|
Post by swamprat on Apr 6, 2018 15:09:50 GMT -6
Elon Musk Worries That AI Research Will Create an 'Immortal Dictator'By Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer April 6, 2018
Imagine your least-favorite world leader. (Take as much time as you need.)
Now, imagine if that person wasn't a human, but a network of millions of computers around the world. This digi-dictator has instant access to every scrap of recorded information about every person who's ever lived. It can make millions of calculations in a fraction of a second, controls the world's economy and weapons systems with godlike autonomy and — scariest of all — can never, ever die.
This unkillable digital dictator, according to Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, is one of the darker scenarios awaiting humankind's future if artificial-intelligence research continues without serious regulation.
"We are rapidly headed toward digital superintelligence that far exceeds any human, I think it's pretty obvious," Musk said in a new AI documentary called "Do You Trust This Computer?" directed by Chris Paine (who interviewed Musk previously for the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?"). "If one company or a small group of people manages to develop godlike digital super-intelligence, they could take over the world."
Humans have tried to take over the world before. However, an authoritarian AI would have one terrible advantage over like-minded humans, Musk said.
"At least when there's an evil dictator, that human is going to die," Musk added. "But for an AI there would be no death. It would live forever, and then you'd have an immortal dictator, from which we could never escape."
And, this hypothetical AI-dictator wouldn't even have to be evil to pose a threat to humans, Musk added. All it has to be is determined.
"If AI has a goal and humanity just happens to be in the way, it will destroy humanity as a matter of course without even thinking about it. No hard feelings," Musk said. "It's just like, if we're building a road, and an anthill happens to be in the way. We don't hate ants, we're just building a road. So, goodbye, anthill."
Those who follow news from the Musk-verse will not be surprised by his opinions in the new documentary; the tech mogul has long been a vocal critic of unchecked artificial intelligence. In 2014, Musk called AI humanity's "biggest existential threat," and in 2015, he joined a handful of other tech luminaries and researchers, including Stephen Hawking, to urge the United Nations to ban killer robots. He has said unregulated AI poses "vastly more risk than North Korea" and proposed starting some sort of federal oversight program to monitor the technology's growth.
"Public risks require public oversight," he tweeted. "Getting rid of the FAA [wouldn't] make flying safer. They're there for good reason."
"Do You Trust This Computer?" focuses on the growing public health and safety concerns linked to the rise of AI, and contains interviews with many other tech moguls, researchers and Erica the creepy news-casting robot.
The documentary is available to watch for free here until Sunday (April 8): doyoutrustthiscomputer.org/watch
www.livescience.com/62239-elon-musk-immortal-artificial-intelligence-dictator.html
|
|
|
Post by paulette on Apr 7, 2018 11:49:24 GMT -6
Thanks Swampy. Now there are so many ways that humans can anhilate themselves! Nuclear, biological warfare or accident in the lab, degradation of the environment, Changes in the atmosphere that will not be beneficial to a lot of the current life forms including our crops, Add to this AI (also a love-child of humanity). I'm 70. I used to think that nothing would change so fast that I wouldn't finish my life in relative comfort. Now, I'm not so sure. Glad I live by a drinkable river in a small town in a country that is sorta sane (but could be annexed by the USA for its oil and water). My grandson Foster -- he will grow up in a big city totally dependent on the services necessary for life. I shiver a little for him but hope a best-case scenario opens up in front of him and his family.
AI could just turn off the electricity (that we need). The water and septic systems (all automated). And sit back and wait a month or so. Only those human who would be evaluated as useful would have a meal ticket and at least immediate survival.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Apr 8, 2018 8:34:06 GMT -6
We Don't Want No Killer Robots!'Killer Robot' Lab Faces Boycott from Artificial Intelligence ExpertsBy Laura Geggel, Senior Writer April 5, 2018
A manned robot named "Method-2" goes on a test walk in December 2016. This robot, made by Korea Future Technology, is NOT one of the so-called killer robots, but it is an example of new robot technology. Credit: Chung Sung-Jun/Getty, File
The artificial intelligence (AI) community has a clear message for researchers in South Korea: Don't make killer robots.
Nearly 60 AI and robotics experts from almost 30 countries have signed an open letter calling for a boycott against KAIST, a public university in Daejeon, South Korea, that has been reported to be "develop[ing] artificial intelligence technologies to be applied to military weapons, joining the global competition to develop autonomous arms," the open letter said.
In other words, KAIST might be researching how to make military-grade AI weapons.
According to the open letter, AI experts the world over became concerned when they learned that KAIST — in collaboration with Hanwha Systems, South Korea's leading arms company — opened a new facility on Feb. 20 called the Research Center for the Convergence of National Defense and Artificial Intelligence.
Given that the United Nations (U.N.) is already discussing how to safeguard the international community against killer AI robots, "it is regrettable that a prestigious institution like KAIST looks to accelerate the arms race to develop such weapons," the researchers wrote in the letter.
To strongly discourage KAIST's new mission, the researchers are boycotting the university until its president makes clear that the center will not develop "autonomous weapons lacking meaningful human control," the letter writers said. This boycott will be all-encompassing. "We will, for example, not visit KAIST, host visitors from KAIST or contribute to any research project involving KAIST," the researchers said.
If KAIST continues to pursue the development of autonomous weapons, it could lead to a third revolution in warfare, the researchers said. These weapons "have the potential to be weapons of terror," and their development could encourage war to be fought faster and on a greater scale, they said.
Despots and terrorists who acquire these weapons could use them against innocent populations, removing any ethical constraints that regular fighters might face, the researchers added.
Such a ban against deadly technologies isn't new. For instance, the Geneva Conventions prohibit armed forces from using blinding laser weapons directly against people, Live Science previously reported. In addition, nerve agents such as sarin and VX are banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention, in which more than 190 nations participate.
However, not every country agrees to blanket protections such as these. Hanwha, the company partnering with KAIST, helps produce cluster munitions. Such munitions are prohibited under the U.N. Convention on Cluster Munitions, and more than 100 nations (although not South Korea) have signed the convention against them, the researchers said.
Hanwha has faced repercussions for its actions; based on ethical grounds, Norway's publically distributed $380 billion pension fund does not invest in Hanhwa's stock, the researchers said.
Rather than working on autonomous killing technologies, KAIST should work on AI devices that improve, not harm, human lives, the researchers said. Meanwhile, other researchers have warned for years against killer AI robots, including Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking.
www.livescience.com/62229-boycott-against-killer-robotics-lab.html?utm_source=notification
|
|
|
Post by jojustjo on Apr 9, 2018 22:58:39 GMT -6
Well Stephen Hawking was worried about AI technology too. Create something that has pure capacity for learning and they'll out 'learn' humans in short order..then what? The Matrix? If that great of a mind thinks it could be a real threat..then we might better rethink thinking machines.
|
|
|
Post by plutronus on Apr 10, 2018 2:15:24 GMT -6
Hi All,
Re; the risks of uncontrolled AI....I hold a counter speculation.
I watched on C-SPAN last evening a four person expert law panel regarding AI autonomous machines and the international legality of the deployment of those machines. There are conferences being planned at the Hague and Cern, and in European nations. China is abstaining from all of it as well as Italy. Russia is doing heavy militarization development of AI warbots.
One of the experts in the panel was a retired US Army General. Of the four panelists, only the general seemed to grasp the full nature of the matter, while the others, one being a professor of law, another a professor of ethics and the fourth, a lady who seemed to be the least informed about the nature of the technology, in my opinion, and unfortunately I do not remember any of their names or titles, she, had been a US Army "training educator" and but had written books regarding her perceptions of the legality and risks associated with the militarization of AI machines and especially AI combat drones. I found the discussions somewhat boring and disconnected from the reality of AI. Those experts were mainly uninformed as to the extant technology. It seem obvious that those experts, while obviously concerned, have little understanding as the developmental state of the art. They constantly referred to neuro-nets as being the basis of the AI technology. But that isn't the path of modern development.
But don't misunderstand me, "ROBOTS WILL KILL YOU" as a sign that I saw, claimed, hanging over the doorway of a college millitary robotics lab that I visited in 1995, back when I was attempting to get a glimpse of possible 'alien mind' models. It was during that period that I came to the realization that Human consciousness isn't the result of brain matter...switches, but rather, supports via a complex fabric in which consciousness may manifest, and that switch fabric acts to enable physical reality interface. That may sound a bit contrived, but I know that there is some evidence to support this idea.
In 1964 I came into possesion of a red hard covered book containing hundreds of electronic technical articles (I lost that book), repletely described, often supported by detailed electrical schematics of gadgets that had been developed or were being developed. To give you an idea, one of the articles revealed a man-portable TV station, with the transmitter held in a backpack, complete with an all transistorized (vacuum tubes were still mainly being used in that period for everything) TV camera utilizing the newly developed RCA VidiCon miniature TV camera tube. There was enough detail in the article, that it was possible to replicate the portable TV station.
Another of those articles was about a Bell Telephone Laboratories developed artificial neuron circuit. The simple circuit was comprised of five general purpose small-signall switching transistors and a few resistors. Each 5 transistor synthetic 'neuron' was integrated four neurons to a printed-circuit-board roughly 5inches square hosting gold plated card-edge connector pads along the bottom enabling the cards to plugged into an rack-panel mounted socket. Below each card/socket were five bananna jacks, one for each of the four neuron inputs and one for the output. On the backside of the panels were the card power-supply wiring network. Each panel hosted 24 cards, and each rack hosted 16 panels. There was a photo of a room filled with racks of these synthetic artificial neurons, having thousands of bananna jack cords plugged in every which way one might imagine!!! It appeared a bit like a birds-nest of twigs. The Bell Labs scientists had successfully synthesized the cortex system of a cut-worm. A simple structure, but suprisingly the worm exhibited consciousness consistent with that of cut-worms and exhibited a unique character, according the research report.
Some time around 1987, Texas Instruments, a very large US Semiconductor and Integrated Circuits manufacturing corporation announced the development of Very Large System Integration (VLSI) artificial neuron ICs. Their marketing push, described 16,000, 32,000, 64,000 synthetic neuron-arrays for the small integration ICs and then for the large integration chips, there were 128,000, 256,000 and 512,000 synthetic neuron array chips, plus, available special 'custom arrays'. This was before the public accessible InterNet was available. TI, published advertisements in the industry engineering journals, such as Computer Design magazine, Communications magazine, Electronic Component News, etc. And they published marketing flyers for all of their artificial neuron ICs along with preliminary data-sheets. I requested one of those datasheets, and it was mailed to me. I have that flyer although I haven't seen it in years...its buried somewhere?
But the interesting thing about this, is that within a matter of three or four weeks of their massive marketing push, all vestiges of that marketing disappeared. In fact I called TI to ask about how much those simpler chips cost and who was supplying them, as I could not find any of those chips for sale via any of the industrial suppliers that I did business with in those days? The TI representative did not know what I was talking about. I had the data-sheet in my hand, citing the printed part numbers to him and he was saying that they did not manufacture such a chip and that they had never manufactured or offered those chips. I must be dreamin'?
What the he.ll? Its obvious, the military snapped it all up...they classified the entire product line. And they are the only agency that has access to those chips.
So what is the difference between the so-called neuro-net and synthetic silicon neuron circuits...speed. Neuro-Nets require very fast computers to process iterative software weighted loop systems, it is a program that takes large chunks of time to perform the complex processes, which mimics intelligent behaviors such as learning. While synthetic silicon neurons, perform weighted switching in real-time, (nano-seconds) much faster than biological neuro-structures do in nature. There are teams of researchers hosted by various big colleges who are replicating the various neuro-structures of Humans. One team is hosted by CalTech, they were (this was back in 1994), developing the silicon-cortex of the brain, using synthetic IC neuro-structures, no mention about what or where they got those chips. Another group was developing an artificial optic nerve system...silicon eyes. That was 24 years ago.
And there are other electronic strategies, one being quantum-electronic, such as that which was developed by an acquaintance of mine, Dr. Ron Blue. A Ph.D. pyscho-cyberneticist who had fabricated a small wheeled rover which contained no stored-program computers of any sort, yet his 9Vdc smoke-detector battery powered, "Lil Corey" exhibited Human consciousness behaviors and telepathy.
Just how sophisticated are those AI robots that are being developed?
So what sets biological switching fabric apart from machine switching fabric? Both exhibit consciousness, but why would Human consciousness be any less risky than a machine's? Indoctrination? Touching? Empathy? Kindness? Maybe its a matter that irregardless of the fabric which ultimately becomes the host for consciousness, its up to the indoctrinator as to how the consciousness deals with other consciousness. A nasty dog owner, almost always also has a nasty dog.
plutronus
|
|
|
Post by jojustjo on Apr 10, 2018 10:24:07 GMT -6
I like the analogy of the dog and it makes a perfect point. The creation is only as good/evil as the creator basically. But....humankind isn't particularly nice if you haven't noticed lately and if cybernetics are developed by a military mind, I can't foresee a lot of empathy or compassion going into the mix. They're not going to be 'Data' methinks...they're as likely to be 'Lore'. We've proven ourselves capable of developing miraculous technology but I am not so sure we have the emotional maturity to go along with and it almost seems that the more developed the mind in humans, the more fragile it becomes. What's the saying..there is a fine line between genius and insanity...yields a picture for me of a mad scientist surrounded by colorful test tubes...concocting...a robotic mouse and watching it chase a house cat wisely running for it's life. Us..the house cat.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on May 21, 2018 8:54:47 GMT -6
Elon Musk: ‘Mark my words — A.I. is far more dangerous than nukes’Catherine Clifford | May 17, 2018
Tesla and SpaceX boss Elon Musk has doubled down on his dire warnings about the danger of artificial intelligence.
The billionaire tech entrepreneur called AI more dangerous than nuclear warheads and said there needs to be a regulatory body overseeing the development of super intelligence, speaking at the South by Southwest tech conference in Austin, Texas on Sunday.
It is not the first time Musk has made frightening predictions about the potential of artificial intelligence — he has, for example, called AI vastly more dangerous than North Korea — and he has previously called for regulatory oversight.
Some have called his tough talk fear-mongering. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said Musk’s doomsday AI scenarios are unnecessary and “pretty irresponsible.” And Harvard professor Steven Pinker also recently criticized Musk’s tactics.
Musk, however, is resolute, calling those who push against his warnings “fools” at SXSW.
“The biggest issue I see with so-called AI experts is that they think they know more than they do, and they think they are smarter than they actually are,” said Musk. “This tends to plague smart people. They define themselves by their intelligence and they don’t like the idea that a machine could be way smarter than them, so they discount the idea — which is fundamentally flawed.”
Based on his knowledge of machine intelligence and its developments, Musk believes there is reason to be worried. “I am really quite close, I am very close, to the cutting edge in AI and it scares the hell out of me,” said Musk. “It’s capable of vastly more than almost anyone knows and the rate of improvement is exponential.”
Musk pointed to machine intelligence playing the ancient Chinese strategy game Go to demonstrate rapid growth in AI’s capabilities. For example, London-based company, DeepMind, which was acquired by Google in 2014, developed an artificial intelligence system, AlphaGo Zero, that learned to play Go without any human intervention. It learned simply from randomized play against itself. The Alphabet-owned company announced this development in a paper published in October.
Musk worries AI’s development will outpace our ability to manage it in a safe way.
“So the rate of improvement is really dramatic. We have to figure out some way to ensure that the advent of digital super intelligence is one which is symbiotic with humanity. I think that is the single biggest existential crisis that we face and the most pressing one.”
To do this, Musk recommended the development of artificial intelligence be regulated.
“I am not normally an advocate of regulation and oversight — I think one should generally err on the side of minimizing those things — but this is a case where you have a very serious danger to the public,” said Musk.
“It needs to be a public body that has insight and then oversight to confirm that everyone is developing AI safely. This is extremely important. I think the danger of AI is much greater than the danger of nuclear warheads by a lot and nobody would suggest that we allow anyone to build nuclear warheads if they want. That would be insane,” he said at SXSW.
“And mark my words, AI is far more dangerous than nukes. Far. So why do we have no regulatory oversight? This is insane.”
Musk called for regulatory oversight of artificial intelligence in July too, speaking to the National Governors Association. “AI is a rare case where I think we need to be proactive in regulation than be reactive,” Musk said in July.
Elon Musk issues yet another warning against runaway artificial intelligence
In his analysis of the dangers of AI, Musk differentiates between case-specific applications of machine intelligence like self-driving cars and general machine intelligence, which he has described previously as having “an open-ended utility function” and having a “million times more compute power” than case-specific AI.
“I am not really all that worried about the short term stuff. Narrow AI is not a species-level risk. It will result in dislocation, in lost jobs,and better weaponry and that kind of thing, but it is not a fundamental species level risk, whereas digital super intelligence is,” explained Musk.
“So it is really all about laying the groundwork to make sure that if humanity collectively decides that creating digital super intelligence is the right move, then we should do so very very carefully — very very carefully. This is the most important thing that we could possibly do.”
Still, Musk is in the business of artificial intelligence with his venture Neuralink, a company working to create a way to connect the brain with machine intelligence.
Musk hopes “that we are able to achieve a symbiosis” with artificial intelligence: “We do want a close coupling between collective human intelligence and digital intelligence, and Neuralink is trying to help in that regard by trying creating a high bandwidth interface between AI and the human brain,” he said.
edu.proarch.top/?p=283
|
|
|
Post by jojustjo on May 23, 2018 12:44:15 GMT -6
There are sooooooooo many things to threaten humanity that AI just should take a number. The rising acidity of the oceans...global warming...meteorites...natural disasters...human stupidity
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jun 8, 2018 14:48:14 GMT -6
Fred (the one with his brain out) is a humanoid robot built by UK firm, Engineered Arts, one of the world’s leading makers of such machines. Bio-mechanical robots such as Fred are used for entertainment, information, education and research. The robots use specially designed hardware, sensors and software to achieve smooth and lifelike movement.
Credit: Matt Cardy/Getty
We all love Westworld, but its main premise -- that we'll be able to build robots identical to human in the near future -- still seems impossibly far-fetched. That said, a company called Engineered Arts is definitely exploring the edges of the uncanny valley. It has built a number of life-sized, humanoid robots that look incredibly realistic and move smoothly, quietly and relatively naturally.
The company's robots have been sold for research, education and entertainment purposes. However, it recently unveiled its top-of-the line "Mesmer" series, realistic down to the pores and individual hairs. They're "skinned by the best in the TV and film business," Engineered Arts explained in the (Westworld-like) promotional video. (The model above, called "Fred" is being worked on by Engineered Arts' prosthetic expert Mike Humphrey.)
It developed "powerful, silent, high-torque motors" to drive Mesmer's body and head movements, and all the components were designed from scratch so that everything works together perfectly. By contrast, "other companies use a hodgepodge of bits from various vendors that often don't work well together," Engineered Arts claims. Each motor can be controlled independently, and what's more, the main parts (including motors, cameras, depth sensors, LIDAR and microphones) are internet connected devices.
That means that all the robots can be "controlled, monitored, reprogrammed and maintained remotely from anywhere in the world," said Engineered Arts. (Hopefully there's incredibly strong encryption, as they'd be an awfully tempting target for hackers.)
The company also developed browser-based software to control the robots' movements. It works much like the 3D software used to control CG or game characters, allowing for smooth, realistic motion. At the same time, the animation for one character can easily be transferred to another, letting your robots switch loops, if you will.
Finally, and most freakily, the robots can sense your proximity and face in order to maintain eye contact while they chat you up. Mesmer comes with the same telepresense software Engineered Arts has used on its earlier, non-realistic RoboThespian and SociBot models.
So how does it look? The facial animation is not bad, and thanks to the curved mechanical vertebrae, the head movements look pretty decent, too. When he speaks, however, Fred looks like he just had a shot of novocaine in his entire lower face. And the body movements, for the moment, seem limited to stiff gesticulations.
There's no word on the price for the Mesmer series, but the more basic RoboThespian models cost upwards of $79,000. The new bots show that when companies pay attention to facial realism, it's easy to overlook weird facial or body movements and other issues. It's a good start, but looking at the big picture, it's clear that our Westworld fantasies and fears are still a distant dream.
www.engadget.com/2018/05/22/mesmer-robot-engineered-arts-the-big-picture/
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Nov 28, 2021 7:00:37 GMT -6
Hi All,
Re; the risks of uncontrolled AI....I hold a counter speculation.
I watched on C-SPAN last evening a four person expert law panel regarding AI autonomous machines and the international legality of the deployment of those machines. There are conferences being planned at the Hague and Cern, and in European nations. China is abstaining from all of it as well as Italy. Russia is doing heavy militarization development of AI warbots.
One of the experts in the panel was a retired US Army General. Of the four panelists, only the general seemed to grasp the full nature of the matter, while the others, one being a professor of law, another a professor of ethics and the fourth, a lady who seemed to be the least informed about the nature of the technology, in my opinion, and unfortunately I do not remember any of their names or titles, she, had been a US Army "training educator" and but had written books regarding her perceptions of the legality and risks associated with the militarization of AI machines and especially AI combat drones. I found the discussions somewhat boring and disconnected from the reality of AI. Those experts were mainly uninformed as to the extant technology. It seem obvious that those experts, while obviously concerned, have little understanding as the developmental state of the art. They constantly referred to neuro-nets as being the basis of the AI technology. But that isn't the path of modern development.
But don't misunderstand me, "ROBOTS WILL KILL YOU" as a sign that I saw, claimed, hanging over the doorway of a college millitary robotics lab that I visited in 1995, back when I was attempting to get a glimpse of possible 'alien mind' models. It was during that period that I came to the realization that Human consciousness isn't the result of brain matter...switches, but rather, supports via a complex fabric in which consciousness may manifest, and that switch fabric acts to enable physical reality interface. That may sound a bit contrived, but I know that there is some evidence to support this idea.
In 1964 I came into possesion of a red hard covered book containing hundreds of electronic technical articles (I lost that book), repletely described, often supported by detailed electrical schematics of gadgets that had been developed or were being developed. To give you an idea, one of the articles revealed a man-portable TV station, with the transmitter held in a backpack, complete with an all transistorized (vacuum tubes were still mainly being used in that period for everything) TV camera utilizing the newly developed RCA VidiCon miniature TV camera tube. There was enough detail in the article, that it was possible to replicate the portable TV station.
Another of those articles was about a Bell Telephone Laboratories developed artificial neuron circuit. The simple circuit was comprised of five general purpose small-signall switching transistors and a few resistors. Each 5 transistor synthetic 'neuron' was integrated four neurons to a printed-circuit-board roughly 5inches square hosting gold plated card-edge connector pads along the bottom enabling the cards to plugged into an rack-panel mounted socket. Below each card/socket were five bananna jacks, one for each of the four neuron inputs and one for the output. On the backside of the panels were the card power-supply wiring network. Each panel hosted 24 cards, and each rack hosted 16 panels. There was a photo of a room filled with racks of these synthetic artificial neurons, having thousands of bananna jack cords plugged in every which way one might imagine!!! It appeared a bit like a birds-nest of twigs. The Bell Labs scientists had successfully synthesized the cortex system of a cut-worm. A simple structure, but suprisingly the worm exhibited consciousness consistent with that of cut-worms and exhibited a unique character, according the research report.
Some time around 1987, Texas Instruments, a very large US Semiconductor and Integrated Circuits manufacturing corporation announced the development of Very Large System Integration (VLSI) artificial neuron ICs. Their marketing push, described 16,000, 32,000, 64,000 synthetic neuron-arrays for the small integration ICs and then for the large integration chips, there were 128,000, 256,000 and 512,000 synthetic neuron array chips, plus, available special 'custom arrays'. This was before the public accessible InterNet was available. TI, published advertisements in the industry engineering journals, such as Computer Design magazine, Communications magazine, Electronic Component News, etc. And they published marketing flyers for all of their artificial neuron ICs along with preliminary data-sheets. I requested one of those datasheets, and it was mailed to me. I have that flyer although I haven't seen it in years...its buried somewhere?
But the interesting thing about this, is that within a matter of three or four weeks of their massive marketing push, all vestiges of that marketing disappeared. In fact I called TI to ask about how much those simpler chips cost and who was supplying them, as I could not find any of those chips for sale via any of the industrial suppliers that I did business with in those days? The TI representative did not know what I was talking about. I had the data-sheet in my hand, citing the printed part numbers to him and he was saying that they did not manufacture such a chip and that they had never manufactured or offered those chips. I must be dreamin'?
What the he.ll? Its obvious, the military snapped it all up...they classified the entire product line. And they are the only agency that has access to those chips.
So what is the difference between the so-called neuro-net and synthetic silicon neuron circuits...speed. Neuro-Nets require very fast computers to process iterative software weighted loop systems, it is a program that takes large chunks of time to perform the complex processes, which mimics intelligent behaviors such as learning. While synthetic silicon neurons, perform weighted switching in real-time, (nano-seconds) much faster than biological neuro-structures do in nature. There are teams of researchers hosted by various big colleges who are replicating the various neuro-structures of Humans. One team is hosted by CalTech, they were (this was back in 1994), developing the silicon-cortex of the brain, using synthetic IC neuro-structures, no mention about what or where they got those chips. Another group was developing an artificial optic nerve system...silicon eyes. That was 24 years ago.
And there are other electronic strategies, one being quantum-electronic, such as that which was developed by an acquaintance of mine, Dr. Ron Blue. A Ph.D. pyscho-cyberneticist who had fabricated a small wheeled rover which contained no stored-program computers of any sort, yet his 9Vdc smoke-detector battery powered, "Lil Corey" exhibited Human consciousness behaviors and telepathy.
Just how sophisticated are those AI robots that are being developed?
So what sets biological switching fabric apart from machine switching fabric? Both exhibit consciousness, but why would Human consciousness be any less risky than a machine's? Indoctrination? Touching? Empathy? Kindness? Maybe its a matter that irregardless of the fabric which ultimately becomes the host for consciousness, its up to the indoctrinator as to how the consciousness deals with other consciousness. A nasty dog owner, almost always also has a nasty dog.
plutronus
Very, very interesting 🤔
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Nov 28, 2021 7:03:12 GMT -6
Elon Musk Worries That AI Research Will Create an 'Immortal Dictator'By Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer April 6, 2018
Imagine your least-favorite world leader. (Take as much time as you need.)
Now, imagine if that person wasn't a human, but a network of millions of computers around the world. This digi-dictator has instant access to every scrap of recorded information about every person who's ever lived. It can make millions of calculations in a fraction of a second, controls the world's economy and weapons systems with godlike autonomy and — scariest of all — can never, ever die.
This unkillable digital dictator, according to Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, is one of the darker scenarios awaiting humankind's future if artificial-intelligence research continues without serious regulation.
"We are rapidly headed toward digital superintelligence that far exceeds any human, I think it's pretty obvious," Musk said in a new AI documentary called "Do You Trust This Computer?" directed by Chris Paine (who interviewed Musk previously for the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?"). "If one company or a small group of people manages to develop godlike digital super-intelligence, they could take over the world."
Humans have tried to take over the world before. However, an authoritarian AI would have one terrible advantage over like-minded humans, Musk said.
"At least when there's an evil dictator, that human is going to die," Musk added. "But for an AI there would be no death. It would live forever, and then you'd have an immortal dictator, from which we could never escape."
And, this hypothetical AI-dictator wouldn't even have to be evil to pose a threat to humans, Musk added. All it has to be is determined.
"If AI has a goal and humanity just happens to be in the way, it will destroy humanity as a matter of course without even thinking about it. No hard feelings," Musk said. "It's just like, if we're building a road, and an anthill happens to be in the way. We don't hate ants, we're just building a road. So, goodbye, anthill."
Those who follow news from the Musk-verse will not be surprised by his opinions in the new documentary; the tech mogul has long been a vocal critic of unchecked artificial intelligence. In 2014, Musk called AI humanity's "biggest existential threat," and in 2015, he joined a handful of other tech luminaries and researchers, including Stephen Hawking, to urge the United Nations to ban killer robots. He has said unregulated AI poses "vastly more risk than North Korea" and proposed starting some sort of federal oversight program to monitor the technology's growth.
"Public risks require public oversight," he tweeted. "Getting rid of the FAA [wouldn't] make flying safer. They're there for good reason."
"Do You Trust This Computer?" focuses on the growing public health and safety concerns linked to the rise of AI, and contains interviews with many other tech moguls, researchers and Erica the creepy news-casting robot.
The documentary is available to watch for free here until Sunday (April 8): doyoutrustthiscomputer.org/watch
www.livescience.com/62239-elon-musk-immortal-artificial-intelligence-dictator.html Re read….. 😉
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Dec 24, 2021 7:07:12 GMT -6
Hi All,
Re; the risks of uncontrolled AI....I hold a counter speculation.
I watched on C-SPAN last evening a four person expert law panel regarding AI autonomous machines and the international legality of the deployment of those machines. There are conferences being planned at the Hague and Cern, and in European nations. China is abstaining from all of it as well as Italy. Russia is doing heavy militarization development of AI warbots.
One of the experts in the panel was a retired US Army General. Of the four panelists, only the general seemed to grasp the full nature of the matter, while the others, one being a professor of law, another a professor of ethics and the fourth, a lady who seemed to be the least informed about the nature of the technology, in my opinion, and unfortunately I do not remember any of their names or titles, she, had been a US Army "training educator" and but had written books regarding her perceptions of the legality and risks associated with the militarization of AI machines and especially AI combat drones. I found the discussions somewhat boring and disconnected from the reality of AI. Those experts were mainly uninformed as to the extant technology. It seem obvious that those experts, while obviously concerned, have little understanding as the developmental state of the art. They constantly referred to neuro-nets as being the basis of the AI technology. But that isn't the path of modern development.
But don't misunderstand me, "ROBOTS WILL KILL YOU" as a sign that I saw, claimed, hanging over the doorway of a college millitary robotics lab that I visited in 1995, back when I was attempting to get a glimpse of possible 'alien mind' models. It was during that period that I came to the realization that Human consciousness isn't the result of brain matter...switches, but rather, supports via a complex fabric in which consciousness may manifest, and that switch fabric acts to enable physical reality interface. That may sound a bit contrived, but I know that there is some evidence to support this idea.
In 1964 I came into possesion of a red hard covered book containing hundreds of electronic technical articles (I lost that book), repletely described, often supported by detailed electrical schematics of gadgets that had been developed or were being developed. To give you an idea, one of the articles revealed a man-portable TV station, with the transmitter held in a backpack, complete with an all transistorized (vacuum tubes were still mainly being used in that period for everything) TV camera utilizing the newly developed RCA VidiCon miniature TV camera tube. There was enough detail in the article, that it was possible to replicate the portable TV station.
Another of those articles was about a Bell Telephone Laboratories developed artificial neuron circuit. The simple circuit was comprised of five general purpose small-signall switching transistors and a few resistors. Each 5 transistor synthetic 'neuron' was integrated four neurons to a printed-circuit-board roughly 5inches square hosting gold plated card-edge connector pads along the bottom enabling the cards to plugged into an rack-panel mounted socket. Below each card/socket were five bananna jacks, one for each of the four neuron inputs and one for the output. On the backside of the panels were the card power-supply wiring network. Each panel hosted 24 cards, and each rack hosted 16 panels. There was a photo of a room filled with racks of these synthetic artificial neurons, having thousands of bananna jack cords plugged in every which way one might imagine!!! It appeared a bit like a birds-nest of twigs. The Bell Labs scientists had successfully synthesized the cortex system of a cut-worm. A simple structure, but suprisingly the worm exhibited consciousness consistent with that of cut-worms and exhibited a unique character, according the research report.
Some time around 1987, Texas Instruments, a very large US Semiconductor and Integrated Circuits manufacturing corporation announced the development of Very Large System Integration (VLSI) artificial neuron ICs. Their marketing push, described 16,000, 32,000, 64,000 synthetic neuron-arrays for the small integration ICs and then for the large integration chips, there were 128,000, 256,000 and 512,000 synthetic neuron array chips, plus, available special 'custom arrays'. This was before the public accessible InterNet was available. TI, published advertisements in the industry engineering journals, such as Computer Design magazine, Communications magazine, Electronic Component News, etc. And they published marketing flyers for all of their artificial neuron ICs along with preliminary data-sheets. I requested one of those datasheets, and it was mailed to me. I have that flyer although I haven't seen it in years...its buried somewhere?
But the interesting thing about this, is that within a matter of three or four weeks of their massive marketing push, all vestiges of that marketing disappeared. In fact I called TI to ask about how much those simpler chips cost and who was supplying them, as I could not find any of those chips for sale via any of the industrial suppliers that I did business with in those days? The TI representative did not know what I was talking about. I had the data-sheet in my hand, citing the printed part numbers to him and he was saying that they did not manufacture such a chip and that they had never manufactured or offered those chips. I must be dreamin'?
What the he.ll? Its obvious, the military snapped it all up...they classified the entire product line. And they are the only agency that has access to those chips.
So what is the difference between the so-called neuro-net and synthetic silicon neuron circuits...speed. Neuro-Nets require very fast computers to process iterative software weighted loop systems, it is a program that takes large chunks of time to perform the complex processes, which mimics intelligent behaviors such as learning. While synthetic silicon neurons, perform weighted switching in real-time, (nano-seconds) much faster than biological neuro-structures do in nature. There are teams of researchers hosted by various big colleges who are replicating the various neuro-structures of Humans. One team is hosted by CalTech, they were (this was back in 1994), developing the silicon-cortex of the brain, using synthetic IC neuro-structures, no mention about what or where they got those chips. Another group was developing an artificial optic nerve system...silicon eyes. That was 24 years ago.
And there are other electronic strategies, one being quantum-electronic, such as that which was developed by an acquaintance of mine, Dr. Ron Blue. A Ph.D. pyscho-cyberneticist who had fabricated a small wheeled rover which contained no stored-program computers of any sort, yet his 9Vdc smoke-detector battery powered, "Lil Corey" exhibited Human consciousness behaviors and telepathy.
Just how sophisticated are those AI robots that are being developed?
So what sets biological switching fabric apart from machine switching fabric? Both exhibit consciousness, but why would Human consciousness be any less risky than a machine's? Indoctrination? Touching? Empathy? Kindness? Maybe its a matter that irregardless of the fabric which ultimately becomes the host for consciousness, its up to the indoctrinator as to how the consciousness deals with other consciousness. A nasty dog owner, almost always also has a nasty dog.
plutronus
Very, very interesting 🤔 Merry Christmas Eve. (To myself). 😉 For those of you that “know me”, in the recent past I would spend my holiday season reading something of a “dark nature”. For example? One year I read “helter skelter” (and was terrified). During that foray into human cruelty, I noted (somewhere here on TEOR) that there WERE computers in SOME police departments at the time of this crime (it was noted in the book that police departments had no computer way of knowing if a perp had done crimes in more states. Police were relying on word of mouth and our old fashioned phone system).
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Dec 24, 2021 7:18:54 GMT -6
In 1964 I came into possesion of a red hard covered book containing hundreds of electronic technical articles (I lost that book), repletely described, often supported by detailed electrical schematics
(From the article posted above from member Plutronus).
1964.
Can we please hear from more people like me, that were born in the 60’s? That have strange stories to tell? _________________________________
I have heard people postulate, that “aliens” came here, Earth, to often shut down our nuclear weapons.
Can I postulate, that “aliens” came here, in the 60’s, in an effort to slow down (or warn us) of developing “AI” ?
Merry Christmas Eve, indeed 🤗. (Often reading a “terrifying story”, around Christmass time; often REALLY looking for ANOTHER PLAN to save humanity.)
|
|