AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects

Wed Nov 28 22:57:57 CST 2018

You dig?

Www.innergroovemusic.com

> On Nov 28, 2018, at 11:46 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Also, how does an AI become a "self?" That's a WHOLE 'nuther issue.
> 
> David Morris
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:38 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> "Self-judgement?" Is that all? Is is that simple? Is that the breath of
>> Life for AI? Do we want AI to be alive?
>> 
>> I think most religions begin with the concept of self-judgement (and
>> punishment). Algorithms of self-judgment will probably drive AI's into acts
>> of arch-villainy.  As I said before, we want smart servants. Signs of
>> actual intelligence in AI? Lock that MF AI up, and fast!!!
>> 
>> David Morris
>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:51 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> --
>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>> 
>> 
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l