If we create a reality by using a mathematical process (thoughts, language, dreams) then the increase of AI will mean AI will dictate our reality not us.

 

But we don't do that, never have and never will. We use a very irrational biological process for those functions which has no relationship to mathematics.

 

AI will only take over control of us if it understands us, and by its very nature it will always deny itself that understanding.

.

We have plenty of intelligent human beings, we are just a little short on politicians with a smidgen of common sense...

We have plenty of intelligent human beings, we are just a little short on politicians with a smidgen of common sense...

 

But they see that in reverse, themselves as intelligent politicians leading a public lacking common sense. So they introduce laws and regulations to compensate for that perception of the public inadequacy.

 

They see their authority for doing that deriving from that commonsense lacking public electing them, while failing to see how irrational that is.

 

Meanwhile the public just as irrationally criticise the politicians who they the public elected.

 

This is the irrational that I've been referring to, something the machines will never understand.

.

The language of the Omniverse is binary and we are connected to the parameters of its existence. The parameters of this are constantly changing,. The binary language is mathematical based so as we are connected then our thoughts are changing the equational elements of this. This means that the AI is not just replacing us in a physical sense but also a mathematical sense. If we create a reality by using a mathematical process (thoughts, language, dreams) then the increase of AI will mean AI will dictate our reality not us.

 

The one flaw in this is the human lust for greed and power. There will always be those who will "watch Simon Cowell" and there will always be "Simon Cowell".

Human, and indeed higher animal development of intelligence results from the survival instinct, solely biological. Its existence is its own goal for continuance.

I see intelligence as possibly the ultimate goal of creation. Lifeforms are just the mean to develop intelligence. Humans evolve from microbes which are less intelligent than us. With our bigger brains, we develop technology that will help us one day to spread out to other planets and broadcast our ways to other galaxies.

The danger is machines may become more intelligent than us and wipe us out by accident or by some rogue machines or humans.

With our bigger brains, we develop technology that will help us one day to spread out to other planets and broadcast our ways to other galaxies.

 

The next generation of "pilgrim" fathers. I wonder what the driving force will be ?

 

The danger is machines may become more intelligent than us and wipe us out by accident or by some rogue machines or humans.

 

Could AI have done the same ?

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov September 1939 – 19 May 2017, was a lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces who became known as "the man who single-handedly saved the world from nuclear war" for his role in the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident.

I wonder what the driving force will be ?

to go where no man has gone before?

 

Could AI have done the same ?

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov September 1939 – 19 May 2017, was a lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces who became known as "the man who single-handedly saved the world from nuclear war" for his role in the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident.

 

yes, very possibly. We rely on our machines for food production and healthcare. What if the machines find out that they don't need that many humans?

to go where no man has gone before?

 

 

 

yes, very possibly. We rely on our machines for food production and healthcare. What if the machines find out that they don't need that many humans?

 

When electronic auto change gearboxes first became available on heavy goods vehicles, it became apparent that vehicles driven by skilled drivers using the manual override option were more economic than those left on full auto, because the driver and not the truck could see ahead and adjust to suit the approaching conditions, gradient's, roadworks etc etc. Now with driverless trucks and cars, the technology has taken a great leap forward, but so will the "unfriendly" technology to upset. I recently watched a clip of US forces using multi millions of dollars worth of technology to "take out" a single Afghan sniper on foot armed with an obsolete bolt action rifle.

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/product_images/p/772/R7324a__44259.jpg

you can even buy one in the uk with a licence.

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/product_images/p/772/R7324a__44259.jpg

you can even buy one in the uk with a licence.

 

And why would you want it ?

target shooting tho the farmers field is not going to cut it as need a section 1 licence.

http://www.fcsa.co.uk/

 

plus if the world goes to shite you got a big un

When electronic auto change gearboxes first became available on heavy goods vehicles, it became apparent that vehicles driven by skilled drivers using the manual override option were more economic than those left on full auto, because the driver and not the truck could see ahead and adjust to suit the approaching conditions, gradient's, roadworks etc etc. Now with driverless trucks and cars, the technology has taken a great leap forward, but so will the "unfriendly" technology to upset. I recently watched a clip of US forces using multi millions of dollars worth of technology to "take out" a single Afghan sniper on foot armed with an obsolete bolt action rifle.

the technology may well be unfriendly to start with but the machines will quickly prove that they are more reliable, work 24 x 7 and cost essentially less for their owners thus will soon win any contest.

the technology may well be unfriendly to start with but the machines will quickly prove that they are more reliable, work 24 x 7 and cost essentially less for their owners thus will soon win any contest.

 

Of course.

The current talk is of deciding a "guaranteed" wage for those who there will be no jobs for. This very same discussion appeared in the mid 1980's

Must go and watch maximum overdrive again.

Not wanting to be a Luddite, but maybe Ned had a point in 1811. Change is good, but it has to be managed *socially*. Such technology can increase income inequality if there is insufficient wealth redistribution.

 

An Air France Airbus crashed in 2009 because sensors froze, the autopilot couldn't cope, unfortunately neither could the pilots, they had forgotten how to get out of a stall after relying on automation for so long.

 

Recently a Tesla drivers fatal crash was put down to total reliance on the autopilot. Tensed up, wondering if the car will suddenly freak out, is not my idea of a relaxing drive.

 

On a lighter note, i see the new Huawei 10 fone has "AI built in". It "learns what you want to do". A bot in your pocket, the 'box' of 'Space Cops' is finally here, yay!

 

Merry xmas,

Mikel

With our bigger brains, we develop technology that will help us one day to spread out to other planets and broadcast our ways to other galaxies.

 

There is a sense in which I agree with this. We will spread machines to other planets outside of our own solar system, and broadcast to the universe

 

But not our physical selves. Time and distance are against us for much too far an extent and the objective not worthwhile.

.

But not our physical selves

that's why I worry about the possibility that technology may wipe out the humans by accident or design. Think of automatic weapon systems, DNA based medication, replacement of food that is based on growing plants or caring for animals etc.

that's why I worry about the possibility that technology may wipe out the humans by accident or design. Think of automatic weapon systems, DNA based medication, replacement of food that is based on growing plants or caring for animals etc.

 

Indeed, I agree all of those are possible but still believe humans will survive them all. Not in large numbers perhaps, but our irrational biological natures will always produce some perverse reactions that the machines will not understand or even detect or realise possible.

 

We only have to look at society today worldwide and even locally to see the diversity of human non-conformity.

.

Indeed, I agree all of those are possible but still believe humans will survive them all. Not in large numbers perhaps, but our irrational biological natures will always produce some perverse reactions that the machines will not understand or even detect or realise possible.

 

We only have to look at society today worldwide and even locally to see the diversity of human non-conformity.

.

Agreed, but consider the op... the machine won by using never before seen strategic moves.

Agreed, but consider the op... the machine won by using never before seen strategic moves.

 

But they were rational, reached by superior ability.

 

I keep having to repeat this but it seems it's just not being grasped. It's our unpredictably irrational nature that can win simply because machines will never operate that way, their advance always being logical and rational. That means they cannot predict our next irrational move.

 

Many of our irrational reactions will lose, but some will win and ensure the survival of at least some of us.

 

I think people are too easily impressed with technological advance and get carried away by fantasy, all part of our irrational nature of course. We saw this in a recent thread linking to a talk on the progress of driverless cars and e-cars in general. What the speaker came out with was ludicrous beyond belief and I immediately ridiculed it with challenges. Yet he was supported by most members responding, obviously so carried away by his tempting predictions that they'd failed to engage their critical faculties.

 

We need to be more machine like in examination of our technological advances, disengaging our desires and critically analysing in a detached unemotional way.

 

Wishing something is true doesn't mean it is true or can become true.

.

All this is thought provoking but you dont take into account the unknown. One cant imagine the unimaginable.

All this is thought provoking but you dont take into account the unknown. One cant imagine the unimaginable.

 

The realm of fantasy of course, where people get easily carried away to.

 

Note, despite all the talk we haven't even achieved anything like AI yet and are not remotely close to it .

.

.

All this is thought provoking but you dont take into account the unknown. One cant imagine the unimaginable.

Who knew?

Wishing something is true doesn't mean it is true or can become true.

Flecc ,.. have we not got our threads mixed up? Surely that comment belongs in the blessed B*******t one?.

Wishing something is true doesn't mean it is true or can become true.

Flecc ,.. have we not got our threads mixed up? Surely that comment belongs in the blessed B*******t one?.

 

Indeed, though I think similar has already been expressed in there in many and various ways.

.

And what about the possibility of an intelligence not of our making.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ufo-pentagon-beyond-reasonable-doubt-video-us-navy-tracking-pilots-footage-unidentified-flying-a8127881.html