• About
  • THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD THANK ENGLAND FOR ITS IN OR OUT REFERENDUM.

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

bobdillon33blog

Category Archives: Humanity.

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.

Image associée

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,”

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of people using google"

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?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of people using google"

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. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: HOW WOEFUL HEINOUS,UNPARDONABLE, DISTASTEFUL,TO SEE ANTONIO GUTERRES THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL HAVING TO BEG FOR FUNDS.

08 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Natural World Disasters, Sustaniability, The Future, The Obvious., The Refugees, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Aid., World Organisations., WORLD POVERTY WHERE'S THE GLOBAL OUTRAGE

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: HOW WOEFUL HEINOUS,UNPARDONABLE, DISTASTEFUL,TO SEE ANTONIO GUTERRES THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL HAVING TO BEG FOR FUNDS.

Tags

Capitalism and Greed, Climate change, Community cohesion, Distribution of wealth, Earth, Technology, The Future of Mankind, United Nations, World aid commission

 

( A three-minute read that could save millions of lives)

If you ever wanted proof that Capitalism is driven by greed just watch what can only be described in the above words the recent plea made by António Guterres to the International community for funds to tackle the declared famine in parts of Nigeria, South Sudan, and looming in Somalia, Nigeria and Yemen.africa

The estimated number of affected children is now 450,000, with 14 MILLION PEOPLE needing humanitarian assistance across the region.

Five years ago, more than a quarter of a million lives were needlessly lost, 130,000 of them children. We simply cannot have a repeat of that tragedy. The only way to prevent this devastating loss of life is for donors and international leaders to act now.

Global hunger levels are at their highest for decades. There are currently 70 million people in need of food aid. The reality of life for a fifth of the world’s people, on a planet which produces enough food to satisfy everyone is that humanitarian aid to Africa has been shrinking.

Rich countries have been giving money to poor ones for many decades and for many reasons — from geopolitics to post-colonial guilt to altruism so there is little point here in reiterating the reasons why the world is in such a mess.

What is needed in the long run is a fully funded Humanitarian Affairs United Nations.  Not a begging Institution.

Rather than boasting our compassion with wasteful foreign Aid there is only one course of action:

To make the Greed / Profit for profit’s sake segment of Capitalism system Pay.

This can be achieved with modern-day technology by Placing a World Aid commission of 0.05% on all. High frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange transactions over $ 50,000. on all Sovereign Wealth Funds acquisitions, on all gambling winnings.

This would create a Perpetual fund of billions.

The real question, though, is (with climate change and technology) is whether aid will remain relevant, and if so how.

The answer boils down to this: solutions.

Governments in developing countries will seek assistance only when they have a problem that they cannot solve by themselves.

They know how to build schools, hospitals or ports, and can pay for them. But they will look for other countries’ experiences when reforming educational curricula, designing health insurance systems, or regulating private suppliers of infrastructure.

They will want to avoid the mistakes of others, and learn from their successes.

At times, they may ask for support in implementing particularly tricky projects, mostly as a way to keep graft, pollution or displacements at bay.

This can only be achieved if the United nations see themselves more as partners than as donors. This will stop Aid countries of exporting their own way of thinking.

Donors would be sought after, rather than just accepted.

They will be those that can deliver ideas, experiences, expertise, lessons, evidence, and data.

In other words, what will make future aid relevant will be knowledge, not dollars.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of aid of the future"Development aid will be a more difficult business — for you will need to operate at the technical cutting-edge — but a more useful one.

To the extent that there are internal leaks in Africa–As a first order of priority, the leaks should be plugged to ensure that the little aid that comes in, stays.

In politics, no good deed ever goes unannounced.

It’s is very hard to feel hungry and not to be able to do anything about it.

Contributors to United Nations aid and development programs have provided slightly more than half of the $800 million requested in 1999 for African countries suffering from “complex emergencies”–the term applied when war and failed institutions, often combined with a natural disaster, leave vast numbers of people homeless and starving.

The reasons for the decline are not hard to find.

Donor nations are and will be more so under pressure to attend to problems at home rather than foreign assistance that is wasted by bloated aid agencies pouring money into the pockets of corrupt African governments, senseless civil wars, wasteful military expenditures, capital flight, and government wastes–Pouring in more foreign aid makes little sense.

However if asked we all want a more prosperous and equal world that will serve everyone’s best interests.

To create a less threatening world beyond our borders we must tackle inequality head on. 

We are on track for a tipping point of Inequality with the web only speeding up this process through digitization and universal access. We’ll be postulating about social media’s impact on the more long-term future of the world.

Aid can be fearful of the future – but it can also be a force for good.

No transformation will occur overnight.

The debate on aid comes down to lack of imagination. We have cemented in our minds the idea of a hierarchy in the world’s nations: the developing world is below us and we need to help them, preferably to our advantage. But we do not want them to rise above us.

Catastrophe evokes a human response to help fellow creatures.

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

Here is who to donate to:  UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha), Care, Oxfam, British Red Cross, Cafod, Tearfund, Christian Aid, World Vision, WFP, Unicef.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

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.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of smartphones"

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. ✨

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

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.When Information Explosion Meets Big Data

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!

