THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: FRIENDLY OR FIGHTING? – THE ROBOTIC FUTURE IS RAPIDLY APPROACHING, IF NOT ALREADY HERE.

Tags

, , ,

 

( A Creepy but serious seven minute read)

Some time ago I wrote a post:

It will not be long now before you hear one fridge say to another – Your mother was a toaster.

So is science and technology getting out of control?

https://youtu.be/TDChTnkOdYkAfficher l'image d'origine

The degree of depletion of natural resources, including air, water and agricultural soil (what a paradox: our materialistic age is destroying matter), the increasing social and economic instability and misery everyone can observe makes it absolutely urgent that we change something.

Current science and technology do not deal with morality and ethics. They deal with theories, objects and machines; they view living beings as machines WITH AN EVER INCREASING overall disrespect for people.

The fear is that if humans regard themselves as machines, a very dark future is awaiting our descendents and us.

Religions, which were largely set aside because they didn’t follow our development, mainly in the last two centuries, were replaced by faith in science and technology.

What will happen if people will largely embrace the current idea, advocated by many, if not most scientists – especially in the AI field -, that we are merely machines?

In fact, what we are presently seeing everywhere in terms of social and individual decay may very well be consequence of that view of the world.

The current philosophical trends in AI is due to the fact that they regard humans as pure physical systems or, popularly, machines.

I consider this view extremely dangerous, because if consistent it has to negate human freedom, responsibility and dignity, as well as the possibility of unselfish love.

We’re barreling toward a future that doesn’t take people into account.

The increasing computational power of modern computers has permitted the implementation of tasks that would have seemed almost impossible ten years ago.

This poses many questions.  Here a few questions that are unanswered.

Is artificial intelligence going to replace every intellectual, perhaps manual human activity?

Are machines going to reveal intelligent behavior, and replace humans in creative tasks?

Will computers exercise the same kind of thinking and feeling that humans do?

Will robots perform every task that humans do? Will they become indistinguishable from humans?

So far, no one is planning for any of these possibilities.

For instance, self-driving cars could improve safety, but also put millions of truck drivers out of work.

There are such strong financial incentives in using technology in ways that aren’t necessarily in everyone’s interest. The App world for example.  Algorithms manipulate the Stock Exchange.

To get any sort of regulation, to monitor Artificial Intelligence so its benefits all humans not just the Capitalist world of greed at any cost   is going to be a very difficult problem, possibly an unsolvable problem.

Humans have already relinquished many intelligent tasks, such as the ability to write, navigate, memorize facts or do calculations.

Humans have continuously redefined intelligence and transferred those tasks to machines. Now, even tasks considered at the core of humanity, such as caring for the elderly or the sick, are being outsourced to empathetic robots.

The question is, could we evolve ourselves out of existence, being gradually replaced by the machines?

I think that’s an open question.

We’re becoming like the mitochondria. We provide the energy — we turn on the machines.

Whether humans and robots fight or make love, the most probable scenario involves marching toward a convergence point in the future.

On one hand, humans continue to add more technological gizmos and tiny computers to their daily wear.

You can already see many such 21st-century cyborgs playing around with their iPhones, or staring off into the distance with ear buds piping music into their heads.

Artificial limbs, organs and bionic eyes? Check.

Coming from the other direction, robots have steadily improved in almost every possible way: walking, talking and learning. Man and machine increasingly look-alike, and at some point the difference may not exist.

But on a brighter note, humans won’t worry so much about robots once they’ve merged with them.

Modern humans have not gone obsolete just yet, but robots have already found their place as space explorers that can endure harsh environments off and on Earth.

They have also brought their tireless efficiency to everything from assembly line work to humdrum gene sequencing in labs, and have appeared in growing numbers on real-life battlefields.

For now, robots complement rather than replace elements of the human workforce and armed forces due to limits on their intelligence. But they’re evolving quickly, and a few have even begun tinkering with science themselves.

Thousands of drones and ground robots have been deployed by many nations, and particularly the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. An automatic antiaircraft gun killed human soldiers on its own when it malfunctioned during a South African training exercise.

While AI nerds aren’t wondering if humans will ever make love to robots — armed robots are changing the rules and ways of modern war.

Meanwhile, plenty of people have enhanced their bodies technologically in ways that bring them closer to their robotic brethren.

If history serves as any guide, you don’t need the perfect partner to tempt spouses or significant others into a little robotic addiction and strain existing human relationships. Humans will eventually relinquish most of their abilities and gradually become absorbed into artificial intelligence (AI)-based organisms.Afficher l'image d'origineWhether you are talking to a computer program or a real person. Some believe the resulting technological singularity will eradicate poverty and disease, while others warn it could endanger human survival.

Blame the human brain for allowing all of this to happen.

Can machines think?’

I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.

We will have a machine is capable of intelligent behavior indistinguishable from that of a human.

The problem of machines having intelligence, that is, if there may exist an artificial intelligence, obviously depends on the adopted concept of intelligence.

Obviously, computers, as any machine, have an incorporated intelligence.

But they cannot have creative intelligence.

At the moment they do only what they are commanded to do by their programs.

Making machines become conscious is considered one of the hardest problems of Artificial Intelligence.

Every intelligence that requires feelings, like the interpersonal (Goleman’s emotional) and musical (related to art),cannot be incorporated into a computer.

The same applies to the intelligences that require self-consciousness.

I cannot see machines self determine their next thought like humans do.

There is much more evidence that humans are not machines. How is it possible to “store” something, forget it and suddenly, without “consulting” our memory, remember it?

Computers don’t learn, they store data.Afficher l'image d'origine

The 20th century was really what I call “the century of barbarism”.

Intuitive social sensitivity, seems also to be disappearing.

Nowadays humans are abandoned, left alone to decide what to do with themselves.

But all those tragedies were, I think, based upon the idea that humans – or at least part of humanity, the enemies or those of another ethnic group, faith or ideology – were just animals.

One way or the other unfortunately we are miserably failing, mainly because we are not recognizing what a living being really is, what being human really means and what human development should mean. I’ll give an example of this situation.

The current scientific view of sickness is that they have to be eradicated, all of them. But another view of the human being could tell a complete different story: sicknesses are needed for a true individual development.

New social organizations that are based upon materialism cannot produce the essential changes we are in urgent need of, because Artificial Intelligence ignores the essence of the human being:

The fact that it has non-physical constituents.

As a consequence it has to ignore the possibility of exercising unselfish love, which is obviously socially constructive, whereas egotism is destructive.

There are forces which want to avoid the recognition that materialism has to be overcome. Strong and weak AI are part of their manifestations.

I think this has to begin by radically changing the view humans have of themselves and of living beings, the view that they are machines.

Unfortunately, academic AI has not contributed to that change, on the contrary, it has contributed to denigrating the image humans make of themselves. It has contributed to the elimination of our human dignity and social responsibility.

The way AI (robotics), genetic engineering and nanotechnology are being developed, self-reproducing machines may be introduced that will destroy the world.

I hope these lines have helped those that are searching for a more responsible science, to become conscious that strong and weak AI are not the fields that should be investigated in order to improve humanity. On the contrary, if pursued, those fields will only contribute to accelerate our increasing misery. Our main problems are not material problems. Only by solving our main problem, derived from what I characterized as the “fundamental existential hypothesis” that is, the way we regard ourselves and the world, we will be able to revert our increasing social, individual, and the world’s downfall.

What is a robot?

It is a mechanical device capable of interacting with its environment; it is a shell for an artificial intelligence; it is a machine that can autonomously perform an assigned task.

But it’s also much more than this, something that escapes baseline definitions and has fascinated humanity for centuries.

Robotics is at a crucial point in its evolution, an interesting and exciting time during which it’s coming to terms with a number of technical, practical and even philosophical issues.

We will record this key moment in history when robotics no longer belong to science fiction, but to contemporary reality.

The robots we design will change the world!

