Something from the news: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ad...an-made-says-threats-increasing-exponentially
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I read this, wasn't too impressed, seems typical attention grabbing language that pushes an agenda but not with any real substance.
Who controls the algorithms? Will they take the liability? Does it become a lever to enforce social behaviour? These aren't simple questions, I read software developers are contracting ethics philosophers to sort through the decision trees. Ultimately at a rough estimate auto fatalities in America are ~1.5% of all deaths per year. A focused concern for preservation of life would start with something less destructive of individual autonomy. Miller, McDonalds, Nestle...
Balancing liberty and security would be a hurdle reasonably anticipated of any advanced civilization based on a species with individual latitude for action. A civilization descendant of ant/bees/termite maybe not so much.
I'm referring to a confidential UAP (UFO) report to Congress, I think it was sent early this year, where only a summary was released to the public. The summary essentially said, paraphrasing: "the Pentagon had no evidence that the vehicles were of extra-terrestrial origin, but couldn't rule out that possibility." While that statement is logically true, my question is, if there wasn't evidence of alien origin, why did they feel it necessary to specifically admit that aliens were among the possibilities? They could just as well have ended with, there was no evidence that aliens origin, and left it at that. Not adding a short qualifier that, aliens were a possibility. They absolutely had to realize including that end qualifier was an astonishing and wholly unnecessary acknowledgement that would not be overlooked.
The only thing you are serious about is keeping your mind closed. There is plenty of evidence to analyze. Such as the Pentagon verified, U.S. Navy encounters, imaging, radar, multiple eyewitnesses, officer and noncom, alone constitute much evidence. However, evidence isn't necessarily the same thing as proof, and I've never claimed that all evidence necessarily is proof. What you are asking for is proof. It seems clear, that the only proof you would accept is a publicly displayed saucer, complete with live alien, or whatever origin, occupants. At which point, little intelligence is required to analyze that, now, proof. So, while we wait for that day, we can and should, apply our own intelligence to analyze the admittedly, not proof, but evidence which is available.
Clearly but what do we do when we realize that self-driving cars and societies where people don't drive but are driven by them have an edge, and advantage, in this human society game? That makes it extremely easy to demonize driving. When a personal advantage creates a group disadvantage that's when it starts to get tricky.
Those brain chip/implants/interfaces type thing will go the same way. Someone is going to do it. You won't have to, but you'll see those who have that will gain more resources, faster.
aren't those planes that release flares?
They don't have to have evidence of alien origin to propose the idea. They just have to have evidence for something they know it's pretty hard for a human to make. That doesn't mean it isn't human tech, it means it's not likely so they need to put everything on the table.
Even if their videos are true, that STILL doesn't imply aliens. There's so many things that could be possible. Say we from an alternate timeline/dimension/parallel something something created the tech to punch through other parallel whatevers, realities. Maybe those are made by the humans from another timeline. Maybe they don't know what's happening as well, for them they got some strange primitive flying planes in their training fields, for half an hour or how long everything lasted.
At this point, isn't it reasonable to ask for proof? Lots of analyzing going on with the so called evidence given how ubiquitous it seems to have become, as unclear as it also seems to be.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Not as far as the AI is concerned, it will look at us as its creator, kind of reminds me of V’ger from Startrek
That's implying that AI would have a similarly bad time to adapt/learn/change those things.
Think of what is important for a monkey and say one of the smartest humans alive. You can understand the differences and the similarities at the same time. Now increase the intelligence difference by a factor of randomly say 10, between the smartest human and general AI (at some point). The only similarities are the ones that we program in it. It operates in different environments, and has completely different needs. I think we will have very different ambitions, and they don't have to be in conflict.
Depends on perspective. Do we look at lemurs, or maybe chimps as our creators? Marine life? Maybe lightning and primordial soup? AI could skip us from this point of view just like we skip chimps. They could consider our act of assembling AI just as an act of natural evolution, nothing more. Unless we program religion into it, which is a whole other can of worms.
What I mean is imo it's wishful thinking to presume we will actually produce something truly worthy of the title..AI
What we have now is marketing not AI. They're the equivalent of a tractor. Does something better than us. That's very different from general AI. Which we might be able to do, using tools. The general AI concept is a bit fuzzy as we don't know what our "cognition" is exactly. Some say it's a side-effect of the multitude of processes that are happening at the same time. If that's the case then it's possible we'll be able to make general AI.
The thing about Google is that it's it's own nemesis in that while escalating to the moon it keeps us informed of the reality. Makes you wonder if somebody designed checks and balances into the internet, in which case Al Gore may have a stick to wield after all. 🙂
in terms of concsiousness, it's only when the notion of everything possessing it will AI be possible. A timely coincidence that this is presently being proffered.
in terms of concsiousness, it's only when the notion of everything possessing it will AI be possible. A timely coincidence that this is presently being proffered.
Sure, it’s reason able to ask, but that gets us back to proof essentially being a functioning saucer with occupants. So, what do we do in the meanwhile? Blissfully pretend that no evidence exists?
No, evidence just keeps piling up. There comes a point where you have to put your money where your mouth is if you want to be taken seriously. This is logical, intuitive, and how we model our sense of intelligence.