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

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

bobdillon33blog

Category Archives: Unanswered Questions.

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

Gallery

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: BRIXIT = BUST.

10 Friday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit., England., Politics., The New year 2017, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: BRIXIT = BUST.

Tags

Britain., Brixit., England., EU v UK Negotiations., The Future of the UK.

  ( A five to six-minute snapshot read of the Health of the UK) Britain is teetering on bankruptcy with …

Continue reading →

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE RISE OF POPULISMS.

07 Tuesday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit., Donald Trump Presidency., European Union., Modern day life., Politics., Populism., Social Media., Technology, 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 LOOKS AT THE RISE OF POPULISMS.

Tags

Community cohesion, European Union, Populism., The Future of Mankind

( A Popular Four minute read)

It is important to understand this topic since it is apparent that the consequences of the rise of populism continue to play out and they are likely to be profound.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Populist forces have already proven decisive for the outcome of the British referendum on membership in the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States.

Populists support charismatic leaders, reflecting a deep mistrust of the ‘establishment’ and mainstream parties who are led nowadays by educated elites with progressive cultural views on moral issues.

Since about 1970, affluent Western societies have seen growing emphasis on post-materialist and self-expression values among the younger birth cohorts and the better educated strata of society.

This has brought rising emphasis on such issues as environmental protection, increased acceptance of gender and racial equality, and equal rights for the LGBT community.

In recent decades, however, in Western democracies the backlash against cultural change has become increasingly prominent. Throughout advanced industrial society, massive cultural changes have been occurring that seem shocking to those with traditional values.

Moreover, immigration flows, especially from lower-income countries, changed the ethnic makeup of advanced industrial societies.

The newcomers speak different languages and have different religions and lifestyles from those of the native population—reinforcing the impression that traditional norms and values are rapidly disappearing.

All of the above combined were reinforcing each other in part, with long-term processes of generational change during the late twentieth century have catalyzed culture wars, and these changes are particularly alarming to the less educated and older groups in Western countries.

It therefore would be a mistake to attribute the rise of populism directly to economic inequality alone. The rise of populist parties reflects, above all, a reaction against a wide range of rapid cultural changes that seem to be eroding the basic values and customs of Western societies.

On one hand this cultural shift has fostered greater approval of social tolerance of diverse lifestyles, religions, and cultures, multiculturalism, international cooperation, democratic governance, and protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights. Social movements reflecting these values have brought policies such as environmental protection, same-sex marriage, and gender equality in public life to the center of the political agenda, drawing attention away from the classic economic redistribution issues.

But the spread of progressive values has also stimulated a cultural backlash among people who feel threatened by this development.

Less educated and older citizens, especially white men, who were once the privileged majority culture in Western societies, resent being told that traditional values are ‘politically incorrect’ if they have come to feel that they are being marginalized within their own countries.

As I have said, as cultures have shifted, now a tipping point appears to have occurred with the election of Donald Trump who exploited this change as did the Brixit supporters.

Britain’s decision to withdraw from the EU threatens to reenergize populist forces across Europe with France next on the list with Madame Le Pen. Afficher l'image d'origine Perhaps the most widely held view of mass support for populism is the economic insecurity perspective–emphasizes the consequences of profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies.

If the cultural backlash argument is essentially correct, then this has significant implications; the growing generational gap in Western societies is likely to heighten the salience of the cultural cleavage in party politics in future, irrespective of any improvements in the underlying economic conditions or any potential slowdown in globalization.

Alternatively, the cultural backlash thesis suggests that support can be explained as a retro reaction by once-predominant sectors of the population to progressive value change.

Populist leaders like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Norbert Hoffer, Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders are prominent today in many countries, altering established patterns of party competition in contemporary Western societies. The net result is that Western societies face more unpredictable contests, anti-establishment populist challenges to the legitimacy of liberal democracy, and potential disruptions to long-established patterns of party competition.

Education also proves significant, with populist parties winning greater support from the less educated sectors of the population.

Anti-immigrant attitudes, mistrust of global governance, mistrust of national governance, support for authoritarian values, and left-right ideological self-placement.

All cultural indicators that are significantly linked with populist voting and the coefficients. Not surprisingly, given populist xenophobic rhetoric, members of ethnic minorities are less inclined to support Populist parties.

In short, Populist support is greatest among the older generation, men, the less educated, ethnic majority populations, and the religious.

Given that populism does not appear to be waning in contemporary democracies let me ask these questions.

Under what circumstances are populist claims viewed as credible or not by their target audiences?

What accounts for temporal fluctuations in particular forms of populism within specific countries—and possibly across democracies in general?

Which groups are included in the category of the virtuous people and which elites (and associated groups) are vilified as morally suspect?

How is this classification process shaped by the broader political context (e.g., the position of the populist actors in the political field, the relative consolidation of political coalitions, the ability of mainstream actors to employ populist language)?

Populism which can be found on all sides of the political landscape is a thin-centered ideology. Driven by modern-day technology interlinkages of Smartphones, Social Media,  Facebook, Twitter and the lack of long-term political aspirations it fill the void between the political space and the need for more equality in opportunity for all.

The burning question of today is, shall we drop all other reform issues and run to meet the populist with open arms? or is the Populist platform almost too absurd to merit serious discussion.

I fear not.

Remember that The National Socialist German Worker’s Party founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler was a fascist populist party.

Call it what you want, Authoritarianism, Elitism, Nationalism, Populism, Trumpism it must never be allowed power on its own.

Trump’s rhetorical is unmoored from any sense of reality whatsoever and there is nothing he says than can be taken at face value.

It is intellectual dishonesty.

A better way to describe populism I think would be cosmopolitan socialists.

Its followers see see themselves in opposition to elites of all kinds with the main bone of contention being a system corrupted by economic elites.

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: 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; IT TIME FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION TO GRASP THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFORM COMPLEMENTS OF BREXIT..

03 Friday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS; IT TIME FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION TO GRASP THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFORM COMPLEMENTS OF BREXIT..

Tags

Britain., Brixit., European Union

 

( A read for all Brits, and a 50 second read for the European Elites)Man holding Leave flag

‘Brexit’ – will have significant implications for the EU but it can be turned into an opportunity. Without Britain, the EU has the chance to redefine itself and move forward. But unless it can restore economic growth, tackle the scourge of youth unemployment, and make itself more relevant to its citizens, there may be more exits around the corner.

Of course the EU can survive without Britain;

The question is what kind of Europe it will be.A festival-goer with a European flag painted on her face poses for a photograph on day three of the Glastonbury Festival

Will it find the drive to reinvent itself for the twenty-first century, capable of addressing citizens’ concerns about the future and helping shape a changing world?

Doubtful without the emergence of a Statesman.

Or will it wither into an inward-looking rump  EU focused on defending past glories and pursuing half-baked initiatives for short-term gains, doomed to decline?

Brexit can be a transformational moment only if the EU seizes the opportunity to understand the causes of today’s crises, rather than focus on the symptoms, and rethink the terms of integration.

Unfortunately the European elites do not have the mandate from citizens to rejuvenate the EU; the upcoming electoral cycle is unlikely to allow for any bold initiative; and the sentiments that led a majority of British people to vote to leave the EU are shared by many across the Channel, making any path toward reinventing the EU mired by pitfalls.

The future heft of the European Union—with or without the UK—will hinge on its members agreeing to more than their narrow economic interests. It needs more of a sense of purpose. Yet, politics is not just about smart communication techniques and a renewed language. The EU also needs self-confident democratic politicians in each member state.

The lingering feeling that British exceptionalism was always an impediment to truly European policies should disappear, removing an obstacle to bolder decisions by some of the EU 27. Some of the thinking traditionally associated with the EU will wither away.

The EU should also backtrack institutionally here and there—if only to signal to worried electorates that the whole process is under the control of national governments and parliaments.

The European Union needs to grasp that with the UK leaving, integration has become a two-way street; member states can travel in both directions.

Whether the EU can survive as a major foreign policy actor without the UK is open to debate. My cautious answer is that it will struggle to do so.

The EU as a regulatory power will very likely survive Britain’s exit unaffected, with the single market still projecting its influence over the UK as it does on a global scale.

European Elites can stop read at this point.

Britain constitutes 14.8% of the EU’s economic area, with 12.5% of its population.27 British exports are 19.4% of the EU’s total exports (excluding intra-EU trade).28 Within the EU Britain runs a large trade deficit with the rest in goods and services, around £28 billion a year in 2012 and as high as £61.6 billion in 2014.

Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard.

I have to declare at this point that it is beyond my comprehension that the English decision to leave or stay (whether by a referendum that is not legally binding or otherwise) was set against an absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.

The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term.

A decision of enormous consequence – far greater even than amending a country’s constitution (of course, the United Kingdom lacks a written one) – has been made without any appropriate checks and balances.

Does the vote have to be repeated after a year to be sure? No.

Does a majority in Parliament have to support Brexit? Apparently not.

Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on? Absolutely not.

Indeed, no one has any idea of the consequences, both for the UK in the global trading system, or the effect on domestic political stability.

The Brexit decision may have looked simple on the ballot, but in truth no one knows what comes next.

What we do know is that, in practice, most countries require a “supermajority” for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%.

Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences.

The greater and more lasting the decision, the higher the hurdles.

This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics.

Britain’s difficulties with the EU long pre-date the current government and reflect deeper problems in Britain’s party politics, identity, constitution, political economy and place in the world.

We all know that Britain has had a troubled relationship with the EU since the beginning and has made various attempts to break away from it.

Now it is priming a “bomb” to explode on itself and the European Union.

Unelected Mrs May said she is prepared to walk away from negotiations if Brussels sought a punitive settlement. “No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.” I would respectively remind her that there are 3.3 million EU nationals currently residing in the UK and over one million Uk Citizens in Europe.

The big question is what kind of national identity would assert itself.

In short, a withdrawal from Europe would be a bleak move in cultural terms.

The English government has chosen not to make the economy the priority in this negotiation, while the European Unions priority is to maintain the integrity of the remaining 27 members of the European Union.

I am afraid it is not going to be a pretty picture.

According to art. 50, the quorum requirement for the agreement withdrawal is most qualified. In other words, to enter and remain in the EU must agree all states; to leave the EU, no.

Also art. 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, envisages a situation, at least hypothetical, namely, a withdrawal mass of states in the European Union and the European Council, which negotiated the agreement to withdraw behalf of the Union would not be able to fulfill the condition quorum for the conclusion of withdrawal.

Neither the UK nor the continuing members of the EU can escape their geographical interdependencies. Both have a stake in economic and political stability in Europe. The EU’s development – whether it unites, disintegrates or muddles through – will be shaped by a myriad of factors, one of which will be its relations with the UK.

Today’s volatile and dangerous world requires its nations to collaborate to confront new and multiple challenges. Neither the EU and its member states nor the UK have an interest in an escalation of tensions or costly disengagement following Brexit.

Theoretically, the removal of an EU Member State will result in immediate termination of that State Member State of the European Union.

However basically, the implications are unexpected and hard to predict.

One way or another every British citizen every citizen of the European Union will be directly affected because the same issues that must be negotiated and were negotiated at the time of joining the European Union. From this point of view, I believe that within 2 years to complete the withdrawal procedures, even if there is a possibility of extension, it is an unrealistic deadline.

Unfortunately once the process starts in earnest both sides will be focusing exclusively on the pros and cons for the UK, or on what ideal post-withdrawal relationship Britain should secure. Creating a debate that will be blind to dealing with the wider implications of any decisions.

At its core, the EU has been a political project. It is not just a group of states that cooperate, but a group of states which have created supranational institutions that have executive and judicial authority over EU member states and that can pass laws that are directly applicable throughout the EU.

In an increasingly volatile world, and the reforms needed in the EU, neither the EU nor the UK have an interest in a divorce that diminishes their influence as the balance of economic power shifts away from the North-Atlantic world.

Thanks to Donald Trump election in the USA a changing EU and Euro zone will most likely push the UK to the margins.

Brexit will not be seen in a narrow sense of being about the UK and UK-US relations. It will be seen as a rejection of its European ties.

One of the most serious consequences of Brexit is to put Ireland back on the political agenda.

In the long run the first problem the EU face’s from a Brexit is the unprecedented experience of negotiating the withdrawal of a member state. It will confront the EU with significant and unprecedented practical and philosophical challenges.

The withdrawal of any member state is a defining moment for the EU.

The British government and political class may expect Britain to be treated in some special way. This does not simply reflect some high self-opinion of Britain’s place in the world. It reflects the UK’s much larger demographic, economic, social and military size compared to other non-EU European countries such as Norway and Switzerland, who also have their own unique arrangements with the EU.

Although the status of British membership of the European Communities was confirmed by referendum in 19755 , when 67% of votes were in favor of remaining EEC, there were also supporters of withdrawal, particularly among Labour Party.

Negotiated procedures for accession takes years. We consider that the procedures for withdrawal should benefit from a longer period of time.

Obviously, withdrawal from the European Union would have consequences on the implementation of the 4 principles of free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, the economic and political relations of the State withdrawing the European Union, Member States and third countries.

On Brexit, as mentioned already, the consequences can not be predicted, the status of Great Britain in the European Union and worldwide by any reasoning will change.

My proposal is to turn the rupture into an opportunity.

To stop the whole process undermine the EU itself.  The political and geographical centre of the EU should shift eastwards and southwards.,

If there is a deal setting out the U.K.’s future relations with the EU, it would likely touch on issues that are not strict EU competencies. That could mean that all national capitals and parliaments might also have to sign off on the withdrawal agreement.

The lack of a fixed deadline and a legal process would likely result in the negotiations meandering. The most important priorities remain the EU’s internal cohesion and a sense of purpose from the pro-European elites to translate the European project into language with which the people can associate.

What is Englishness? It has only to be defined to melt away, as will its departure from the European Union.

In or our out the British attitude to Europe has always been, in every sense of the word, insular.

Did president Charles de Gaulle cause the UK’s current reluctance to be fully part of the EU or was he simply right in his judgement?

De Gaulle’s main concern was Britain’s “special relationship” with the United States and a fear that Britain would, as America’s Trojan Horse, undermine the European project.

The truth is De Gaulle’s stated reasons for his anti-British policies were all to do with commerce.General Charles de Gaulle states in 1963 that Britain is not ready to join the Common Market.

With no rejection of our friends in England the EU must act to ensure that Brexit is a failure.

At closing thought:

Prime Minister Theresa May has made it clear that the leaders of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will not be given a decisive role in Brexit negotiations. Afficher l'image d'origine

If the Labour Party in the Uk wants to win the next General election it needs to get off the fence and represent all those that voted against departure into the wilderness of isolation. In a world that is becoming more and more driving by Artificial Intelligence and Inequality.

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: OUR EDUCATION IS OUT OF DATE.

24 Tuesday Jan 2017

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: OUR EDUCATION IS OUT OF DATE.

Tags

Education in the Future., Education is out of date., Education World wide., Modern day education

( A three-minute read for all Educators)

I see the movement towards AI and robotics as evolutionary, in large part because it is such a sociological leap. The technology may be ready, but we are not—at least, not yet.

It is widely agreed that education is the most effective means that society possesses for confronting the challenges of the future.Afficher l'image d'origine

Indeed, education will shape the world of tomorrow NOT TECHNOLOGY.

The changes we have seen in the past 20 years may one day seem trivial compared with those of the coming decades.

Robotics and Artificial Intelligence will permeate wide segments of daily life by 2025, with huge implications for a range of industries such as health care, transport and logistics, customer service, and home maintenance.

There will be a vast displacement of labor over the next decade.

The most critical question facing the academic world is something far more fundamental THAN OBTAINING A DEGREE:

Our system of education forces students to “qualify” in something.

Although this works reasonably well in service to core professional competencies, this arbitrary structure does little to encourage breadth of education.

Namely, what it will mean to be an educated person in the 21st century.

One of the great challenges for students and our schools, UNIVERSITIES is to evolve beyond the narrow confines of “disciplines” and embrace the chaos and uncertainty of a rapidly changing world, bearing in mind that the “discipline” of today is the forgotten history of the future.

It is for this reason that education is the primary agent of transformation towards sustainable development.

It is also for this reason that society must be deeply concerned that much of the education presently on offer falls far short of what is required.

Improving the quality and coverage of education and reorienting its goals to recognize the importance of sustainable development must be among society’s highest priorities.

The world has changed a lot in the last 150 years, but we humans are driven by the same basic needs as we were 150 years ago, food, sleep, sex, the feeling of being appreciated and loved. Will this change in the next 150 years? No.

Where a notebook and pen may have formed the tool kit of prior generations, today’s students come to class armed with smart phones, laptops and iPods.

Curricula are created as if there are predictable paths to careers, we are basically teaching students to be status-quo oriented.  And they will find little supply of status quo in the future.

Will this new generation of leaders be innovators, or followers?  Strong, resilient problem solvers, or servants of the status quo?

The answer has everything to do with education  . . . or how education is adapted to the realities and wonderful opportunities of the not-too-distant future.

A brand new generation of business and institutional leaders is taking the reins.

The world has continued to shrink and is much, much smaller.  Technology has continued an unabated, unchecked progression; what is now futuristic has become commonplace.  Complexity is the daily norm, and change the only constant. Opportunities, problems and grand challenges abound.

Sweeping technological changes will effectively change the skill-sets of the future workforce, as well as its approach to work in general.Afficher l'image d'origine

As a result, societies around the world will need to consider how to make their educational programs to understand the impact of our individual and collective actions on ourselves and on the biosphere as a whole to make the most of these new opportunities.

Today people are more aware than ever of global realities but ill-equipped both to understand or influence those realities.

Education increases the capacities of people to transform their visions of society into operational realities.

Circumstances change and change rapidly, and the career students think they are preparing for today will simply disappear in ten years.

Students need an education that will leave them resilient and  prepared to turn on a pin prick.

In a sense all of this can be summarized as the need to teach students to dare, to experiment and to fail with joy.

Leadership:    As a discipline, a thing to be practiced and learned, leadership is a woefully low priority in education.

Authenticity:   Learning about yourself is perhaps the single most important outcome of a powerful educational experience.  Self-awareness can lead to an ever-increasing authenticity, which in turn leads to powerful leadership abilities.

Everyone will have multiple jobs, careers and life experiences and rarely will any one way of thinking or one path to career preparation have a very long shelf life.

Technological innovation, long a hallmark of academic research, may now be changing the very way that universities teach and students learn.

Conformity, and dumbing down by interconnected technology will result in a world where so few will dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of our time.Afficher l'image d'origineAll 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: DOES HUMANITY HAVE A FUTURE BEYOND EARTH?

20 Friday Jan 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., The Future, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: DOES HUMANITY HAVE A FUTURE BEYOND EARTH?

Tags

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

 

 

How smart are we?

For 30,000 years our species has been changing remarkably quickly and we’re not done yet. We changed the world irrevocable and may soon transform ourselves as a species.Afficher l'image d'origine

The technology part sounds quite cyborg-ish, with humans developing their own QR Codes on skin (that would be kind of like DNA, I suppose), Chlorophyll skin (skin with chlorophyll) and digi-eye where the eye itself would presumably perform digital functions you would expect from a display.Afficher l'image d'origine

IF YOU’RE UNDER 45 YEARS OLD! GOD WILL BE WEARING A WHITE LAB COAT, WORKING IN A GENETIC LAB. These humans will evolve into electronic immortals. Mature in seconds, experiencing the years of angst via simulated reality in torrents of electrons.

The future of humanity is often viewed as a topic for idle speculation.

In that sense, it is hardly reasonable to think of the future of humanity as a topic: it is too big and too diverse to be addressed as a whole in a single essay, monograph, or even 100-volume book series.

One might argue that the current century, or the next few centuries, will be a critical phase for humanity and you would be right.

The first thing to notice is that the longer the time scale we are considering, the less likely it is that technological civilization will remain within the zone we termed “the human condition.”

The cumulative probability of post humanity, like that of extinction, increases monotonically over time.

Within a few centuries they will have become a new species traveling beyond the solar system.

An enterprise for posthumans—organic or inorganic.”

For example, whether and when Earth-originating life will go extinct, whether it will colonize the galaxy, whether human biology will be fundamentally transformed to make us post human, whether machine intelligence will surpass biological intelligence, whether population size will explode, and whether quality of life will radically improve or deteriorate: these are all important fundamental questions about the future of humanity.

One might believe that super intelligence will be developed within a few centuries, and that, while the creation of superi ntelligence will pose grave risks, once that creation and its immediate aftermath have been survived, the new civilization would have vastly improved survival prospects since it would be guided by super intelligent foresight and planning.

Once a human or post human civilization becomes dispersed over multiple planets and solar systems, the risk of extinction declines.

In the coming decade wearables will enable the equivalent of personalized weather forecasts for our health: 80 percent increased probability in health and happiness for you next week, based on your recent stress/sleep/social-emotional activities.

But what will human beings will look like in the future?

Afficher l'image d'origine

Our faces will have changed almost beyond recognition.

Through genetic engineering, everyone will have darker skin.

An amalgamation of evolution and genetic engineering will allow society to bend human biology to human needs. Bone-conduction devices, with embedded nanochips, will communicate with some external device for communications and entertainment.

Will we ever colonize outer space?

That depends on the definition of ‘colonize.’ If landing robots qualifies, than we’ve already done it. If it means sending microbes from Earth and having them persist and maybe grow, then, unfortunately, it’s not unlikely.

Will sex become obsolescent?

No, but having sex to conceive babies is likely to become at least much less common. In 20 to 40 years we’ll be able to derive eggs and sperm from stem cells.

We won’t need to speak since we will communicate telepathically to one another.

Our noses and ears, toes, even our chins will have disappearing.

Our brains will fit in our pockets.

We will be shorter and smaller due to overcrowding of the world.

We will have a flexible outer or exoskeleton.

We won’t be human at all but bio-robots from the future.

Perhaps it’s all bullshit. You’re surrounded by squabbling, vindictive, greedy, small-minded morons, the only thing that develops is the ability to engage mouth without engaging brain, you have to wonder if the species has hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac or is really capable of taking things further????

In every sector, human activities have proven to be altering/damaging the global eco-system at a speed so much fast than the self-adapt speed of the Earth.

If humanity goes extinct, it stays extinct.

← 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 ASKS. HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED OR ASKED YOUR SELF. WHERE OR WHY IS THE WORLD IN SUCH A MESS. March 23, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT THE NEWS COVERAGE ON THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS DOMINATING BY MATERIALISM. March 21, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS AMERICA IS SHOOTING ITS SELF (NOT JUST IN THE FOOT) BUT IN THE EYES OF ITS ALLIES AND THE WORLD MARKET PLACES. AS THE IRAN WAR IS SPIRALLING OUT OF CONTROL. March 20, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THE BATTLE TO HAVE A LIFE WORTH LIVING BECOMES MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT WITH AGE .. COMMUNITY MATTERS MORE THAN MONEY. March 20, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS. EQUALITY, FAIRNESS, JUSTICE ARE INDIVISIBLE CONCEPTS IF ARE ANYTHING. March 18, 2026

Archives

  • March 2026
  • 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

  • 97,909 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