The sheer stupidity of artificial intelligence(spectator.co.uk)
spectator.co.uk
The sheer stupidity of artificial intelligence
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9252311/the-sheer-stupidity-of-artificial-intelligence/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEDNESDAY%20PREVIEW%20NEWSLETTER
3 comments
Let's replace "believe in machine" in 2014 with "believe in flying to the Moon" in 1961. Imagine how ridiculous flying to the Moon was to some individuals then. Imagine how they could write quite similar articles. Now, after men landed and returned and dust settled decades ago - how we're looking to those possible articles?
May be they had some merit - may be, because it's hard to forecast what's going to happen. Who knows - may be we have a chance to cure cancer in three years, if we only look to the right place today, but we won't and the progress will takes much longer. Who knows - it may very well be possible that Kurzwell predictions won't come true. But that's besides the point. We don't know - and the article is written with suggestion that we actually won't, so the author does know that it won't happen. Just because the matter is so strange to him.
That's an unreliable ground to build forecasts on.
May be they had some merit - may be, because it's hard to forecast what's going to happen. Who knows - may be we have a chance to cure cancer in three years, if we only look to the right place today, but we won't and the progress will takes much longer. Who knows - it may very well be possible that Kurzwell predictions won't come true. But that's besides the point. We don't know - and the article is written with suggestion that we actually won't, so the author does know that it won't happen. Just because the matter is so strange to him.
That's an unreliable ground to build forecasts on.
A lot of name-calling and false equivalencies with nothing to support claims aside from a conversation with Andrew Blake.
But this idea: "In short, we can make the Singularity more likely by stupefying ourselves into becoming machines instead of simply seeing machines for what they are — useful tools." is interesting. PBS Idea Channel just released a video that I think is related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLieeAUQWMs
What I think both the author of this post and the Idea channel video have in common is that they both are thinking of humans (or animals for that matter) as something different from a computer - but what are we but the excitation and suppression of electrical signals? Does the fact that we were grown instead of constructed make a difference?
In reality, we are just a very complicated machine - once you learn enough about how we work you could build your own. And the singularity, specifically the melding of mind and machine is a logical path along that road. Are there real concerns that we need to be thinking about? Sure. Will the 2045 timeframe be accurate? Who knows. But I think we are going to start seeing the lines blurred more and more as we approach that timeframe.