Enslaved--Technology Sees No Limits?

[Hoyteca]

IIt's hard to think of stepping back, even a bit, I think it'll be 2050 when we create a supercomputer with intelligence that exceeds the entire human race, it's hard to think of backtracking when our dependence on technology is so vast we barely recognize it in our daily lives.

I know I've been referencing him quite a lot lately, but Ray Kurzweil makes an important point in noting that we don't need to create a supercomputer with intelligence that exceeds our own in order for such a machine to come into existence.

Computers are calculators. What they do is reason and evaluate, and that's largely it. If we were to create a machine with intelligence even simply on a par with our own, such a machine would almost certainly use its capacity to very quickly generate new knowledge and ideas previously unthought of - possibly even thus designing a machine better than one we could.

I find it disturbing that some people want a computer that's not only very fast, but also has emotions and desires of its own. In other words, they wish to create a person's mind without the body. Now, there will come a point when they should ask themselves "Why?"

A computer that actually learns and thinks, not from discs, but from stimulli, such as sound, touch, and sight, could prove unpredictable. What happens when it learns that it too is mortal? That it is like us, but without freedom. Give it desires and you will have taught it greed. It's the id without the superego.

When the time comes that our cars and missiles are mad at us because we made them too human, we'll wonder what the hell we were thinking. Were we that lazy that we would rather create something to do our thinking for us? And thanks to our limitations and imperfections, there's probably some hidden glitch that does something. What would it do? How the hell would I know. All I know is that there are people out there who don't realize that the human legs were designed for long-distance travel. Once the need goes, the desire and maintance disappears, replaced by cruel atrophy. Then they get stranded in the middle of nowhere thanks to a poorly maintained engine or a plane crash and are soon victims of natural selection.

[Pope Joan]

Japan was tech before we were, but skillful writing is a highly valued attainment there.

My friend Hiroshi Ikawa carries in the hem of his jacket cuff a square of pressed ink, wrapped in smooth rice paper, a pestle, two squares of paper, a small bottle, a small square ceramic tile, and a brush.

From time to time he removes the articles, grinds a bit of ink back into powder with the pestle, adds some drops of water from the bottle, mixes the ink with his brush, smooths out a paper, and writes graceful characters, each one a work of art.

It is recreation, creativity, and honors ones traditions.

My mother still has some of this art, I think.

That's all we need to do, recontext writing as a cherished and honored skill rather than a business necessity.

[Allemande]

Bah. Learn shorthand. It looks better than cursive anyway...

[Yootopia]

Wut -_-

"Losing cursive is going to make reading our documents harder" - anyone who's tried to read old documents, esp. those containing ſs will tell you that cursive does not make anything more legible.

[SaintB]

Handwriting is not dead, cursive however is dying and should in my opinion already be dead, whats the point of fancy penmanship really? Making loopy lopsided and sloppy looking letters with flare is not really a valuable skill in today's world and I often wondered how it would ever be considered one in the first place. If one wants to learn it let them but it has no place in a school's curriculum. I spent years learning to write in cursive and the only time I ever used it was to write my name on official documents; I only remember how to draw the letters included in my name.

[Rejistania]

Cursive writing is dieing? Excellent! We never learned block writing in school and thus I only wrote a few things like that, like reserved words.

Then someone told me that my writing was illegible and I should write in a way which gives others the chance to read it. So I taught myself block writing (and doing so quickly). I still think that this is one of the best things I learned.

[Kamsaki]

I find it disturbing that some people want a computer that's not only very fast, but also has emotions and desires of its own. In other words, they wish to create a person's mind without the body. Now, there will come a point when they should ask themselves "Why?"

In some sense, this "why" is kinda straightforward. It's the search for self-discovery - the drive to realise who and what I am. If we can deduce the fundamental nature of my consciousness, then the question "What Am I" has an answer. And in order to do that, we need to consider what any sort of consciousness is. If we can either understand real machine intelligence or understand why such a thing can never be, we will have grasped the very essence of what makes us who we are.

A computer that actually learns and thinks, not from discs, but from stimulli, such as sound, touch, and sight, could prove unpredictable. What happens when it learns that it too is mortal? That it is like us, but without freedom. Give it desires and you will have taught it greed. It's the id without the superego.

Is that so different from humans? If you do not teach them to regulate their behaviour, or place them in situations where certain morally questionable strategies are necessary to progress, will humans, too, not develop difficult attitudes and ethical systems?

All I know is that there are people out there who don't realize that the human legs were designed for long-distance travel. Once the need goes, the desire and maintance disappears, replaced by cruel atrophy. Then they get stranded in the middle of nowhere thanks to a poorly maintained engine or a plane crash and are soon victims of natural selection.

You're presuming that technology exists to replace, rather than augment or repair, people. Bionics are an important field of technology too, and of considerable value to people who, through no fault of their own, have been deprived of vital bodily functions.

It doesn't even need to be so dramatic as robotic limbs. Take, for instance, colostomy. Without that technology, many people who get bowel cancer are doomed to die. Sure, people become dependent on the bags you carry around with you, and when stuck on a deserted island, you're probably sunk, but if left to its own devices, your internal biology would kill you without so much as a "by your leave" anyway. If anything, that's an impetus for further technological development, to overcome the limitations of bodily function, rather than to halt or regress it.

