singularity – Page 11 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

This time will be different

… If only for the following reason(s):

So far, Technology has been developed by humans, willy-nilly mostly as also fitting in the Selfish Memes sort of way (including Blackmore’s Meme Machine), to alleviate and overcome the very humans’ weaknesses that set us below a great many respective animals, and Nature.
Now, I(o)T slash AI (ASI) will soon be overcoming humans’ only few strengths in Thinking. At once leaving us vulnerable to become, at best, prey for <something> but with no place to hide (sic) nor any defenses…

So, this time will be different and the Luddites (actual sense, not the loom-smashing caricatures) will be right. For the one time they ‘need’ to be and then immediately need be no more. No more ‘but past technological innovations bringing temporary unemployment have all been overcome with growth of something new’. Read Martin Ford and you see that this will simply not be true — if only for the failure, this time of the Comparative Advantage mechanism but actually quite something more pervasively.
As a simple hint: What would you advise your 8yo nephew to be good at in school, to find … what kind of job or career later …!?

Don’t be discouraged! The End Is Nigh! Until it is:

[They look cute but will outdo you in an instant….; Het Loo]

Predicting fuzzy futures

As we approach another round of grand fuzziness in predictions of all sorts, e.g. for president’s elections in some corner of the world, it would be wise to not only take all (and I mean all) of Superforecasting to heart but also to consider helping extending the science of the trade.
By helping me out in finding pointers and content on, and subsequently developing on, the use of fuzzy logic in predictions. As ‘current’ truth values of future states of the world are all quite possible, and going forward even mutually exclusive states may, e.g. on some news, all become more likely, with combined likelihoods rising over 100%. Where FL can play a role to keep track. And we may have to revisit (practical use of) Markov chains with suitable noise-around-parameters built in… But let’s focus on FL first.
Of course, when the End Date, the horizon for some prediction timeslot nears, the choices will be driven to 100/0 — where the crazy idea of random selection (of ‘balls from a pot’) with replacement … with double replacement … [even tinkered with the idea of replacing the non-drawn colour with the drawn one every pick; was hard to think through] may come closer to the idea of starting with some hardly-educated guess and nudging either way on all news points as one goes along; doing a (much-)sort-of random walk from 50/50 to 100/0.

So, if you’d have info on the viability of either approaches, please do drop a note…! Already:

[Free city map dispenser; Delft]

Yup, there it is …

… What took us (?) so long …?

Hybrid war

Yes, the phrase we all were waiting for, or might have predicted but hardly anyone did. But now, out there for all the FUD and fear mongering (to profit from ..!). May this be the avenue of submersion of cyber (#ditchcyber !), like a U-boat trolling and unexpectedly blowing you out of the water?
What will be, will be. Grab the money trucks!

On a side (?) note:

[Transport for the consultants /-cy fees for you, required to tackle it all; Baltimore]

Short on tape

The title being a mere reference to Turing machines. Since I wanted to bring up the subject of short-sightedness of those that do not understand the fundamental nature of the Church-Turing thesis and Halting Problem deeply enough.
Because they, symptomatically, consider that humans can solve the problems associated with it hence any machine that would think similarly enough or better than humans, would have overcome the problems by sheer thinkpower. But that is simply wrong. Humans do not overcome the problem, they work around its applications — another element of what makes us human, maybe. And there is no guarantee whatsoever, or rather to the contrary, that any ASI will be able to do the same, in all situations — because any true ASI will explode to cover all of the universe hence also all of its problem areas, right ..? [Reference to Kurzweil’s books and ideas not really necessary, are they?]
Gödel’s Incompleteness isn’t just something that can be solved! It is!, whether that’s fortunate or not. And a world ‘beyond’ such axiomatic issues, well… Wovon man nicht sprechen kann…

And Good versus Evil: Also not ‘solved’ by humans. And phenomenology — not something that the ultimate abstract of Hegelian Ratio can ‘solve’. And …

In similar vein (not?):

[The eternal fight between Good and Evil, ratio versus original Natural brute force, Yin versus (!)(?) Yang; Sevilla]

Watson’s place to be

Two points re Watson here, one poignant, one solved:

Where is Watson? Because, it must run on some (i.e., enormous number of) core processors that physically are, somewheres (multiple). Would anyone actually know or otherwise, wouldn’t that be scary for all the idol-worshippers of individualised-robotlike AI ..?
The name, the motto. After Thomas J.’s … Think. Name, sole purpose. Nomen est omen. Capice ..?

So there you have it. The question remains Open. Until you provide me with some answer, possibly..?

Also:
000010
[Cogite, citius altius fortius! of the 1928 kind; Amsterdam of course]

Quick Note: Big Data or ..?

“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing with pebbles on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before me” [I. Newton]

Whence my feeling when reading this, that I was looking into Big Data ..? Maybe Big Data could be made to work when set loose on the world’s major problems. So, no petty process analysis or what have we; onto serious fruition!

But then, it turns out that such problem solving, in particular such problem solving, needs no more data but can be solved, as shown throughout history, to be solvable without it and where data was available (yes, far more commonly available in the heads of otherwise decent much less looking-away kind of people) it wasn’t used properly or even in opposition.
Apart from the applications where it is used fully wherever more comes available and still not bringing us much closer to eternal humanitarian bliss.

For the humanity’s departure:
DSCN0124

Racing humanity against ASI

One thing still amiss in the discussions about the (near?) Future:
Whether Singularity/ASI will come before humanity leaving its biological substrate, or the other way around.

The first, leading to a dystopian future of humans initially being Machine’s pets but later (?) being discarded as inefficient nuisance. Even if only via Lanier‘s route.
The second giving some hope that humans may transform into ASI after which the age-old wars start all over again. Or, the first past the post takes all…

Yes, still ploughing through [and finding much want for evidence or less of it, and addition of great many ethics aspects] Kurzweil as here, here and here.
The first, in a great many previous posts on this blog. The second, too. I’m unsure how the future will play out. Now that Ray’s predictions, time-wise, seem to have fallen before (fallen non-behind) actuality maybe due to something with a financial crisis but Ray had demonstrated (?) that to not hurt the ‘real’ economy too much — from which either we will bounce back with a sprint to return to the (smooth..?) expo growth path, or we will prove not all that starts exponentially, will indefinitely continue that way. So we have lost already by not waking up fast enough or still have some time if only we’d wake up to join the discussion — not necessarily the Luddite revolt …

Your thoughts, please ..?

Oh and just wanted to add, for the relatively (very) short term: “If every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, if the shuttle could weave, and the pick touch the lyre, without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not need servants, nor masters slaves.” (Aristoteles) — taken to be positive. But just extend that; one could consider it short-sightedness by Ari to not have asked why there would be any chief workmen with the possibility that there would need not be any work at all leading to no income for all hence devastating poverty and starvation but for the few if any (sic) who ‘own’ the machines. Also:

[The interesting about ‘life’ in Chalons-en-Champagne is just a tucked-away corner, nothing more — same for humanity in the near future ..?]

The lion’s share of SOx

Anyone dare to guess whether ‘SOx’ and all the totalitarian-bureaucratic tendencies that still dominate the organizational world of today, over the chaotic-environment-forcing-to-retreat-into-more-sober-flexibility upstarts, is the lion that roars just one last time before being overtaken by younger more vital rivals, or is it a resurgence in greater scope than ever before of some History’s greater trends ..?

This, with of course higher-frequency but (much) smaller-amplitude cycles being layered onto it, producing an apparently random but wavelet-transformation-traceable ordered (or at least, causally correct) pattern — which may or may not have a direction other than zero, through the aeons. Staying far from pretending that humanity by any worthwhile measure is better off than in all previous times, which is very highly doubtful …!

But the first dare is what it’s about, here.
Hope and joy, humanity saved by its own creativity and the inherent dice-throwing of Nature [contra Einstein but that’s not the point here — Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann OR is beyond human comprehension] — XOR — despair and demise. Beyond short-term trends, where are we going?

Your call. In particular in Comments. Plus:

[Suddenly, different. Even when not adapted i.e. ‘shopped. Girona again]

The Body of the Mind

Quick note: Still wondering whether the brain may function as smoothly when not connected in the most natural of ways with the body that feeds (…) it and vice versa.
Yes — decoupling of functions and/or replication of interfaces may solve some problems. But remain not ex ante sure whether in a logical sense, we miss something. The ultimate mimic game may still not be the real thing.

Sorry — some points cannot be dissed quite so easily, with stop gap arguments. And:

[“It’s just a house, like a stone skin”…? Girona]

In support of TED ..?

A certain, distinguished ( ? ;-| ) R. Kurzweil in The Singularity Is Near has some off the cuff remarks about becoming pets, Ted style. (p.32)
Which is a sligh against (later!) sages of the Musk, Gates and Hawkins class — and fully unjustified. Since the ‘Theory of Technology Evolution’ is a quasi(sic)religious circular argument paraphrasing Hegel with apparently quite carefully selected and probably redacted statistics and some ontological Technology-defeatism in the undertow.

And the rest is consumable but only when considering these initial ails as foundations hence only a particular Kuhnian discourse. Interpuncted (Eldredge/Gould style) with badly under- or misinformed remarks. E.g., regarding chaotic processes resulting in smooth exponential trends being not a coincidence but an inherent feature of evolutionary processes (p.73) — based on a misunderstanding of evolution, probably, since numerous times, the latter is made to appear like some purposeful decision making by individual instances of, or species as actors instead of happenstance sheer survival-luck. How much of the overwhelming evidence must one disregard to arrive at the smoothness!

The list goes on. But I will not. (Nevertheless…) read the darn thing and smile! Naivety is a good read, too. And:

[Yes, take your meds. No need to swallow just the blue pill that the above book might be, though. Barça, of course]