms and then algorithms start to create new algorithms, it gets farther and farther from human agency.

The resulting software is being released into a code universe which no one can fully understand.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF ALGORITHMS AT WORK"

The results so far are becoming more and more apparent, with the legality of these algorithms in the long term no longer fit for purpose given the size, complexity, and interdependence of the algorithm systems we increasingly rely on.

It won’t be long before they are writing themselves.

The present-day digital economy is affecting not just how we live but when and where we live. The era of digital transformation is everywhere and the next phase is just around the corner Privacy and cyber warfare.

Despite the wide-reaching impacts of AI, there is no mechanism or body that is charged with accessing its increasing impacts on day to day life.

Here I am not talking about whether it is ethical for Google to know where you are or where you are going but rather the lack of transparency on how this information is being used by governments etc.

IF INFORMATION IS TO BE SHARED WORLDWIDE IT HAS TO BE MADE DO SO BY ETHICAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS.

THIS IS HAPPENING BUT ON A FRAGMENTED BASES.

WHAT WE ARE GOING TO END UP WITH IS AI REGULATIONS OF ONE COUNTRY CONFLICTING WITH THE OTHERS.

THE END RESULT WILL BE: AI TECHNOLOGIES FAILING TO OPERATE IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT with the likely outcome that we will see AI technologies misappropriated, and misused.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE:

BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ON THE ETHICAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF AI WE ARE WITNESSING THE CREATION OF VAST INEQUALITY IN A WORLD PLAGUED BY DISASSOCIATION AND PERSONALIZED NEWS BUBBLES.

Furthermore since AI is seen to have a global impact regardless of the specific geographical location it is employed – from Wall Street to the current global wars to whether you get medical help or a loan, if we are not careful it will allow individuals and the current Facebook’s, Twitter, Amazon, Google, of this world to use AI to suppress, oppress and control.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES CAN NOT BE LEFT TO SELF DEVELOPMENT.

NON OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES HAS AT THEIR HEART A WORLD ASPIRATION FOR PEACE-BUILDING, HUMAN RIGHTS, OR SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of algorithms at work"

THEY ARE DRIVEN BY PROFIT FOR PROFIT SAKE.

ALL OWNERS OF ANY SOFTWARE THAT DRIVES ANY PROGRAMS OR ALGORITHMS ASSOCIATED TO PROFIT SHOULD BE OBLIGED BY LAW TO DEPOSIT A COPY OF THE SAID PROGRAM IN A WORLD DEPOSITORY WHERE IT IS VETTED AGAINST OUR COMMON VALUES.

UNLESS WE DEVELOP AI POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IN A COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT AI IS UNLIKELY TO FOSTER A SUSTAINABLE WORLD AND WILL INSTEAD REINFORCE NORMS OF COMPETITION.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chunked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ARE WE SEEING THE BIRTH OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

06 Monday Aug 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Democracy, Environment, European Union., Evolution., Facebook, Fake News., Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, Terrorism., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

( A Five-minute read)

A common complaint about representative democracy is that it creates a distant class of lawmakers who will often collude with vested interests, or become so detached from the lives of the general public, that they will make decisions that the public does not support. By contrast, in a Direct Democracy system, such corruption of decision-making is impossible if every citizen is an equally powerful participant in the process.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of direct democracy"

However, it does not make any sense to think that direct democracy is somehow ideologically predisposed in any particular direction.

Direct democracy is simply a median-reverting institution.

It pushes policy back toward the center of public opinion when legislatures move too far to the right or left or is it, in fact, an opportunity to organize a kind of socio-ecological revolution to break away from the western development model of politics.

We know that every political system man has invented is open to corruption.

It is obvious that modern western democracies are now confronted with a change in culture mainly due to the integration of migrants, globalization, terrorism, and artificial intelligence.

Direct Democracy is presented as a solution to these challenges mainly by Social Media with its partitions and manipulation of voters with false news and software bots that amplify specific conversations on Twitter and Facebook by posting videos, photos, and biased statements targeting particular hashtags and wordings.  

Resulting in phony debates, nurtured by cliches and prejudices that are destabilizing the political systems we have had for hundreds of years.   

At what cost?

One of the obvious cost is Brexit and the not so obvious Donald Trump.

It is simply impossible to have direct democracy as the common Googlefied smartphone citizen does not have a grasp of political understanding nor the cognitive capacities to achieve direct democracy.

However, this view cuts against democracy in general.

As it implies that politicians always know better than the average citizen.

This is far from the truth when one looks at the current state of the world that is crying for some common action.

Politicians don’t necessarily show expertise and interest and certainly don’t know all the issues and are not always well informed.