The goal of robotics should not be to replace humans with robots, but rather to improve productivity and safety, removing humans from harm’s way and enabling them to focus on things that humans should be doing.

Despite persistent fears regarding robot overlords, we will be as free

as we choose to make ourselves. We can do this not by fighting with

robots but by fighting fiercely to maintain our distinctness and our

essential nature.Afficher l'image d'origine

Its now or never that we establish A world Technology Center that ensure all technology with profit at its heart, is transparent, responsible, and created by non unanimity but traceable ownership –  beneficial to all.

It’s not an “either-or” decision.

Nobody puts Robot in the corner.

All human comments welcome. All Algorithms likes chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS THE EU GOING TO FIND IT CHALLENGING TO PRESENT A UNITED FRONT TOWARDS THE UK EXIT NEGOTIATIONS.

Tags

,

( A six-minute read)
It’s not long now before we are going to witness two events that will shape the future.Afficher l'image d'origineI am not talking about climate change or Artificial Intelligence rather the arrival of Donald Trump and the beginning of the UK negotiations to leave the EU.

There is little point in addressing the Donald Trump scenario.

A stupid, crass, vile racist, unintelligent, thug that is the laughing-stock of the world will be the US President with his finger on the red button.

What to expect is anyone guess.

If you ask me about 30%+ of Americans live in an alternate, non-fact based reality in which Right-Wing Propaganda is FACT, Lies = Truth.

“My Twitter has become so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth.” or  “I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.

In a weird way both events are connected by Artificial Intelligence/ Money.Afficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origine

One elected with False Twitter News and the other Nigel Farage fooled the English electorate to vote out of the EU with a pack lies.

Anyway back to the Question:

Until its official withdrawal, the UK will remain a fully fledged member state. However, UK involvement in EU decision-making will quickly become marginal.

UK officials in top management positions will likely have to leave.

(1,126 British nationals are employed in the European Commission (3.8% of the total. 73 British MEPs sit in the Parliament (out of 751 in total). Three EP committees have British chairs: Development; Internal Market and Consumer Protection; and Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.)

Of course the EU is going to find it, if not impossible to negotiate with the UK.

Because the meaning of Brexit is yet to become clear to the Uk and the EU.

The UK wants to keep the trade relationship with EU members as it is today (free trade) but significantly change the rules surrounding the free movement of people between the EU and the UK.

The real problem, however, is that when you think about the interests and constraints of both sides, it becomes hard to envision any deal that all parties can accept — unless UK negotiators are able to go back to their constituents and sell a deal that falls well short of what was initially promised.

On the EU side, Brexit will change how EU institutions operate not just during the withdrawal period, but also afterwards. It will affect the balance of power among member states and therefore the policies that the EU would pursue.

Depend on the answers, the Union finds to its current crises – stabilising the euro, finding a common line in refugee policy, stemming the surge in Euroscepticism – and on its economic recovery.

Hardening European attitudes is that they do not want to encourage copy-cat referenda in their own countries.

If an agreement is reached, the treaties that currently govern the relationship between the EU and the UK (as a member state) will expire. If no agreement is reached, the treaties will automatically expire two years from when Article 50 was invoked.

 How will the UK and EU negotiate their split?
Afficher l'image d'origine

It’s important to remember that:

The British referendum is not legally binding: The UK government must initiate “Brexit” by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

It’s also important to understand:

That any agreement will need to be ratified by the parliament of every member state, which means every EU country would have a veto. From a negotiation perspective, this not only increases the amount of time needed to reach a comprehensive agreement but also lessens the likelihood of a deal. At least 65% of the population of the EU, must vote in favor of the agreement.

The most immediate and important challenge is to reach a new agreement covering economic relations with the EU. In addition, as a member of the EU, the UK participates in the EU’s trade agreements with non-EU countries: leaving the EU may force the UK to renegotiate these agreements. The EU may not prevent the UK negotiating and entering into such treaties providing that they will not come into force until the UK withdraws from the EU.

There’s an infinite number of potential outcomes in a negotiation like this.

There is also an option of extending negotiations beyond the two-year time limit, but it requires the consent of all countries in the EU.

The UK will have to ask for what it wants in ways that allow the EU to make concessions without setting dangerous precedents.

If no agreement is reached within two years and the EU treaties expire, the default is that the UK and EU would trade according to World Trade Organization rules. Notably, these rules cover only trade, not the many other issues the two sides need to negotiate.

As there is no precedent it is important to bear in mind that the internal process on the EU’s side of the table is itself being negotiated.

No matter what it means the UK is starting from a weak bargaining position.

The UK is due to hold the EU’s rotating presidency from July to December 2017.This will become not only politically untenable. Article 50 disqualifies the UK ‘from chairing any Council meetings on the withdrawal negotiations.

Since the UK joined the EU in 1973, trade policy has played a minor role in UK politics. Now its on the top of its negotiations to leave the EU.

I find it hard to believe that back channel conversations are not under way.

The UK needs to reach some kind of deal with the EU before Brexit happens and puts it in a weak bargaining position.

Brexit could or will alter the balance of power within the EU in other ways too. It could strengthen Germany’s position, shift alliances, and potentially either strengthen or weaken smaller states.

It will result in an increased regulatory burden on EU businesses weaker copyright protection in the EU. A smaller EU budget as a whole, with increased member-state contributions A stronger push for tax harmonisation and higher taxation of financial transactions A less support for nuclear and unconventional energy sources (e.g. shale gas).

The EU is based on the idea of a single market, characterized by four freedoms. They are the free movement, across borders, of goods, services, capital, and people.

( It is estimated that there are currently 2.9 million EU nationals resident in the UK.)
The actual position of such individuals is underpinned by the Human Rights Act and will depend on length of residence and other factors, but Government intentions for both UK and EU citizens remain far from clear.

Brexit could have a domino effect whereby Eurosceptic forces in countries such as Denmark, Austria and Sweden follow the UK and hold their own referenda,

eventually leading to the EU’s disintegration. Should Britain thrive post Brexit,
while the EU stagnates economically, such centrifugal forces would be strengthened.

Given the fact that a “no deal” is possible and that a deal might disappoint UK voters anyway, might there not be a path toward reversing Brexit? There may come a time when the only outcome that allows all parties to declare victory entails no Brexit.

Other member states will find any UK attempt to push a specific policy agenda unacceptable and would be unwilling to accommodate UK interests.

And of course there is the question of how do you do a deal when there remains the question of whether the UK has a prime minister with a mandate. Will a general election will be required prior to any agreement?

The UK is one of the leading Member States in securing funding for research and innovation and various other projects, with a typical aggregate value of £1-1.5 billion per year.

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund: The UK has been allocated €22.5 billion for the period 2014-20.

European Structural and Investment Funds: The bulk of UK funding via this channel comes through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which has been allocated €5.8 billion of EU funds and the European Social Fund (ESF) with an allocation of €4.9 billion.

There is one thing for certain: We are going to witness opportunists counting their fingers after shaking hands with another opportunists.

All comments welcome. All likes chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IF MACHINES ARE TO INTERACT WITH HUMANS IN A INTELLIGENT WAY, THEY NEED TO HAVE COMMONSENSE KNOWLEDGE.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( A Questioning read of six to five minutes)

Can machines achieve “common sense” in the near future?

We have no clue right now how to go about solving this problem.Afficher l'image d'origine

We are living in a world where common sense ironically is very uncommon.

When you look at the way Artificial Intelligence is destroying what is left it is hard to even define it.

We have to force our ideas to conform to the evidence of reality rather than the other way around.

Commercial Algorithms for profit and big data are creating a world of insecurity with false news destroying the very fabric of society by removing basic knowledge about how the world of human beings works.

Common sense is not rule-based. It is not entirely logical. It is a set of heuristics almost all human beings quickly acquire. Commonsense knowledge encompasses facts that people know and use in their daily lives. It is assumed to be known by average people, therefore it is not verbally communicated most of the time.