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of data centers"Ben Bor_Data getting smaller 1

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.

or

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. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

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. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A SETTLED SCIENCE;

05 Sunday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., France., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Our Common Values., 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: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A SETTLED SCIENCE;

Tags

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

 

( A seven minute read)

I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS SUBJECT IN PREVIOUS POST : IN WHICH I ADVOCATED THAT THERE IS A URGENT NEED TO GET A HANDLE ON WHAT I CALL COMMERCIAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

ALL FORMS OF AI WHETHER THEY BE APPS OR PRODUCTS CONTAINING ALGORITHMS SHOULD BE VETTED BY AN INDEPENDENT WORLD ORGANIZATION TO ENSURE THEIR TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

Like all threats in the world the threat that Artificial Intelligence poses to the world will only be recognised when it is too late.Afficher l'image d'origine

WHY?

Because:  We live in a world where there is very little left that is biennial.

We can rest assured that the world of technology will follow suite, creating more inequality than anything we have seen to date.

In the old days, you would need a rule set to say ‘if this happens, do that.

With AI there are no such mantra. It’s a free for all in sundry, irrelevant of any legal system or ethics. 

Because: We are only beginning to scratch the surface with AI chatbots.

The sudden surge in interest in AI is closely linked to big data a more recent tech trend that has breathed fresh life into commercial AI development for profit.

General-purpose AI is still, at least for now, the domain of science fiction.

Real life AI software, tends to be much more purpose-driven and limited in its applicability. But that doesn’t mean businesses can’t see real value from more modest AI applications.

The market for AI applications is white-hot with huge potential, but that potential needs to be tempered by a heavy dose of realism about the capabilities and business value of artificial intelligence technology.

It’s sort of captured the imagination of the world in general, but the danger we have with AI is expectations getting too high.

What’s different this time is cheap storage, which has allowed companies to stash huge troves of data, a critical need for training machine learning algorithms — the “brains” behind artificial intelligence. Computing power has increased to the point where algorithms can churn through all this data nearly instantaneously.

Facebook announced this month that it would allow businesses to build chatbots using the AI engine in its Messenger app.

Microsoft made a similar announcement last month.

IBM has been one of the bigger players in the AI platform space ever since it made Watson available to developers.

So far developers have used it to build smarter travel planning assistants, shopping recommendation engines and health coaches.

Google, Facebook and other technology giants are racing to apply the technology to consumer products. All are placing serious bets on deep learning, neural networks and natural language processing.

The social media maven recently signaled its commitment to advancing these types of machine learning by hiring Yann LeCun, a well-regarded authority on deep learning and neural nets, to head up its new artificial intelligence (AI) lab.

Insurance companies are looking at applying it to the process of approving medical claims.

Retailers are applying it to customer service and marketing with enterprise technology companies like Salesforce looking to embed it in their software.

But even as businesses are finding real value in AI applications, there’s a widening pitfall.

Success breeds hype, which itself leads to inflated expectations. Should burgeoning AI software fail to live up to unrealistic expectations, it could brew disappointment and stain the technology.

In fact, artificial intelligence has come so far so fast in recent years, it will be pervasive in all new products by 2020.

So we are at a tipping point …

Artificial intelligence belongs to the frontier, not to the textbook.

Artificial intelligence is expected to be ubiquitous within just five years, as developers gain access to cognitive technologies through readily available algorithms.

Artificial intelligence chatbots aren’t the norm yet, but within the next five years, there’s a good chance the sales person emailing you won’t be a person at all.

All of this is proceeding without much scrutiny: So in this post I will perforce analyzed the matter from my own perspective; given my own conclusions and done my best to support them in limited space.

Let’s start with a useful definition of artificial intelligence.

The term “Artificial Intelligence” refers to a vastly greater space of possibilities than does the term “Homo sapiens.” When we talk about “AIs” we are really talking about minds-in-general, or optimization processes in general. It is the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence.

While cognitive technologies are products of the field of artificial intelligence.

They are able to perform tasks that only humans used to be able to do.

Organizations in every sector of the economy are already using cognitive technologies in diverse business functions.

If current trends in performance and commercialization continue, we can expect the applications of cognitive technologies to broaden and adoption to grow.

Billions of investment dollars have flowed to hundreds of companies building products based on machine learning, natural language processing, computer vision, or robotics suggests that many new applications are on their way to market.

We also see ample opportunity for organizations to take advantage of cognitive technologies to automate business processes and enhance their products and services.

If you look at technology we have to-day you could say that it is the knack of so arranging the world that we don’t have to experience it.

We must execute the creation of Artificial Intelligence as the exact application of an exact art.

And maybe then we can win.

I suspect that, pragmatically speaking, our alternatives boil down to becoming smarter or becoming extinct.

Historians will look back and describe the present world as an awkward in between stage of adolescence, when humankind was smart enough to create tremendous problems for itself, but not quite smart enough to solve them.

We are for the moment subject to natural selection which isn’t friendly, nor does it hate you, nor will it leave you alone.

The point about underestimating the potential impact of Artificial Intelligence is symmetrical around potential good impacts and potential bad impacts.

When something is universal enough in our everyday lives, we take it for granted to the point of forgetting it exists.

It may be tempting to ignore Artificial Intelligence because,of all the global risks but we do so AT GRAVE RISK OF CREATING A DIGITAL DIVIDE WORLD.  Afficher l'image d'origine

We cannot query our own brains for answers about nonhuman optimization processes— whether bug-eyed monsters, natural selection, or Artificial Intelligences.