They depend on shortcuts and have to ask other politicians and experts.

This morning I received an email from John Taylo in response to my last post ( The Beady Eye ask’s: Does anyone really know what quantum chips will do.)

He sums up the situation by saying and I quote

” We have yet to invent a political system that will harness the knowledge of mankind. if AI can be used for the benefit of all to reduce poverty and increase living standers of all without wrecking the planet it will be ……. Only dreaming”

I replied  “What a dream”

Perhaps I should have said ” Where do dreams come from. Look around you. That is where dreams come from. The only planet we know. ”

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASKS: DOES ANYONE REALLY KNOW WHAT QUANTUM CHIPS WILL DO.

02 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Evolution., Google, Google Knowledge., Humanity., Life., Our Common Values., Privatization, Technology, The Atom., The cloud., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A three-minute read)

While we are all preoccupied with artificial intelligence the development of quantum chips is progressing in relevant silence.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of quantum computers"

IF SUCH A CHIP ARRIVES COMPUTER WILL BE ABLE TO PERFORM MORE CALCULATIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY THAN THERE ARE ATOMS IN THE KNOW UNIVERSE.

Get your head around that if you can.

CHEMICAL REACTIONS AND THE PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS ARE DETERMINED BY THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN ATOMS AND MOLECULES. THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE AND ALL THAT IS IN IT – GOVERNED BY QUANTUM PHENOMENA.

So a quantum computer will require a fundamentally different way of thinking what programming is and you can rest assured that present-day machine learning will crack the coding required for such a computer sooner than later.

The first useful quantum machine might be years away but the quantum qubits are on the way to replace the microchip.

Already buried in all the Artificial Intelligence hip Google recently announced Bristlecone a new quantum computing chip with 72 quantum bits, or qubits as they like to be called.

If this is genuinely true we are going to leap into a new era with a google computer able to outgun all existing computers.

What does this mean?

THERE WILL BE NO WAY OF REALLY KNOWING IF A QUANTUM COMPUTER PRODUCES CORRECT ANSWERS.

EVEN IF THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF DEVELOPING SUCH A COMPUTER ARE TREMENDOUS A QUANTUM COMPUTER WILL BE MUCH MORE THAN ITS PROCESSOR CAPABILITIES.

THE TRANSFORMATIVE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY WILL BE UNIMAGINABLE.

IT WILL ARM GOOGLE WITH POWER OVER HOW OUR WORLD WORKS.

SUCH A POWER CANNOT BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF A GLOBAL MONOPOLY CALLED GOOGLE.

WHY?

BECAUSE: WE ARE JUST WITNESSING THE APPLICATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND WHO IT IS SHAPING OUR PERSONALIZED WORLD OUR ABILITY TO EARN A LIVING OUR INCREASINGLY ENTAILMENT BETWEEN MACHINE DRIVEN INTELLIGENCE AND PEOPLE POWER AND ALL THE ETHICAL QUESTIONS SURROUNDING AI

BECAUSE: A WORLD THAT WAKES UP EVERY MORNING UNABLE TO IMAGINE WHAT CAN BE BETTER WILL BE A DULL PLACE.

BECAUSE: WE ARE SETTING OURSELVES UP TO BE OUTSHONE BY TECHNOLOGY.

BECAUSE: THE AI UNIVERSE IS ALREADY CHANNELING THE WAY OUR WORLD ORGANISATIONS OPERATE.

SO WHERE ARE WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?

THERE ARE NO GATEKEEPERS TO IDENTIFY THE EXPECTED SIDE EFFECTS OR UNINTENDED USES OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

WE NEED TO START AGGRESSIVELY TARGETING THE DOWNSIDES OF NEW ALGORITHMS AND TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE GOING TO PUSH HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OUT OF THE JOB MARKET AND CREATE AN INEQUALITY GAP SO BIG IN THE WORLD THAT THEY WILL IF LEFT TO SEEKING PROFIT WILL PUSH US ALL OVER THE BRINK.

WE CANNOT ALLOW SO MUCH POWER TO REST WITH ANYONE AUTHORITY OR MONOPOLY LIKE GOOGLE.

THE ONUS ON PROGRAMMERS IS TO BE TRANSPARENT. TO SHOW THE FULL PICTURE.

WE MUST ESTABLISH A TECHNOLOGICAL CLOUD BANK WHERE ALL PROGRAMMES ARE REQUIRED TO LODGE A COPY OF ANY PROGRAM WHETHER IT IS DEEMED BENEFICIAL OR NOT TO HUMANITY. ( See previous posts on the subject)

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