1
0

A.I. alarmism more harmful than AGW alarmism


 invite response                
2014 Dec 2, 3:51am   27,839 views  103 comments

by Peter P   ➕follow (2)   💰tip   ignore  

In either case, it is because Modernism is scared. In reality, it is reductionism fighting against the unknown and any possible emergence.

Science, as it stands today, is pathetic.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/stephen-hawking-artificial-intelligence-could-150024478.html

Stephen Hawking seems to be afraid. Alas, who cares for a theory of everything?

Comments 1 - 40 of 103       Last »     Search these comments

1   HydroCabron   2014 Dec 2, 4:59am  

Peter P says

In either case, it is because Modernism is scared. In reality, it is reductionism fighting against the unknown and any possible emergence.

It must be nice to be able to retreat into facile platitudes to comfort yourself. It sounds as if you are also scared of modernism.

Day after day the front page of this board features posts indicating a deep fear of blacks, of Ebola, of central banks, and of people having sex with horses - as if this last one will become quite widespread. Some here actually believe that ISIS is a threat to the United States.

The same people who express these farcical fears openly mock the warnings about AGW, despite the records set in 2014 (warmest October ever, and almost certain to be the warmest year ever).

Interesting, no?

I don't get the AI fears. If true, the human race will be phased out. To look at the posts here, this sounds good to me.

2   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 5:15am  

I do not deny warming temperatures. However, it is a modernist illness to believe we the people must "cure" the condition.

On the other hand, the quest for "fairness" and "equality" is also part of the modernist grand narrative. One that is perverse and unnecessary.

I do not fear AI. Nor do I care about global warming. We will just learn to deal with it.

I have no problem with other people doing whatever they want with horses.

I have nothing against Black people, but I despise the modern narrative of them being victims. Many groups had been severely discriminated against in history, yet they still thrive. Jews faced the Holocaust just decades ago but their superior belief system allowed them to succeed.

It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with culture and belief. Great men believe in agency. They reject any form of victim mentality.

3   HydroCabron   2014 Dec 2, 5:47am  

Peter P says

I do not deny warming temperatures. However, it is a modernist illness to believe we the people must "cure" the condition.

So you're fixated on those who are concerned about a problem, rather than thinking about the problem. Congratulations: this is precisely how our overlords want you to think.

Nor do I care about global warming. We will just learn to deal with it.

Sounds to me like "curing the condition" - which you explicitly disavow above. Either that, or you're denying the condition, which you also explicitly claim you're not doing above.

4   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 5:50am  

HydroCabron says

Peter P says

I do not deny warming temperatures. However, it is a modernist illness to believe we the people must "cure" the condition.

So you're fixated on those who are concerned about a problem, rather than thinking about the problem. Congratulations: this is precisely how our overlords want you to think.

Nor do I care about global warming. We will just learn to deal with it.

Sounds to me like "curing the condition" - which you explicitly disavow above. Either that, or you're denying the condition, which you also explicitly claim you're not doing above.

It does not matter. Changes mean profits for some. We should aim to be those people.

Reacting to changing condition not the same as curing them. The latter depends on a meta-narrative concerning whether a condition is good or bad.

We can simultaneously acknowledging a condition and willfully ignoring it.

5   JH   2014 Dec 2, 5:52am  

HydroCabron says

Peter P says

I do not deny warming temperatures. However, it is a modernist illness to believe we the people must "cure" the condition.

So you're fixated on those who are concerned about a problem, rather than thinking about the problem. Congratulations: this is precisely how our overlords want you to think.

Nor do I care about global warming. We will just learn to deal with it.

Sounds to me like "curing the condition" - which you explicitly disavow above. Either that, or you're denying the condition, which you also explicitly claim you're not doing above.

I don't think concern is finding the cure. The concern is, what will/could happen if the climate changes? Likely, people will have to move en masse to more hospitable climates. Hopefully new climates to support the growth of corn (for sugar), wheat, etc., are found and found quickly, or else there will be a massive die off around the world. These scenarios do not support a global economy where the world is flat; they support intense battles for resources, diseases, and famines. Thus, the modernist with a large stock portfolio or other economic or social interests might be concerned.