DUP-1030_WP-intro-image

How then may we proceed?

How can we predict what Artificial Intelligences will do?

The human species came into existence through natural selection, which operates through the non chance retention of chance mutations.

Artificial Intelligence comes about through a similar accretion of working algorithms, with the researchers having no deep understanding of how the combined system works. Nonetheless they believe the AI will be friendly,with no strong visualization of the exact processes involved in producing friendly behavior, or any detailed understanding of what they mean by friendliness.

Friendly AI is an impossibility, because any sufficiently powerful AI will be able to modify its own source code to break any constraints placed upon it.

This does not imply the AI has the motive to change its own motives.

Sufficiently tall skyscrapers don’t potentially start doing their own engineering.

Humanity did not rise to prominence on Earth by holding its breath longer than other species.

Humans evolved to model other humans—to compete against and cooperate with our own conspecifics.

Robots will not.

It’s mistaken belief that an AI will be friendly which implies an obvious path to global catastrophe.

Artificial Intelligence is not an amazing shiny expensive gadget to advertise in the latest tech magazines.

Artificial Intelligence does not belong in the same graph that shows progress in medicine, manufacturing, and energy.

Artificial Intelligence is not something you can casually mix into a lumpen futuristic scenario of skyscrapers and flying cars and nanotechnologies red blood cells that let you hold your breath for eight hours.

A sufficiently powerful Artificial Intelligence could overwhelm any human resistance and wipe out humanity. (And the AI would decide to do so.)

Therefore we should not build AI.

On the other hand.

A sufficiently powerful AI could develop new medical technologies capable of saving millions of human lives. (And the AI would decide to do so.)

Therefore we should build AI.

Once computers become cheap enough, the vast majority of jobs will be performable by Artificial Intelligence more easily than by humans.

A sufficiently powerful AI would even be better than us at math, engineering, music, art, and all the other jobs we consider meaningful. (And the AI will decide to perform those jobs.) Thus after the invention of AI, humans will have nothing to do, and we’ll starve or watch television.

So should we prefer that nanotechnology precede the development of AI, or that AI precede the development of nanotechnology?

As presented, this is something of a trick question.

The answer has little to do with the intrinsic difficulty of nanotechnology as an existential risk, or the intrinsic difficulty of AI. So far as ordering is concerned, the question we should ask is, “Does AI help us deal with nanotechnology? Does nanotechnology help us deal with AI?”

The danger of confusing general intelligence with Artificial Intelligence  is that it leads to tremendously underestimating the potential impact of Artificial Intelligence.

The best way I can think of to train computers to be able to get them watch a lot of videos and observe what they Predict.

Prediction is the essence of intelligence.

All scientific ignorance is hallowed by ancientness.Philosophy of A.I. Searles strong AI hypothesis: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs & output...

Here is a closing thought.

When a Super Intelligent Robot returns to earth from a voyage in space how can it be trusted to tell us the truth.

Exactly how AI systems should be integrated together is still up for debate.

With every advance, and particularly with the advances in machine learning and deep learning more recently,we get more tools to fuck up the world we all live on.

Ours is a less than excessively age.

We know so much and feel so little.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: CAPITALISM’S IS DRIFTING TOWARDS A CULTURAL APOCALYPSE.

30 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Donald Trump Presidency., European Union., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., Social Media., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The USA., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: CAPITALISM’S IS DRIFTING TOWARDS A CULTURAL APOCALYPSE.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism and Greed, Capitalism vs. the Climate., Community cohesion, Distribution of wealth, European Union, Globalization, Inequility, Technology, The Future of Mankind, THE UNITED NATIONS, Visions of the future.

( A two-minute follow-up read to the Post ” What is happening to what we call common values.)

Afficher l'image d'origine

Perhaps with the election of Donald Trump it has already happened.

Why?

Because capitalism has and still is creating an explosion in economic and geographic inequality which is now fueled by commercial Artificial Intelligence.

The tragedy is that our World leaders and World Organisations seem inapt to do anything about it.

The main lesson for European and the rest of the world is clear:Afficher l'image d'origine

As a matter of urgency globalization must be fundamentally reorientated.

Trade agreements must be revisited to become a means in the service of higher ends.

They must include quantifying and binding measures to combat the digital fiscal and climate dumping.

They must have a prosecutor capable of enforcing what is agreed.

Its time to change the political discourse on globalization, trade is a good thing, but fair and sustainable development also demands public services, infrastructure, health and education. These demand fair taxation systems

If we fail to deliver these the ludicrous fantasy of Trumpism testosterone imperialism will win with the dignity of world leaders reduced to one’s shopping choices.

Here are a few other thought as to why:Afficher l'image d'origine

Because: Globalisation it is being replaced in economic by Artificial Intelligence calculation to satisfy consumer demands.

Because: With Trump closing of the USA will change the domination of the capitalism globe.  It will now exist for a Chinese Communist party that gives delocalised capitalist enterprise cheap labour to lower prices.

Because:  Technology – along with its turbo economic disruption is causing what seems to me to be the hastening of both a cultural and environmental apocalypse.

