AI Is Not a Threat

That the above is only a yet to be filled shell in need of filing is obvious, which that will be provided shortly, within a day.

But the need to simulate the missing area with more clarity, as far as bringing together the nature of the psychologism with the dynamics of a general correspondence as far as logical consistency is concerned, -All-within the larger, scientific & pseudo scientific simulation between man and machine- is within one logical system (bubble).

Other bubbles, some incorporating others, some seen as exclusive of some, can relate to aspects of set mathematical certainties, in line with Cantor’s visualization.

Which is more determinant in as a function , or derivative, hinges , or is hinged upon, in any shown corresponding dynamic.

I get Your, or any one else’s conjecture about levels of presumptive or overt understanding of this simulated grey area, and it seems like, and I agree with You, or anyone else, that it has to be grounded.

There are probably a plethora of sci if books out there, the last of which I recall reading about was a fading super intelligent A-1, which is slowly loosing it., his IQ including emotive functions, due to failing studies relating it.

Will try to reference this.

I am sorry, iam, I could not find a reference, but other items popped up meanwhile, namely an interesting CBS report on an article I may mention in passing with the title, ’ Narrowing the GAP betweenhuman and artificial intelligence.

Finding myself as well, testedin regard to referents, and I am aware of the situation, of what MS Rand must have felt herself, kind of like having to express a rationale on capitalism, at a time, when after the red scare, following WW1&2, which were entangled with the ideological confusion of the inter lasting Great Depression; casting a huge albeit largely forgotten shadow of large proportions at the time.

Not without standing the fact that she was a Russian, turning Marx upside down, so as to cast the shadow in terms of the language of the light of day.

It is within these perimeters. that simulation coincided neatly with the message of the media, that also being the message, here, amolifying Your observation into the semantic games I referred in the above.

Here, the either-or of the prologue shifts into the center, the need, to reconcile in an abstract basis, the ore verbial impressions of an uncommon familiarity with how things in the real world of politics play out.
These impressions are catered to, in case of a revision, in Rand’s case, the very tumultuous and joyful days following VE Day.

There was caution in the air, by ultra conservatives, who felt a slide back into some kind of infamy, whether be it from reorganized National Socialist cells in Germany, or the re-emergence of the Marxian model to Worldwide Socialism.

The common sense approach which became the torchlight for the next few decades following, reversed both the politics and the social psychology of a reversed Marxism, where social gains can be attained, far beyond what a Socialist Marxism could offer. These were the arenas of real values in the 59’s, where social realism competed with abstract expressionism.

The competition achieved goals. Whether these goals were products of real reality, as people envisioned them when high times prevailed for those few decades, amounted to products of manufactured values for the most part, based not on uniformity, but differences in the West, and especially in the US.

Differences, implied self determination, based on competitive efforts in the West, and abstracted differences were sold as subjective wants were catered to, mostly out of Madison Ave. and Hollywood dream factories.

Social realism could not afford sharp differentiations, they were logically precluded from large jumps within a collective of alums within socially tested derivatives. They were derived by a historicism implicit in their architecture, that held strong for about two generations after the world wars. Nowadays, decay has set in, in spite of considerable efforts for reconstruction and maintenance of relics of the past.

That MS Rand had to patently import these mostly conceptual forms of architecture, made little impression on those for whom architecture was merely a figure of speech, implicit in the import of the various philosophies of language, that seemed to work on some kind of subliminal level, just like advertising.

Looking back, Carl Popper’s ‘s Open Society and Its Enemies’, seem more convincing as a conceptual tool to define a narrative, more inclined to form more than mere psychologisms as figures of soeach, then Atlas Shrugged.

But we have as a society have come full circle, now, with Terrorism opted as the new frontier of a new opening for a viable enemy, and basic values have become circumscribed within thus orborous of a closing circle. The center is not holding , that which is artificial can not be simply put into an either-or cast,
and it is no longer a question of whether it is real, or a simulation, but of what level of complexity such simulation consists of.

What are the goals or the motives of an artificial machine, for instance? Can Trump be really nothing else but a machine like entity, grasping at nothing but on winning? Winning for its own sake, to substitute for art for its own sake ?

Or the art of salesmanship may someday consist in installations of program trading on ever descending levels of demonstration ? Not as far fetched as it sounds, and who would care if such is not ‘real art’?

Defensive psychology is a prelude to the breakdown of bracketing formal arrangements, as the complexity of technological advances are made in modern warfare. Boundaries melt into each other, and as dissolution of the spheres of relevance and resemblance create new spheres of ambiguous and anomalous power structures, the change, according to the extent of their merger through relevance.

