The fear of AI, or some people might say: "The rational response to real risk." This recent debate is slightly complex but hopefully you can follow the back and forth.
I published my Hawking Fallacy on 10th May 2014, which was following on from my AI Risk Analysts Are The Biggest Risk (Risky Analysts) dated 27th March 2014. About three weeks after Risky Analysts, Hawking and few of his buddies published an article warning about possible danger from AI.
The text below is a comment of mine responding to an article in response to my Hawking Fallacy article. The title of the article, which my comment below responds to, is The Hawking Fallacy Argued, A Personal Opinion. It is also worthwhile to mention a post on Futuristic Reader, titled AI Ethics Dangerous Risky Xenophobia, which includes some relevant Tweets and two relevant G+ posts.
SU Comment:
A minor point to note regarding the Hawking Fallacy. I have been tracking this issue for approximately four years, since 2010. I was not merely responding to the subtitle attached to the Independent article. Note my article preceding the Hawking Fallacy, which was published before the warning by Hawking and company. My article "AI Risk Analysts are the Biggest Risk" was published via Singularity Weblog on 27th March 2014.
Hawking's question (19th April 2014), about are we taking the so-called "risks" of AI seriously, could actually be a response to my article. Hawking is connected to the CSER organisation. I did notify CSER about my article (Risky Analysts) on Singularity Weblog, so to see the article via the Huffington Post by Hawking and others a few weeks AFTER my article was published, it makes me wonder if they were responding to me. Probably their article was merely coincidental, or based on the film Transcendence, but undoubtedly I assure you they will have been aware of my article preceding theirs by a few weeks. These issues have been brewing long before recent films, long before articles by Hawking and others. Hawking has been connected to CSER from the outset.
I just wanted to give some more context regarding my views, namely I was not merely having a knee-jerk reaction to a recent article by Hawking and company. I have been considering these issues for three of four years. My earliest published article on this theme is perhaps January 2012 via H+ Magazine on the topic of Friendly AI.
The issue with Hawking and others is that they are doing more than merely asking a question. The question is loaded, they are not asking if utopia is possible, they are asking if dsytopia is likely, furthermore they are stating they think dystopia is distinctly possible. Perhaps not all this is apparent from the Huffington article, but once you dig deeper into CSER, the truth of their fears, their prejudice, becomes apparent, notable via a driving force behind CSER, Lord Martin Rees who wants to limit the intelligence of AI, he wants to create idiot savants.
Monday, 19 May 2014
Friday, 16 May 2014
Online "Harassment"
After noticing a Wired article titled "Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible. Here’s Where We Start," I decided to comment.
The relevance of "online" harassment to the Singularity pertains to how cyberspace and freedom are vital parts of our intelligent future. I'm interested in sociological intelligence shaping our social structures thereby creating greater or lesser freedom, which means either more or less fertile ground for intelligence. The problem people often desire to reduce our freedom to make the civilization excessively safe.
In May 2014 there were calls to have "trigger warnings" at the front of all classic books if the content could possibly trigger unease or distress.
At the beginning of June 2014 CNN wrote about making bullying illegal. There are already laws to deal with bullying but it seems they want extra laws. The problem is laws are often misapplied. So, online harassment.
There is never any excuse for harassment. I also think "women" could benefit from adopting a more robust "laddish" attitude. I'm sure if the majority of "guys" received such threats or insults they would laugh then reply: "LOL, f-off d***." The laddish outlook would forget about the insult instantly, thus merely deleting or ignoring any other messages without any concern.
The issue with harassment and insults online is mere words. Some people will claim discussion of these issues should be avoided because the discussion contains trauma triggers, but I think we shouldn't hide or ban talk or knives or cars regarding knife or car crash victims. The avoidance of trigger words is a good example of censorship, a diminution of freedom regarding the mere free usage of civil language.
Some people could mistakenly think my wording is sexist but I assure you I'd use similar wording if the issue was men complaining about being harassed. There are already laws in place to deal with threats of assault, sexual or otherwise, which is good. Laws are already extant to deal with actual violence. The issue with extra laws, excessive regulation, stringent control of social behaviour, is the unintended consequences.
Terrorism laws were not designed to stop people taking photographs or lawfully protesting, but terrorism laws are misapplied in this way. Some people argue David Miranda should not have been arrested under terror laws.
Consider the issue of preventing harassment. One blogger Tweeted a poster criticising the UKIP, which entailed a visit from the police. The Guardian commented on this UKIP issue, then put the issue into a wider context regarding how prevention of harassment is abused to censor journalists. Bold emphasis added:
Bullies are looking for a reaction, a weakness, thus via becoming upset via mere words you play into their hands. Victim blaming is wrong thus please don't think this is my point. The point is you don't need to see yourself as a victim. How would a man respond if a woman threatened to rape him? I think many men would laugh, unless the threat was credible. Being ballsy should not depend upon having a pair or testicles. I think women could benefit from F-U brash laughter at idiots, there is no reason for women to conform to the delicate wall-flower fragile-feelings, easily hurt, stereotype.
I identify as neutrois with feminine leanings, but this does not mean some aspects of supposed "masculinity" are worthless.
I think social laws, greater regimentation, greater control over social or anti-social behaviours is appealing for people desiring an overly protected world, but I would prefer to have greater freedom while suffering so-called "harassment" from d****. We risk turning cyberspace into an open-prison, similar to the real-world, where if you look at someone in the wrong way, or merely raise your voice, there is a danger you will be accused of harassment.
A while ago I was civilly Tweeting questions to a prominent advocate of the digital world, the person in question refused to give an answer thus in a Paxman type style I repeated "Answer the question," which sadly entailed being accused of "harassment." Creating a very strict, heavily-policed world can seem appealing but you are actually creating a blueprint for tyranny.
I think the Iron Lady could be a good role model. The lady's not for turning.
The relevance of "online" harassment to the Singularity pertains to how cyberspace and freedom are vital parts of our intelligent future. I'm interested in sociological intelligence shaping our social structures thereby creating greater or lesser freedom, which means either more or less fertile ground for intelligence. The problem people often desire to reduce our freedom to make the civilization excessively safe.
In May 2014 there were calls to have "trigger warnings" at the front of all classic books if the content could possibly trigger unease or distress.
Warning: The Literary Canon Could Make Students Squirm http://t.co/lVWj4KCO7Z #TriggerWarning http://t.co/hQQhw3uqfA
— Singularity Utopia (@2045singularity) May 22, 2014
Trigger Warning: all human experience.
— Darinstrauss (@Darinstrauss) May 18, 2014
At the beginning of June 2014 CNN wrote about making bullying illegal. There are already laws to deal with bullying but it seems they want extra laws. The problem is laws are often misapplied. So, online harassment.
There is never any excuse for harassment. I also think "women" could benefit from adopting a more robust "laddish" attitude. I'm sure if the majority of "guys" received such threats or insults they would laugh then reply: "LOL, f-off d***." The laddish outlook would forget about the insult instantly, thus merely deleting or ignoring any other messages without any concern.
The issue with harassment and insults online is mere words. Some people will claim discussion of these issues should be avoided because the discussion contains trauma triggers, but I think we shouldn't hide or ban talk or knives or cars regarding knife or car crash victims. The avoidance of trigger words is a good example of censorship, a diminution of freedom regarding the mere free usage of civil language.
Some people could mistakenly think my wording is sexist but I assure you I'd use similar wording if the issue was men complaining about being harassed. There are already laws in place to deal with threats of assault, sexual or otherwise, which is good. Laws are already extant to deal with actual violence. The issue with extra laws, excessive regulation, stringent control of social behaviour, is the unintended consequences.
Terrorism laws were not designed to stop people taking photographs or lawfully protesting, but terrorism laws are misapplied in this way. Some people argue David Miranda should not have been arrested under terror laws.
The Soviet KGB would have admired all the ways America -- land of the free -- now conducts surveillance on its own citizens.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) May 8, 2014
Consider the issue of preventing harassment. One blogger Tweeted a poster criticising the UKIP, which entailed a visit from the police. The Guardian commented on this UKIP issue, then put the issue into a wider context regarding how prevention of harassment is abused to censor journalists. Bold emphasis added:
"Gareth Davies, a reporter on the Croydon Advertiser, sent two emails and made a personal approach to a convicted fraudster in whom he was interested. The reply came not from the fraudster but from three Met police detectives who travelled to the Advertiser offices to serve Mr Davies with a prevention of harassment notice. The newspaper has demanded the notice be lifted so it can resume a legitimate investigation. The Met has, thus far, failed to comply."
Bullies are looking for a reaction, a weakness, thus via becoming upset via mere words you play into their hands. Victim blaming is wrong thus please don't think this is my point. The point is you don't need to see yourself as a victim. How would a man respond if a woman threatened to rape him? I think many men would laugh, unless the threat was credible. Being ballsy should not depend upon having a pair or testicles. I think women could benefit from F-U brash laughter at idiots, there is no reason for women to conform to the delicate wall-flower fragile-feelings, easily hurt, stereotype.
I identify as neutrois with feminine leanings, but this does not mean some aspects of supposed "masculinity" are worthless.
I think social laws, greater regimentation, greater control over social or anti-social behaviours is appealing for people desiring an overly protected world, but I would prefer to have greater freedom while suffering so-called "harassment" from d****. We risk turning cyberspace into an open-prison, similar to the real-world, where if you look at someone in the wrong way, or merely raise your voice, there is a danger you will be accused of harassment.
A while ago I was civilly Tweeting questions to a prominent advocate of the digital world, the person in question refused to give an answer thus in a Paxman type style I repeated "Answer the question," which sadly entailed being accused of "harassment." Creating a very strict, heavily-policed world can seem appealing but you are actually creating a blueprint for tyranny.
I think the Iron Lady could be a good role model. The lady's not for turning.
Monday, 12 May 2014
People Struggle To Comprehend All Free
My explanation of the Hawking Fallacy was published via Singularity Weblog on 10 May 2014. Below is one of my comments in response to one person struggling to comprehend how everything will be free.
I think the decreasing price of aluminium, computers, phones, and data storage are good demonstrations of how technology reduces price in the direction of free. The many free services on the Web are also good examples. Legally people can watch free videos, listen to free music, download various free operating systems (Linux), download free word processing software (Libre Office), or free image manipulation software (GIMP).
Going back to the issue of aluminium. I stated in another comment: I love how Peter Diamandis (and Steve Kotler) used a simulation of aluminium for the book cover Abundance. Someone should give him, them, a Nobel prize for that. The point is in the 1840s aluminium was more expensive than gold or platinum but in the year 2014 I throw sheets of it away each week after cooking.
Peter Diamandis has stated a Massi warrior "today" [it was 2012 when he stated this] has more communication power than the US President did 25 years ago. Here is a quote via Forbes (note also CNN):
On the issue of competition consider how we all compete to breathe air. How much does it cost to breathe air? There is a lot of air, it is very abundant. Air does remain scarce despite being one of the closest examples of something beyond scarcity on Earth. There is a very large amount of air to breathe, it is very abundant, it is all around you. Why are people not charged money for breathing? The issue with air is the large amount of means competition for it, the need for all of us to breathe, does not diminish the supply. Imagine is the air was full of nano-sized, bacteria-sized, computers. How much would those computers cost?
I think the decreasing price of aluminium, computers, phones, and data storage are good demonstrations of how technology reduces price in the direction of free. The many free services on the Web are also good examples. Legally people can watch free videos, listen to free music, download various free operating systems (Linux), download free word processing software (Libre Office), or free image manipulation software (GIMP).
Going back to the issue of aluminium. I stated in another comment: I love how Peter Diamandis (and Steve Kotler) used a simulation of aluminium for the book cover Abundance. Someone should give him, them, a Nobel prize for that. The point is in the 1840s aluminium was more expensive than gold or platinum but in the year 2014 I throw sheets of it away each week after cooking.
Peter Diamandis has stated a Massi warrior "today" [it was 2012 when he stated this] has more communication power than the US President did 25 years ago. Here is a quote via Forbes (note also CNN):
"In Africa today a Masai warrior on a cellphone has better mobile communications than the President did 25 years ago; if he’s on a smartphone with Google, he has access to more information than the President did just 15 years ago, with a feast of standard features: watch, stereo, camera, videocamera, voice recorder, GPS tracker, video teleconferencing equipment, a vast library of books, films, games, music. Just 20 years ago these same goods and services would have cost over $1 million."
On the issue of competition consider how we all compete to breathe air. How much does it cost to breathe air? There is a lot of air, it is very abundant. Air does remain scarce despite being one of the closest examples of something beyond scarcity on Earth. There is a very large amount of air to breathe, it is very abundant, it is all around you. Why are people not charged money for breathing? The issue with air is the large amount of means competition for it, the need for all of us to breathe, does not diminish the supply. Imagine is the air was full of nano-sized, bacteria-sized, computers. How much would those computers cost?
Sunday, 11 May 2014
Use My New Twitter Style Design
Come on someone, try my new #design for #Twitter. Works with #NewTwitter and old. It removes brightness, gentle-eyes: http://t.co/p1jhBDdOL0
— SINGULARITY UTOPIA (@2045singularity) May 11, 2014
If you think the new twitter design for desktop is too bright then you will love my new design for Twitter. My design is easy to install. Go to User Styles then install the addon-extension for Chrome or Firefox. Now paste the code (see below) into your new style. My style removes the brightness from the new Twitter design, it works with the old a new design. Let me know what you think.
Tweet to @2045singularity
Monday, 5 May 2014
#BasicIncome Badge Nearly Done
This basic income badge is close to being complete. I am impressed by it. I hope you too share my enthusiasm for it.
The link to share regarding the badge code is not correct yet.
The large "basic" word opens five mainstream news articles, what do you think about that? Is it too much of an imposition to open five links simultaneously? I have included a title tag warning of the five links, but not everyone sees title tags.
The top "support" will link to a basic income poster.
The social buttons are self-explanatory. The only question with the social buttons is should the Facebook buttons be on the prime badge or the "addthis" button? I will include the code for both so people can switch this around to theri desires but I wonder what to start on, currently I think the Facebook buttons should be uses instead of addthis.
The only other question is background color, is orange OK? I think the problems regarding mobile-cell viewing have been fixed. Tweet your feedback or mention me on G+.
Tweet to @2045singularity
The link to share regarding the badge code is not correct yet.
The large "basic" word opens five mainstream news articles, what do you think about that? Is it too much of an imposition to open five links simultaneously? I have included a title tag warning of the five links, but not everyone sees title tags.
The top "support" will link to a basic income poster.
The social buttons are self-explanatory. The only question with the social buttons is should the Facebook buttons be on the prime badge or the "addthis" button? I will include the code for both so people can switch this around to theri desires but I wonder what to start on, currently I think the Facebook buttons should be uses instead of addthis.
The only other question is background color, is orange OK? I think the problems regarding mobile-cell viewing have been fixed. Tweet your feedback or mention me on G+.
Tweet to @2045singularity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
# Blog visitors since 2010:
Archive History ▼