I'm referring to the men and women who, as this video exemplifies,
subscribe to a sort of 'Prometheus Doctrine';
which for me is like a fetish of needing to destroy in order to create. They talk about their fear and project their fear onto and into our science and technology instead of quelling the sources of that fear from the very beginning. The source of their fear IS preventable!
If we were advancing technology for the right reasons and using the right means, we wouldn't have anything to fear! The 'snake', through guilt and even 'karma', calls forth its own destruction and even begins to eat itself!
Also,
the video literally reeks of the disdain and disregard (contempt) for humanity and
the impetuousness of a science running amok (without morals and ethics)
that has become the fashion in our mainstream trendy pabulum which premature globalist social engineering has created for our consumption. All branches of the human endeavour have been infected or affected by this social engineering in some way.
At
university our youth is being incrementally infected (radicalised) by this 'bug' of
disdain and we should all be aware of it before it becomes our undoing!
You see it when you ask them to consider the ramifications of the
science and technology being created now, and they respond with
"You'd better get used to it, because that's the way it is." It resembles the 'bitch' meme that is pervasive in the 'prison culture' social engineering I've been referring to above.
Their
callous and impetuous response is paired with a complete wilful
ignorance of the consequences of what science and technology (and their
steady weaponisation) are doing or potentially can do to our home here
on planet Earth as well as to ourselves. The social engineers will
have us worrying about how our free speech may adversely affect others
and therewith attempt to quell debate by means of political correctness
(PC).
The youth of humanity has been abused by this kind of thing since at
least the late 18th Century, because it is widely known (and not spoken
of) that they, with rare exception, are not yet able to compete
intellectually with adults. Adolescents sense this, which exacerbates
their normal impetuousness, so they attempt to compensate for this
perceived deficit by 'attaching' themselves to some any deeper
perspectives they are introduced to. The mainstream 'trendy' has been
'weaponised' so these are usually various destructive lines of thinking
(Communism, Satanism,...). They are provided with a narrow, but
sometimes deep understanding by simply taking on these lines of thought
with their peers. By doing this, they may well even surpass the
understanding of the adults around them, but the knowledge imprint only
stands out like a wart.
This can be recognised, because the corresponding hallmark lines of development in
wisdom and insight, that always accompany and provide a context for that
knowledge, are absent.
The parasites perched upon humanity know this.
That's
why they want our children so soon and so long. Students literally get
'caught in the headlights' of the teachers and professors, who are
themselves victims of this incrementalism. The controllers can then
direct this lack of experience and wisdom (naivety) against the rest of
the population by indoctrinating our youth into zealots.
BTW:
This post is not here to ridicule nor ostracise anyone!
It is intended to wake everyone up! In the end we are ALL being
manipulated (including Nick Bostrom) by the corporations who are
controlling and transforming our science, education, media,
governance,...
I've had to delete comments below from disrespectful
people who now want to criticize Nick Bostrom personally. I will not
have that here!
This writing is not a criticism of Nick
Bostrom, rather a criticism of the education system and science that
subtly 'fashions' how we ourselves as well as our youth and those
directly involved (including Mr. Bostrom) see themselves through
science, philosophy, mathematics, and the arts; in fact, nearly all of
the human endeavour has been infected or affected by it.
@
00:31 "Okay, let's look at the modern human condition..."
He shows a 'doctored' image of a man wearing glasses with his eye size increased to almost fill the lenses.
I find myself asking myself if he is referring to the "I work with a bunch of mathematicians, philosophers, and computer scientists..." he talks about here?:
@
00:11
It
sure isn't clear of who he's referring to with his 'human condition'!
Here is our first indication of the disrespect for humanity his action
here reveals. He seems not to have considered or known that this very
condition of humanity that he's making light of for his audience
Is, in fact, a result of the very science he represents!
When
I see an image of someone who looks as in this image I think of Pavlov
or B.F. Skinner with their 'contributions' to humanity (weaponized
social engineering)! I ask myself why he chose this image particularly
and not another that would have been as funny, but not so unforgiving of
humans who have bought into the social engineering they've been
subjected to?
@
00:43 "We are recently arrived 'guests' on this planet."We are the living Earth! We are as much a part of this planet as anything else living on/in/above it.
We are NOT guests on this planet, it's our home!
@
00:49 "Think about the world was created... the Earth was created one year ago."
I find it interesting that he uses the word 'created' instead saying
something like 'formed itself' or 'accrued its main composition'. It's
almost the model that Carl Sagan offered in his Cosmos Series and
elsewhere, but doesn't quite ring as true.
@
01:07-
He uses a graph depicting GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to make statements about societal changes over thousands of years!
This is not only wrong, the metrics don't even correlate with each
other! (Notice how the people laugh? I wonder how many of them really
know what they're laughing at?)
@
00:37-[regarding technology]
"That's why we are so productive."We have
always
been productive. Technology is nothing new. [Which he acknowledges!]
Even the militarization of technology isn't new. He refers to some
[ap]proximate cost idea he doesn't explain nor provide a context for.
Technology contains both potential and real costs and returns in many
terms (social, cultural, personal,...), for the record. This has not
changed over time.
@
01:43 "We have to move back farther... to the ultimate costs."
He then introduces two "highly distinguished gentlemen": Kanzi and Ed
Witten. I dispute his choice of examples to go with, as Nassim Haramein
http://resonance.is/ or Nikola Tesla would have been better choices from where I stand, but he didn't ask me, did he? ;-)
I
wonder what we'll be saying about Super-string and M-Theory in 100
years? I doubt seriously it will stand the test of time as the theories
are almost certainly wrong.
@
01:57 "If
we look under the 'hood', this is what we find. Basically the same
thing. [!]... one is a little larger. It maybe also have a few tricks in
the way that it's wired... These invisible differences cannot be too
complicated; however, because there have only[!] been more than 250,000
generations since our last common ancestor and we know that complicated
mechanisms take a long time to evolve."I guess that's the
reason the apes didn't get very far?!?! Or what am I to make of this
proposition? At some crucial juncture in the past the apes simply
decided to turn left instead of right? Or did we?
In any case he doesn't reveal to us exactly what those 'invisible differences' may be.
@
02:21 "So a bunch of relatively minor changes take us from Kanzi to Witten."Still no mention of what the changes are and I still don't see why Kanzi isn't writing Haiku!
@
02:33 "So
this then seems pretty obvious that everything we have achieved pretty
much and everything we care about depends crucially on some relatively
minor changes that made the human mind." He provides no
basis for that statement and moves on to a corollary without even
explaining this massive jump from somewhere around the time of a common
ancestor to what the human mind has become!
@
02:43 "And
the corollary of course, is that any further changes that could
significantly change the substrate of thinking could have potentially
enormous consequences"Wait just one minute! There has been
no justification for the prior proposition, not to mention a justifiable
connection it may have to some 'substrate of thought'! Having a common phylogenic ancestor who has mastered over 200 lexical tokens is nothing
compared to the subtlety and sophistication of the human mind!
@
02:55 "Some
of my colleges think that we are on the verge of something that could
cause a profound change in that substrate... and that is machine
super-intelligence. Artificial intelligence used to be..."So
what does this mean? Are we now entering an age of 'post-artificial
intelligence'? A sort of neo-AI? Could you also tell me more about that
'substrate'?
@
03:29 "Today
the action is really around machine learning. Rather than hand-crafting
knowledge representations and features we create algorithms that
learn..."Here he's getting into an area he seems
uncomfortable with. I suspect, for myself, one reason why. He is
revealing that he's never seen nor been a part of building a knowledge
representation that was completely satisfying to those who made it!
It
further reveals that he's working without one or doesn't trust any
philosophy of knowledge or mind as a basis for the scientific methods
he's been involved with!
A set of underlying philosophies of mind, language, and knowledge are absolutely required!
These facts are verified a bit later...@
04:05 "Now of course AI is still nowhere near having the same powerful cross-domain ability to learn and plan as a human being has."
He then reveals that he's also locked into the brain-based-model of
mind that is reminiscent of the adherence to phrenology in the early to
middle 19th Century.
He then asks how far are we in being able to
match those tricks. This leads him to mention a survey of some of the
leading AI experts on just when we will likely reach a stage of human
ability. Answers ranged from 2040 to 2050 (with estimates of 90% at
around 2070/2075!!!).
@
05:01 "The truth is, no one really knows."And
they won't know either, because they aren't allowing all that is
required for 'intelligence' to be included into the endeavour.
I
firmly believe that our current scientists will regret this phase of
their history. Their names are on the line for the conceptual barren
land they have created for themselves and are selling to us. They are not even doing themselves a favour; rather, are doing the corporations which pay them one!
The
corporations and the banksters which run them who stand above the law
are those who profit from this 'science', because it provides them with
thin veils of plausibility to divert huge sums of money, minds, and
other resources towards aims that few of us would ever allow if we knew
them.
@
05:05 "What
we do know is that the ultimate limits to information processing in
machine substrate lie far outside the limits in biological tissue."It
seems we have now moved from 'thinking substrate' to 'machine
substrate' without ever knowing what these terms mean. How can he know
this? We haven't even developed a successful philosophy of mind yet!
There are many aspects of knowing, feeling, thinking, learning,... in
organic intelligence that we have yet to understand.
@
05:15 "This comes down to physics."He
then compares the latest hardware (transistors) with neurons and means
to show that these differences are meaningful in making the
determination above and sticks with the size limitations of our brains
being a size limitation for mind (again as if the mind were limited to
the brain!)...
Note also that he is referring to information
processing! If he had a decent set of knowledge representations to
review, he would know that those tiny little neurons are not
'transistors' for the mind. There's much going on in the mind for which
the physical brain cannot give an answer! He is essentially
attempting to compare apples and oranges with each other with an
incomplete understanding what the apples are made of.
@
05:47 "So
the potential for super-intelligence kind of lies dormant in matter
like much like the power of the atom lie dormant throughout history...
patiently waiting there until 1945."Atoms did quite well,
actually, before we learned how they work and began to make destructive
use of the energy that comprises them. We certainly didn't liberate
them; rather, learned how to break them!
He then shows a picture of an hydrogen bomb blast and says @
05:59*
"In
this century scientists may learn to awaken the power of artificial
intelligence... and I think we might then see an intelligence
explosion."
This begs the question of what intelligence is!
Also, it is unclear what aspects is he referring to: logic, abstract
thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning,
knowledge, memory, creativity, problem solving,...? Later he tries to
clarify this, but in so doing confuses the issue more.
Also there
seems to be confusion here about the kind of intelligence (if we now
pretend to have defined that term) would be that will have arisen. I'll
return to this later.
@
06:10 "Now most people when they think about what is smart and what is dumb I think have in mind a picture roughly like this:"and shows @
06:15
a line (which is actually a distribution, but no one notices) with a
"Village idiot" (using his terms) on the low end and Ed Witten on the
the high end and a line stretching across between them.
It appears
to be about knowledge of physics, because of Ed Witten being on it and
how he then refers to what could have been Albert Einstein or any other
favourite "Guru" we may want to choose. I wonder how this distribution
would have ended up if he were to have measured empathy, situational
awareness, or the knowledge of how the work your doing is being used for
purposes other than good?
Where would Ed Witten, Albert Einstein, anyone of our choosing, or the village idiot then be found in the distribution.
There are many kinds of 'intelligence' that are not even being considered here.
Notice
how this distribution then magically transforms itself into an
evolutionary path (which even appears to contain logarithmic/exponential
value, as well). At least he has the village idiot higher on the scale
than a chimp! I was almost expecting Kanzi to be somewhere in the middle
of the distribution that the line represented before.
And then he says at @
07:07 "The train doesn't stop at 'Humanville station'..."This is more of that disdain I referred to above and will return to later in this post.
@
07:11 "It's likely rather to 'swoosh' right by."He
doesn't tell us why this will happen, but I suppose we will simply be
surpassed by 'somebody' who's got a bigger place to put his 'brains' in?
That seems to be where this is heading...
@
07:14 "Now this has profound implications particularly when it comes to questions of power."He
compares the purely physical strength between a chimpanzee and a human
(as if that were the only metric!) and uses that to transition us to
accept his further propositions when he compares us to some kind of AI.
@
07:27 "... and yet the fate of Kanzi and his pals depends a lot more on what we humans do than what the chimpanzees do themselves."So
by analogy, this will also be true of 'super-intelligence' with respect
to humans. We are expected to simply accept this analogy by ignoring
(or here in this audience, not caring perhaps) the multitude of domains
that influence and even determine the validity of the comparison!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And
now we come to the middle of time in the presentation and the most
provocative and humanly egocentric propositions made in the whole talk..
@
07:43 "Think about it. Machine intelligence is the last invention that humanity will ever need to make."He has no standing to make this claim. He nor anyone else can know what new way of looking at our world may come.
NONE of us can truthfully say we have/know all of the 'variables' and 'dimensions' to our universe. We have barely begun to scratch the surface in all of our endeavours and therefore, have no right to make claims like these.
Yet it gets even more insane, because he then yields humanity to the proverbial 'chopping block' of evolution:
@
07:49 "The machines will be better at inventing than we are and they will be doing so on digital time scales."What kind of education would create these kinds of propositions?
Why
do we stand for this? He's obviously a highly intelligent human being.
How can he have fallen for this kind of artificial relation of our place
in the universe. We are likely not the only planet with intelligent
life either!
We don't even know enough about the creative
process to explain away God, not to mention explaining punctuated
evolution! And I've not even referred to the discovery process yet as an
additional criterion for intelligence.
This is where the inherent disdain for humanity contained within our hijacked science and technology best reveals itself.
It has poisoned some of the most brilliant minds of our children like we see here. He makes these naive claims and doesn't even realize the measure of his presumption whilst doing so.
Even
the remark about digital time scales is naive. We don't know enough
about the depth and subtlety of the concepts such as time (temporality)
nor scaling (proportion) to make any of these claims.
There are
other ways of looking at these rich concepts that could transform our
view of what we think or presume to know and even how we see ourselves
in light of those expanded perspectives and context.
This naivety is shown here, as well:
@
07:55 "What this means basically is a telescoping of the future."and here:
@
08:01 "Think of all the crazy technologies that you could have imagined maybe humans could have developed in the fullness of time."
I
simply don't know what to say about such a remark, except non sequitur.
It simply doesn't make any sense! Am I the only one who recognizes this
fact? I sure hope not.
Our attention is then drawn to the blue
hue surrounding the audience and I'm shocked to see how many people are
being duped and even enthralled by this show. It's as if they have taken
their 'phone off the hook' and sit there like they're watching a
television. Some of them are even taking notes! We must stop being so
trusting as to allow ourselves to be put in that position in the first
place!
@
08:24 "Now
a super-intelligence with such 'technological maturity' would be
extremely powerful. And at least in some scenarios, it would be able to
get what it wants."There is no such thing as technological
maturity and this underscores the disjunct the funders of science have
created between who we are and our artefacts (what we make). He is
talking about tools, isn't he? He's been trained to anthropomorphise
technology (despite his reservations later below) as if it were 'alive'
as we.
Even if we were to create technology that is capable of mind,
it would not represent an achievement of technology, rather an
achievement of humanity. It would belong to our achievements.
@
08:35 "We would then have a future that would be shaped by the preferences of this AI."How can we be sure? I ask this because, his next question is:
@
08:41*
"Now a good question is, 'What are those preferences?' Here it gets trickier."He
gives his warning about anthropomorphising and shows a picture of a
terminator. Before explaining what these preferences may be, he suggests
to conceive of the issue "more abstractly".
@
09:09 "We
need to think of intelligence as an optimization process. A process
that steers the future into a particular set of configurations."How
does he know that intelligence is the only factor doing the steering of
the future or even if it's possible to 'steer' the future? At best we
can 'steer' ourselves and thereby influence how that future unfolds!
Also, optimization is not the only process necessary and is not alone sufficient to influence future outcomes.
He's now not only comparing apples with oranges, he's using thin slices of them!