Much of the interaction in this digital world happens at a distance, which can diminish the rules of cause and effect, action and consequence. Additionally, much of digital life takes place under the cloak of anonymity, making it easier to participate in unethical and even illegal behaviors.

Common sense, by contrast, is regarded – or rather, it is often disregarded – as a low-level, practical, ‘everyday’ phenomenon, hardly noticed, except when its absence is suddenly revealed in the actions of an otherwise apparently intelligent, capable adult.Afficher l'image d'origine

It not necessary for us to understand how the software works for the software to be effective.

The universe doesn’t care about our common sense.

With enough data, enough computing power and trial and error, there is no telling what we can find.

A world where brains have been replaced with digital computers.

In some sense, this is what software is all about: extending our intelligence.

What is this “intelligence” we are talking about?

Is AI using nonstandard logics natural deduction, to predict the future of a sequence from observation of its past.

Is there commonsense reasoning in AI- what role of logic is there in AI?

Is there such a thing as AI Philosophy?

Will it be genetically engineered intelligence.?

Though I don’t know much about biology, I doubt that any brain runs at twice the speed of another brain.

Is it logic of obligation and permission;

What facts are observed by AI and how are these facts represented in the memory of a computer, smart phone, iPad?

What rules (if any) permit legitimate conclusions to be drawn from these facts?

Humans up to now are the source of commonsense rules with memory as a constraint.Afficher l'image d'origine

We may hope that machines will eventually compete with men in all purely intellectual fields. But which are the best ones to start with? Even this is a difficult decision.

We call our phones “smart”, don’t we?

Lots of people want to judge machine intelligence based on human intelligence.

Your intelligence is actually an aggregate of your brain with your environment and the tools and ideas around you. Tools extend our intelligence… with computers and robots being obvious examples. They can always extend your memory with external support (in this case, use a pen and paper, or just Google) and all it might do is slow you down. Except for storage capabilities (memory) and speed, all hardware is equivalent.

I am not sure understanding language and common sense are the same thing. For example, many human beings are illiterate and yet they can be said to have common sense.

Do machines really offer: a new kind of intelligence, a new form of common sense.  It is not necessary for the software to play at “human level”.

By definition, digital media is participatory. To adults it looks like a brave new world – but to kids, it’s “just life.”

Digital life describes the media world our kids inhabit 24/7 – online, on cell phones and mobile devices, and anywhere media is displayed.

The users create the content, and anything created in this digital life becomes instantly viral, scalable, replicable, and viewable by vast, invisible audiences.

This implies an educative process rooted in, and respectful of, people’s lived experience. Unfortunately this is not so. We now have instant gratification, irrelevant of where or how we get it.

As sensing technologies become increasingly distributed and democratized, this dynamic new world requires new comprehension and communication skills, as well as new codes of conduct, to ensure that these powerful media and technologies are used responsibly and ethically.

We all know about Artificial Intelligence.

But is Common sense and the Plane Truth being replaced by machines, simple facts, plain arguments, simplistic assumptions with reliable, independent data have all but disappeared.

The chaotic and contradictory nature of ‘common sense’,  makes it impossible for Machines to evaluate. They are programmed by humans and therefore will never be able to predict their future performance without prejudice and let their feelings decide for themselves.

To achieve any common sense we will need a database containing all the general knowledge that most people possess, represented in a way that it is available to artificial intelligence programs that use natural language or make inferences about the ordinary world. Such a database is a type of ontology of which the most general are called upper ontologies.

” Common sense is the best distributed commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.” Rene Descartes (1596-1650) French philosopher and mathematician.

Le Discours de la method (1637) long-term goals of Artificial Intelligence research. Commonsense reasoning is relevant for many applications, including systems in which robots and humans interact.

To maintain a sophisticated civilization, we have to keep out-innovating our problems. You may have heard that our civilization is not sustainable. We burn too much fossil oil, we pollute too much, there are too many of us, and so on. This is all true. If we are going to keep on surviving, let alone get better, we need to keep on getting smarter even if our brains are standing still biologically at a rate that exceeds our growing problems.

I am generally favorable to any biological technology that can enhance intelligence.

I also think that any long-term intelligence improvement strategy has to take into account that we are become hybrids, part machine, part human beings…The line between digital life’s perils and possibilities is thin.

I am still waiting for a chip that will give me access to the web at the speed of the thought.

The question is whether Gramsci’s distinction between good sense and common sense will be predicated on an irredeemably hierarchical conception of knowledge. One data base against another – Google vers Facebook. Commonsense rule extraction requires minimal human interaction.

Endowing computers with common sense is one of the major problems facing the world.

The relationship between ethics, common sense, and rationality is not just simply feeds books and articles into the computer and has it understand them.

We are if you look at the present state of the Planet we are far from broad deep and robust commonsense reasoning.

Unfortunately, at some point in our lives we give into the fast paced world around us and disregard the faculties of our own mind.

While everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, don’t just turn your brain off and not think about it.  I’m not saying one person or another is right, or wrong.  I’m simply saying that you need to free your mind from the dogma that holds you down from seeking the principles and truths that govern these areas of life.

If we dont start to veting all technology that is not for the betterment of humankind we will have such a fucked up world with some people desperately unrehearsed that the rest of us can forget it.

( See previous posts: Re the need to give all technology a bill of health)

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THERE IS ONLY ONE NEW YEAR RESOLUTION WORTH WHILE.

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Your New Year Resolution)

Good vs. bad. Right vs. wrong. Human beings begin to learn the difference before we learn to speak—and thankfully so. We owe much of our success as a species to our capacity for moral reasoning. It’s the glue that holds human social groups together, the key to our fraught but effective ability to cooperate.

We are (most believe) the lone moral agents on planet Earth—but this may not last. The day may come soon when we are forced to share this status with a new kind of being, one whose intelligence is of our own design.Afficher l'image d'origine

As awesome as the internet has been we are on the most part digital immigrants because it is destroying the sense of community.

The Internet is the forerunner of artificial intelligence which is set to change all of us and the very planet we all live on.

The survival of our species may depend on instilling values in AI, but doing so could also ensure harmonious robo-relations in more prosaic settings.

We are only just glimpsing the tip its potential. Our very DNA destiny is changing. (the root of intelligence)

We haven’t just been redefining what we mean by AI—we’ve been redefining what it means to be human. We’ll spend the next decade—indeed, perhaps the next century—in a permanent identity crisis, constantly asking ourselves what humans are for.

The greatest benefit of the arrival of artificial intelligence is that AIs will help define humanity. We need AIs to tell us who we are. But on its present connectivity form of Capitalistic algorithms its trajectory is set to fail both people and the planet.

At the moment artificial Intelligence might seem banal and it may well remain so for some time to come, till we have Neuromorphic computers.

Algorithms live on the a diet of information.

They are black box of the future, impossible for outsiders to know what is going on inside them.

Whether you are black white, man or woman, over 60th, married or divorced, catholic or muslim, use an Apple phone or not, whether you are on Facebook, whether you have criminal record or not down to the zip code you live in they are deciding what price to charge you.

Facebook for instance has a dossier of more the 2 billion people.

Buried deep within its site is a setting called “Ad Preferences”

It logs everything. It also buys data about its users, and used all this data to target the very ADs you look at, which are follow you around with an algorithm from one site to the next.

Much of the current debate on algorithmic culture revolves around the role that humans play in the design of algorithms – that is whether a creator’s subconscious beliefs and biases are encoded into the algorithms that make decisions about us.

Accountability is the important issue here.

Do we want an echo chamber of our social media feeds that are creating a striking gap between our real interested and their digital reflection.

Ghettoizing all of us into prescribed category of demographically content.

Algorithmic determinism will be the curse of the globe.Afficher l'image d'origine

Our Identities are crucial to our survival. To day Artificial Intelligence algorithms are already embedded in almost every aspect of everyday living with thousands of algorithmic decisions being made about each of us every day.

The Question is: Are we supposed to keep track and be responsible for all of them.