Because:  Digital consumerism makes us too passive to revolt or save the world. Humans have been transferred into desirable readily exchangeable commodities. Culture appears more monolithic than ever. Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, are now presiding over unprecedented monopolies.

Because: The Internet discourse has become tighter, more coercive.

Because:  Human personality is being corrupted by false news creating false consciousness that there is hardly anything worth the name anymore.

Because:  Common Values are scarcely signifies any more – than white skin, white teeth and freedom from odour and emotions.

Because:  Popularising, is a failure of the US and the EU to democratise in an attempt to create a one-dimensional society.

Because:  Social Media operates on an eternal feeding loop.

Because:  Our world organisations are out of date.

Because: Trade agreements aren’t worth the paper they are written.

Because: If we destroy or Atmosphere , or Seas, or Fresh Water all for the sake of profit, there is little reason to believe in a Christian or Muslim God or for that matter any other Gods that will make a difference.Afficher l'image d'origine

All comments appreciated. All likes clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT IS HAPPENING TO WHAT WE CALL COMMON VALUES?

29 Sunday Jan 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Donald Trump Presidency., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Google it., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., 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 ASKS: WHAT IS HAPPENING TO WHAT WE CALL COMMON VALUES?

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Community cohesion, Digital Divide., European Union, Our Common Values., Technology, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

 

(A twelve-minute read if you value your time)

For some naive reason I thought this would be an easy subject to write on.Afficher l'image d'origine

After all, we all value fresh air, clean water, and the other essential to living- Life.

If we remove our personal values and look at our shared convictions regarding what we believe is important and desirable , of course, we are left with valuing the right things and surely they are common values but the term “values” means different things in different contexts.

So much so that we are no longer connected by Our Common Values.

In reality we understand that our choices are always significantly limited, and that our values shift over time in unpredictable ways.

This is especially true with emerging technologies, where values that may lead one society to reject a technology are seldom universal, meaning that the technology is simply developed and deployed elsewhere. In a world where technology is a major source of status and power, that usually means the society rejecting technology has, in fact, chosen to slide down the league tables.

Take for instance choice.

To say that one has a choice implies, among other things, that one has the power to make a selection among options, and that one understands the implications of that selection. Obviously, reality and existing systems significantly bound whatever options might be available. In 1950, I could not have chosen a mobile phone:

So it is premature to say that we understand how to implement meaningful choice and responsible values when it comes to emerging technologies.

Technology is changing far faster than the institutions we’ve traditionally relied on to inform and enforce our choices and values.

However current progress in meeting the profound challenges that humanity must confront falls far short of what is needed.

Combined with the need for a new understanding about the way that people think raises complex ethical questions concerning our common values makes it a complex subject to address.Holistic Approach

So let’s try and address it under these broad headings.

The Rule of Private Gain. If you are the only one personally gaining from the situation, is it is at the expense of another?  If so, you may benefit from questioning your ethics in advance of the decision.

If Everyone Does It. Who would be hurt? What would the world be like? These questions can help identify unethical behaviors.

Benefits vs. Burden. If benefits do result, do they outweigh the burden?

Or we can bury our heads in the sand, and insist on the sanctity of Enlightenment reason.

Or we can respond to the new understanding of how decision-making processes work, by demanding that there is public scrutiny of the effect that particular communications, campaigns, institutions and policies have on cultural values, and the impact that values, in turn, have on our collective responses to social and environmental challenges.

The first thing that struck me, is that these days there is no such thing as value-neutral policy.

Often, if the facts don’t support a person’s values, “the facts bounce off”

If you need an example you need to look no further than what we are witnessing with president-elect Mr Donald Trump and the English vote to leave the European Union.

President Trump has little understanding that American Values that crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe and Slaves from Africa to help create the USA.

Their values have stood the test of time till now.

Mrs May on the other hand carrying the cultural and historical baggage of an Empire that supplied the slaves  and is now reaping the reward of leaving the European Union’s blueprint for success which relies not only on securing economic prosperity but also on consensus on core values common to all the EU Member States.

( In the EU the original emphasis on economic development and environmental protection has been broadened and deepened to include alternative notions of development (human and social) and alternative views of nature (anthropocentric versus egocentric). Thus, the concept maintains a creative tension between a few core principles and an openness to reinterpretation and adaptation to different social and ecological contexts.

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.)

She is now clasping hands with a country that is also denuding itself of core values.

Many studies have established substantial correlations between people’s values and their corresponding behaviours.

Unfortunately our troubled world is no longer affected by common values, they being manipulated by simply flooding the public with as much sound data as possible on the assumption that the truth is bound, eventually, to drown out its competitors.

If, however, the truth carries implications that threaten people’s cultural values, then… [confronting them with this data] is likely to harden their resistance and increase their willingness to support alternative arguments, no matter how lacking in evidence” (Kahan, 2010: 297).

The idea that people can be ‘nudged’ into new forms of behaviour by having their brains massaged in a certain way, is built on the premise that we are not rational beings to be engaged with. It’s very foundation is the elite’s view of us, not as people to be talked to, argued with and potentially won over, but problematic beings to be remade” (O’Neill, 2010; emphasis in original).

Values have a profound impact on a person’s motivation to express concerns about a range of bigger-than-self problems. Indeed, they are values that must be championed if we are to uncover the collective will to deal with today’s profound global challenges.

