THE BEADY EYE SAYS: PERHAPS IT’S TIME FOR EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES TO HAVE TWO CURRENCIES.

Tags

, , ,

( A Seven minute Brainstorm read for all Europeans)

I have always thought that the introduction of the Euro without countries being in control of their money was and still is nonsensical.  That a foreign entity prevent two members of the community from exchanging among themselves is farcical in the age of electronic transfers.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european union flags"

We are all aware that we are heading into an age of Automation with its consequences for Jobs and Taxation where money will become more than ever just  a system of signs recording who owes what to whom.

Money is one of the tools that a community bestows on itself for its common operations. That is for a Greek fisherman to pay his Greek baker.,

it should have nothing to do with the money of another one – unless they are not different communities.

ALL THESE ELEMENTS, ALONG WITH COUNTLESS OTHERS ARE RAPIDLY GATHERING TO TEST THE UNITY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION WITH THE PIG IN THE POKE BEING THE EURO.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "photos de billets de banque en euros"

Euro zone nations first thrived under the euro. The common currency brought with it the elimination of exchange rate volatility (and associated costs), easy access to a large and monetarily unified European market, and price transparency.

Now regional tensions within countries are being fueled by this monetary unification. Irrespective of how any individual nation’s economy performs, all euro zone nations are impacted by the common euro currency valuation.

IN THE LONG RUN THERE IS NO GETTING AWAY FROM: that the future of the euro will depend on how EU policies evolve to address the monetary challenges of individual nations under a single monetary policy.

In the last year, non-euro EU currencies have generally performed better than the euro.

There are currently 28 nations in the European Union and of these, nine countries are not in the eurozone—the unified monetary system using the euro.

EU nations are diverse in culture, climate, population, and economy. Nations have different financial needs and challenges to address. The common currency imposes a system of central monetary policy applied uniformly.

Since the European Central Bank (ECB) sets the economic and monetary policies for all euro zone nations, there is no independence for an individual state to craft policies tailored for its own conditions.

As we witness in 2011 several European countries were and still are mired in the problem of using a currency which they do not control: Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and soon Spain, Italy, France.

These countries all have an important trade deficit which leads each of them to a chronic dearth of money supply and to the nonsensical situation of needing to borrow money from abroad (Germany, Northern Europe, or directly the ECB) in order for their citizens to be able to exchange goods and services among each other.

The problem, is what’s good for the economy of one euro zone nation may be terrible for another.

So is it time to scrap the Euro and introduce a two tier monetary systems.

Electronic Euro and national currencies.  Electronic euro the trading currency and the National currencies the reserve currency.

The “reserve” currency entirely distinct from trade currencies. A separate and distinct difference between the currency being used in trade and the currency being used to store wealth.

This idea might well have being intractable when the money used for everyday expenditures was metal and paper based, but it is no longer the case with the advent of no contact payment systems with mobile telephones and very large databases systems like Google Adsense.

If the European Union is not to disintegrates it easy to foresee that countries will inescapably return to a domestic currency for their internal affairs, while they’ll keep the euro for their external trade within the Euro zone.

In other words, they will use a system of double currency: one internal and one external.

This would allow room individual countries losing price competitiveness for export to addressed by deliberately devaluing its trade currency in order to make its exports cheaper and more attractive.

The future evolution OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT FEDERALISM it will be in the opposite direction: toward smaller communities, enjoying some autonomy, and being able to have their own currencies.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european union flags"

On a practical level, a multiple-currency system requires that payments be made no longer with paper banknotes and coins but with some convenient electronic devices. The new systems of no contact payment with our mobile phones provide a solution. In the background, our payments will be recorded and managed in large databases, just as they are today. Such complex databases are not a thing of the future, Google Adsense is one of them, arguably more complex than what we advocate.

Paper currency came into prominent worldwide use at the time of World War I, and has played a major role in shaping the global history of the last 100 years and despite huge and ongoing technological advances in electronic transactions technologies, it has remained surprisingly durable, even if its major uses seem to be buried in the world underground and illegal economy.

The monetary means were also kept in the hands of the central authority, with the justification that it was one of the fundamental pillars of power. In the XXth century attempts to make central banks independent of the executive ended in failures. For instance the US Fed or the European ECB have demonstrated that they cannot but do what they are told by governments.

With many central banks now near or at the zero interest rate bound, there are increasingly strong arguments for exploring how it might be phased out of use.

There is no good reason why a country could not use its own money for its internal operations (what economists dub its “sheltered activities”). In fact it happens here and there, it is called a local exchange trading system, and is “tolerated” by central authorities as long as it doesn’t become too big, and doesn’t shirk taxes.

Taxes are certainly necessary for a community to function. But they should indeed be in the several currencies used by that country.

Indeed every country with a monetary system with several currencies in the wallet of the citizens. Each currency will correspond to one of the communities to which he or she belongs: city, region, nation, economic zone, and world.

The world could be reduced to only a handful of monetary authorities, with some of them exercising monetary policy internationally, and with strong need for coordination.

This will represent a sharp change from the times when sovereign nations necessarily had their own unique currency; it was even a mark of their power.

All comments or suggestions welcome. All like clicks chucked in the BIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

any attempt to eliminate large-denomination currency would ideally be taken up in a treaty that included at the very least the major global currencies.

In small and very open economies, the presence and use of international currency is unavoidable.

 

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

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what?

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

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

Back to today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, robots belong to us. People, governments and companies build, own and program robots. Whoever owns and operates a robot should be responsible for what it does.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of legal robots" AI systems must do what we want them to do.

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

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

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

To minimise social disruption and maximise social utility.

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

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

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

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

So to wrap up this blog :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: AFTER BRIXIT, ENGLAND CAN NOT RELY ON THE MAGNA CARTA. IT WILL NEED A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION.

Tags

, , ,

( A three-minute read for U KIP.)

It is plain to see that English society has changed.

It is also a clear fact that Britain has survived very well until now with an unwritten constitution.

PRESSING THE BUTTON ON ARTICLE 50 IS ALSO PRESSING THE BUTTON ON THE MAGNA CARTA.

Why?

Because the public does understand the conventions which govern political procedure in England.

Because once England leaves the EU the state will become all-powerful. Parliament is supreme and can make or break laws. No parliament can bind its successors or be bound by its predecessors.

If UKIP wants to reinvent itself here is its opportunity.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of ukip"

Along with Israel, England is one of only two democracies in the world not to have a written constitution. Without a written constitution, the UK has no Bill of Rights to protect its citizens from an over powerful state.

Under the status quo, there is no superordinate legal document to which an individual or the government can point when they dispute whether or not a law is legitimate.  Thus, while popular opinion can prevent the government from brazen violations of citizens’ rights, more nuanced infringements persist with impunity. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the magna carta 1215"

The documents that currently make up the written component of the UK’s informal constitution provide an accessible starting point.

Such ancient texts and treaties as the Magna Carta would provide for a smooth transition from commonly-accepted legal principles to the formal entrenchment of those principles in the clauses of a  new written constitution.

While under the status quo all laws passed by parliament are considered of equal significance, there is an informal recognition by some jurists that certain laws, such as the Human Rights Act, enjoy a favored position within a hierarchy of laws.

A written constitution would simply help to formalize this de facto hierarchy.

A constitution would subject controversial laws to judicial review, yielding a more precise ruling on their constitutionality.  Regardless of which way the judiciary rules, it must be backed up by reasoned argument and interpretation of specific legal principles explicitly outlined in the constitution.  It is crucial to have an independent metric by which we evaluate when the government reaches the limits of what it may justly legislate.

A formal constitution provides the separation of powers necessary to keep each part of the government in check.

Clearly delineated oversight powers in an independent judiciary would halt Parliament’s attempts to overstep its mandate, and provide a mechanism to redress flagrant violations of ethics by MPs. Such a check on the power of the Parliament would be a welcome change from the status quo of a government who may act with little accountability short of an election.

Similarly, explicit and independent powers for the House of Lords and the House of Commons would codify a role to hold each other accountable.

This would be similar to the way that the United States constitution works with its famous separation of powers and checks and balances with the exception that the executive would still be within the legislature rather than completely separate.

England will have to review or replace hundreds of EU laws.

None more important than the existing EU Human Rights Act which at the moment in England only provide weak protection, because judges are able to rule that new laws are “non-compliant” with the Act – the government can ignore such rulings if it wishes. It can easily be (and has been) amended by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament.

A written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights would provide much stronger protection for the rights of the citizen.

Entrenching the respective rights of individuals and the government adds clarity to issues where the boundaries of the law are vague.  Not every time that civil rights are eroded is it the result of the government overstepping what were previously thought to be the clear boundaries of the state’s power; sometimes there is a legitimate grey area regarding the meeting of two rights.

The argument against a written constitution is that written constitutions are ruled upon by judges. In Britain judges are unelected and it is therefore undemocratic to take power away from our elected representatives and give it to judges who tend to be quite reactionary.

It is a fact that the UK is a unitary state with Parliament sitting at Westminster being the only body competent to legislate for the UK and all laws in the UK including laws relating to the constitution may be enacted, repealed or amended by the Queen in Parliament.

There is no specific procedure for changing the law, that is, very important law can be changed by simple majority. This simply means that the decision-making process is not muted in any way by past legislation.

A constitution will vary with society but one of the most important arguments to consider is the fact that enshrining constitutional laws and customs in one document would provide clarity for those working within the system and for those who wished to scrutinise it.

Why should I fix that which is not broken”?

England will have no ties legal or otherwise with Europe and therefore will not need a similar legal foundation to the EU.

Not true.

In order to engage in intra-EU economic, social, and political relations, England will have to create a common conception of the foundation of EU  laws.

One way or the other it is important to enshrine clarity in its legal code.

The European Union will be agreeing the terms of separation under European Laws. For England to agreed these terms under an unwritten constitution seems impossible to me. 

All comments welcome all like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

every constitution will vary with society.

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

Tags

 

(Get Intelligent with a six-minute read)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Companies use code to understand our most intimate ties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHERE IS TECHNOLOGY GOING?

Tags

, , , , ,

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does technology want? 

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

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

Knowledge is at the tip of our fingers.

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

But is this really good for us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It aims to keep the game of change going.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are just some of the things technology wants.

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

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

Are we prepared?  I think not.

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

Humans can be seen as dumb cogs:

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

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

AI already exists and its name is “Progress”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You could write a litany on any one, but for the sake of this post I am going to look at one in particular.  The Smart Phone.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of smartphones"

It is already changing the landscape.

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

t1larg.smartphones. unaware

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smartphones are addictive phones.

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

Has their influence and effects now gone to far?

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

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

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

It’s not really our fault. 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Tags

, , , , ,

 

( 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Tags

, , , ,

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: THERE IS AN EXPLOSION IN PRISON POPULATION ON THE HORIZON.

Tags

,

 

( A one minute read )

Half of the world’s prison population of about nine million is held in the US, China or Russia.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture prison eyes"

USA:  AROUND 2,145,100, 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. No society in the history of mankind has incarcerated so many of its citizens than the U.S. except

CHINA: The total prison population in China is at least 2,300,000.

Russian: 671,027

UK: 95,248

Turkey:  151,451.

Faeroe Islands:  10.

UK prison population is biggest in western Europe.

In a comparison of 50 European countries, Britain is behind only Russia and Turkey in number of prisoners.

It is nearly 20,000 higher than France and 30,000 more than Germany, according to the latest Council of Europe figures.

The appetite for incarceration in Britain is underlined by the number of prisoners per 100,000 population, which stands at 149.7 for England and Wales and 147.6 for Scotland.

The average spent per prisoner per day in England and Wales of €109 (£84) is above the European average of €99 or £76.62. With 7,468 serving life sentences they alone cost the Uk taxpayer £630,000 a day or £7,560,000 a year.

Clearly value for money to keep serious criminals of the streets but when you add-on the remaining non lifers a mere £ 9,568,020 a day with half of those released reoffend within a year including six in ten of those on sentences of less than twelve months.

The total is mind-boggling and you would have to ask the question is it time to embrace meaningful alternatives to incarceration; Such as community-based sentences with drug treatment.

I don’t see why it is not possible for the vast proportion of minor drug offenders and other non violent offenders to serve their sentience in the community.

” The prison crisis is symptomatic of a society that isn’t helping out its most marginalized, economically disadvantaged communities,”

The heading for this blog will become true as technology replaces more and more jobs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

national epidemic use of mass incarceration.

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HAVE WE ALL GONE BONKERS.

Tags

, ,

( Eight minute read.)

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

What sort of future do you want?

Should we develop lethal autonomous weapons?

What would you like to happen with job automation?

What career advice would you give today’s kids?

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

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

Will we control intelligent machines or will they control us?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong:

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

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

Take it a step further:

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

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

Not for much longer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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