@
09:17 "A
super-intelligence is a really strong optimization process. It's
extremely good at using available means to achieve a state in which its
goal is realized."This is another fundamental deficit with AI (which would be more aptly named:
synthetic intelligence): they continually miss other aspects of reality that have nothing to do with state and aren't states at all!
The
universe doesn't restrict itself to states no matter how needful we are
to make it be so Hidden Markov models, Bayesian statistics, for example
are all dead-ends which are in the process of playing themselves out.
Goal-oriented
'intelligence' is also not all there is to mind and the achievement of
goals is not automatically a measure of usefulness nor necessarily a
sign of intelligence.
It gets naively 'Turing-esque' with this statement:
@
09:27 "This
means there's no necessary connection between being highly intelligent
in this sense and having an objective that we humans would find worth
while or meaningful."He's using the word 'connection' here
when he can only mean 'difference' for it to make any sense going from
the way he's framed the sentence.
I've written elsewhere on
Turing, so I won't go into detail, but this statement offers the same
kind of fraud that the Turing Test offers us, namely:
If a machine can fool you so well that you cannot tell it's a machine or a real person, then the machine has passed the test.
Here
he's saying that a 'super-intelligent machine' being capable of
pursuing a meaningful goal is another proof of its real intelligence.
That's incorrect even if it were possible get a machine participate in
the richness of mind. We don't yet even understand the processes in
which we organically set and arrive at goals with, but we are going to
have a machine do this?
@
09:39 "Suppose
we give an AI the goal to make humans smile. When the AI is weak, it
performs useful or amusing actions that cause its user to smile. When
the AI becomes super-intelligent it realizes there is a more effective
way to achieve this goal."Ah... excuse me, but if we're
speaking of intelligence then we don't have users, do we? We don't if
their intelligence is anything like our own.
He differentiates
between strong and weak AI to underscore that 'super-intelligence'
implies sentience. We don't yet know how a dominant monad ('I'-ness)
works inside of us organically, not to mention how to impart this
quality to a machine. I suppose, like all good materialists, we'll just
create enough initial conditions which then will become complex enough
that sophonce spontaneously generates itself? (sophonce: self-awareness,
including self-reflection and the ability to think about one's
thinking)
@
09:43 "Take control of the world and like stick electrodes into the facial muscles of humans..."Isn't that sweet? That's not intelligence, it's stupidity, and a callous lack of regard for human dignity.
We
knew that at least some mechanism of fear and control is going to be
involved here (just having banksters fund the work presumes that
'cocktail' in the mix). But here is another example of the disparity
made evident when such a thing could be made possible.
We have
received inverted and perverted priorities from those who fund our
science and finance the development of our technology, and control the
education of our young.
Do you see how easy it is for him to
imagine such a scenario. See how the audience is not appalled at such an
outcome? Neither the speaker nor the audience seems aware of how wrong
this picture is.
The need to dominate and subjugate, which funds
our science, pays for our technology and directs our education is even
weaving itself into them: thereby infecting the young minds being
exposed to it.
We must wake up and stop this perversion of our
science and technology. If we do science or create technology with no
concern for our values and ethics, then we are going to arrive at
fundamental choices too early in our evolution and make the wrong
choices on how they are put to use.
@
10:02 "Take
another example. Let's suppose we give AI the goal to solve a difficult
mathematical problem. When the AI becomes super-intelligent, it
realizes that the most effective way is to get the solution to this
problem by transforming the planet into a giant computer so as to
increase its thinking capacity."Does that sound intelligent
to you? I'm well aware of where this is heading, because of what has
come before. We shall see what he proposes to solve his scenario's
'conundrum'. He's simply giving us examples of what could be from his
own imagination, but this reveals his own inner thoughts, feelings,
priorities, and... training.
@
10:17 "And
notice that this gives the AI an instrumental reason to do things to us
that we might not approve of. Human beings in this model are a threat.
We could prevent the mathematical problem from being solved."If
we could, why would we create an AI that would do such a thing?
Mistakes happen? No! If an AI is really intelligent, it would also know
of the consequences of its actions at the latest, during its execution
of them.
Now we get to the main reason for the talk.
[To be continued in my next post with the same title.]