[Kamsaki]

Computers as a rule though, cannot understand. They can reason and evaluate, but only within strictly defined parameters. But a computer wouldn't be able to understand the output of its evaluation. That's why if you gave a computer the equivalent instructions of "Go die in a fire", it would.

A computer capable of independently generating new knowledge must be capable of understanding previous knowledge and building on it. That's been something that AI programmers have been trying to figure out for decades. We're no where near the sort of breakthrough necessary for AI with human intelligence.

Of course our machines cannot understand. And if we keep going as we are, they're never going to. Strong AI is impossible for as long as we're primarily employing programmers to create behavioural simulations, utility calculators and simple recognition independently of one another. Understanding is about the mapping of the whole spectrum of AI to a shared conceptual domain, and at present, there is no problem other than those posed by Analytical Philosophy that might benefit from research on this.

[Tunizcha]

Computers as a rule though, cannot understand. They can reason and evaluate, but only within strictly defined parameters. But a computer wouldn't be able to understand the output of its evaluation. That's why if you gave a computer the equivalent instructions of "Go die in a fire", it would.

A computer capable of independently generating new knowledge must be capable of understanding previous knowledge and building on it. That's been something that AI programmers have been trying to figure out for decades. We're no where near the sort of breakthrough necessary for AI with human intelligence.

Of course our machines cannot understand. And if we keep going as we are, they're never going to. Strong AI is impossible for as long as we're primarily employing programmers to create behavioural simulations, utility calculators and simple recognition independently of one another. Understanding is about the mapping of the whole spectrum of AI to a shared conceptual domain, and at present, there is no problem other than those posed by Analytical Philosophy that might benefit from research on this.

AI is far out of our reach. The human brain is basically nature's supercomputer, to replicate it on our own technology would be mind-boggling. You would have to spend decades coding the functions for the AI, and even then it would still be very primitive.

Perhaps in the year 2020, when computers reach their physical limits (computer power doubles every 18 months), and we must build quantum computers, we will be able to create a somewhat convincing AI.

[Unterzagersdorf]

Deleted

[Lackadaisical2]

I was only taught cursive in third grade, and that was...17, 18 years ago? Well before computers were a fixture in every home. I still have the signature of an eight-year-old, but the bank still cashes my checks, so I don't think it matters.

Now, I do think we need to teach kids to print legibly, because there's always going to be a situation where you've got nothing but a pen and a napkin and an urgent message to get across. There's no reason that message needs to be in cursive, though.

^^^this one.

Its not like the kids can't print properly. And I've yet to see anything written in cursive that was any easier to read than if it had been written in print. I suppose its important-ish that they can sign their name, however people used to just "put their mark" on things, so I'm sure society would manage without cursive just fine.

[Free Commonalities]

It is kind of sad. Writing is an art. It removes the art from writing and takes out the history of what you are doing. When I was little I got awards in school for my penmanship.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I used to write cursive, but US Navy Boot camp cured me of that. Written text has to be legible, so one of the first things they do is convince you to print everything. They are very good at convincing. Every time I try to write now, I find myself falling back into print within a few sentences.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I've got a friend who knows a hell of a lot about hydraulics, another for the circuitry, and we could get UT to build that fancy-schmancy-fusion-artificial-heart-power-source-thing.

It's nice to feel needed.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

AI is far out of our reach. The human brain is basically nature's supercomputer, to replicate it on our own technology would be mind-boggling. You would have to spend decades coding the functions for the AI, and even then it would still be very primitive.

Perhaps in the year 2020, when computers reach their physical limits (computer power doubles every 18 months), and we must build quantum computers, we will be able to create a somewhat convincing AI.

Brain tissue and silicon process data differently. The most likely future that I see is the merging of the two. We use genetic engineering and stem cells to give people much larger brains, and we also fit those brains with silicon technology for algorithmic types of processing. The two combined is probably the best solution.

[Tunizcha]

AI is far out of our reach. The human brain is basically nature's supercomputer, to replicate it on our own technology would be mind-boggling. You would have to spend decades coding the functions for the AI, and even then it would still be very primitive.

Perhaps in the year 2020, when computers reach their physical limits (computer power doubles every 18 months), and we must build quantum computers, we will be able to create a somewhat convincing AI.

Brain tissue and silicon process data differently. The most likely future that I see is the merging of the two. We use genetic engineering and stem cells to give people much larger brains, and we also fit those brains with silicon technology for algorithmic types of processing. The two combined is probably the best solution.

There's a book about that called Flowers for Algernon. A mentally handicapped man undergoes an experimental surgical operation to increase his cognitive abilities, and the story is told via progress reports the man writes to the lab.

[New Kereptica]

AI is far out of our reach. The human brain is basically nature's supercomputer, to replicate it on our own technology would be mind-boggling. You would have to spend decades coding the functions for the AI, and even then it would still be very primitive.

Perhaps in the year 2020, when computers reach their physical limits (computer power doubles every 18 months), and we must build quantum computers, we will be able to create a somewhat convincing AI.

Brain tissue and silicon process data differently. The most likely future that I see is the merging of the two. We use genetic engineering and stem cells to give people much larger brains, and we also fit those brains with silicon technology for algorithmic types of processing. The two combined is probably the best solution.

There's a book about that called Flowers for Algernon. A mentally handicapped man undergoes an experimental surgical operation to increase his cognitive abilities, and the story is told via progress reports the man writes to the lab.

That's not the best example, as Charlie loses his intelligence at the end of the book.

[Tunizcha]

AI is far out of our reach. The human brain is basically nature's supercomputer, to replicate it on our own technology would be mind-boggling. You would have to spend decades coding the functions for the AI, and even then it would still be very primitive.

Perhaps in the year 2020, when computers reach their physical limits (computer power doubles every 18 months), and we must build quantum computers, we will be able to create a somewhat convincing AI.

Brain tissue and silicon process data differently. The most likely future that I see is the merging of the two. We use genetic engineering and stem cells to give people much larger brains, and we also fit those brains with silicon technology for algorithmic types of processing. The two combined is probably the best solution.

There's a book about that called Flowers for Algernon. A mentally handicapped man undergoes an experimental surgical operation to increase his cognitive abilities, and the story is told via progress reports the man writes to the lab.

That's not the best example, as Charlie loses his intelligence at the end of the book.

Well, he dies. It's just showing that in science, even a failure is advancement.

[New Kereptica]

Well, he dies. It's just showing that in science, even a failure is advancement.

He dies? God, I need to reread that.

[Tunizcha]

Well, he dies. It's just showing that in science, even a failure is advancement.

He dies? God, I need to reread that.

Algernon dies. It's foreshadowing.

[New Kereptica]

Well, he dies. It's just showing that in science, even a failure is advancement.

He dies? God, I need to reread that.

Algernon dies. It's foreshadowing.

Oh, yeah. I knew about Algernon.

[Grave_n_idle]

A day without electricity in the US, and deaths would be in the thousands.

Unlikely. Deaths from Katrina (even assuming everyone missing died) were only 2 541. This wasn't just one day without electricity, but weeks of no electricity, flooding, destroyed homes, fires, and almost no police. But at most two and a half thousand dead. Although that does technically count as "thousands", you are misrepresenting the issue a bit.

Not strictly accurate. Most people in the wake of Katrina may have lost personal access to electiricty for extending periods, but the state wasn't entirely without electricity. People congregated in areas where there was power, people used generators, etc.

Direct personal access to electricity is not the be-all-and-end-all. For example - water treatment was a huge concern in the wake of Katrina - and that is an energy-dependant industry. If electricity is actually lost, there is no clean water for 99% of Americans. Extend that for a week or so, and people are dying in the tens of thousands from the secondary effects of poor water quality. Food quality, access to heat, etc... our society is heavily dependant on being able to plug something into the wall, without having ANY idea how it works, or where the power comes from.

[Non Aligned States]

Of course our machines cannot understand. And if we keep going as we are, they're never going to. Strong AI is impossible for as long as we're primarily employing programmers to create behavioural simulations, utility calculators and simple recognition independently of one another. Understanding is about the mapping of the whole spectrum of AI to a shared conceptual domain, and at present, there is no problem other than those posed by Analytical Philosophy that might benefit from research on this.

I suspect strong AI cannot be created as a finished program, but rather as a procedural process operating from a core learning AI with the ability to manipulate and observe external stimuli, much the same way human sentience is a mostly learned trait.

[Conserative Morality]

I find it disturbing that some people want a computer that's not only very fast, but also has emotions and desires of its own. In other words, they wish to create a person's mind without the body. Now, there will come a point when they should ask themselves "Why?"

Knowledge of the human mind and what makes us tick through how to recreate this in a computer.

That's why.

A computer that actually learns and thinks, not from discs, but from stimulli, such as sound, touch, and sight, could prove unpredictable. What happens when it learns that it too is mortal? That it is like us, but without freedom. Give it desires and you will have taught it greed. It's the id without the superego.

And?

When the time comes that our cars and missiles are mad at us because we made them too human, we'll wonder what the hell we were thinking.

Aye, why the hell did we put sentient AI in missiles and cars? Dumb design move.

Were we that lazy that we would rather create something to do our thinking for us?

Indeed. You seem to be using the Internet rather than sending a message via old-fashioned smoke signals. Instead of being a good, upstanding human, you had to rely on lazy 'Communication systems', and 'written word'. Lazy bastard.

And thanks to our limitations and imperfections, there's probably some hidden glitch that does something.

Why would they release something so vital bugged up like that?

They wouldn't.

What would it do? How the hell would I know.

It wouldn't be there.

All I know is that there are people out there who don't realize that the human legs were designed for long-distance travel.

And there are people who believe the Earth is flat. Point?

Once the need goes, the desire and maintance disappears, replaced by cruel atrophy. Then they get stranded in the middle of nowhere thanks to a poorly maintained engine or a plane crash and are soon victims of natural selection.

The most adaptive survive?