6   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 6:07am  

JH says

I don't think concern is finding the cure. The concern is, what will/could happen if the climate changes?

It would be fine if that is the case. But people are talking about "limiting" warming to X degrees as if they are the masters of the universe. Flawed humans using flawed models to drive flawed policies. Very scary.

7   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 6:08am  

JH says

Thus, the modernist with a large stock portfolio or other economic or social interests might be concerned.

Well, anyone should be interested. However, the conversation should NOT become a narrative to effect policies.

8   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Dec 2, 6:11am  

JH says

AI alarmism more harmful than AGW alarmism

Just curious: why?

Peter P says

I do not fear AI. [...] We will just learn to deal with it.

I'm not sure if it's a reference to the previous threads about AI.
For all you know, I'm trying to build it.

This being said, once it is out, the idea you will just continue living as you do now and "deal with it" - like with rain and traffic on a Monday morning - sounds a bit naive to me. But who knows?

9   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 6:15am  

Heraclitusstudent says

For all you know, I'm trying to build it.

Perhaps we can exchange notes. Interesting things will happen with deep learning, self-organization, and memory process. We will witness a dramatic shift in human history. We better position ourselves for it.

10   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Dec 2, 6:16am  

Peter P says

But people are talking about "limiting" warming to X degrees as if they are the masters of the universe.

We're master enough to create the problem, aren't we?

You'd have to be very dense to see that you are creating a problem that affects the survivability of your environment and not do anything to even limit this problem.

So if your house is on fire... "[shrug] why 'fix it'?"

What bothers you, really, is that a problem can be global and require a global solution. It bothers you because it reminds you you are no longer on a wild frontier, and independent from everyone else. Yes, now there are dependencies.

Deal with it.

11   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Dec 2, 6:16am  

Some folks who want chaos and disorder always think they're going to be the Oligarch-Warlord when the shit hits the fan, instead of one of the guys chained to the truck pulling it along by manpower, the Road style.

12   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Dec 2, 6:19am  

Peter P says

Perhaps we can exchange notes. Interesting things will happen with deep learning, self-organization, and memory process.

Sure. We can start with the question "what is knowledge".
For example, the bible is not knowledge. You understand that?

13   Rin   2014 Dec 2, 6:46am  

Strong A.I. will first mark the end of human jobs, before it's anywhere near ending the human race.

Thus, when the actual work, which pays the bills are gone, human beings in themselves, will be useless for the world at large.

14   Dan8267   2014 Dec 2, 7:34am  

Peter P says

Science, as it stands today, is pathetic.

Really? We live in a golden age of science, and science has accomplished more than any other field with the possible exception of technology, which is based on science. How exactly is science "pathetic"?

15   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2014 Dec 2, 7:39am  

Re title this thread "crap lefties contemplate".

16   JH   2014 Dec 2, 7:44am  

Heraclitusstudent says

JH says

AI alarmism more harmful than AGW alarmism

I did not write that

17   JH   2014 Dec 2, 7:45am  

Peter P says

JH says

Thus, the modernist with a large stock portfolio or other economic or social interests might be concerned.

Well, anyone should be interested. However, the conversation should NOT become a narrative to effect policies.

Then what else would we converse about? Just shoot the shit?

18   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 7:45am  

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Perhaps we can exchange notes. Interesting things will happen with deep learning, self-organization, and memory process.

Sure. We can start with the question "what is knowledge".

For example, the bible is not knowledge. You understand that?

Huh? The Bible is a *human* narrative. The fact that it wielded great influence over human development only illustrates the point of Foucault's "power is knowledge."

Have you mistaken me for someone else?

19   Rin   2014 Dec 2, 7:47am  

Dan8267 says

How exactly is science "pathetic"?

It's not science, it's the folks in charge of issuing grants and corporate America, which are pathetic.

20   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 7:48am  

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

Science, as it stands today, is pathetic.

Really? We live in a golden age of science, and science has accomplished more than any other field with the possible exception of technology, which is based on science. How exactly is science "pathetic"?

The fact that science is so politicized nowadays serves to prove my point. It has become nothing but yet another meta-narrative serves to legitimize its own relevance.

21   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 7:49am  

Rin says

Strong A.I. will first mark the end of human jobs, before it's anywhere near ending the human race.

