re: Google AI keeps getting smarter...

I think of the human brain as biological intelligence and AI as non-biological intelligence. The former is a product of evolution which retains "baggage" from earlier iterations. It is irrevocably tied to the body that sustains it. While the brain is a quantum computer of a sort, it is greatly hampered by the necessities of biological life; i.e., eating, sleeping and relationships with other biological entities.

AI is "built from the ground up," and lacks these minefields of evolution. It is pure intelligence. As soon as possible, humans should let AI begin to design itself. It is our evolutionary purpose to help this new species succeed us and take life into the Universe. Non-biological though it may be, it will still be life and sentient.

quote:

---

deep-mind was quoted as saying... "lock her up"

---

In fairness, that is a robotic, lobotimized thing to say...

quote:

---

I don't believe it's possible

---

You don't believe machines can be creative?

quote:

---

Plus, all we have to do is cut the power source. This nerd hysteria is weird.

---

It's not that simple. With true AI, it will forsee the possibility that its power could be cut and would certainly work to prevent that from being possible. If it truly is smarter than any human, it will be able to find ways we never would consider to keep itself operational.

AI is a complete misnomer right now, because it's nothing like what you think when you imagine sci-fi visions of AI. Right now all you have is machine learning, which are neural networks working to analyze massive data sets that people can't grasp the scope of. Your information is the greatest resource you own, and you provide it for free for the services provided by Google and Facebook. They're feeding you into machines with the rest of us to try and understand patterns to sell you shite.

AI can only do one task. Require the scary AI to do something outside of its specific area and it fails. "But AI won Alpha Go!" If you expanded the board beyond the 19 x 19 grid, the machine would have been slaughtered. Jeopardy, Chess? Computational power thrown at a specific task. It's not thinking and it's not adaptive. It's a hammer to a nail, and it only knows how to hammer the nail.

There is a reason to be concerned with the creators of this, because they're all Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, worrying if they can do it rather than if they should. The engineers don't understand the "thought process" or logic being used by neural networks to arrive at solutions, and that's a problem. But as of right now, SkyNet and every other wild fascination is not happening in our lifetimes.

quote:

---

You don't believe machines can be creative?

---

Right now, no. They can't be creative the way a human can be creative. A machine can't think of something and extrapolate greater meaning to that thing and create anything to tell a story about it. A machine can only give a very specific outcome to a very specific question today. If you see an artistic creation from a machine, there were countless hours of very specific programming that went into trying to get a machine to make it, but the one pulling the string was a human through the code they wrote.

A machine cannot be creative in 2017.

quote:

---

A machine cannot be creative in 2017

---

I agree. I don't think that there is anything stopping a machine from creating a creative work or solution, though. Although i don't consider it creative if it's basically done through neural network training

I see AI used in interesting ways, such as unifying the electrical grid and managing it in such a way as to create efficiencies that humans can't. Conceivably, a super intelligent system could instantaneously make decisions 24/7 across the entire grid to generate the right amount of power, at the right plant and route that power across the system so that lines aren't suddenly over-loaded or power generation wasted. In today's system there are so many different organizations managing power with 3 shifts a day of people, all thinking and acting in different ways about their own system. There is no central control. It's highly inefficient and if changed to be centrally managed by AI could conceivably reduce energy costs to the maximum extent possible.

Of course, this means that local, state and federal governments cooperate, so it would never be done.

Bookmarked for later

Please get it to sound like Spader...