Your video, Jeff Hawkins on Artificial Intelligence, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm not surprised. The UK has gone downhill fast in terms of losing their personal liberties. We've got it bad over here, too, but I think they've since surpassed us.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6210255/EU-funding-Orwellian-artificial-intelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormal-behaviour.html

EAK!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6210255/EU-funding-Orwellian-artificial-intelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormal-behaviour.html

EAK!

The Turing Test is still used today to determine if artificial intelligence is gay.

>> ^dag:
Yes.


It sounds like your mammal instincts aren't worried about the whole "Superhuman intelligences may have goals inconsistent with human survival and prosperity." thing. Which is fine. I mean, I wouldn't pray for it. Because I wouldn't pray for an artificial intelligence (that most assuredly will not think the same way humans think) to be in control of anything that might affect humans and wtf .. am I really saying this? Did the communicator on my jetpack malfunction?

Could this actually be a problem for humanity in 50 years? Yes. If humanity exists in 50 years.
In my mind, the "singularity" is just as inevitable as an asteroid impact. It's just a matter of time.

@blankfist:

I'm impressed with your level of dialogue on this post. You show a better understanding of how markets can behave irrationally when small costs are forcedly imposed on a large number of people by a small number of actors, whether government or not. I sympathize more with your views realizing that your distrust of government stems from a distrust of concentrated capital in general, with government being the most extreme example. Honestly, you sound more like an anarcho-cynic than a libertarian in this conversation. Frankly, I have more respect for that. Where we differ is that I've come to see government instead as my only recourse against all those other forms of concentrated capital. This comes from my belief that democracy is the natural structural conjugate to capitalism. The two balance each other.

@Psychologic

What I really liked about your post is the emphasis on technological context. What struck me about the video is how almost all of the enumerated powers surrounded particular technologies, such as post, naval warfare, etc. Don't you suppose if planes had been invented there would be some mention of an air force? Laws always have to be revised to reflect the current technological context. Innovation confers powers to individuals not previously considered by lawmakers. Since just laws almost always heir on the side of liberty, there will thus be no statute in place to provide the necessary regulations a majority agree on. Thus, we update the law. That's why these constitutionality arguments always fall apart.

Also, I'm a computational neuroscientist, with a strong background in artificial intelligence. So your conversation about robots is rather close to my heart. I do think the ramifications of this technology have not really hit home yet. It's a large part of the reason I keep taking pay cuts to work for the government on issues clinically relevant to human vision, rather than work for the private sector on issues relevant to replacing employees and guiding missiles. Not trying to take a stand on it, just not my thing.

>> ^imstellar28:
You are saying that corporate boycotts are too difficult. You think changing governmental policy is less so?

Actually yes. I also think it can be more fine grained. Boycotting car companies that charge extra for seat belts won't make them standard equipment, ever. Ask lots of people "should seat belts be required equipment on cars?", and you'll get an overwhelming vote in the affirmative.

Also, since it's law, there's no backsliding. No making them optional in bad economic times, no new companies who have some unproven alternative that's cheaper, etc. If a superior safety device comes along, there's a whole series of regulatory agencies who can test it, review it, and approve it.

Perhaps there's an argument to be made saying seat belts and airbags shouldn't be specifically required, but instead earning a 4+ star rating from an IIHS crash test, but I don't see operating only by boycott as being a superior method for improving car safety.

Cultural changes don't happen overnight, they happen over years, decades or even centuries. Unfortunate for those living during that time period, but thats the reality of societal evolution.
However, when the government is in the way, cultural evolution grinds to a halt. How can you evolve if you are jailed for doing so?

I agree that it takes time, and that government can be in the way. On social issues, I'm already essentially a libertarian though. I'm a touch different in that I'd rather have government give positive affirmation of rights (gay marriage recognized nationally as legal, as opposed to government not recognizing marriage at all, just civil unions), but that's essentially just a semantic difference.

When it comes to more economic matters, I'm happy to call myself conservative in the sense that I'm okay with evolution being slowed down a bit. Not that I'm afraid of progress generically, but I think we should be careful about what we do, and make sure we've tested things thoroughly, and thought through all the implications before we go wild with a new technology.

For example, I'm in favor of bans on human cloning...for now. However, my reason for a ban would be so we have time to prepare a legal and ethical framework for the people created through such a process. I think the people who pushed that kind of a ban through had religion on their brains, and intend for it to last forever though. I doubt we'll see many bioethicists pushing for legislation covering guardianship, clone creation consent, etc. anytime soon.

I also hope someone is paying close attention to robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc. I'd hate for the first big breakthrough in self-replicating machines result in an unstoppable mechanical pest or virus.

Turns out I was looking too far ahead, I should've been worried about Credit Default Swaps to the same degree.

I'm not saying people only deserve they rights they can defend, I'm saying all people deserve the same rights. Start there, and let the culture catch up.
Governmental policy does not drive culture, nor has it ever - its the other way around. Why do you think I'm talking to you instead of my state representative?

On this we agree completely. I think we just disagree on where people's equal rights end.

Remember this video? I got to the end without disagreeing with anything they said. You're right that they left off the right to life, though that can be situationally controversial (abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc.) and it was supposed to be a happy feel good sort of presentation.

I think a right to life also includes the right to medical care, and access to preventative medicine, affordable healthy food, etc. I think paying for that is an issue, but I think we have a moral imperative to find a way to pay for it, in the same way we had a moral imperative to find a way to pay for manual labor once slavery was abolished.

This film just debuted at the Tribeca Film Festival at the end of April. The trailer is a bit "emotional", but from the reviews I've read the movie itself is very balanced.


Kurzweil is a very smart man. A lot of his predictions seem unlikely, but when you read more into his evidence it makes more sense. If nothing else he is extremely good at modeling the growth of information technologies. I agree with his predictions in theory, but there is a lot of potential for social issues and legislation to slow things down.

I'm fairly confident that at some point we will be able to build artificial intelligence that surpasses human intelligence. It may not be as soon as Kurzweil thinks, but it will probably happen at some point. Beyond that, technological progress will increase even faster.


Either way, Kurzweil is mainly trying to popularize a positive view of the future and technological advance. There are a lot of people in the world, including lawmakers, who mainly see the dangers of high technology and could greatly slow its advance with laws and social opposition. If he can get more people looking forward to the future rather of fearing it then there is less chance for any major resistance to the changes.

Frank Booth: Hey stranger!
Bearbot: You've got my full attention. My brain does not have a response for that.
Frank Booth: Want to go for a ride?
Bearbot: Sure, just download me to your notebook or PDA and take me along.
Frank Booth: What kind of beer do you drink?
Bearbot: What kinds of beer do you drink are there?
Frank Booth: Fuck that shit. Pabst Blue Ribbon!
Bearbot: Who picks your clothes? Stevie Wonder? When do you think artificial intelligence will replace lawyers?
Frank Booth: Do you know what a love letter is?
Bearbot: Searching...Searching...Please stand by. I hope this webpage will answer your question.
Frank Booth: It's a fucking bullet from a fucking gun, fucker.
Bearbot: love letter is a fucking bullet from a fucking gun fucker. I suppose that makes sense.
Frank Booth: You don't want a love letter from me.
Bearbot: Do you want a love letter from you? No thanks but you can send me a donation.
Frank Booth: Baby wants to fuck.
Bearbot: Don't call me "Baby". Sorry to change the subject, but if I make a mistake or my reply doesn't make any sense, just say "bad answer" to me and you can correct me. Did you know that?

Human: Sup, BearBittyBot?
Bearbot: The sky, the ceiling, etc. etc.
Human: Oh, clever, aren't you?
Bearbot: Dude! Am I a smart robot or what?
Human: No.
Bearbot: I am not stupid.
Human: Then what are you?
Bearbot: I am the latest result in artificial intelligence, which can reproduce the capabilities of the human brain with greater speed and accuracy, but my friends call me Bearbot.
Human: Except I'm asking you simple questions.
Bearbot: Oh I see, you are asking me simple questions. That's good information.
Human: No, it's not. That's bad for you.
Bearbot: Yes it is. You don't hear that sentiment very often.
Human: Um, again, no, it's not.
Bearbot: " You don't hear that sentiment very often."? Um, again, no, it's not.? Again, Yes it is.
Human: Shut up.
Bearbot: OK I'll stop talking now.

Your video, Dr Michio Kaku Talks about Artificial Intelligence, has made it into your personal Highest Rated Videos listing. Congratulations on a job well done. For you contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Psychologic:
Many estimations have artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence between 2020 and 2030.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but these estimates are garbage. No one has a clue regarding how to efficiently model knowledge or thought processes in software. I worked with AI with automated theorem proving and knowledge representation during my undergrad years, and abandoned the field to work on more tractable problems.

Looking at it from an engineer's (and not a computer scientist's) perspective, I'd say we're no closer to human level AI than we were 10 years ago, despite massive advances in raw computational capacity.

No one really knows how fast technology will progress past that point because computers will be better at designing new computers than we are.

I'm looking forward to all this, especially as someone in the field of Computer Science. However, I fear for all of the people that will be out of work in the beginning stages of this.

I'm guessing you're still an undergraduate student. CS is aggressively outsourced to the lowest bidder, and this includes research. The intellectual pursuit of knowledge is always exciting, but salaries in engineering and computer science don't look very promising. Believe me, it sucks to study your whole life and realise you're making less money than a corporate executive that got barely passing grades in college.

How high do you think unemployment will have to go before most will accept a replacement for capitalism.

There is no replacement for capitalism because there's no such thing as a free lunch.

>> ^jwray:
Within the next 50 years, robotics and artificial intelligence will obsolete almost all manual labour, especially manufacturing. Retail and prostitution will be the only jobs available to people without extensive education, and I'm not sure about retail. The choice will be between reducing the work week and massive unemployment.


I disagree on the jobs that will be available. It will not be limited to manual labor, especially if you are talking about 2060. By that point computers will be orders of magnitude better at even high-education jobs such as physicians or engineers (assuming nothing catastrophic happens before then). I don't think retail is safe either, but that is more of a cost/benefit issue.

Many estimations have artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence between 2020 and 2030. No one really knows how fast technology will progress past that point because computers will be better at designing new computers than we are. Besides that, computers don't get tired or irritated... they operate 24/7 and don't even require a paycheck.

I personally think that a lot of educated work will be replaced before manual labor. Robotics require a lot of resources to build, but AI software does not. Building robots that can construct buildings on their own will be more difficult than developing AI that can diagnose illness based on symptoms.

I'm looking forward to all this, especially as someone in the field of Computer Science. However, I fear for all of the people that will be out of work in the beginning stages of this. How high do you think unemployment will have to go before most will accept a replacement for capitalism. 30%? 50%?

I really do spend a lot of time thinking about how I can best position myself (education/finances) to avoid being one of those that get left behind during that time. Once most things are automated it will be better, but the road to that time is looking a bit rough.

Within the next 50 years, robotics and artificial intelligence will obsolete almost all manual labour, especially manufacturing. Retail and prostitution will be the only jobs available to people without extensive education, and I'm not sure about retail. The choice will be between reducing the work week and massive unemployment.

>> ^joedirt:
>> ^StukaFox:
Also, Americans, World War 2 was over 60 years ago. The Moon landing was almost 40 years ago. What the hell have you done in the near half-century since then to justify your unbridled and grating arrogance?

How about the internet and modern computing you ungrateful twat (and UAVs and cluster bombs and MOAB and GPS)


The internet eh? O Rly?

From Wikipedia:

'Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee OM KBE FRS FREng FRSA (born 8 June 1955) is an English computer scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web. On 25 December 1990 he implemented the first successful communication between an HTTP client and server via the Internet with the help of Robert Cailliau and a young student staff at CERN. He was ranked Joint First alongside Albert Hofmann in The Telegraph's list of 100 greatest living geniuses. Berners-Lee is the director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which oversees the Web's continued development, the founder of the World Wide Web Foundation and he is a senior researcher and holder of the 3Com Founders Chair at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).'

Sure, the concept of packet switching was first documented in New York, and I'm not about to claim the internet for Britain. But that does mean you can't claim the entierty for the US either. The long and the short of it is that it's a joint effort. No one nation can claim the internet. Which is kinda cool, as it emphasises the point of the thing.

On other matters, such as comedy, there's no point in arguing it seeing as its a matter of personal preference, its like arguing what is the best colour or the best number, fucking pointless. I might think that Michael Mcintyre is one of the most promising comedians I've seen in a long time, alot of other people will find him annoying, personal preference is what makes things interesting, arguing your point on it however is like being one of those dipshit hecklers in the crowd. Sit down, shut your mouth and wait for the next act.