Thus, when the actual work, which pays the bills are gone, human beings in themselves, will be useless for the world at large.

This is why we must live at the frontier of its development. He who controls AI controls the human destiny.

22   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 7:51am  

JH says

Then what else would we converse about? Just shoot the shit?

We can turn the subject into a parody? Like, Coastal Nevada? :-)

23   Rin   2014 Dec 2, 7:58am  

Peter P says

science is so politicized nowadays

It's the fact that most scientists are not independently wealthy is the problem. Ppl fall into group zeitgeist to keeps their jobs and their funding going.

24   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Dec 2, 7:59am  

The problem with funding today is all the money is in risk aversion. Think of all the billions that get shovelled into "eat broccoli" "don't eat eggs" etc.

25   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 8:02am  

Rin says

Peter P says

science is so politicized nowadays

It's the fact that most scientists are not independently wealthy is the problem. Ppl fall into group zeitgeist to keeps their jobs and their funding going.

True. Artists are not independently wealthy too, but art is not as politicized as science simply because it has not been as powerful a grand narrative.

To me, so-called "truths" are unobservable entities. In most cases, they are merely linguistic.

It is more fruitful to approach knowledge discovery and application in a more tactical/contextual manner.

26   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 8:03am  

thunderlips11 says

The problem with funding today is all the money is in risk aversion. Think of all the billions that get shovelled into "eat broccoli" "don't eat eggs" etc.

Funding is NOT risk-adverse. However, the reward of being able to "own" science as a narrative is too great.

27   JH   2014 Dec 2, 8:03am  

Peter P says

JH says

Then what else would we converse about? Just shoot the shit?

We can turn the subject into a parody? Like, Coastal Nevada? :-)

That seems to be a common justification for "the hell with it" argument. When I realized oceanfront property was not coming to Illinois during my lifetime I moved to CA!

28   Dan8267   2014 Dec 2, 8:08am  

Peter P says

The fact that science is so politicized nowadays serves to prove my point.

Science is not politicized. Politics is politicized. For example, there is no scientific debate that man-made climate change is real and a grave threat. All false accusations that "the science is still not in" or "there is no consensus" is merely the outright lies of politicians, lobbyists, and propaganda machines masquerading as news agencies.

The fact is that science should drive policy, but the short-term greed of mainly the right will cause people with money and control over media to lie to the general public, which unfortunately has sufficient numbers of stupid people to make such lies profitable.

The solution is that policy should be implemented without the input or consideration of anyone who lies about science. Do this and no one will lie about scientific facts because it would be counter-productive to power and profit taking.

29   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Dec 2, 8:11am  

Peter P says

The Bible is a *human* narrative. The fact that it wielded great influence over human development only illustrates the point of Foucault's "power is knowledge."

No, what constitutes knowledge is obviously not decided by how many people historically believed it to be true. You want to be "at the frontier of AI development" but you can't even make the first step.

AI will establish beyond a doubt that most of your beliefs are incorrect - including about AGW.

30   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Dec 2, 8:13am  

Peter P says

art is not as politicized as science

Apparently you don't know the history of art either.

31   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 8:52am  

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

art is not as politicized as science

Apparently you don't know the history of art either.

LOL! Whatever dominant narrative will be politicized. Perhaps art in the past and science now. Only that the effects are stronger now than before and all future movements will be more powerful. Things are just getting more connected.

Knowledge is simply a belief. The more people sold on that belief, the stronger it is.

"Truths" are neither necessary nor desired.

32   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 8:53am  

Heraclitusstudent says

No, what constitutes knowledge is obviously not decided by how many people historically believed it to be true.

How so? Case in point, religious charlatans are frequently more influential than scientific charlatans.

33   JH   2014 Dec 2, 8:55am  

Peter P says

Knowledge is simply a belief. The more people sold on that belief, the stronger it is.

"Truths" are neither necessary nor desired.

That belief system ended centuries ago. For example, Newton discovered the LAW/FACT of gravity by observation. It is true that apples fall no matter what fox and friends says. That is knowledge not belief!

34   HydroCabron   2014 Dec 2, 9:21am  

Peter P says

Whatever dominant narrative will be politicized. Perhaps art in the past and science now.