What relationship between us and Ai do we want.?

So here is a worthwhile New year Resolution.

We still have a great deal of work to do to address the concerns and risks a foot with our growing reliance on AI systems.

Because AI algorithms are being asked to make high-stakes decisions, the impact of successful cyber attacks on AI systems could be much more devastating than you envisage. Before we put AI algorithms in control of high-stakes decisions, we must be much more confident that these systems can survive large-scale cyber attacks.

To promote its responsible use and “verification” of the behavior of software systems. That systems built automatically via statistical “machine learning” methods behave properly. To ensure good behavior when an AI system encounters unforeseen situations.

Send the Secretary General of United Nations an Email everyday.

Requesting a world people’s resolution:

That All Technology must carry a universal stamp of UN approval. Afficher l'image d'origine

The prospect of out-of-control super intelligences that threaten the survival of humanity will be down to where humans have failed to correctly instruct the AI algorithm in how it should behave.

Send an email (Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General):sgcentral@un.org; dujarric@un.org; haqf@un.org; maestracci@un.org; kaneko@un.org; gillmann@un.org; palanivelu@un.org; contactnewscentre@un.org

Call the Secretary General’s office in UN Headquarter in New York

1-212-963-7162
Fax 1-212-963-7055

Send a letter to his office:
Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon
United Nations Headquarter
405 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017 USA

It is time for the United Nations to chart a sensible path for technology to create transparent and accountable AI in order to improve humanity’s collective future.

We must not put AI algorithms in control of potentially-dangerous systems until we can provide a high degree of assurance that they will behave safely and properly.

These issues are becoming increasingly important as more people discover the digital world and find the need for anonymity in this new society. Current rules regarding anonymity on the internet are not global and are severely dependent on the opinion of the service providers who run the servers. The international nature of the net simply makes it impossible to enforce the laws of every country individually. Freedom of expression must be enshrined in all forms of software.

That future national and international legislation on the internet allows the vital service of anonymity to remain. This will only function on an international scale if both lawmakers and net users work together and try to figure out a solution.

The ethical issues related to the possible future creation of machines with general intellectual capabilities far outstripping those of humans are quite distinct from any ethical problems arising in current automation and information systems.

Such super intelligence would not be just another technological development; it would be the most important invention ever made, and would lead to explosive progress in all scientific and technological fields, as the super intelligence would conduct research with superhuman efficiency. To the extent that ethics is a cognitive pursuit, a super intelligence could also easily surpass humans in the quality of its moral thinking.

However, it would be up to the designers of the super intelligence to specify its original motivations. Since the super intelligence may become unstoppable powerful because of its intellectual superiority and the technologies it could develop, it is crucial that it be provided with human-friendly motivations.

We will probably one day have to take the gamble of super intelligence no matter what. But once in existence, a super intelligence could help us reduce or eliminate other existential risks, such as the risk that advanced nanotechnology will be used by humans in warfare or terrorism, a serious threat to the long-term survival of intelligent life on earth.

If we get to super intelligence first, we may avoid this risk from nanotechnology and many others. If, on the other hand, we get nanotechnology first, we will have to face both the risks from nanotechnology and, if these risks are survived, also the risks from super intelligence.

The overall risk seems to be minimized by implementing super intelligence, with great care, as soon as possible.

Any Other suggestions welcome, all like button clicks will be put in the bind.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYES TOP PREDICTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2017.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

 

( A ten minute read if you are over fifty, a lifetime read for those under.)

I could go down the road of Predictions like: Afficher l'image d'origineIn Germany, Angela Merkel looks likely to win re-election or there will be a Climate-Change-Driven Refugee Crisis, or there will be a Cyber war the West v Russia or England will come to its sense and vote again, or that the United Nations and the European Union will reform.

But we are standing 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.Afficher l'image d'origine

Now it’s true that we do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society.

However it is already changing not only what we do but also who we are.

It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships.

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.

Governments will increasingly face pressure to change their current approach to public engagement and policy making, as their central role of conducting policy diminishes owing to new sources of competition and the redistribution and decentralization of power that new technologies make possible.

Given the rapid pace of change and broad impacts, legislators and regulators are being challenged to an unprecedented degree and for the most part are proving unable to cope.

It is already having a profound impact the nature of national and international security, affecting both the probability and the nature of conflict. The distinction between war and peace, combatant and non-combatant, and even violence and nonviolence (think cyber warfare) is becoming uncomfortably blurry.

It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. The breadth and depth of these changes herald the transformation of entire systems of production, management, and governance.

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.

More than 30 percent of the global population now uses social media platforms to connect, learn, and share information. In an ideal world, these interactions would provide an opportunity for cross-cultural understanding and cohesion. However, they can also create and propagate unrealistic expectations as to what constitutes success for an individual or a group, as well as offer opportunities for extreme ideas and ideologies to spread.

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.

AI in recent years, driven by exponential increases in computing power and by the availability of vast amounts of data, from software used to discover new drugs to algorithms used to predict our cultural interests.Afficher l'image d'origine

Our lives are accelerating even faster, but the largest beneficiaries of innovation tend to be the providers of intellectual and physical capital—the innovators, shareholders, and investors—which explains the rising gap in wealth between those dependent on capital versus labor. Yield greater inequality.

The speed of current breakthroughs has no historical precedent.

Next year promises to be one of the most exciting and tragic in the history of the world with tech more overpowering, and the global climate more complex.

Populism will remain on the ballot, with great powers brace for change, challenges loom for news organizations, and the debate on automation and job creation will continue.Afficher l'image d'origine

We are in the midst of serious challenges that threaten the whole world, and which require collective responsibility: extreme poverty, climate change, and the refugee crisis.

Even after an opposition defeat in east Aleppo, President Bashar al-Assad may struggle to reassert control over a fragmented Syria.

The conflict in Ukraine’s east will remain unresolved.

The West will become even more flummoxed by Putin.

Nationalism, political uncertainty, and stunted trade will create new headaches in 2017.

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency represents a seismic shift in American politics, an event with implications nearly impossible to predict. A Trump White House may defy predictability.

Russia has been most blatant in supporting France’s far-right National Front, which received an 11 million euro loan in 2014 from a Moscow-based bank and wants another 27 million euros to fight next year’s elections.

In an increasingly connected world, the UK Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50.

Deeply entrenched mindsets and beliefs sustain the culture of violence and impunity – the need to radically shift the consciousness of people is what the world has been missing.

We must release the tentacles of our false securities and interrupt the world as we know it. We must assume that anywhere we live or anything we are doing can change or disintegrate.

Widespread government access to encrypted communications has the potential to demolish internet privacy and devastate security.

It’s not all doom.  There will be new food retailers with brands to speak to and advertise to consumers. There will be edible cannabis for medicinal use. Drones Will Deliver Pizza (but Not Toilet Paper)

There will be a shift in focus from broad-based attacks to more targeted attacks against specific firms or individuals. New rules for U.S. internet service providers will unleash a flurry of lawsuits.

There will be a new kind of consciousness – one where violence will be resisted until it is unthinkable.

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.

We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them.

Debates about fundamental issues such as the impact on our inner lives of the loss of control over our data will only intensify in the years ahead.

Barack Obama Will Get a $20 Million Book Deal.  The transparency in the UN will be vetoed.  The UK will have to vote again  between being a British citizen, serving our local community and people, and being a Global Citizen, taking responsibility for their world as a whole?

Technology it’s here to stay.

The global dance of connection is both a disruption, a curse, with all beat, no heart.  

Internet, artificial intelligence, robotics… all lead to one fundamental trend almost absent from the political debate despite its potential social impact.

These transformations (the premises of which we already feel) will produce their full effect after one or two decades, so there is still time to rationally analyze their consequences, without showing complete panic in regard to their extreme evolutionary perspectives.

Since there is still time to calmly consider the problems of AI, which is perhaps one of the most serious that humanity has ever faced.

I recommend the rapid creation of think-tanks focused on this technological revolution, groups composed of citizens, politicians, scientists, psychologists and … why not even science fiction writers, who will consider uninhibited possible future ways to keep human beings at the heart of our future.

From human enhancement to human … obsolescence?

This is no time for Amen. The only way forward is with a technologist’s mindset.

Happy new year.  

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Afficher l'image d'origine

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYES: 2017 WILL BE THE YEAR WHEN DEMOCRACY WILL BE UNDER ATTACK FROM ENTRENCHED POWER MORE THAN EVER.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

As Digital technologies and digital communications are permeating every aspect of life we seem to be living in both a hopeful but also difficult times.

The instinctive tendency to categorise the world into “us”and “them” is becoming more and more difficult to overcome but traditional power structures are changing.

Current institutions and political systems are out of date.

People are taking matters into their own hands and are taking the initiative to organise public affairs themselves. On the one hand, this is because they are losing confidence in politics; and on the other hand, it is because some issues are simply not being dealt with by governments any more. Afficher l'image d'origine

Thanks to the internet, artificial intelligence, google, facebook, twitter, globalisation, and or inability to plan for the long term future the relations between culture and power IS BREAKING DOWN world wide.

The new terrain of global governance by artificial intelligence is making up its own rules on the fly or going about its activities without even any regard for rules of procedure.

It is amply clear by now that the so-called digital divide cannot be bridged through technological means alone, as it must be understood within broader systems of entrenched social and economic exclusion.

It is then timely for a broader range of other social groups, particularly those most adversely affected by globalisation, to re-think how they believe global governance should work.

Our present global structure of patriarchy and capitalist greed with all its connectivity is still a long way off establishing a new world with justice and freedom at its core.

For example:

The Syrian Civil war precipitated by drought in the region. The Iraq, the Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan

Nuclear power plants require grid-tied electricity, cooling water and people getting paychecks. Without all these, they melt down, thus immersing all life on earth in ionizing radiation.

1 in 3 women across the planet will be beaten or raped during her lifetime.

That’s ONE BILLION WOMEN AND GIRLS.

We’re driving to extinction at least 150 species each day.

There’s more. Much more. The violence of poverty, racial violence, gender violence, violence caused by corruption, occupation and aggression, violence caused by environmental disasters, climate change and environmental plunder.

We seem to be living as if there is no future but the one we are creating.

There is nothing guaranteed but our willingness to live as pioneers of a new consciousness and way.

The past five or six years have seen an explosion of political initiatives around the globe in which tech-minded actors of various kinds (including geeks, hackers, bloggers, tech journalists, digital rights lawyers, and Pirate politicians) have played leading parts.

(Not forgetting capitalist greed in all its forms.)

There is a terrible irony in the assumption that we can transcend our parochial tendencies with artificial intelligence.

There is growing public awareness of the concentration of economic power in the world. The richest 85 people in the world, who could fit onto a single double-decker bus, have just as much wealth as the poorest half of world.

Absolute universalism, is impossible. Morality cannot be everywhere at once.

So culture and power is breaking down.

Perhaps it is time to have a data-based approach and ranking of universal values.

This will not work.

Because culture is a key arena for struggles and has provided dynamism and force to the most effective social movements; and one could argue is the most important area for work if we are to really embed and sustain transformative practices in our communities and states over the long-term.

We are fast approaching foregoing the unrealistic concern of respecting different cultures with their moral diversity at any cost because of the economic exploitation globally enforced by imperialist and capitalist states that place profit over people.

We must start thinking of what a post-venture capitalism age of socio-technical innovation might look like, and how it could contribute to democratic renewal in different cultural contexts.

Digital rights are not only human rights, as we often hear in net freedom circles: digital rights are social rights.

Politics, or rather political parties, seem to have an inherent tendency to close in on themselves – maybe in search of traditional forms of certainty, and linked to this predictability and with it a controlling, monopolistic conception of agency.

Its back to I am alright Jack.

The Election of Donald Trump, the English referendum on in or out European Union are shining examples.Afficher l'image d'origine

Afficher l'image d'origineBoth driven by genuine and false concerns. Both altering millions of Europeans to the way Europe is run and to how the USA                                     might be run.

Both models of politics have been based on nation-specific political parties. Both with consensus-centred policies that have reproduced the crisis now faces in 2017 in the United states which will push Europe into a path that will lead to disintegration with each needing to take a new look at the current rules of engagement in international affairs.

Europe can only work if we all work for unity and commonality, and forget the rivalry between competences and institutions. Europeans want common decisions followed by swift and efficient implementation.

At the moment it is viewed as a cartel:

The Eurozone may be supremely powerful as an entity but where no one is in control.

The whole Euro currency project disempower almost every player that has anything to do with democratic legitimacy. It created a monetary union that was designed to fail and which guaranteed untold hardship for the peoples of Europe. ( see previous post)

The nation-state is dead and democracy in the EU has been replaced by a toxic algorithmic depoliticisation that, if it is not confronted, will lead to depression, disintegration and possibly war.

While politics (the ability to decide which things ought to be done) is confined to the level of the nation-state, power (the ability to get things done) has shifted to a supra-national level.

The concept of sovereignty doesn’t change, but the ways it is applied to multi-ethnic and multi-jurisdictional areas like Europe has to be rethought.

There is no point in a slew of treaties, organisations and agencies that form the scaffolding of the emerging global governance structure regulating and superintending everything from nuclear weapons to the fishing of halibut, and all of them embody election less intergovernmentalism.

What European citizens need much more is that someone governs. That someone responds to the challenges of our time.

The Council is the heart of the problem.

The Council operates as a senate-like legislative chamber, yet there are no elections to this body. It is as if you were permitted to vote for your local MP, but there were never any general elections.

Unless institutional bodies can be censured or dismissed as a body by one common parliament, you don’t have sovereign democracy. So that should be the objective in Europe.

The sovereignty of parliaments has been dissolved by the Eurozone and the Eurogroup; the capacity to fulfil one’s mandate at the level of the nation-state has been eradicated and therefore any manifestos addressed to citizens of a particular member state become theoretical exercises.

If we want a Commission that responds to the needs of the real world, we should encourage Commissioners to seek the necessary rendez-vous with democracy.

But a vision alone will not suffice.Afficher l'image d'origine

(Each is a famous European then whose reach extended much further than their time or their geography, and helped to shape the world we live in today.)

The European Union was never meant to be the beginning of a republic or a democracy where ‘we, the people of Europe’ rule the roost.

When democracy produces what the establishment likes to hear then democracy is not a threat, but when it produces anti-establishment forces and demands, that’s when democracy becomes a threat.

The left has for decades, perhaps hundreds of years, argued that one day, global democracy would be achieved, but until now this has always been something for the far-off future, an abstract dream.

In the era of globalisation, the steady removal of decision-making from democratic chambers by EU elites is serving as a blueprint for post-democratic governance around the world.

The question is how can we harness the discontent it is creating?

Gone is the elites view that elections cannot be allowed to change established economic policy. In other words, that democracy is fine as long as it does not threaten to change anything!

The network of post-democratic intergovernmental structures must be replaced with true global democracy.

If not achieved we will have disintegration and a bleak future.

The central question of the debate will be how to share power, build alliances and establish not only a genuine dialogue, but an equitable distribution of responsibilities between the State, market and ‘community’ at the local, national and European level.

Most of all, at a time when the world seem beset by multiple crises and the disturbing rise of reactionary forces, it seems apt to remember what Antonio Gramsci once wrote: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new is yet to be born. And in the interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

How ultimately can social movements assert their own power through cultural forms to reject the dangerous symptoms of morbidity and bring the new into being?

What role has the technology industry played in reinforcing power or confronting power?

How has the concentrated power in the ‘Silicon Valleys’ of the world used cultural exchange and shaped culture to further increase their power – and the power of other elites?

How can we build a culture that reinforces values of the commons, solidarity, and harmony with nature?