Undoubtedly these are values that have been weakened – and often even derided – in modern culture. They are not, for example, values that are fostered by treating people as if they are, above all else, consumers. 

As humans our biological tendencies push us towards both altruism and selfishness, artificial intelligence is removing any sense of common values.

While humans are capable of displays of enlightened self-interest, we cannot hope that individuals will subjugate their own self-interest to the pursuit of the greater common good. The best for which we can hope, therefore, is to exploit those instances where self-interest and the common good happen to coincide – often called ‘win-win’ scenarios.

It also seems clear to me that, in trying to meet these challenges, civil society organisations must champion some long-held (but insufficiently esteemed) values, while seeking to diminish the primacy of many values which are now prominent – at least in Western industrialised society.

Values are also shaped by people’s experience of public policies.

It is therefore crucial to ask: which values does society accentuate?

People’s motivation to engage with political process, and to demand change, is shaped importantly by their values.

Civil society organisations must strive for utmost transparency about the effect of communications and campaigns in shaping public attitudes.

Bolder leadership from both political and business leaders is necessary if proportional responses to these challenges are to emerge, but active public engagement with these problems is of crucial importance.

This is partly because of the direct material impacts of an individual’s behaviour (for example, his or her environmental footprint), partly because of lack of consumer demand for ambitious changes in business practice, and partly because of the lack of political space and pressure for governments to enact change.

This will require a change in societal values, and commitments by wealthier nations to assist others in the protection of wilderness resources of global concern.

One hundred years from now, when historians look back on this period of history, what will they think of the wilderness debate?

Will it be irrelevant to them or will it represent a vital component of a societal watershed of thought that changed the way in which society viewed itself and its relationship to Planet Earth?

Some values are mutually consistent, others tend to act to oppose one another. Activating a specific value causes changes throughout the whole system of that person’s values; in particular, it has the effect of activating compatible values and suppressing opposing values.

The implication of this is that business practice, government policy and civil society communications and campaigns must take responsibility not just for their ‘material impacts’ (what they achieve ‘on the ground’), but also for the effect they have on dominant cultural values.

It is often argued that, because a problem – climate change, for example – is of urgent concern, there ‘is not enough time’ for systemic responses.

This is a suspect argument: it seems at least as likely that appeal to ‘easy wins’ on climate change will actually serve to help defer ambitious action until it becomes “too late” for this to be taken effectively.

We must build a visual and compelling vision of low-carbon heaven.

It seems that one way in which values become strengthened is through their repeated activation.  This may occur, for example, through people’s exposure to these values through influential peers, in the media, in education, or through people’s experience of public policies.

The future is already through technology bring means that devalue that past and are, to a large extent, unconscious of the present. The Internet, the Smart Phone, artificial Intelligent Apps are all contributing to this.

This means that we value and collect more material objects. It also means we give higher priority to obtaining, maintaining and protecting our material objects than we do in developing and enjoying interpersonal relationships.

Even the gloomiest of assessments of human nature lead to the conclusion that we should be working to mitigate unhelpful aspects of our biology through cultural interventions.

This constitutes a timely opportunity to further reflect.

Man always kills the thing he loves.

In the United States, people consider it normal and right that Man should control Nature, rather than the other way around.

Up to the election of Mr Trump:  Equality was, for Americans, one of their most cherished values. This concept is so important for Americans that they have even given it a religious basis.

To prevent the silent creeping erosion of our European project it has to be more focused on essentials and on meeting the concrete expectations of its citizens. I am convinced that it is not the existence of the Union that is object to but the way it functions.

Institutions that examine power and responsibility, and audit their ethical decisions regularly, develop employees that function with honesty and integrity and serve their institution and community.

It is imperative that we appreciate that each person’s intrinsic values are different. Because values are so ingrained, we are not often aware that our responses in life are, in large part, due to the values we hold and are unique to our own culture and perspective.

What is ethically responsible is not just fixation on rules or outcomes.

Rather, it is to focus on the process and the institutions involved by making sure that there is a transparent and workable mechanism for observing and understanding the technology system as it evolves, and that relevant institutions are able to respond to what is learned rapidly and effectively.

Indeed, much of what we do today is naive and superficial, steeped in reflexive ideologies and overly rigid worldviews. But the good news is that we do know how to do better, and some of the steps we should take. It is, of course, a choice based on the values we hold as to whether we do so.

The values that must be strengthened – values that are commonly held and which can be brought to the fore – include: empathy towards those who are facing the effects of humanitarian and environmental crises, concern for future generations, and recognition that human prosperity resides in relationships – both with one another and with the natural world.

In making judgements, feelings are more important than facts.

Can you imagine big business embracing humility as a core value?

If wilderness is to exist into the future. (It is a finite resource.  It is a non-renewable resource.  It is a non-substitutable resource. It is an irreversible resource. It is a common resource.) Has the time come for us to govern ourselves? Our experience and conceptualisations are not random; they are stored in structured forms in long-term memory.

Values have been defined as psychological representations of what we believe to be important in life.

To be ethically successful, it is paramount that we understand and respect how values impact our social environment. How we perceive ourselves and operate within our environment is of such importance that institutions establish rules of ethical behavior that relate to practice.

Political leaders have profound influence over people’s deep frames, in important part through the policies that they advocate.

