Considering the artificial intelligence hysteria of 2014, 2015, and possibly beyond, here are the best links to "Ebola hysteria" and "Swine Flu hysteria," which could perhaps help people understand the nature of irrational fear.
EBOLA
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/opinion/charles-blow-the-ebola-hysteria.html?_r=0
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/ebola-overreaction/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/20/panic-epidemic-ebola-us
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/ebola-hysteria-fever-a-re_b_6020952.html
SWINE FLU
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/reconstruction-of-a-mass-hysteria-the-swine-flu-panic-of-2009-a-682613.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/03/swine.flu.react/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124147910689984999
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/29/swine-flu-mexico-uk-media1
Friday, 23 October 2015
Friday, 21 August 2015
Beyond Scarcity Financial Times Links
I have not checked out all these FT article, which I found on the FT site listed under "beyond scarcity," but it seems a good list, at a glance, so I'm sharing it.
My initial focus was "Productivity polarisation in our ‘Modern Times’ (number 26)." The article stated: "Note with particular attention that last policy recommendation: a basic income for one and all to help society adjust to the new hyper technological environment, in a way that encourages competition and productivity in laggard firms, and dilutes the power of the winner-takes-all corporates."
Number 20 looks potentially good too. I have previously posted, on G+ (and elsewhere perhaps), about humans being Doozers when they mindlessly say they need jobs regardless of jobs actually needing to be done.
If you can't access the links try archive.is.
My initial focus was "Productivity polarisation in our ‘Modern Times’ (number 26)." The article stated: "Note with particular attention that last policy recommendation: a basic income for one and all to help society adjust to the new hyper technological environment, in a way that encourages competition and productivity in laggard firms, and dilutes the power of the winner-takes-all corporates."
Number 20 looks potentially good too. I have previously posted, on G+ (and elsewhere perhaps), about humans being Doozers when they mindlessly say they need jobs regardless of jobs actually needing to be done.
If you can't access the links try archive.is.
- The parable of water
- The end of artificial scarcity
- Redefining labour
- Beyond GDP and the rise of the non-monetised economy
- Robots, China and demographics
- The evolution of luxury markets
- Counterintuitive insights that are only now making the mainstream now
- Time to take basic income seriously?
- On what really is different this time around
- Inflationistas and the global supply shock
- The SME demand-side problem
- What is the value of unique?
- World War Zirp
- Sugar as the new tobacco?
- Where art thou inflation?
- Google, defender of the universe
- The gamification of the economy: creating rivalry where there is none
- Behold the new, new economy?
- Information asymmetry, bad incentives and Taibbi
- Larry Summers on forwarding the Doozer economy
- Let there be bubbles!
- Secular stagnation and the paradox of worth
- The new Hanseatica, now with robot dogs
- L'embarras de richesses, crude oil edition
- Disrupting FREEDOM!
- Productivity polarisation in our 'Modern Times'
Saturday, 30 May 2015
Clueless #Superintelligence Debate
Below is a comment regarding a Motherboard article (26 May 2015): Will Superintelligent AI Ignore Humans Instead of Destroying Us?
It is shocking that all the supposed mainstream "intellectuals" have not pointed out the logical fallacy of comparing human-AI relationships to animal or insect-human relationships. The UTTERLY massive difference, rendering the comparisons similar to chalk and cheese, is insects did not create humans, they had zero input regarding the design of our genome, whereas humans are intelligently engineering AI, which means we will have a basic understanding of the minds of super-intelligent robots.
Deliberately engineering the next level of intelligence above you is utterly incomparable to past animal-human relationships.
Yes super-intelligence will be massively beyond us but there will be the option for easy communication between super-intelligence, which is already evident via narrow AI translators. Humans will never possess the ignorance of ants etc. The ability to create super-intelligence is unlike any other aspect of previous evolutionary relationships, thus the comparisons (insect-animals-humans to humans-SAI) are logically invalid.
The point about Earth not being a vast repository for resources is good, but it didn't really delve into the Post-Scarcity situation of superior technology regarding the scope of the universe.
The paper-clip maximizer "theory" is utter gibberish. I don't know why people waste time giving thought to such a idiotic-nonsensical-illogical proposition. The paper-clip maximizer theory is utterly irrational tantamount to creationism, but it is expressed in pseudo-scientific terms, or by supposedly scientific people, thus people somehow assume it is a logical-valid proposition, a possibility. Maybe people are fooled by the language.
It is shocking that all the supposed mainstream "intellectuals" have not pointed out the logical fallacy of comparing human-AI relationships to animal or insect-human relationships. The UTTERLY massive difference, rendering the comparisons similar to chalk and cheese, is insects did not create humans, they had zero input regarding the design of our genome, whereas humans are intelligently engineering AI, which means we will have a basic understanding of the minds of super-intelligent robots.
Deliberately engineering the next level of intelligence above you is utterly incomparable to past animal-human relationships.
Yes super-intelligence will be massively beyond us but there will be the option for easy communication between super-intelligence, which is already evident via narrow AI translators. Humans will never possess the ignorance of ants etc. The ability to create super-intelligence is unlike any other aspect of previous evolutionary relationships, thus the comparisons (insect-animals-humans to humans-SAI) are logically invalid.
The point about Earth not being a vast repository for resources is good, but it didn't really delve into the Post-Scarcity situation of superior technology regarding the scope of the universe.
The paper-clip maximizer "theory" is utter gibberish. I don't know why people waste time giving thought to such a idiotic-nonsensical-illogical proposition. The paper-clip maximizer theory is utterly irrational tantamount to creationism, but it is expressed in pseudo-scientific terms, or by supposedly scientific people, thus people somehow assume it is a logical-valid proposition, a possibility. Maybe people are fooled by the language.
Saturday, 2 May 2015
Flawed #ArtificialIntelligence Logic
Below is a comment regarding a critique of Nick Bostrom's flawed AI-risk logic. It is a point about the logical fallacy of comparing human-gorilla relationships to human-AI relationships.
My point is the analogy is logically flawed, which analogously is tantamount, if I express it in a mathematical way, to stating 2+2=6; whereupon the flawed mathematician states we need to prepare for 6 regarding 2+2, which means we are preparing for something non-existent.
In fact preparing for 6 based on 2+2 could be harmful, if for example the calculation is regarding calibrating altimeters for airplanes. An alternate way of comprehending Bostrom's logical error is considering how someone could mistakenly deduce 2+2=22, which could at first glance appear true but it would give the wrong height for altimeter calibration.
If an analogy is wrong, if a comparison is wrong, it could entail a person eating chalk because it looked like cheese, which is not healthy similar to drinking poison by mistake because it looked like water.
At first glance the gorillas comparison may look valid, but it falls apart when submitted to logical scrutiny, which leads, if we subscribe to the flawed logic, to making decisions based upon faulty information, misguided decisions. I think Bostrom's flawed conclusions are the most serious existential risk we face.
Below is another comment on the same issue.
Why can't Mathieu Dumoulin see he is comparing chalk to cheese? Mathieu is essentially stating chalk looks like cheese therefore we can eat tasty chalk. He wrote: "Humans smarter than gorillas leads to humans dominating gorillas. AI which would exceed humans intelligence would similarly dominate humans. This is an existential risk to humans."
The massive difference between humans-gorillas versus humans-AI is humans are not the AI creations of gorillas, which leads to a totally different human-gorilla relationship if we consider the accurate comparison.
The point is if gorillas had created humans via AI engineering, intelligent engineering of higher intelligence, gorillas would be able to communicate with humans easily, intelligently, furthermore gorillas instead of living in rainforests would live in an highly advanced civilization where science, laws, and culture are clearly evident. In this case I doubt humans would dominate or abuse intelligent gorillas.
Only when a lower species intelligently designs higher intelligence, whereupon then the higher intelligence dominates the creator species, will the comparisons to humans and AI be valid. The problem with gorillas is they did not create human intelligence whereas humans are creating AI minds, which is a massive difference rendering comparisons logically invalid.
My point is the analogy is logically flawed, which analogously is tantamount, if I express it in a mathematical way, to stating 2+2=6; whereupon the flawed mathematician states we need to prepare for 6 regarding 2+2, which means we are preparing for something non-existent.
In fact preparing for 6 based on 2+2 could be harmful, if for example the calculation is regarding calibrating altimeters for airplanes. An alternate way of comprehending Bostrom's logical error is considering how someone could mistakenly deduce 2+2=22, which could at first glance appear true but it would give the wrong height for altimeter calibration.
If an analogy is wrong, if a comparison is wrong, it could entail a person eating chalk because it looked like cheese, which is not healthy similar to drinking poison by mistake because it looked like water.
At first glance the gorillas comparison may look valid, but it falls apart when submitted to logical scrutiny, which leads, if we subscribe to the flawed logic, to making decisions based upon faulty information, misguided decisions. I think Bostrom's flawed conclusions are the most serious existential risk we face.
Below is another comment on the same issue.
Why can't Mathieu Dumoulin see he is comparing chalk to cheese? Mathieu is essentially stating chalk looks like cheese therefore we can eat tasty chalk. He wrote: "Humans smarter than gorillas leads to humans dominating gorillas. AI which would exceed humans intelligence would similarly dominate humans. This is an existential risk to humans."
The massive difference between humans-gorillas versus humans-AI is humans are not the AI creations of gorillas, which leads to a totally different human-gorilla relationship if we consider the accurate comparison.
The point is if gorillas had created humans via AI engineering, intelligent engineering of higher intelligence, gorillas would be able to communicate with humans easily, intelligently, furthermore gorillas instead of living in rainforests would live in an highly advanced civilization where science, laws, and culture are clearly evident. In this case I doubt humans would dominate or abuse intelligent gorillas.
Only when a lower species intelligently designs higher intelligence, whereupon then the higher intelligence dominates the creator species, will the comparisons to humans and AI be valid. The problem with gorillas is they did not create human intelligence whereas humans are creating AI minds, which is a massive difference rendering comparisons logically invalid.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
# Blog visitors since 2010:
Archive History ▼