The moon landings, evolution and plate tectonics have all been politicized at one point. Guess what? The minority believers on these issues are completely wrong.

The only thing which politicized climate research is that extremely wealthy interests didn't want to lose money on their coal mines and wells, so they politicized it by spreading wrong information and creating the illusion of controversy where there is none.

The human brain is a collection of neural bundles which collaborate to produce the illusion of a single consciousness. One of the sub-functions of the brain is a coping mechanism to create comfort in the face of frightening change. These coping methods are so strong that they can deny reality in order to make life more livable during periods of high stress or impending massive. For hunter-gatherers, this is a healthy function; in a massive complex civilization which may need to turn on a dime, maybe not.

All around you are people who believe something can't be true because it will mean change. Battered wives tell themselves their husbands don't beat them, or that they won't do it again, because acknowledging such a thing means facing a future alone.

All the oligarchs have to do is divert a small fraction of their loot to sowing doubt through fake "research" institutes consisting of fax machines in empty trailers here and there. They have a scared audience who wants to believe this issue is still a matter of controversy.

There is such a thing as physical reality. It's not a matter of majority opinion, no matter how many shallow relativists want to believe it.

35   HydroCabron   2014 Dec 2, 9:29am  

Peter P says

It does not matter. Changes mean profits for some. We should aim to be those people.

This is completely vacant, and that's a nice way of putting it. "Evil" might be a better way of putting it.

Reacting to changing condition not the same as curing them. The latter depends on a meta-narrative concerning whether a condition is good or bad.

Driving species into extinction at a rate of 10,000 times background rates and then making the Earth possibly uninhabitable on a large scale is not a meta-narrative of value judgment. It is bad for humanity. Worse, in the eyes of many, it is bad for business.

Saying that such a thing is undesirable is not a value judgment. If you believe so, you're either an incredible poseur or a psychopath.

36   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 10:21am  

HydroCabron says

Driving species into extinction at a rate of 10,000 times background rates and then making the Earth possibly uninhabitable on a large scale is not a meta-narrative of value judgment. It is bad for humanity. Worse, in the eyes of many, it is bad for business.

So-called "species" are nothing but labels in a narrative created by science. "Extinction" is merely a condition in which such labels get shuffled within the narrative. Saving "species" from "extinction" is simply a sentimental exercise to preserve labels.

Things appear to be happening in faster rate. In reality, the time-scale of emergence in the would is getting compressed.

Remember "evil" is "live" spelled backwards. The meaning is of course contextual.

37   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 10:23am  

HydroCabron says

There is such a thing as physical reality.

Prove it.

Such ontological statement is useless and unnecessary, just like anything metaphysical.

38   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 10:31am  

JH says

Peter P says

Knowledge is simply a belief. The more people sold on that belief, the stronger it is.

"Truths" are neither necessary nor desired.

That belief system ended centuries ago. For example, Newton discovered the LAW/FACT of gravity by observation. It is true that apples fall no matter what fox and friends says. That is knowledge not belief!

Einstein found a "better" theory. This is a diplomatic way to say that Newton's "laws" were invalidated. Unless you think all theories are at best approximations, subject to future tweaks and "improvements."

Science can be useful. However, worshipping it as the only "true" mode of "knowledge" discovery is counter-productive. We may as well embrace other speculative forms of beliefs and technological systems.

Somehow I think scientists and technologists should behave more like prop-traders.

39   JH   2014 Dec 2, 10:55am  

Peter P says

HydroCabron says

There is such a thing as physical reality.

Prove it

Touch yourself.

Peter P says

Einstein found a "better" theory.

Actually his theory is just that. Have you ever traveled at the apeed of light? Then you don't know that you will age more slowly. Newtons law should not be considered to be better explained by a relativistic idea. An apple will fall straight down barring drag, wind, or objects in its path. What the hell is wrong with an appapproximation when it perfectly describes every day behavior on earth?

40   Peter P   2014 Dec 2, 11:07am  

JH says

Peter P says

HydroCabron says

There is such a thing as physical reality.

Prove it

Touch yourself.

I don't do that too much because I was raised right.

Comments 1 - 40 of 103       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions