– – –
fb via Michel…saying: very stimulating article:
“The whole of science is converging on this master idea of processing data in an algorithmic way, and this will cause the whole of economics and politics to converge on the same idea. The whole of biology since Darwin can be summarized in three words: “Organisms are algorithms.” Simultaneously, computer scientists have been learning how to create better and better electronic algorithms. Now these two waves — the one coming from biology and the other coming from computer science — are merging around this master concept of the algorithm, and their merger will create a tsunami that will wash everything in its way. The basic insight which unites the biological with the electronic is that bodies and brains are also algorithms. Hence the wall between machines and humans, between computer science and biology, is collapsing and I think the next century and probably the future of life itself will be shaped by this algorithmic view of the world.”
no.. organisms are not algo’s
This is what fuels the march of history: humankind gains more and more power but you never see humans becoming satisfied…..The basic reaction of the human mind to pleasure and to achievement is not satisfaction; it’s the craving for more.
[..]China is in a better position to regulate such things than the U.S.. If you have a very centralized decision making process, then you have the advantage that you can decide to regulate something, and your decision will come into effect. The danger is that if you make the wrong decision then there are no checks and balances, and hence if you get it wrong then you get it horribly wrong. In a system where decision making is more distributed, then an error in one place is less catastrophic than in a central system.
Final question: If you had to pick one idea that will be most influential in the next 50 years, what would it be?For the next 50 years, it’s definitely the algorithm.(and then the part that michel shared above… The whole of science is converging on this master idea of processing data in an algorithmic way, and this will cause the whole of economics and politics to converge on the s…..
I don’t think you can completely stop it because the the basic scientific insight of the 21st century is that organisms are algorithms and that we can write algorithms artificially. This is not a genie you can put back in the bottle. But technology’s not deterministic. There is no determinism about where this idea would lead us in the coming decades, so we should aim not just to regulate but to somehow guide this tsunami in a better and wiser direction.
from Anthony Goldbloom‘s ted:
future of work: to what extent is that job reducible to frequent high volume tasks and to what extent does it involve tackling novel situations..
Cognitive computing is not cognitive at all » Banking Technology bankingtech.com/829352/cogniti…
People learn from conversation and Google can’t have one.
ch 9 – artificial intelligence – the eclipse of human discretion
often the researchers involved have displayed a lack of curiosity for any form of intelligence beyond that they recognized in themselves.. and a marked lack of appreciation for the actual depth and variety of human talent. .. t
project to develop ai has very often nurtured a special kind of stupidity in some of its most passionate supporters – a particular sort of arrogant ignorance that only afflicts those of high intellect..
as reach teaching machine to think.. no longer thought of as ai.. which is progressively redefined as something perpetually out of reach
Andrew Ng (@AndrewYNg) tweeted at 12:04 PM – 1 May 2017 :
If you’re trying to understand AI’s near-term impact, don’t think “*sentience.” Instead think “automation on steroids.” (http://twitter.com/AndrewYNg/status/859106360662806529?s=17)
*Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience).
hoping.. there are some creative tasks technical systems will simply never be able to perform
the essence of learning, though, whether human or machinic, is developing the ability to detect, recognize and eventually reproduce patterns. and what poses problems for this line of argument (or hope, whichever it may be) is that many if not all of the greatest works of art – the things we regard as occupying the very pinnacle of human aspiration and achievement – consist of little other than patterns… rich/varied.. but nothing magical..
the humanist in me recoils at what seems like the brute-force reductionism of statements like this, but beyond some ghostly ‘inspiration’ it’s hard to distinguish what constitutes style other than habitual arrangements, whether those be palettes, chord progressions, or frequencies of word use and sentence structure. and these are just the sort of feature that are ready-made for extraction via algorithm.
habitual arrangements.. chord progressions.. on composing/orchestration ness – ben folds composes in 10 min – orchestra knows what to play – plays in sync
everyone will have their own fav ies of an art that seems as if it must transcend reduction. for me, it’s the oval phrasing of nina simone.. the ache and steel of life in her voice..
the notion that everything i hear might be flattened to a series of instructions and executed by machine..
‘to extract the features that make rembrandt rembrandt..’ for algo’d.. next rembrandt
alphago isn’t just one thing, but a stack of multiple kinds of neural network and learning algorithm laminated together
deep blue ..a special purpose engine exquisitely optimized for – and there fore completely useless at anything other than – the rules of chess.. alphgo is a general learning machine..
.. simply brute force. that may well have been how deep blue beat kasparov. it is not how alphago defeated lee sedol.. for many i suspect, next rembrandt will feel like a more ominous development than alphago
constructed bushido is unquestionably something that resides in the human heart, or does not…this matters when we describe a machine, however casually, as possessing this spirit.
points toward a time when just about any human skill can be mined for its implicit rules and redefined as an exercise in pattern recognition and reproduction, even those seemingly most dependent on soulful improvisation
what we now confront is the possibility of machines transcending our definitions of mastery,pushing outward into an enormously expanded envelope of performance..t
so maybe the issue is.. with mastery and performance.. maybe those things aren’t the soul of a humanity.. and so.. they are able to be algo’d.. but don’t rep/define us
lee sedo: i’t not a human move. i’ve never seen a human play this move. so beautiful.
so to with flying.. et al.. doesn’t mean it’s more human.. means it’s augmenting a human/animal performance..
the ai player, *unbound by the structural limitations, the conventions of taste or the inherent prejudices of human play, explore fundamentally different pathways – and again, there’s an aesthetic component to the sheer otherness of its thought.. t
thinking *this is what we need ai ness to do.. to get us back to us.. as a means to listen to each of us.. everyday.. w/o agenda/judgment.. et al..
i don’t know what it will feel like to be human in that posthuman moment. i don’t think any of us truly do. any advent of an autonomous intelligence greater than our own can only be something like a divide-by-zero operation performed on all our ways of weighing the world, introducing a factor of infinity into a calculus that isn’t capable of containing it..t
i don’t know.. maybe it’s that ability to divide by zero that will blur our mathematical lines/assumptions of what it means to know things.. even what it means to be human
eagle and condor ness