With what can we replace the legal, political and international processes that have facilitated this power grab. Rather than an ideology that has been designed to benefit certain interests.

Cultural hegemony has also sustained powerful structures from the military through to the banking sector. However, power only becomes hegemonic when it is reinforced continuously through cultural processes that make the exercise of power seem ‘natural’ and irreversible.

The idea you can have the Single Market without political union clashes with the political reality that the only way to have free trade these days is by having common legislation on patents, industry standards, competition rules etc.

Now is the time to begin discussing what global democracy would look like concretely and to start to build it. The network of post-democratic intergovernmental structures must be replaced with true global democracy.

We could start with the United Nations. It has more than 30 affiliated organizations — known as programs, funds, and specialized agencies — with their own membership, leadership, and budget processes. (see previous posts)Afficher l'image d'origine

After World War II, the most powerful governments created the UN Security Council with special seats for themselves.

The option is to rebuild the UN system, giving economic, environmental, and social decision-making the same legal mandatory status as decision-making in the Security Council, so that multilateralism could govern globalisation;

The innovations, enhanced by the new information and communication technologies, of the new movements (culturally rooted in the 1960s’ break of the historic bond between knowledge and authority), has been an ability, creatively to deal with uncertainty, to let go of control without losing the possibility of collaborative agency on the basis of shared principles and a broadly agreed purpose.

It does not matter how wealthy, successful, or famous one has been on earth.  All the money and prestige in the world will be useless on your departure.

Merry Christmas.

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WE HEADING INTO A WORLD OF UNKNOWNS.

Tags

, , ,

 

( A seven minute fantasy read with a large dose of the truth) Caiman Crocodile's eye, close up : Photo

If you take time out from the misery of our troubled world and consider the future I am sure most of us would say we want a sustainable and equal world of opportunities.

However it seems to me that there has never being a time in the history human when the future hold so many unknowns.

The future is no longer just a place we have never been.

Yes, artificial intelligence is all the buzz in the tech industry right now, which can make it feel like a passing fad. But inside Google and Microsoft and Amazon, it’s certainly not. And these companies are intent on pushing it across the rest of the tech world too.

Now, we have Fei-Fei that will help run a brand new AI group inside Google, a move that reflects just how aggressively the world’s biggest tech companies are remaking themselves around this breed of artificial intelligence.

Indeed as we all know no one can predict the future with any certainty. The only future that is certain is that the sun in six billion odd years is going to fry what left of the earth.

We  also know however from past experience that the intricacies of global markets, resource trading and politics mean that difficulties in other parts of the world have global impact.

From this vantage point, the future looks decidedly bleak, and we may well wonder what use we will have for the social sciences in a world of catastrophic environmental decline and change.

 When we still think primarily in terms of the natural consequences of climate change. How can we know what the future will look like?

By 2065 it will be impossible to ignore its social and humanitarian impacts: food and water shortages, mass migration and resource wars seem likely, coupled with large-scale political and economic unrest.

There could be a ‘economic, social and environmental apocalypse. It will cause the collapse of existing infrastructure and telecommunications will be back to pencil and paper or something even more primitive.’

This would be a mistake.

To be able to understand the future, you must know the past. What has taken us to where we are today and what has changed along the way. 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. Will this change in the next 150 years?  No.

Whilst trickle down economics and stringent immigration controls will have all but ended real-term deprivation, inequality will remain entrenched and what is called global connectivity will become far more dangerous.

What happens in any one part of the world can have global ramifications.

Why?

Because what is happening is increasingly hidden from view by Artificial Intelligences, with less and less accountability to the point that very few of us understand the decisions that are being made ever second of our existence, supposedly on our behalf.

AI will have powers over vast swathes of people.

Thee good news is.

No matter what happens we will not be able to fool the mind, in the way that no matter how real the experience will feel, you will always know that it haven’t happened for real.

The future of the world is here, you should get with the times.

The distant future is no longer distant.First we need to start to think about what kind of future we would like for ourselves and to pass on to the next generation, and then we need to know what decisions we need to make today that will give the best result in the future.

To maintain the balance of power in society we must create anticipatory rather than participatory democracies?

We consent to our acts and opinions being counted, and it’s made transparent in the continuous count so we understand the implications of our acts and opinions as a collective. Any inconsistencies are flagged, and we get an option to compare ourselves against the values of the electorate.

We must get rid of all the manipulative rhetoric flying about in what’s left of the news media, making everyone angry and anxious. Life’s tough enough up here without making enemies of your neighbours.

The likelihood of the above happening is zero.

There is going to be a world and nations digital divide, creating self-contained society with culture of independence.

By 2035, even if a majority of humans do not self-identify as Transhuman, technically they will be. Transhumanists will outnumber Christians by 2035.IMAGE: MatiasMurad

The future will be filled with digital implants, mind controlled exoskeletal upgrades, age reversal pills, hyper-intelligence brain implants and bionic muscle upgrades. All of these technologies will literally make us more Transhuman.

The future will also be filled with tactile feedback. From smart screens to wearable smart suits, haptic wearables will introduce a new form of intimacy in the digital realm.

Smartphones will fade into digital history as the high-resolution smart contact lens and corresponding in-ear audio plugs communicate with our wearable computers or “smart suits.” We will have the contact lenses that transmit everything the wearer sees.

For the wealthy, reversing age will be common by 2025. It may be extraordinarily expensive and risky, but for people who want to turn back the clock, it will be worth it.

We will have wearable and implanted medical gadgets continuously collecting information from their patients making it easier to diagnose and treat whatever the problem may be.

Although humans still need to feed the AI with information, machines will be able to create new and abstract theories independently – a huge step towards the development of a conscious computer, and potentially a landmark step in the way we carry out research. They could manipulate information into a binary code that will expand the memory of phones, computers and data centers.

Google has already obtained a patent on robot personalities. Owners could have a personality automatically chosen to match their needs, or select one based on a fictional character or even a loved one. AI not only re-shaping the technology that Google uses, but also changing how the company organizes and operates its business.

Cloud computing doesn’t always get the same attention as consumer apps and phones, but it could come to dominate the balance sheet at these giant companies.

Cloud computing could eventually become their primary source of revenue. And in the years to come, AI services will play right into the trend, providing tools that allow of a world of businesses to build machine learning services they couldn’t build on their own.

It will be far from a socially conscious corporation rule with minimal state involvement. What if we can arrange atoms the way they want them.

Japan will be the first country to allow the birth of a human in an artificial uterus.

Forest fires, wars could one day be dealt with by drones that would direct loud noises at the trees or terrorists below.

Believe it or not, we are just getting started. Technology will get even better.

Get ready to print your own creative physical product. Personal 3D printer will create your own physical product based design, with no approval needed from any giant manufacturer!
Get ready to dive into the virtual world, and interact with them.
Get ready to be scrolling web pages and zoom in the map and photos, sign documents with your eye movements.  Every device, digital or nondigital, will connect together.

We will be creating our own bias apps.   

Our material world will have buildings that are made from translucent concrete plastics and shape-changing materials that can heal themselves.  They will have artificial intelligence ‘personalities’ and will be able to ‘talk’ to people. Windows will be replaced by augmented reality virtual screens so people can choose any view they like. They will have video tiles, colour-changing materials and even electronic fibres in mats and other soft furnishings.

In the future, buildings will be made from translucent concrete plastics and shape-changing materials that can heal themselves while builders will have exoskeletons creating half-man, half-machine workers (pictured)

In the future we will be struggling with issues that have both natural and social causes and impacts, and we will need research that can synthesise these perspectives.

Robots will replace humans more and more. Companies using them will have to pay higher taxes to sustain the unemployed.

The use of petroleum-based gasoline will be considered primitive, if not illegal.

The transition from an oil-dependent society – decreased fuel imports might jeopardise Gulf State relations.

Our world leading institutions will become more obsolete.

The world’s population is projected to reach 11.2 billion in 2100.

Artificial intelligence, continued exploration of space, hopefully a better state for the poor people in the world, challenges in the climate change, and new inventions that make life a little easier and entertaining for some.

I think happiness matters more than, Loyalty, Fidelity or bit credit, and the million other point schemes you could choose.

Remember that little picture on a computer screen that guides you towards a particular action is often not a true representation of what is going to happen, but just a symbol.  God forbid that it ends up as our Icon.

As we begin a new year the small things seem to matter more these days, which I’m in favour of.

All comments welcome. All likes, bind.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WILL THERE BE A PLACE FOR GOD IN THE SINGULARITY.

Tags

, , ,

 

( A seven minute read)

In a recent post I asked if artificial intelligence is the breaking point for Capitalism.

We have low-grade artificial intelligence systems today; But that’s nothing compared to what we can expect in the future.

Assuming global trends continue might religion someday disappear entirely?

What might happen when superintelligence bumps into religion.

Ancient scriptures from various religions say virtually nothing about science and technology, and what they do say about them is usually wrong. People interpret their religious scriptures, revelations, and beliefs in all sorts of ways.Afficher l'image d'origine

The fact is that the authors of ancient scriptures in all religious traditions obviously knew nothing of modern science.

We need to start by understanding where we are headed and prepare for the changes.

As we progress down the road toward an autonomous economy, human labor becomes obsolete and the world economic production goes on auto-pilot.

However, that not only fundamentally changes the political paradigm but the religious one as well.

In the current paradigm, Capital/labor are necessary now because we are bound inside of the labor/survival paradigm. If that relationship changes, that paradigm ceases to exist and something new emerges.

So can we expect the need for religion to disappear as a real-life god—our near perfect moral selves—symbiotically commune with us.

When you think about it, trying to wrap your brain around how digital technology and all its wonders are even possible is simply bizarre.

Only a tiny fraction of the world’s population understand such things in any depth. And an even smaller amount of people actually know how to design and create the microchips, circuit boards, and software that constitutes this stuff in the real world.

Human beings are a species dependent on a tech-imbued lifestyle that none of us really understand, but accept wholeheartedly as we go on endlessly texting, Facebook’s, and video conferencing.

.Azerbaijani Muslims pray at the end of Ramadan (Getty Images) (Credit: Getty Images)           A rabbi reads during Purim festivities (Getty Images) (Credit: Getty Images)              (Getty Images) (Credit: Getty Images)

Capitalism, access to technology and education also seems to correlate with a corrosion of religiosity in some populations. These countries feature strong educational and social security systems, low inequality and are all relatively wealthy. “Basically, people are less scared about what might befall them.

Today’s technology revolutions are happening within years. It may well create a few intellectually challenging jobs, but we won’t be able to retrain the workers who lose today’s jobs. They will experience the same unemployment and despair that their forefathers did.

It is they who we need to worry about.

As climate change wreaks havoc on the world in coming years and natural resources potentially grow scarce, then suffering and hardship could fuel religiosity.

Expect a much more utopian society for whatever social structures end up existing in virtual reality and cyberspace.

But even if the world’s troubles were miraculously solved and we all led peaceful lives in equity, religion would probably still be around.

Human beings naturally want to believe that they are a part of something bigger, that life isn’t completely futile. Our minds crave purpose and explanation.

The tension between technology and the human soul dates all the way back to the Old Testament. Religion is not only a belief system it’s a power, to be used for good or evil, as it clearly has been used for both historically.

Religion already isn’t benign, and any religion worthy of a superintelligence certainly would be even less so.

There are no laws or rules in computer science that would make it impossible for software to hold a religious belief.

Religious superintelligence may be either the best or the worst kind of superintelligence—sublimely compassionate or horribly oppressive.

The question is will our belief in God accompany us into the future.

No gods will save us from Artificial Intelligence, so will there be some level of consciousness that is not associated with biological life.

The technological marvel of uploading minds and consciousness into a cyber environment and then connecting all the minds together may preclude humans from expressing humanity.

It’s just impossible to digest the very real fact that a super-advanced intelligence is growing through us and out of us and its initial sprouts look like technology.

I fear one that is indifferent to us.

This raises the question of what it’s like to be superintelligent, or in other words, how alive you would feel as one.

A superintelligent machine would likely be more conscious than we are, in that it would build a more elaborate model of reality and its consciousness would be composed of more feedback loops than we have in our own brains.

Shouldn’t we be trusting it to tell us what religion is real?

If a computer is 10,000 times smarter than a human, then won’t it already have deduced with certainty which, if any, religion is true?

Humans will attempt to persuade machines to just about all of our vying ideas, and machines will do the same in return. There will be new and unfamiliar forms of interaction enabled by whatever technological interfaces become available, such as brain-to-computer interfacing. Creating a technical incompatibility between machine intelligence and religious beliefs, but humans are already proof of concept.

I do think we can identify some limits to the possibility space of intelligence in general, based on logic and physics, but religiosity remains clearly within the possibility space.

It’s worth pointing out, perhaps, that some of us conceive of religion too narrowly to account for how it’s actually functioned from deep history to the present, and a strong case can be made that transhumanists often (but not always) manifests itself as a religion, even if misrecognized. Religious transhumanists tend to associate with emerging and future technology risks and opportunities.

I do not believe that we will see one single superintelligence, but many that will be interacting—a race of AI beings.

Once the AI becomes cognizant of the depth of its knowledge, operating capacity, speed, and even potential physical manipulation, the AI will choose a path for its continued existence that may preclude the existence of religion or for that matter man.

I fear it could produce one that is indifferent to us, and from that indifference produces actions that break the line of human life that extends back to the first life on Earth.

Religion will probably never go away. Religion, whether it’s maintained through fear or love, is highly successful at perpetuating itself. Even if we lose sight of the Christian, Muslim and Hindu gods and all the rest, superstitions and spiritualism will almost certainly still prevail.

If we can develop the economic structures necessary to distribute the prosperity we are creating, most people will no longer have to work to sustain themselves.

They will be free to pursue other creative endeavors. The problem, however, is that without jobs, they will not have the dignity, social engagement, and sense of fulfillment that comes from work. The life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that the constitution entitles us to won’t be through labor, it will have to be through other means.

There are two kinds of truths; the relative truth that appeals to certain masses but not to all, and the absolute truth which can also be regarded as the universal truth.

For most people, religiousness falls under the first category while spirituality is considered as the absolute truth.

You may practice everything like your forefathers did, but it will not be a source of peace and satisfaction till you are aware about your own realities as an inhabitant of life!

We need work to mitigate the risks while pursuing the opportunities.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE; WRITES AN OPEN LETTER TO ANTONIO GUTERRES THE NEW UN SECRETARY GENERAL.

Tags

,

 

Open Letter 13/December/2016. Afficher l'image d'origine

Dear Sir,

Firstly let me both congratulate, and commiserate with your on your appointment to perhaps one of the world’s most difficult and rewarding jobs.

I watched and listened to your acceptance speech with interest.

It contained (as with previous Secretary General speeches) high ethical aspirations for the World and the United Nations itself.

It however, avoided what I consider to be the two critical questions for the United Nations survival.

They are:

Funding and how to make the United Nations Relevant.

In order to achieve a Preventive rather than a Reactive United nations (which you did address in our speech ) the Veto of the Founding Six has to be abolished and replaced by a modern collective voting system for all its members.

In order to be able to respond to world inequalities, sustainability, wars, disasters relief, gender discrimination, and the like the UN must have financial clout rather than a begging hand.

The first in my opinion is the most pressing reform. The second can only be achieved by the capitalist world agreeing to place a world aid commission of let’s say 0.05% on all activities that are for generating profit for profit sake.

For example:

On all High Frequency Trading, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, On all Foreign exchange transactions for argument sake over $100,000, on all Country Lotto’s.  This would create a perpetual fund.

In passing you did mention that the technological connective world is creating bubbles of reality.

This is more dangerous that Climate change. Technology that is created for profit in the form of AI apps and all other forms of technological advance that are not for the benefit of all of us must be vetted by an Independent, and total transparent world organisation.  An urgent new field for the UN.

I am fully aware that he likelihood of you ever reading this open letter are miniscule in the extreme, but perhaps that very connectivity that is causing world insecurity might with the help of one of its big players like Facebook or twitter might bring it to your attention.

In the meantime I wish the New Secretary General all the best and happy Xmas and new year.

Yours Sincerely.

The Beady Eye.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE THE BREAKING POINT FOR CAPITALISM.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

( A five-minute read that might change your life.)

The last two posts were an attempt to highlight the fact that Artificial Intelligence is changing the way we think and bemoaned the fact that our world is accepting this without an oversight.

This heading is self-explanatory.

Without us noticing, we are entering the post capitalist era. At the heart of further change to come is information technology, new ways of working and the sharing economy.

It’s starting to feel like humans have made themselves redundant in their own economy. The first stage of an economy beyond capitalism.

The knowledge content of products is becoming more valuable than the physical things that are used to produce them. Today, the thing that is corroding capitalism, barely rationalised by mainstream economics, is information.

Any variable to success can be bought and sold, and that means for those who have wealth, they can buy success instead of creating it – the arrival of Twitter President Donald Trump.

It’s a shift in the ‘fairness’ of capitalism, and the reward for someone putting in effort. When capital can beat humans on thinking, it’s hard to create a marketplace that doesn’t resemble feudalism (albeit minus the harsh living conditions).

For a long time, artificial intelligence was little more than science fiction — now it’s now just a matter of time before AI isn’t just a static piece of IP.

It’s capable of building entirely new monopolies, businesses and ‘things’ all by itself.

It will and is already creating  monopolies.

Here’s a stark reality:

Innovation is also much, much harder in a world driven by individuals owning large swathes of AI resource. Why? Because innovation will increasingly be defined by world views of a single person, rather than the thinking power of many.

Today’s great leaders must empathise with the perspectives of many and convince people that they’re making the right choice. It’s tricky and often means concessions and understanding problems outside of specific world views.

If they could solve problems however they wanted with whomever they wanted, that paradigm shifts. You might start finding that someone in control of AI resources only solved problems for themselves. Humans are, after all, selfish creatures.

Capitalism has been fuelled by the ability to create creative monopolies and be rewarded for it. But the shift we’re about to experience is profound — for the first time, capital will become a source of those creative monopolies rather than just a product.

Putting aside the ethics for a second,

AI is essentially a new form of inter-species slavery.

Instead of relying on our fellow species, we’re creating automated, non-human slaves. AI are just cattle versions of intelligence (once is created/bred for meat, the other for intelligence).

Ethically that may pose a problem, but conceptually, it positions AI differently to ‘owned’ property — mostly because it shifts the market based on who owns them.

Rather than capital now being a source of ownership and minor wealth generation, it can now be a source of exponential wealth creation — simply because AI continuously evolves and builds upon itself. It’s unique because it isn’t a static capital item.

Capitalism’s greatest threat is it’s own progress. The technology capitalism has created is systematically undermining it. Which is why we may have to rethink it.

We live in a world where not everyone’s effort is equal. Yes, capitalism is grossly unfair in some parts — based on your birth, inheritance and a range of other factors. But it’s also one of the only systems we have the accounts for the effort you put in to produce things that other people want to use.

Automation is coming. And with it, the tasks you and I would normally do for jobs aren’t going to be there.

The GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon) Internet giants, as well as IBM, have all been investing massively in the field.

It wont be long before we have Self-aware AI a billion times more powerful than all of the human brains on the planet and it will crush human intelligence as early as 2045.

We will make machines that can reason, think and make things better than we do.

It is potentially more dangerous” than nuclear weapons, or climate change .

To compete with robots, Google proposes transhumanism, i.e. turning humans into cyborgs.

By 2035, we’ll have nanobots implanted into our brains and connected to our neurons to “upgrade” both our mental and physical capabilities.

Paradoxically, the ultimate tool to avoid the human race’s vassalization would also be the instrument of its suicide. The human-AI hybrid would indeed mean the death knell for the 1.0 biological human.

Artificial intelligence could cause another significant casualty: Money.

In our meritocratic societies, the difference in intellectual abilities are, rightly or wrongly, the primary reason for the wage and capital gap. But AI would break this very notion. Eventually, human intelligence will be ridiculous compared to that of machines.

So the question is, in such a world will we accept that some people earn 1,000 times more than others?

If we accept Google’s brain nanobots, what will be the legitimacy of any revenue gap between people, since our performances will be linked to the power of our brain aids, and not to our inherent qualities?

Besides, a society driven by artificial intelligence will be a society without work, which will render the mere function of money useless. If we’re able to emulate a billion cancer scientists on an array of hard drives in a few seconds, what will be the value of a human oncologist?

All goods and services will be created and produced by machines in an infinitely more efficient way that any human being can, even an upgraded one. The meritocratic system will go up in smoke.

And how to organize the distribution of capital if merit is impossible?

The best solution will without a doubt be the equal redistribution of goods and services among individuals, a communism 2.0 of sorts in which everybody will be provided for according to their needs and not according to their work.

It will be artificial intelligence — not economists like Thomas Piketty — that puts and end to the wage gap. Capitalism simply won’t survive intelligent machines.

I don’t understand why some people are not concerned.

The people who controlled AI’s would have a disproportionate amount of power early on, as they’d be able to more rapidly automate most of their work.

Rather than a monopoly on products, you have a monopoly on ‘thinking power’ — the very thing that eroded capitalist monopolies originally.

As technology continues to eliminate traditional jobs and massive new wealth gets created, we’re going to see the need for a Universal Basic Income some version of this at a national scale.

If you don’t believe the automation argument, take a look at the below graph.

Every industry has the potential to be automated. Fishing can be done by drones. Farming too. There’s very little examples of a menial task that can’t be done by a robot. That sounds like utopia, but until we recognise that it means whoever has the most money will win forever, it’s going to be a pretty shocking life for most of us.

That’s why it’s important to recognise that AI is not just a new form of technology, but a brand new class of capital which automates the ‘last’ parts of humanity: thinking.

Humans are destined to become a layer over the top of AI.

Arguably we can already buy brainpower. But the great thing about human labour is there is some form of negotiation — mostly in the form of the vote at the ballot box which defines workers rights, unions and a number of laws and checks and balances.

With AI it’s hard to see what rights the AI will have unless it is completely independent (a problem in a class of its own).

AI is sentient but created for a purpose. Does that strip it of it’s right to autonomy? I’m not sure.

If we accept that AI is a new class of capital which also allows for (relatively) unlimited work to be done, then we also have to start to realise that we no longer need to be around in our own economy.

What is the solution?

Make AI common property, tax it and use the new automated/robotic workforce to fuel our work. Use the labour that AI creates and the wealth created to give people a Universal Basic Income.

In the end, it isn’t going to be a revolution that breaks capitalism.

All the things capitalism has given us is going to be what brings it undone. When you put AI, automation and capitalism together, it’s clear that we don’t just need new technologies. We need a new social system. We need a project based on reason, evidence and testable designs, that cuts with the grain of history and is sustainable by the planet.

If we don’t vet all technology for the benefits to us all, there will be little point in getting an education if all knowledge is artificial and all that’s is left is Greed and profit.

With no moral reasoning and based on ruthless optimization processes which provide much cheaper and more efficient solutions for companies around the world – poses a deeply unsettling challenges to the way we model our society.

AI could rig elections, subvert markets, or become dangerous military technology.

It’s time to dump your Super Market Loyalty or Fidelity Card, get you face out of your Smartphone and become smart by demanding the Establishment of a New World Body that is totally transparent and independent:

To vet all Aps and any artificial Intelligence software that is motivated by Profit.

Afficher l'image d'origine

All Non AI comments welcome.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