Values can be both activated (for example, by encouraging people to think about the importance of particular things), and they can be further strengthened, such that they become easier to activate by education which has an important impact on their value.

Afficher l'image d'origine

A final thought: We all value our own lives, it is how we conduct that life that gives value to it. It has no meaning without values.

No individual man or woman and no nation must be denied opportunity to benefit from development whether its technological or otherwise that exceeds our humanity.

A digital divide threatens us all, both rich and poor, it is also testing our values.

Are we all googling while Rome Burns.?

Technology has a multiplying power. Websites have become multi media platforms and Television stations are now media centers where the evening news broadcast is secondary to the accompanying pod casting blogging with interactive forms as Twitter, Face Book, etc.

Use them to put the flames out. Values offer focus amidst the chaos.Afficher l'image d'origine

If you got this far I value your time and comments not your like clicks.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: We need to be genuinely intelligent about how humankind anticipates artificial intelligence.

19 Thursday Jan 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Capitalism, Emotions., Humanity., 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: We need to be genuinely intelligent about how humankind anticipates artificial intelligence.

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Big Data, Capitalism and Greed, Globalization, SMART PHONE WORLD, Technology, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

 

( Seven Minute read )

Who programs the programmers?

Soon enough, it might not be people behind the development of advanced machines learning and artificial intelligence but other AI.

This will drastically reduce the human input required.

We must not be blinded by science, nor held captive by unfounded or fantastic fears.Afficher l'image d'origineI have previously posted blogs putting the case that all technology (whether it be atomic energy or nanotechnology, bioengineering or DNA mutilation, or Artificial Intelligence) should be subject to examinations by a New World Organisation, that is totally independent and transparent.

( It’s imperative that we do not leave such examinations to the whims of the marketplace nor the cost-benefit calculations of a given quarter to marinate Artificial Intelligence into a sense of human complacency.)

I have also stated that I am pro all technology that benefits mankind as a whole. However it is critical that those individuals who are on the front lines of research be thinking about the implications of their work.

The other day on arrival at Gatwick I was admitted by an Algorithm into the UK.

Since this Algorithm was focus by definition to be based on narrowly defined problems, it got me thinking, who or what wrote the software in the first place.

The ethics of artificial intelligence are non existence.

Whether we are aware of it or not, we are already moving into the era of AI where IBM’s Watson, Google’s AI, Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Echo will be your new companion.

Once AI can analyze a person’s affective state it will be able to influence it.

Humans are driven by emotions, making a crucial component of perception, decision-making, learning, and more. 

Artificial intelligence is not yet emotional in the same ways that humans are, but it  won’t be long with all the data collection before this is achievable to prompt certain responses and induce desired emotions. 

Creepy or worse predatory.

What happens when one of the human negotiators has an emotionally aware assistant in is the corner.     

  Every decision that mankind makes is going to be informed by a cognitive system like Watson. That future is actually much closer than you think.

To be or not to be. “Are you a robot?” “What?! No I am a real person.”

Afficher l'image d'origine

For example:

Militaries are among the intense users of high-technology, and the adoption of that equipment has transformed decision-making throughout the chain of command. The removal of human beings from the act of killing and from war.

There must be a way to ensure that Artificial Intelligence that is introduced into what ever field of Technology is not dominated by those who have a stake in the expansion of AI for Profit Sake.

There is no excuse for not being aware of the risks that such AI carries for all of us.

These questions have been with us for a long time:

Alan Turing in 1950 asked whether machines could think and that same year writer Isaac Asimov contemplated what might happen if they could in “I, Robot.” (In truth, thinking machines can be found in ancient cultures, including those of the Greeks and the Egyptians.)

About 30 years ago, James Cameron served up one dystopia created by AI in “The Terminator.” Science fiction became fact in 1997 when IBM’s chess-playing Deep Blue computer beat world champion Garry Kasparov.

As the Internet and digital systems penetrate further each day into our daily lives, concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) are intensifying.

It is difficult to get exercised about connections between the “Internet of Things” and AI when the most visible indications are Siri (Apple’s digital assistant), Google translate and smart houses, but a growing number of people, including many with a reputation for peering over the horizon, are worried.

Nevertheless, a debate about prospects and possibilities is worthwhile.

We need to ensure that boundaries are set, not just for research but for all the applications of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

As the Internet and digital systems penetrate further each day into our daily lives, concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) are intensifying. It is difficult to get exercised about connections between the “Internet of Things” and AI when the most visible indications are Siri (Apple’s digital assistant), Google translate and smart houses, but a growing number of people, including many with a reputation for peering over the horizon, are worried.

Recently, there has been a growing chorus of concern about the potential for AI.

It began last year when inventor Elon Musk, a man who spends considerable time on the cutting edge of technology, warned that with AI “we’re summoning the demon.” In all those stories with the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, and he’s sure he can control the demon. It doesn’t work out.” For him, AI is an existential threat to humanity, more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

The possibilities created by “big data” are driving increasing automation and in some cases AI in the office environment.  Legal and administrative frameworks to deal with the proliferation of these technologies and AI have not kept pace with their application. Ethical questions are often not even part of the discussion.

And since their focus tends to be on narrowly defined problems, others who can address larger issues should join the discussion. This process should be occurring for all such technologies.

A month later, distinguished scientist Stephen Hawking told the BBC that he feared that the development of “full artificial intelligence” could bring an end to the human race. Not today, of course, but over time, machines could become both more intelligent and physically stronger than human beings. Last month, Microsoft founder Bill Gates joined the group, saying that he did not understand people who were not troubled by the prospect of AI escaping human control.

More recently, Google’s AlphaGo software beat South Korean Go champion Lee Sedol in series of matches pitting human against software in a board game that apparently has more possible positions than there are atoms in the universe.

What’s more amazing about Alpha Go, unlike Deep Blue before it, was that it was not specifically programmed to play Go – it learned to play the game using a general-purpose algorithm.

The big question is what can be done? If anything, or is it to late.

None of the darker visions have deterred researchers and entrepreneurs from pursuing the field. It is hard to fear AI when the simplest demonstrations are more humorous than hair-raising.

The prevailing view among software engineers, who are writing the programs that make AI possible, is that they remain in control of what they program.

But are they really? I think not.

The prevailing view among software engineers, who are writing the programs that make AI possible, is that they remain in control of what they program.

Even if true AI is a far-off prospect, ethical issues are emerging every day.

Artificial intelligence or AI is now getting a foothold in people’s homes, starting with the Amazon devices like its Echo speaker which links to a personal assistant “Alexa” to answer questions and control connected devices such as appliances or light bulbs. Echo’s main advantage is that it connects to Amazon’s range of products and services telling devices to tend to tasks such as ordering goods, checking traffic, making restaurant reservations or searching for information. It also connects to various third-party services like Uber and Domino’s Pizza, so you can just call for a car or a pizza delivery by just telling the Echo what you want.

IBM, whose Watson supercomputer systems are offering “cognitive health” programs which can analyze a person’s genome and offer personalized treatment for cancer, for example.

Google recently announced it had developed an algorithm which can detect diabetic retinopathy, a cause of blindness, by analyzing retina images.

Amazon is seeking to put AI to work in the supermarket—testing a system without cash registers or lines, where consumers simply grab their products and go, and have a bill tallied by artificial intelligence.

Facebook just recently introduced its AI-based Deep Text analytics engine which is said to be able to scan and understand the textual content of thousands of posts per second in more than 20 languages, all with nearly human-like accuracy.

Machine learning is already being used extensively in the social networking site to make sense of and translate some two billion News Feed items per day and the company is planning to use AI to recognise images and allow users to search for photos based on the content in those photos.

The artificial intelligence (AI) component in these programs aims to make create a world in which everyone can have a virtual aide that gets to know them better with each interaction.

AI prowess to make smartphones smarter—Google Allo messenger can, for example, suggest a meeting or deliver relevant information during a conversation. To infuse smartphones and other internet-linked devices with software smarts that help them think like people.

The prospect of AI escaping human control is advancing day by day.

Researchers most deeply engaged in this work are more sanguine. The head of Microsoft Research dismissed Gates’ concern, saying he does not think that humankind will lose control of “certain kinds of intelligences.” He instead is focused on ways that AI will increase human productivity and better lives.

At what cost?

No Algorithm understand the unwritten social behaviors used in daily life, which can vary from one culture to another. More work needs to be done to improve “social intelligence,” or understanding the subtleties of our everyday decisions.

However, the real question on everybody’s minds is – is the rush to get to true AI another step towards Skynet, Terminators and HAL 9000?

Just ponder on this for a moment – if a computer could truly be “smart”, it would soon see that humans are basically the cause of most environmental problems and would come up with an extinction solution that would solve all issues in one fell swoop.

Humans are limited by slow biological evolution and would not be able to compete with software that can redesign itself and evolve faster than any human could.

So what is there to prevent AI from gaining sentience and killing us all?Afficher l'image d'origine

How one can manage something that is sentient is another question altogether.

As we already have industrial robots replacing us in tiresome and repetitive jobs, we might ask ourselves if they’re not going to replace us in all domains?

The population with mobile devices now outnumbering and multiplying faster than humans.

AI and automation provide an opportunity to move beyond business as usual. The global affective computing market is estimated to be 9.3. billion $ a year. By 2020 it will be in the region of 50 billion.

It’s no wonder that the darker visions have not deterred researchers and entrepreneurs from pursuing the field.

We need to remain vigilant on the uses and changes of AI, and maybe even prepare ourselves for a new world where a good part of normal, information research work will die out.

Let’s hope that, should this happen, it will be to the benefit of creative arts which remain entirely ours.

We might already be in the midst of creating a conscious entity of a whole new “utterly inhuman” kind.  Now that would be scary.Afficher l'image d'origine

Perhaps the only solution is a whistle-blower Algorithm.

All comments welcome, all like clicks chucked in the Bin.  

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REDEFINE HUMANITY

13 Friday Jan 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Life., Modern day life., Social Media., Space., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The New year 2017, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, War, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REDEFINE HUMANITY

Tags

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

( Follow up read of three minutes to the last Post)

Humanity has achieved its current level of freedom following centuries of sacrifices and struggles, which we are now wittingly or unwittingly transferring to Artificial Intelligence.Afficher l'image d'origine

For obvious reasons it will not be us that ventures out into the Universe, but a self-sustaining machine equipped with all human knowledge, that may decide not to return as it acquires more knowledge beyond our comprehension.

