AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects

[Mark Kohut]

I think computer learning is now something different from your definition. It is self-organizing 
Self-learning to the max. All we humans need to do is program an element of self-judgment; the rest builds on itself. 
Yes, of course the WORST possibilities, as in life are illegal spying, fascist policing and warfare "work". I say. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:20 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> 
> I agree with David Morris( a rare but not unknown phenom) in his apparent doubt that anything like creative intelligence is going on,  AI is problem solving, programmed, designed and directed by humans. It shows the amazing versatility and reach of binary code.  But the leap that Arthur proposes of an AI designing and building something is a huge leap. So far no computer program or robot has designed or built anything that  it has not been directed to do. Computer learning is just advanced calculation based on memory combined with programmed game strategy. 
>  The final sentiment of the article that we can make AI humane is rather a cliched notion about technology. Corporations too are a kind of technology,  any bets on corporations breaking from violent competition to launch a new era of corporations for justice and sustainability?  And who, one wonders, is this we that can do so much better?
>  Also the article mentions the role of the corporate model but almost entirely ignores the AI growth industries of warfare,  spying and  policing.
> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l