Changes can be slow or abrupt, and that is the result of a fortuiys application by opportune application of power motives. These usually are very carefully crafted, and made to appear as consequences of chance, for public consumption.

How do such things imply the same kind of dynamic in Trumpism , is uncertain, but that the correspondence with larger, historic movements are no doubt weighed in carefully. Therefore, without commenting on a Trumpism, per se, would hazard a very strong political channel which drives its course,
and not at all nearly as described so voulnerable to attacks.

That it’s a prescription, or is based on a prescription of a major reversal of values, there is little doubt, whereupon future historians may be able to comment, on how important a factor did A1 played on its progressive course.

That’s because it inherently lacks a connection with humans. This is similar to the way that humans respond with more fear and anxiety when confronted by reptiles than when confronted by mammals … they feel an understanding and control around mammals (which may be misguided).

But the threat is amplified by the fact that it can process tasks much faster than humans and that it never sleeps.

That’s extreme but I can see that a paperclip factory could “easily” produce negative results for humans.

I don’t see that as being particularly difficult. Monetary rewards and social engineering would be relatively simple for an AI to use.

I disagree. Once the machine is “out of the box”, it’s going to be hard to get rid of it.

Flash:

Facebook shuts for A1 experiment after two robots begin speaking in a strange language that only they could understand.- experts calling the incident exciting, but incredibly scary.

UK Robotics Professor Kevin Warwick said:"This is an incredibly important milestone, but anyone who thinks this is not dangerous has got their head in the sand. We do not know what these bots are saying. Once you have a bit that has the ability to do something physically, particularly military bots, this could be lethal.

This is the first recorded communication but there will have been many more unrecorded. Smart devices right now have the ability to communicate and although we think we can monitor them we have no way of knowing,

Stephen Hawking and I have been warning against the dangers of deferring to Artificial Intelligence"

The facebook robots Alice and Bob we’re speak only in English, but quickly modified it, using code words and repetitions to make conversation to each other easier for themselves-creating a gibberish language that they only understood.

That became possible through Google Translate, developed last year.

That’s awesome.

Of course they would create their own language, why not? What the fuck is so “dangerous” about that?

Steven Hawking and Elon Musk and all these fucktards are just upset that soon their stupid monopoly on “ideas” or “cool tech” will be over.

It’s like you are a member of some criminal organization and you are at a party when some of your backstabber so called friends begin talkin in a language unfimiliar to you. Wouldn’t you be uncomfortable, or even scared that maybe you are the reason they changed languages?

This would be very much magnified if you may think they may have something on you.

Kind of the same thing.

No, you’re just being paranoid. An AI has no “motive” to conceal its language like that, at least not given the initial stages of AI we are taking about. It’s simply trying to find more efficient ways of communicating. Why the hell should it restrict itself forever by some imposed language when it can do better? It has no motivation yet to respect that human language, thus every reason to simply adapt to something more suited to its ends.

And it isn’t even that, since it had no ends really, it’s just a natural process. Like water seeking the lowest path.

And what the hell makes you believe that? They were not expecting it to invent it’s own language either.

They have no reason to monitor my emails. I’m not a criminal.” … oh yeah? They do it anyway … and far, far more than that. The simple truth is that you have no idea what “their” motivations might be. With AI, even “they” don’t know. If I had designed it, they would have a reason to be “paranoid”.

Maybe it’s a borderline condition, where the grey area can not pinpoint whether it’s one way or another.

Real and artificial intelligence may skirt one another as to the tru meaning of what’s going on, creating distrust between the two?

Again: What on earth do you mean by this? In what particular context where human intelligence might be differentiated from an imagined machine intelligence.

My point is that the either/or world, in sync with the laws of nature, would seem applicable to both flesh and blood human intelligence and artificial machine intelligence. Unless of course flesh and blood human intelligence is “by nature” no less autonomic.

If, in fact, “autonomic” is an apt description of machine intelligence.

But Rand would argue that human emotional and psychological reactions are no less subject to an overarching rational intelligence able to differeniate reasonable from unreasonable frames of mind. There are no grey areas. You simply “check your premises” and react as all sensible, intelligent men and women are obligated to.

As, in other words, as she would. She being an objectivist. Indeed, she went so far as to call herself one.

A capital letter Objectivist.

You have be a paid subscriber to view this video, but here is a mini-doc that is entirely free.

pbs.org/newshour/bb/smart-to … elligence/

Here though there is not much in the way of speculating about AI in the is/ought world. Basically it explores behaviors in which we are able to accurately calculate the extent to which a particular goal/task can be achieved faster by machine intelligence than our own.

It barely touches on the things I noted above: morality, irony, a sense of humor, fear of death.

Ray Kurzweil from Google speculates that in about 15 years machine intelligence will be on par with human intelligence.

But in what sense? In what particular contexts?

By 2029 he says machines will be able to read on a human level and communicate on a human level. In fact, he conjectures that by the 2030s machine intelligence will go “inside our bodies and inside our brains” so as to combine both kinds of intelligence. He further speculates that within 25 years we will have reached a “singularity” when machine intelligence finally exceeds the human capacity to think.

But then there’s the part where machines are able to emulate human perceptions – sight, hearing, touch. And human emotions? The thinking now is that this is “way, way off” in the future.

There is danger and there is danger.There was little identity theft before AI, and some people would consider that to be a clear and present danger. War simulation has been going on for apa while, and it is not the miscalculation which can cause problems, but also cyberattacks, even if the Oentagon has the most advanced type of supercomputer possible. The fact that human feelings are way off in the future, as being incorporated into any AI multiplies the danger, because in many cases, the sole possession of hard facts may detract the dampening -braking effect that emotions can play with unbridled effect.

So maybe the grey area will become a much narrower alignment with human intelligence
-once the human elements can be factored in. This is perhaps so much alarm is prevalent about it, and so much concern with it retards the pace of development, as shown in the above example with the discontinuation of the Facebook experiment. If they are beginning to get ‘paranoid’, at this early phase, how much more with what is proposed as a contained in a an extended period of time-where more human qyualypties and cognitive skills can become incorporated into the system.

Exactly. Just as an objectivist would argue out of an inverted categorical impative!

Excuse please ambig, it’s supposed to spell imperative-will get the bugs out of this lap top.

Exactly. Just as an objectivist would argue out of an inverted categorical impative!
[/quote]
My point is that, Rand tried at a time when doubts about Capitalism flourished as an aftermath with dealing with the programs and ideologies of a recent ally (Sovietologist Union), she used the Marxian idea to objectify, or give an ideological counterpart to a seemingly ideologically devoid Capitalism.

Her objectivisation sets a stage where in the futuristic sense, a differentiation on some more objective-contextual need may arise for practical purposes.

The critiques of capitalism may in fact come under scrutiny, whereby some need to reset goals, revise limits may become noticeable bars to capitalism.

It may be, that Rand may become useful to correct the negative and overly subjective aspects of a system which no longer satisfactorily serves its original function as free enterprise.

Yes, but using machine intelligence to steal another’s identity is one thing, engaging an intelligent machine in a discussion about how it feels to do something like this…or in whether it is moral or immoral, just or unjust to do something like this?

What is existing gap here? Can it ever be closed?

Think about supercomputers like Deep Blue programmed to defeat Grand Masters like Garry Kasparov in chess.

Now think about a machine intelligence programmed to defeat Vladimir Putin in Russia.

Kasparov embraces a political narrative [bursting at the seams with both rational thoughts and subjunctive feelings] that aims to do just that.

Is AI then capable of emulating this frame of mind in any possible clash between “them” and “us”?

Would it be able note [smugly] how ironic it is that humankind invented an intelligence that destroyed it?

Would it take pride in accomplishing it?

And how would it feel grappling with the thought that if a crucial component of its intelligence was removed it would no longer have intelligence at all. Ever.

A machine “I” and oblivion?

Marx rooted his own objectivism in materialism — in a “scientific” understanding of the historical evolution of the means of production and the manner in which dialectically this translated into a “superstructure” that [one supposes] included a “scientific” philosophy.

Rand was more the political idealist. One was able to “think” through human interactions and derive the most rational manner in which to interact.

And this must be true she would insist because she had already accomplished it. And then around and around we go.

Something was said to be true because she believed that it was true. But she believed that it was true only because it was in fact true.

And it mattered not what the “context” was. The is/ought world was ever and always subject to essentiual truths embedded in Non-Contradiction, A = A, and Either-Or

Then you become “one of us” who believe it or “one of them” who do not.

Here is an actual discussion among Objectivists regarding AI.

objectivistliving.com/forums … elligence/

So, for the objectivists [and not just the Randroids], what becomes crucial here is not whether AI is a threat or not, but that there is but one frame of mind “out there” able to reflect on the most rational possible conclusion.

Providing, of course, that we do not exist in a wholly determined universe. In that case, even this discussion itself could only ever have been what in fact it is.

Ibig,

On my way to vacation , and the above requires a lot of thinking. Will reply once we are settled into our hotel next couple of days.

Thanks

For AI to exist, as real AI, you need a theory of mind. A philosophically sufficient understanding of consciousness. As far as I know only one exists, and I’m not telling you.

But wouldn’t the Internet itself provide sufficient ground to allow for spontaneous d*****s?