No matter: We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.Afficher l'image d'origine

We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is already changing our health and leading to a “quantified” self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation.

The possibilities of billions of people connected by mobile devices, with unprecedented processing power, storage capacity, and access to knowledge, are unlimited. And these possibilities will be multiplied by emerging technology breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing.

It’s time to let go of the United Nations declaration of Human Rights and to redefine them, effectively addressing people’s needs, not ideology, should dictate the new definition.Afficher l'image d'origine

Centuries ago human knowledge increased slowly, so politics and economics changed at a leisurely pace too. Today our knowledge is increasing a breakneck speed, and theoretically we should understand the world better and better. But the very opposite happening.

Our new-found knowledge leads to faster economic, social and political changes; in an attempt to understand what is happening, we accelerate the accumulation of knowledge, which leads to faster and greater upheavals.

Consequently we are less and less able to make sense of the present or forecast the future. While the outside world is changing, the humanitarian sector has simply not been able to adapt to new challenges.

Digital fabrication technologies, meanwhile, are interacting with the biological world on a daily basis. Engineers, designers, and architects are combining computational design, additive manufacturing, materials engineering, and synthetic biology to pioneer a symbiosis between microorganisms, our bodies, the products we consume, and even the buildings we inhabit.

Change has a way of scaring people—scaring them into inaction.

I am a great enthusiast and early adopter of technology, but sometimes I wonder whether the inexorable integration of technology in our lives could diminish some of our quintessential human capacities, such as compassion and cooperation. Our relationship with our smartphones is a case in point. Constant connection may deprive us of one of life’s most important assets: the time to pause, reflect, and engage in meaningful conversation.

Neither technology nor the disruption that comes with it is an exogenous force over which humans have no control.Afficher l'image d'origine

All of us are responsible for guiding its evolution, in the decisions we make on a daily basis as citizens, consumers, and investors. We should thus grasp the opportunity and power we have to shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution and direct it toward a future that reflects our common. objectives and values.

We therefore must redefine what it is to be human.

Should we view prosperity in a society as the accumulation of solutions to human problems. Instead of measuring growth through GDP.

Perhaps growth should be measured by the rate at which new solutions to human problems become available and the degree to which we make those solutions broadly accessible.

The alternative is to watch as animals and plants go extinct, water becomes scarce, weather hits more extremes, conflicts over land and resources increase, and life becomes more difficult for people everywhere.

We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them not just to control Artificial Intelligence., but all technology that is designed for Profit sake only.

If we connect the dots it is certain that “People, Planet, Profit” will be the new tomorrow.

Now that everything is digital Data Privacy is abstract, There’s an air of resignation around the concept of privacy these days.

It’s about the ones and zeros, the metadata underlying our everyday digital lives.

As the physical, digital, and biological worlds continue to converge, new technologies and platforms will increasingly enable citizens to engage with governments, voice their opinions, coordinate their efforts, and even circumvent the supervision of public authorities.

As the human population continues to increase, animal numbers are falling it’s about protecting what is yours, by creating digital spaces where you have control.

There’s a strong correlation.

A new definition of Human/ Technological rights will lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny.

It is incumbent on us all to make sure the latter prevails.

Meanwhile, changes in the tools of war – including drones and automated weapons – point to a more remote and anonymous form of warfare. Continued civilian suffering in conflicts in Syria, South Sudan and Yemen is a sobering reminder of the international community’s continued failure.

Piecemeal reforms amount to tinkering around the edges.

Only when we realize that we are for the moment all on the same planet can all enjoy the many gifts Earth provides.Afficher l'image d'origine

 

 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
← Older posts
Newer posts →

All comments and contributions much appreciated

  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS., NONE OF US UNDERSTAND WHAT IS COMING WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. February 19, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE ASKS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE NO LONGER MAKE DECISIONS. February 18, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE: ASK WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HUMANS TO GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER? February 17, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS. AT 130 THOUSAND OF TAX PAYERS MONEY ITS TIME TO RETIRE THE ROYAL FAMILY. THE EPSTEIN FILES CAST A SPOT LIGHT ON THEIR WORTH. February 17, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS. WITH THE EPSTEIN FILES IT IS BECOMING CLEAR THAT THE TRAFFICKING OF YOUNG WOMEN IS LESS REPULSIVE WHEN THE WEALTHY ARE INVOLVED. February 12, 2026

Archives

  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Talk to me.

Jason Lawrence's avatarJason Lawrence on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WIT…
benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHA…
bobdillon33@gmail.com's avatarbobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
Ernest Harben's avatarOG on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONC…

7/7

Moulin de Labarde 46300
Gourdon Lot France
0565416842
Before 6pm.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.
bobdillon33@gmail.com

bobdillon33@gmail.com

Free Thinker.

View Full Profile →

Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog Stats

  • 97,425 hits

Blogs I Follow

  • unnecessary news from earth
  • The Invictus Soul
  • WordPress.com News
  • WestDeltaGirl's Blog
  • The PPJ Gazette
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

The Beady Eye.

The Beady Eye.
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

unnecessary news from earth

WITH MIGO

The Invictus Soul

The only thing worse than being 'blind' is having a Sight but no Vision

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

WestDeltaGirl's Blog

Sharing vegetarian and vegan recipes and food ideas

The PPJ Gazette

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Join 222 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar