AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects

[Ian Livingston]

Rich,
Although I continue trying to determine whether the missing weight in the
biosphere is more keenly felt than the missing grace, it comes to a
question of whether one is separate from the other in this case. Blake
pronounced everything living to be holy. I think there is somewhat to be
said on that score. While I do not prescribe to any supernatural factor
involved in holiness, it is my assumption that with knowledge comes awe,
especially where we consider life in its detail and in its breadth. It is
the depth of the biosphere that is under attack by wee folk who build
machines to blame.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:30 AM rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> glad everyone was engaged by the article.
>
> my only added comment is no one referenced the NY times piece re:
> disappearance of insects. i think that worries me more at the moment. and
> what's interesting about that piece is the efforts of non-academics (I wont
> call them amateurs), particularly in Germany in furthering the research
>
> rich
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:53 AM Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Mark,
> > I've played out the *Game of the Century*, and many other Fischer games,
> to
> > my constant amazement. But all things considered, John Stuart Mill surely
> > holds some sort of record; by the time he was three, he could read, write
> > and speak English, Latin and Greek. I'm fluent in English competent in
> > French, and am now trying to learn Mandarin. At age 71, it's not easy. Ah
> > well. As T.S. Eliot wrote:
> > I grow old, I grow old,
> > I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:46 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The anecdote of the Go Champion being STUNNED, STUNNED I TELL YOU, by
> an*
> > > early* move where the rock was placed way out of range of where the
> > > action was happening is.......something.
> > >
> > > In chess, which I know a little, the AI's recapitulated the whole
> history
> > > of various openings in days and hours as well, with increasingly
> > > perfectible moves and, of course never a blunder but "surpises" at the
> > > grandmaster level only in the perfection of conceived sequences (hard
> at
> > > that level to be in a position for a surprise as  in Fisher's Game of
> the
> > > Century).
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:32 AM Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> From an article on GeeksAreSexy.net:
> > >>
> > >> "By starting without any human-like preconceptions, AlphaGo Zero was
> > able
> > >> to develop strategies more suited to its capabilities. It still needs
> > to be
> > >> tested against human players, but one expert who analyzed the
> > >> inter-computer games says it used techniques he had never previously
> > seen.
> > >>
> > >> Google’s hope is that such an approach might work in other areas of
> > >> artificial intelligence, with computers that develop techniques and
> > >> procedures that make best use of a computer’s capacity rather than
> > trying
> > >> to refine the way human brains approach tasks."
> > >>
> > >> This is analogous to the history of man's attempts to fly. Early
> > attempts
> > >> were modeled on birds; men with wings attached by harness, etc. Then
> > came
> > >> the Wright brothers, and look what happened in 115 years, 1903 to last
> > week
> > >> -- 852 feet back then, Mars last week (54.6 km).
> > >>
> > >> Similarly, by teaching itself to play GO, AlphaGO Zero bypassed human
> > >> preconceptions about the game, and came up with moves never before
> > seen. AI
> > >> will do the same, I think.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:41 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "Dave, I'm sorry. I can't do that, Dave"...
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:22 AM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Arthur's on the money. I was an AI skeptic like David for a long
> time,
> > >>>> until I learned the current prevailing method of development:
> > >>>> essentially pitting two AI against one another, each trying to
> > >>>> convince the other that it is "real", although the criteria for that
> > >>>> will vary. And each learns from the other's failures, and does a bit
> > >>>> better, and so on and so on in a reciprocal manner that is only
> > >>>> limited by the computing power and electricity. So yes, DM, they're
> > >>>> already talking among themselves, so to speak. But they can have
> > >>>> centuries of conversations in seconds.
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:00 PM Arthur Fuller <
> > fuller.artful at gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > There is an old religious/philosophical question, originally from
> > old
> > >>>> Jewish theology I think: if God is all-powerful, can he create
> > something
> > >>>> greater than Himself? Applied to AI, this question describes what
> Ray
> > >>>> Kurzweil calls The Singularity. One has only to look at AlphaGO to
> see
> > >>>> this. The original AlphaGO soundly thumped the world's best GO
> player,
> > >>>> after having taught itself to play the game in two weeks, playing
> > against
> > >>>> itself. It successor, AlphaGO Zero, played a 100-game match against
> > its
> > >>>> progenitor, with a result of 100 games to zero.
> > >>>> > One can generalize this phenomenon: an AI will design and build
> its
> > >>>> own successor, and once that happens, further growth will proceed
> > >>>> exponentially. Kurzweil defined The Singularity as the moment when
> AI
> > >>>> becomes smarter than its creators. Once that happens -- and I (and
> > others)
> > >>>> believe it surely will, then all bets, and all considerations about
> > our
> > >>>> well-being, are off.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Arthur
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:27 AM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> >>
> > >>>> >> I think what the article makes clear is that what "we" want from
> AI
> > >>>> >> doesn't matter - as far as I know nobody on the P-list is leading
> > >>>> that
> > >>>> >> charge, but certain people are and we shouldn't talk about the
> > >>>> >> "progress" or "evolution" of a particular technology as if it's
> > >>>> >> ahistorical and inevitable.
> > >>>> >>
> > >>>> >> A practical example: there's a lot of talk about the ethics of
> > >>>> >> automated cars, and what their algorithms should take into
> account
> > >>>> >> when deciding who dies in a crash. From all I've read/heard the
> > >>>> >> discussion comes down to utilitarian ethics, and what would be
> the
> > >>>> >> greater good in such a situation. But utilitarian ethics treats
> > >>>> people
> > >>>> >> as mathematical variables and is far from the only ethical model
> > that
> > >>>> >> could be applied, but it's the model that makes most sense from a
> > >>>> >> programming standpoint, and perhaps the standpoint of a legal
> > >>>> >> corporation trying to cover its posterior.
> > >>>> >>
> > >>>> >> Maybe the problem in AI thinking like a corporation is that
> > >>>> >> corporations are very good at a lot of things (perpetuating their
> > own
> > >>>> >> survival, decentralised functioning, reorganising themselves to
> > adapt
> > >>>> >> to challenges, reducing individual culpability) but not so good
> at
> > >>>> >> others (pretty much everything covered in the history of ethics).
> > >>>> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:08 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> >> >
> > >>>> >> > Does anyone think AI would be better with a chaos quotient?  I
> > >>>> don't think so.  So Predictable Intelligence is our real goal. We
> want
> > >>>> *smart* servants, not intelligence.  So, of course predictable AI
> will
> > >>>> support corporate structures.
> > >>>> >> >
> > >>>> >> > it seems to me that AI is essentially imitative, not creative,
> > not
> > >>>> spontaneous.  It isn't really intelligent. We don't want it to talk
> > back or
> > >>>> even question us.  We won't ever tolerate that.
> > >>>> >> >
> > >>>> >> > David Morris
> > >>>> >> >
> > >>>> >> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:47 PM Ian Livingston <
> > >>>> igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> >> >>
> > >>>> >> >> Yep. Chiming in with gratitude, Rick. Thanks.
> > >>>> >> >> My answer to the concluding question is pending, though I tend
> > >>>> toward the
> > >>>> >> >> latter proposition.
> > >>>> >> >>
> > >>>> >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:58 PM John Bailey <
> sundayjb at gmail.com
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> >> >>
> > >>>> >> >> > Thanks Rich, great read.
> > >>>> >> >> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:41 AM bulb <bulb at vheissu.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> > > Really excellent article, thank you Rich.  Working for a
> > >>>> company that is
> > >>>> >> >> > making massive investments in AI - this puts things in
> > >>>> perspective..
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> >> >> > > From: Pynchon-l <pynchon-l-bounces at waste.org> On Behalf
> Of
> > >>>> rich
> > >>>> >> >> > > Sent: dinsdag 27 november 2018 15:45
> > >>>> >> >> > > To: “pynchon-l at waste.org“ <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > >>>> >> >> > > Subject: AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> > > thought you guys would be interested
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> >
> > >>>>
> >
> https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/11/26/ai-thinks-like-a-corporation-and-thats-worrying
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> > > like everything else these days we're dazzled by the
> science
> > >>>> not knowing
> > >>>> >> >> > or caring about context, origins
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> > > and this
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> >
> > >>>>
> >
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalypse.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
> > >>>> >> >> > > --
> > >>>> >> >> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >>>> >> >> > >
> > >>>> >> >> > > --
> > >>>> >> >> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >>>> >> >> > --
> > >>>> >> >> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >>>> >> >> >
> > >>>> >> >> --
> > >>>> >> >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >>>> >> --
> > >>>> >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > --
> > >>>> > Arthur
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Arthur
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Arthur
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>