The idea of “fake news” came to prominence during the 2016 US Election.
However fake news can be traced far back as the 1930s. Actually, the world has suffered from it since gossip has ever existed.
The problem is gossip has being turned by technology ( Social Media/Smart Phones) into written pieces and recorded segments promoting false information or perpetuating conspiracy theories.
Little is known, however, about the dynamics of the life cycle of a social media rumor. Users appear to be less capable of distinguishing true from false rumors when their veracity remains in question. Citizens are frequently misinformed about political issues and candidates but the circumstances under which inaccurate beliefs emerge are not fully understood.
Social media makes it very difficult to correct misinformation. Facts mingle with half-truths as we have all seen resulted in England seeking to leave the European Union to the dethronement of its economy, its political power, its self image.
One could argue that the majority has been tipped towards the Leave camp by exaggerated promises made by the Leave campaign, for example on redirecting money to the National Health Service that so far flows into EU budgets.
Is this a purposeful use of fake news?
Whether it did or did not is not the point.
In today’s world, online social media plays a vital role during real world events, especially crisis events.
Why? Because we share knowingly or unknowingly, with friends and others unverifiable information.
However at this point, claims that fake news is a serious threat to democracy are highly speculative and exaggerated, and claims that extremely invasive political measures are necessary to protect democracy are not supported by empirical evidence.
It is also doubtful whether restrictions of free speech enacted as government-sanctioned deletion of fake news will actually be an effective remedy for biases in individual political decision-making.
On the other hand should we be demanding Digital trust in a platform’s ability to protect and promote the interests of its users.
I would say, Yes we should be.
Algorithms are becoming more and more powerful at persuasion, creating hyperbolic articles around a major political events:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
Algorithms are shaping the world of Technology, changing the ways news information is being accessed, and in doing so creating new attitudes about what it means to be informed.
Resulting in Social Media pandering to youth preference for opinionated rather than objective news.
70% of Facebook users read only the headline of science stories before commenting.
So the question remains: are medias best equipped to debunk false news?
I don’t think so. “Fake news” is a term that can mean different things, depending on the context.
It can be used by authorities for effective disaster management or by malicious entities to spread rumors and fake news.
There are both positive and negative effects of social media coverage of events. For me it is the fake imagery that has the potential to do the most damage.
Because the imagery becomes the substance while fake news causes confusion about current issues and events.
For instance Catalonia fake images are fostering turning a political situation into something much more serious creating feelings of inefficacy, alienation, and cynicism.
We play around with our new internet toy with no thought of the consequences.
Our brains should be the decisive tool to fight fake news and hoaxes. That tool need to be trained, optimized through promotion of critical thinking as early as primary school.
The main problem resulting from fake news will not be persuasion, but confirmation.
Individuals may demand fake news in order to confirm settled beliefs that they already hold.
Predicting that social media will pose a threat to the functioning of democracy by allowing the creation of tight filter bubbles, and thus the self selected segregation of citizens into distinct groups that find it difficult to identify common ground.
Open debate, and persuasion in a positive sense – in the sense that individuals concede to better arguments – would then be threatened.
Think before you share. Analyse before you speak.
Fabricated stories are not likely to go away as they have become a means for some writers to make money and potentially influence public opinion.
The term has now been co-opted by politicians and commentators to mean anything they disagree with – making the term essentially meaningless and more of a stick to beat the mainstream press with than a phenomenon in itself.
Donald Trump’s has been calling out major media outlets several times a week for being ‘FAKE NEWS’ via his Twitter feed.
Perhaps all communication platforms should labeling suspicious stories as such.
All human comments appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin.
I would like to think you’re here not necessarily because your agree or disagree with what I write, but that you think it is worth hearing and want to learn, interact and debate with me. If you like pressing the like button this is not the place to find the like button. Lets hear your views.
Social Media a vast and complex subject far to large to cover all aspects.
In this post I am going to try to address some of the more obscure effects it is having on all of us or could have in not the so distant future.
How much do we understand this new dictatorship we’re in?
IF YOU ASKED ME I WOULD SAY: WE DON’T HAVE A CLUE.
Technology has revolutionized the way people go about their daily activities..
Google received over 2 million search queries per minute. The Number of people who use Twitter 302 million monthly active users 28/04/2015. Apple in the last three months turned over 60 billion a 40% profit of 11billion.
Facebook its monthly active users cleared 1.35 billion — roughly equal the population of China, and 9 percent larger than that of India. By these numbers, nearly 20 percent of the world’s population logs into Facebook once a month. And if we just look at the worlds Internet users, roughly half of them — every other person with Internet on the planet — use the site actively. 936 million daily 22/04/2015.
Half of all Internet-users live in “Facebookistan”
In the time it takes you to read this sentence more than 684,478 pieces of content will be shared on Facebook, 100,000 people will tweet, hundreds of thousands more will “like” an Instagram photo…and that’s if you read very quickly.
Access to technology has become an integral part of education, socialisation and industry related requirements, and accordingly Internet usage is evolving and growing rapidly. It is changing the way we shop to the way we drop. It does not care about time or distance. Everyone can be online every time and communicate with everyone everywhere.
The internet is home to millions of sites, representing both commerce and the people who share their thoughts and experiences with anyone who visits. The internet users worldwide now represents 3.17 billion, or in other words half of the current world population.
The question is whether the effortless, ever-changing world of online social life is in fact one that ultimately undermines the ability to explore narrative, and place people, ideas and events in wider contexts.
There is no argument that it is effecting the way we all live but if we don‟t act to enhance inter generational communication, we risk generating a culture structured by a digital/communication divide between young people, their parents and older members of the community.
Cyber citizenship, if it is to retain relevance and deliver benefits to the community, therefore, is a concept that would more usefully be applied to the community as a whole, rather than as a set of policies that target young people as requiring protecting – or protection from – in a digital landscape.
Our understanding of cyber citizenship must be more holistic, to fully encompass and resonate across all of the settings in which we live our lives – be that home, school, work, our local communities or our communities of interest.
So what effect is Social Media actually having on the world communicates and our life styles.
For example:
The internet is the place to interact with new people and a way to expose yourself to strangers. The partial anonymity available online can be used as a mask for sexual offenders and psychos;
Social media is being used as a tool by movie studios well ahead of a film’s release to help shape the marketing campaign.
Billions of Amateur videos, posted on social media websites.
Americans across the country took to social media to celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision making same-sex marriage a right.
Its replacing communication by letter or phone.
Twitter and Facebook are only two of the online connections people use today to stay in contact with friends and family.
The entire purpose of setting up social media networks around the world is to allow and promote the world to communicate and connect with one another. However, the trend that seems to be following this widespread connection and communication is the exact opposite.
It all appears to boil down to you having no way of really knowing what is the truth and what is the lie.
Someone’s life and personality neatly tucked away in the cyber-universe.
Do the dangers of online networking far outweigh the benefits?
Who knows.
One of the great dangers as far as I am concerned is the establishment of an economic order that would apply to all, everywhere.
No social animal is ever guided by the interest of the entire species to which it belongs.
Social Media allows cooperation with complete strangers who are imagined to be your friends. This could lead to the entire human race becoming a single unit governed by a single set of laws. These days we think of the planet as a single unit but for most of its history it was in fact an entire galaxy of isolated human worlds.
The ever tightening social media links will in the long run destroy individuality. We are now living in an age of technology where the information contained on these sites is now being used against us.
So the benefits of SNS use are dependent on good internet and media literacy: having the skills to critically understand, analyse and create media content while avoiding addiction.
Young people are consuming, producing, sharing and remixing media.
This has led to the claim that today‟s young people are produsers‟ they actively produce and consume media. The importance of SNS in young people‟s everyday lives is indisputable: 90% of 12 to 17 year olds, and 97% of 16 to 17 year olds, use SNS
Social media has begun to create an unsociable disconnected generation of young adults… they lack awareness of the public nature of the internet. This include the management of personal information and privacy, the risk of predation and cyber bullying. Can it be minimised?
It is compromising the development and maintenance of supportive friendships and involvement in institutions traditionally understood as the embodiment of “communities‟, namely school, sports clubs, families etc.
Social networking sites have become an important additional arena for politics. It increasingly important for the expression of identity.
What can be done if anything.
Education MUST increased internet and media literacy – ensuring all young people develop the skills to critically understand, analyse and create media content.
With the lack of parental supervision between the ages of fourteen to seventeen, which makes one of largest demographics using social networking sites, these teens ARE subjected to mature elements..
Teenagers are finding their identity in the world, they are the “my space generation” (Livingstone, 2008) the internet has allowed them to connect with people from all over the world but do they choose to do that…
It is presenting mankind with the biggest opportunity to change the course of history. It is exposing the Inequalities and making the world aware of our common vulnerabilities.
Then there is growing power of Petitions not to mention the job market or trial by Social Media and the greed of the business world which is beginning to be recognized for what it is by targeting Advertising.
As I said don’t press the like button be an individual and leave a comment.
A society that holds out for the younger generation prospects that are worse than those held out to their parents and grandparents is a society that has ceased to progress and begun to regress—one that has lost any claim to historical legitimacy even if it is technologically advanced.
The common experience for millions of young people is permanent economic insecurity.
Youth unemployment in the European Union stands at more than 23 percent, while in Spain it is 56.1 percent and in Greece 62.9 percent. There are 26 million young people in the “developed world” who are classified as not in employment, education or training (NEETS). Poverty and homelessness have become mass phenomena.
While the world may not be one big village in terms of lifestyle, it shares an image of “the good life” that’s proffered in movies, TV, and the Internet. That’s what teenagers in Afghanistan have in common with teenagers in England; they’ve been fed the same image of success in the global community and they know it’s inaccessible. They are angry and, ultimately, their anger has the same target — multinational corporations (and the governments that support them).
The political implications of these social transformations are far-reaching – ISIS.
Capitalism as we know it today—is an amoral culture of short-term self-interest, profit maximization, emphasis on shareholder value, isolationist thinking, and profligate disregard of long-term consequences—is an unsustainable system. Only today five of the biggest banks are fined Billions for fixing the Foreign Exchange Market.
Capitalism must change itself, from the inside. This kind of change will require a radically new leadership ethic, one driven by a new set of motivations and a broader understanding of wealth.
With global population rapidly marching toward 11 billion and with it the demand for food, health services, energy and security, we need to reexamine the models that have gotten us to this point.
There are far better men than I to undertake this reexamination.
The word “capitalism” was coined by the socialists and has historically described a system of state-granted privilege and plutocracy.“
Free market capitalism may be viewed as a system in which individuals make voluntary arrangements involving the exchange of capital.
Free market” implies voluntary arrangements, whereas “capitalism” has become (rightly so) known as a system in which business and coercive state forces collude to serve whatever arbitrary interests may be lobbied for by the businesses or championed for reasons of power by the politicians.
If it’s a free market, it’s not capitalism. And if it’s capitalism, it’s not a free market.
So why bother trying to apologize for “capitalism” when “free markets” are what you (and I) really wish to obtain? That is, if you really do believe in “free markets”, then you should probably distance yourself from the word “capitalism”.
The modern world is ruled by multinational corporations and governed by a capitalistic ideology that believes:
Corporations are a special breed of people, motivated solely by self-interest.
Corporations seek: to maximize return on capital by leveraging productivity and paying the least possible amount for taxes and labor. Corporate executives pledge allegiance to their directors and shareholders. The dominant corporate perspective is short-term, the current financial quarter, and the dominant corporate ethic is greed, doing whatever it takes to maximize profit.
Capitalist society is guided by the play of the market mechanism.
There is no better evidence of this than- The “recovery” of 2009-10 ensured that “too big to fail” institutions would survive and the rich would continue to be rich. Meanwhile millions of good jobs were either eliminated or replaced by low-wage jobs with poor or no benefits.
We’re living in the age of corporate dinosaurs that take the path of least resistance to profit; they’ve swallowed up their competitors and created monopolies, which have produced humongous bureaucracies.
There achievements are far to numerous to list here, but here are a few in no particular order.
Climate Change. Inequality of Opportunity, Stock Exchanges, Poverty, Wars, Lack of Fresh Water, Sovereignty Wealth Funds plundering the finite Natural Resources for short-term profit, Corruption, Privatization, People Trafficking, Drugs, ect You could say without fear of contradiction that conditions are far worse today than at any time since the 1930s.
The nearly universal opinion expressed these days is that the economic crisis of recent years marks the end of capitalism. Capitalism allegedly has failed, has proven itself incapable of solving economic problems, and so mankind has no alternative, if it is to survive, then to make the transition to a planned economy, to socialism.
Corporate executives don’t care about the success or failure of any particular country, only the growth and profitability of their global corporation.
Global corporations are ruining our natural capital. Four of the top 10 multinational corporations are energy companies, with Exxon Mobil leading the list. Global corporations have ravished the world and citizens of every nation live with the consequences: dirty air, foul water, and pollution of every sort. The world GDP is $63 Trillion but multinational corporations garner a disproportionate share — with banks accounting for an estimated $4 trillion (bank assets are $100 trillion). Global black markets make $2 trillion — illegal drugs account for at least $300 billion.
The past five years have demonstrated the impossibility of changing anything within the existing political system. Inequality has grown enormously. The stock market is booming, the Forbes 400 are richer than ever, yet the conditions for youth and workers are disastrous. War continues without end.
However the historical bankruptcy of capitalism does not bring about its automatic collapse as it will if not already doing so turn Climate Change into profits.
It is from the market that the capitalist economy receives its sense.
So what if anything is to be done.
At the start of this post I said that Capitalism must change itself, from the inside.
Is this possible. Yes but only by making it pay for our values. By putting humanity back into human.
We needed to make the private enterprise economy work better in a redistribution of wealth and income toward greater equality.
This can only be done by placing:
A World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Stock Exchange Transactions, on all Foreign Exchange transactions (over$20,000) and on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions.
A capitalist economy is inherently unstable” It is one thing to recognize the instability of capitalism, but another to show that an alternative to it is possible.
Clearly no one has got a clue” about what might replace it.
What ever it is we can not going on tolerating a world … in which the needs of the many come before the greed of the few. It is time to recognize that “ Like what, exactly?” is an honest and profound question that demands straight and worked-out answers. And it is time to start working out those answers. I am not advocating abstract revolutionism here.
When questions about the future are bound up so intimately with day-to-day struggles, a new human society surely cannot emerge through spontaneous action alone. To transcend this impasse, people need to know not just what to be against, but what to be for, not just “ what is to be done,” but what is to be undone— what is it exactly that must be changed in order to have a viable and emancipatory socialism?
Unfortunately, this issue received almost no attention throughout most of the last century.
So it is only in recent years that any significant attention has been paid to whether another world is possible. But now, when the future of capitalism is a live issue, it seems to me that this issue needs to be understood as the central problem of revolutionary thought today.
The younger generation is “lost” not just in the sense that it has no future under capitalism, but also in the sense that it is increasingly “lost” to the ruling class and its political establishment. The forms through which the bourgeoisie seeks to maintain political control are losing their hold. Their conscious political experience has been dominated by unending economic crisis, war, the dismantling of democratic rights, political gangsterism and corruption.
And if that not bad enough The global economy is splintering with new and devastating trade agreements like the TTP.
If the function of the market as regulator of production is always thwarted by economic policies in so far as the latter try to determine prices, wages, and interest rates instead of letting the market determine them, then a crisis will surely develop.
It would be disastrous merely to call for socialism while ignoring the problems of mass unemployment. This brings me to the notion of developing socialism within capitalism, enlarging the space of the commons or whatever. Unfortunately, it cannot be done. It has been tried (for instance, in the Israeli kibbutzim ) and it does not succeed. The economic laws of the larger system will not allow it. If you buy from the capitalist world “ outside,” you also have to sell to it in order to get the money you need to buy from it, and you will not sell anything if your prices are high because your costs of production are high. And if you have debts, you have to repay them.
So it appears there is only the one option as I suggest : Make Global Capitalism contribute by a World Aid Commission.
We live in interesting times. The stakes are high. The time has come to face the future with sober senses. The good news is we’re witnessing the failure of global corporate capitalism. The bad news is we don’t know what will replace it.
Financial inequality in the 21st century is on the rise, and accelerating at a very dangerous pace turning into a conflict between billionaires.
Complete change will not happen overnight. It will not be built on the back of one investor or one innovative entrepreneur. It will be something that business owners, investors, political leaders, consumers and entrepreneurs must all work together toward.
Neither of these categories (Investor-Innovator) makes or produces anything but their wealth, which is really a super-wealth that has broken away from the everyday reality of the market, which determines how most ordinary people live.
Worse still, they are competing with each other to increase their wealth, and the worst of all case scenarios is how super-managers, whose income is based effectively on greed, keep driving up their salaries regardless of the reality of the market. This is what happened to the banks in 2008, for example.
So when you look at Climate change what you see is that it is true that it will take time to roll out the infrastructure and technologies to get off fossil fuels, and we will burn a lot of fossil fuel in the process.
What explains our collective failure on climate change? Why is it that instead of dealing with the problem, all we seem to do is make it worse?
Here’s is the inconvenient truth: when you tell people what it would actually take to radically reduce carbon emissions, they turn away.
What would it take to radically reduce global carbon emissions and to do so in a way that would alleviate inequality and poverty? The World Aid Commission.
Just building a clean tech innovation economy is not enough. We have to reinvent our economy from the ground up if we are to successfully address these challenges.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOING TO CHALLENGE EVERYTHING THAT CAPITALISM OR ANY SOCIAL SYSTEM STAND FOR.
What we need is “ethical capitalism,” Business leaders must become servant leaders, leaders who serve not just themselves and share holders, but leaders who serve employees, customers, the community, the planet, humanity, future generations, and life itself.
Science has made huge steps, society has not.
The sooner we fix Capitalism the sooner we move to the future we imagine.
I was told the other day that I had not addressing the last and perhaps the most important issue concerning the effects of Technology that the human race will ever faced. The dire warnings that machines run by Artificial Intelligence will one day take over from humans.
What better day to post my views an diamond eclipse. The last time it happened was in 1935 and the next time is 2206.
Now don’t get me wrong I like being human! I want humans to retain autonomy over machines! Judgments of virtue are judgments of a whole life rather than of one isolated action. The development of moral character may take a whole lifetime. But once it is firmly established, one will act consistently, predictably and appropriately in a variety of situations.
However we will need a new set of practices for value creation; where data slaves dare to stand up and call for a revolution … But it will be very difficult to turn back the wheel that has already been set in motion several decades ago.
What is artificial intelligence and what is the media talking about? What ever it is it is a long way off before Machines turn on us never mind emulating human behavior to the point of mimicking communication.
Are these technologies beneficial to our society or mere novelties among business and marketing professionals?
Medical facilities, police departments, and manufacturing plants have all been changed by AI but how?
So far this bond has been one-sided because the ability to generate, recognize and express emotions are a unique prerogative of living human beings, but if this intelligence or abstract attribute could be taught to machines, it would re-conceptualize the perception of machines.
So in this post should I focus on the truly remarkable achievements of the technology or dwell on the dangers of what could happen if machines reach a level of Sentient AI, in which self-aware machines reach human level intelligence.
Let’s start with present day. Do you believe that if all computers are stopped for a day, complete civilization comes to a halt!
Fifty years ago, this might have been a science fiction, but today it is a reality.
We cannot predict because of the great potential of AI what we might achieve when this intelligence is magnified by the tools AI (may provide) however the eradication of disease and poverty are not unfathomable.
So it is valuable to investigate how to reap its benefits while avoiding potential pitfalls.
The potential benefits are huge, since everything that civilization has to offer is a product of human intelligence.
Presently, applications in advanced robotic appeared so real that one can believe a humanoid robot will be capable to interact or work side by side with people in a near future.
If so are we ready for the bio mechanical future revolution. ( Or as I would call it synthetic intelligence implants, because it is not natural intelligence.)
For the sake of the length of this post I will stick with AI.
This questions; Will AI be a reality and many others are and should be the concern of the general public.
A time will soon come (brought about by the lack of education concerning rapidly advancing computer technology) when this question will need to be answered. On the ethical use of such technology and its impact on intimate human relationships and society.
When is the best time to discuss the ethical uses of these technologies? NOW.
If robots are ready to plug safely into society the question is no longer a questions for future generations to sort through, it must be decided, and soon.
As technology rapidly improves, it is inevitable that it should begin to take on elements of its creator and believe me there are many routes that Artificial intelligence can go.
Its impact on society is only likely to increase.
For instance: Once we begin to mesh technology more closely with ourselves as humans we can begin to accept it as a part of ourselves and as a part of our society. Some say it could be curtain for Society.
As I have said in previous posts Technology is transforming our social, economic, and political institutions; our understanding of what it means to be human; and the distribution of power in the world.
The threat of AI equipped computer systems and machinery taking jobs away from humans is becoming a harsh reality. When and in what order should we expect various jobs to become automated ?
How will this affect the wages of less skilled workers, creatives, and different kinds of information workers? Some have argued that AI is likely to greatly increase the overall wealth of humanity as a whole. This is a total misconception as the rich will own the Data. Increased automation may push income distribution further towards a power law and the resulting disparity may fall disproportionately along lines of race, class, and gender.
Research anticipating the economic and societal impact of such disparity could be useful to start asking the questions.
How should the ability of AI systems to interpret the data obtained from surveillance cameras, phone lines, emails, etc., interact with the right to privacy?
How will privacy risks interact with cyber security and cyber warfare?
We already have drones and it will not be long before we have a weapon that does everything on its own without human help. These weapons will be a threat to civilians? Can lethal autonomous weapons be made to comply with humanitarian law. No.
Sophisticated remote-controlled military robots are already in use with no tractability, that fire a weapon to AI algorithms is that not something to fear. We are programming them. If that’s not scary enough put a nuclear war head on one.
Smart weapons raises many questions on the price paid to develop these weapons; money which could be used to solve most of the world’s social problems such as poverty, hunger, etc.
Of course none of this is going to change anything as we are incapable of making war against Poverty or Inequality. Why? Because human intelligence can be viewed as being as diverse as its population. However this type of analysis of Intelligence leads us to the individual and becomes useless.
Over the last decade, electronic tiny minuscule signals have fundamentally revolutionized the way we live. People are spending more hours per day with machines than humans and in the future, computers will evolve quicker than the human race.
Sorry I am diversifying. Back to AI
An amazing a human-machine relationship is developing.
Fortuitously for us so far the possession of knowledge alone does not make a being or machine intelligent.
This is the problem when it comes to computer scientists and engineers understanding just how their work affects humans and human values.
So what role should computer scientists play in the law and ethics of AI development and use? None. They are focus on getting software products to market, regardless of whether they instantiated interesting principles of intelligent systems that could also illuminate the human mind.
How should lawyers, ethicists, and policymakers engage the public on these issues? Should such trade-offs be the subject of national standards?
Significant parts of the economy, including finance, insurance, actuarial, and many consumer markets, are already susceptible to disruption through the use of AI techniques to learn, model, and predict agent actions. These markets are identified by a combination of high complexity and high rewards for navigating that complexity. Artificial intelligence techniques can be applied to financial investing, especially in the areas of credit risk assessment and stock valuation.
In the future, we can expect that the techniques of artificial intelligence will be integrated into systems that simultaneously address investing activities.
The successes of industrial applications of AI, from manufacturing to information services, demonstrate a growing impact on the economy, although there is disagreement about the exact nature of this impact and on how to distinguish between the effects of AI and those of other information technologies.
Many economists and computer scientists agree that there is valuable research to be done on how to maximize the economic benefits of AI while mitigating adverse effects, which could include increased inequality and unemployment.
All that said; Artificial intelligence certainly has a place in the future of humanity.
The danger of machines taking over too much of human interaction and work, the human mind, is to far-fetched to my thinking.
There is no doubt that computers are being embedded in all of our life accessories like mobiles,watches, cars, even our bodies and brains.
These subsets of AI, such as data mining, neural networks, speech recognition and lip-reading, behavior recognition, and face recognition, to name a few, are becoming increasingly powerful—and indispensable—to human organizations.
The question of whether a human brain is necessary for thinking remains in Science Fiction Hollywood.
No one has agreed on a concrete definition of artificial intelligence, largely because there is insignificant understanding as to what comprises intelligence.
Professor Jefferson’s Lister Oration for 1949, from which I quote sums up the problem for me.
“Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain-that is, not only write it but know that it had written it. No mechanism could feel (and not merely artificially signal, an easy contrivance) pleasure at its successes, grief when its valves fuse, be warmed by flattery, be made miserable by its mistakes, be charmed by sex, be angry or depressed when it cannot get what it wants.
Or a machine which is under interrogation”What do you think of Picasso?” Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humor, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjoy strawberries and cream, make some one fall in love with it, learn from experience, use words properly, be the subject of its own thought, have as much diversity of behavior as a man, do something really new.
AI will remain valuable regardless of whether we’re able to build fully- functioning robots or human-esque brains.
AI, the harnessing of intelligence on the computer, will turn complex thought processes into fast computer simulations; it will be used to analyze past events and predict the future.
The ability of these systems to explain the reasoning process through back-traces and to handle levels of confidence and uncertainty provides an additional feature that conventional programming can’t handle.
Intelligence is defined as the ability to achieve goals through computational process. Although intelligence is only studied in humans, is it possible that machines may be more “intelligent” than those who created the machines in the first place?
Will computers reach human intelligence someday. They have already surpassed our calculation abilities and our speed of processing information.
There is no indication that microchip speed will not be multiplied in the future.
As with every innovative technology there are positive and negative externalities involved.
No. This dream will remain elusive until machines attain the basic human virtue of common sense.
Our ability to take full advantage of the synergy between AI and big data will depend in part on our ability to manage and preserve privacy.
How we can ensure humans will be able to control AI once it achieves human-level intelligence? I would prefer humans maintain autonomy over technologies that could achieve sentience.
It is tempting to wonder what would happen if we spent more time focusing on helping each other directly, versus relying on machines to essentially grow brains for us.
We need to develop a science for understanding advanced Artificial Intelligence before we develop it further.
It’s just common sense. Intelligent machines won’t love you any more than your toaster does. Giving people a device that enhances intelligence may not be a terrific idea. What happens when a machine breaks the law?
Our AI systems must do what we want them to do. We ourselves don’t reason with precise truths. We don’t yet know really what consciousness is, what drives consciousness?
Why do we attend to only a portion of what we see and hear? It is obvious that given an event, observed by many, we each perceive it differently, and we take in differently. Do we each have individual filters that have to do with our own stories? Probably. But I think pondering this goes deeper. Is consciousness itself, somehow, directed? God forbid a machine is directing it.
John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Describes AI
Being human, has to have a component of humanity to it. The nature of the mind and of memory, and how intelligence can be manifested in physical form is a joke when it comes to a Machine.
For the robots or technology that may surpass our intelligence in the near future, observe my fleshy middle-digit and hear me cry: “I wave my private parts at your Auntie! Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberry!” —
Tell me how do you model thought? Give me a machine that can read a simple children’s book, understand what the story is about, and explain it in its own words or ask reasonable questions about it.
That is it. I have tried artificial intelligence and I don’t like it.
Artificial Intelligence Technology is learning by itself. The claim that a machine cannot be the subject of its own thought can of course only be answered if it can be shown that the machine has some thought with some subject matter.
Where is this technology going to be? No one knows for sure, what we can only say for certainty is that this Artificial intelligence, and Machine Learning will transform all software and hardware, all industries and businesses. Roads, bridges, Cars, Homes, will be connected to it.
While today we do not possess the technology to achieve a truly sentient machine we cannot because of that speculate too deeply as to the results of such an achievement.
Only if intelligence ceases to be a sacred mystery to us, and we can control our destructive nature should any of us accept an Apple from the Adam of AI.
One thing is for sure; We will sure need some kind of global governance in the interest of the individual.
We are just in the beginning in terms of where these technologies will take us. Mars and back.
“If you think we’re electronically dependent now, you haven’t seen anything yet.”
Wireless communications will dominate everything, everywhere.
“Humanity will change more in the next 20 years than in all of human history.”
From the web to wildlife, the economy to nanotechnology, politics to sport, even transforming what it means to be human.
In my last three post I addressed the subject of Society changes due to Technologies : The Internet, Big Data, and Smart Phones. So it would seem remiss of me not to inform the sixteen years old of today what is in store for them when they are, lets say 65.
It’s hard to focus on the future when the present is changing so rapidly before our very eyes let alone what will happen in 50 years’ time.
I could predict that this and that is going to happen.
From the capturing and digitizing the entire information content of your brains to chips that will eventually may have the ability not just to store information, but to learn and remember, just as real brain cells do to create complete copies of our brains’ content.
I could draw up a list of WHAT IF’s:
Like: Like what if you could finding a method of copying and uploading human consciousness into a machine, or even a holographic virtual body — basically, a software replica of a person. Or what if Traditional pharmaceuticals is replaced by hyper-individualized medicines that are manufactured at the time they are ordered, or that most people will have stopped taking pills in favor of a new device that causes the body to manufacture it’s own cures.
I am sure they are (without looking) many sites that are doing exactly this; covering Science, Nature, Transport, Medical, and every other aspect of Life.
Happiness is a direction, not a place or perhaps it is dark matter yet to be discovered.
One way or the other it’s pretty clear that the future remains radically uncertain, and there’s not much we can do about it.
Living a public life is the new default.
It is not possible to live modern life without revealing personal information to governments and corporations. Few individuals will have the energy, interest, or resources to protect themselves from ‘data surveillance’; privacy will become a luxury.
It is also clear that there will be a need for a trusted infrastructure to be created in order to prevent massive fraud and massive public distrust in online transactions, and in online life, in general.
We will have to reinvent the entire Internet as we know it, shifting power from a few American tech companies to the individual who creates, and therefore owns, the data.
It is also clear that greed makes monsters of men and unless we put a harness on greed and make it serve the needs of humanity the next 50 and beyond will not be worth living.
We will need to create a personal dashboard, a safe haven, for every individual’s dossiers, transactions, money, and profiles. In this dashboard, you could set your privacy and communications settings.
All of this will create a big struggle about the question: Who owns (my) data?
My statement:
There is no way the world’s varied cultures, with their different views about privacy, will be able to come to an agreement on how to address civil liberties issues on the global Internet.
In 2065, we will have a post-Facebook and post-Google world.
We will have new business models in which facilitating data is more lucrative than owning data. As I have said if we do not make this transition, we face a privacy and fraud nightmare in which our lives are dominated by a few global tech companies.
We will have new generations of psychoactive drugs and eventually emerge, cognitive technology is likely to really, really rock our world.
We will run out of resources. We will have Climate change. We will have wars, and massive inequality, we will get humans to the nearest stars, we will be using English if not in the same form.
We will be wearing smart cloths connected to the internet (and even have linked stuff inside their bodies), we will be walking into internet-connected rooms and down networked streets, driving in the connected cars and public transit, get food and other goods from smart refrigerators/toasters/ovens, move through spaces bristling with connected sensors, and monitor remote places via apps and cameras.
The backlash against this most egregious privacy invasions will bring a new equilibrium between consumers, governments, and businesses—and more-savvy citizens will get better at hiding things they do not want others to see.
However predicting how it will all shake out is just fantasy.
Governments trying to protect themselves and their cultures might split the global internet into divided mess of networks.
The situation will worsen as the Internet of Things arises and people’s homes, workplaces, and the objects around them will ‘tattle’ on them.
The incentives for businesses to monetize people’s data and governments to monitor behavior will become extremely potent.
On the other hand citizens and consumers will have more control thanks to new tools that give them the power to negotiate with corporations and work around governments. Individuals will be able to choose to share personal information in a tiered approach that offers varied levels of protection and access by others.
The constellation of economic and security complexities will get bigger and harder to manage, belittling micro religions and what it means to be ‘educated’ will be replaced by other capacities.
People will get used to this, adjust their norms, and accept more sharing and collection of data as a part of life—especially Millennials and the young people who follow them some will complain but most will not object or muster the energy to push back against this new reality in their lives.
Society’s definitions of ‘privacy’ and ‘freedom’ will have changed so much by 2025 that today’s meanings will no longer apply.
We will certainly leave nothing behind that survives long in the digital age other than a future of “unevenly distributed” one with more social fissures might arise, presenting hurdles to people who do not have the resources to afford the gadgetry or the skills and tech-literacy to navigate the more complicated environment of 2025 never mind 2065.
Over 50% of today’s Fortune 500 companies will have disappeared.
The terms of citizenship and social life will rapidly change.
70% of today’s occupations will likewise be replaced by automation, with most coming back in different forms in different industries, with over 50% structured as freelance projects rather than full-time jobs.
50% of traditional colleges will have collapsed, and India will have overtaken China as the most populous country in the world.
Advocacy groups, service providers, large e-commerce companies, Google/Amazon/Facebook/Twitter, secret services, security officers in companies and consultancies, and individual Internet users… will also be very much involved with ongoing tension between these groups,
We’ll play games to solve problems.
There will be an extensive rise of anti-capitalism.
The Future will be an eerie spot.
Predicting the Future is much like predicting the weather, the farther we move into the future, the less accurate our predictions become. So why do we make them?
So we don’t wake up one morning and get a shock.
Feel free to giving serious consideration to each of them and deriving your own conclusions for good or bad.
bobdillon33blog 