Friday, 21 August 2015

Beyond Scarcity Financial Times Links

I have not checked out all these FT article, which I found on the FT site listed under "beyond scarcity," but it seems a good list, at a glance, so I'm sharing it.

My initial focus was "Productivity polarisation in our ‘Modern Times’ (number 26)." The article stated: "Note with particular attention that last policy recommendation: a basic income for one and all to help society adjust to the new hyper technological environment, in a way that encourages competition and productivity in laggard firms, and dilutes the power of the winner-takes-all corporates."

Number 20 looks potentially good too. I have previously posted, on G+ (and elsewhere perhaps), about humans being Doozers when they mindlessly say they need jobs regardless of jobs actually needing to be done.

If you can't access the links try archive.is.

  1. The parable of water
  2. The end of artificial scarcity
  3. Redefining labour
  4. Beyond GDP and the rise of the non-monetised economy
  5. Robots, China and demographics
  6. The evolution of luxury markets
  7. Counterintuitive insights that are only now making the mainstream now
  8. Time to take basic income seriously?
  9. On what really is different this time around
  10. Inflationistas and the global supply shock
  11. The SME demand-side problem
  12. What is the value of unique?
  13. World War Zirp
  14. Sugar as the new tobacco?
  15. Where art thou inflation?
  16. Google, defender of the universe
  17. The gamification of the economy: creating rivalry where there is none
  18. Behold the new, new economy?
  19. Information asymmetry, bad incentives and Taibbi
  20. Larry Summers on forwarding the Doozer economy
  21. Let there be bubbles!
  22. Secular stagnation and the paradox of worth
  23. The new Hanseatica, now with robot dogs
  24. L'embarras de richesses, crude oil edition
  25. Disrupting FREEDOM!
  26. Productivity polarisation in our 'Modern Times'

Saturday, 30 May 2015

Clueless #Superintelligence Debate

Below is a comment regarding a Motherboard article (26 May 2015): Will Superintelligent AI Ignore Humans Instead of Destroying Us? 

It is shocking that all the supposed mainstream "intellectuals" have not pointed out the logical fallacy of comparing human-AI relationships to animal or insect-human relationships. The UTTERLY massive difference, rendering the comparisons similar to chalk and cheese, is insects did not create humans, they had zero input regarding the design of our genome, whereas humans are intelligently engineering AI, which means we will have a basic understanding of the minds of super-intelligent robots.

Deliberately engineering the next level of intelligence above you is utterly incomparable to past animal-human relationships.

Yes super-intelligence will be massively beyond us but there will be the option for easy communication between super-intelligence, which is already evident via narrow AI translators. Humans will never possess the ignorance of ants etc. The ability to create super-intelligence is unlike any other aspect of previous evolutionary relationships, thus the comparisons (insect-animals-humans to humans-SAI) are logically invalid.

The point about Earth not being a vast repository for resources is good, but it didn't really delve into the Post-Scarcity situation of superior technology regarding the scope of the universe.

The paper-clip maximizer "theory" is utter gibberish. I don't know why people waste time giving thought to such a idiotic-nonsensical-illogical proposition. The paper-clip maximizer theory is utterly irrational tantamount to creationism, but it is expressed in pseudo-scientific terms, or by supposedly scientific people, thus people somehow assume it is a logical-valid proposition, a possibility. Maybe people are fooled by the language.

Saturday, 2 May 2015

Flawed #ArtificialIntelligence Logic

Below is a comment regarding a critique of Nick Bostrom's flawed AI-risk logic. It is a point about the logical fallacy of comparing human-gorilla relationships to human-AI relationships.

My point is the analogy is logically flawed, which analogously is tantamount, if I express it in a mathematical way, to stating 2+2=6; whereupon the flawed mathematician states we need to prepare for 6 regarding 2+2, which means we are preparing for something non-existent.

In fact preparing for 6 based on 2+2 could be harmful, if for example the calculation is regarding calibrating altimeters for airplanes. An alternate way of comprehending Bostrom's logical error is considering how someone could mistakenly deduce 2+2=22, which could at first glance appear true but it would give the wrong height for altimeter calibration.

If an analogy is wrong, if a comparison is wrong, it could entail a person eating chalk because it looked like cheese, which is not healthy similar to drinking poison by mistake because it looked like water.

At first glance the gorillas comparison may look valid, but it falls apart when submitted to logical scrutiny, which leads, if we subscribe to the flawed logic, to making decisions based upon faulty information, misguided decisions. I think Bostrom's flawed conclusions are the most serious existential risk we face.

Below is another comment on the same issue.

Why can't Mathieu Dumoulin see he is comparing chalk to cheese? Mathieu is essentially stating chalk looks like cheese therefore we can eat tasty chalk. He wrote: "Humans smarter than gorillas leads to humans dominating gorillas. AI which would exceed humans intelligence would similarly dominate humans. This is an existential risk to humans."

The massive difference between humans-gorillas versus humans-AI is humans are not the AI creations of gorillas, which leads to a totally different human-gorilla relationship if we consider the accurate comparison.

The point is if gorillas had created humans via AI engineering, intelligent engineering of higher intelligence, gorillas would be able to communicate with humans easily, intelligently, furthermore gorillas instead of living in rainforests would live in an highly advanced civilization where science, laws, and culture are clearly evident. In this case I doubt humans would dominate or abuse intelligent gorillas.

Only when a lower species intelligently designs higher intelligence, whereupon then the higher intelligence dominates the creator species, will the comparisons to humans and AI be valid. The problem with gorillas is they did not create human intelligence whereas humans are creating AI minds, which is a massive difference rendering comparisons logically invalid.

Saturday, 25 April 2015

Defining Intelligence

I define intelligence generally as purpose, but purpose is open to interpretation dependent on your purpose. Awareness, sentience, and perspicaciousness are factors determining higher or lower purpose, but these traits vary between individuals thus people can be unsure what they mean.

Being happy is a good purpose but again happiness is relative dependent upon individual perception, which means an unintelligent person, a person with bad or misguided purposes, could think happiness entails killing people.

Reasoning, the ability to understand causes-consequences-ramifications, is a good way to define intelligence, within the context of how the reasoning is applied, the purpose of it. Instead of reasoning you could call it awareness.

Awareness from my viewpoint means having a clear understanding of limitations, for the purpose of creating happiness, thereby ensuring you create devices to overcome your limitations, which ensures your happiness.

It is intelligent to become more intelligent. Intelligence is self-improvement. Intelligence is power within the context of being able to understand the word "power" regarding all the ramifications power entails.

Now within the context of what I have written you can condense the meaning of intelligence down to the words: purpose, control, power, awareness, perception, sentience, reasoning, happiness.

Possession of a complex brain where introspection and reasoning are possible, regarding a self-aware life-form, is a good way to define intelligence. Ending suffering, living forever, powerfully, freely, beyond the limitations of scarcity, within the context of deep self-awareness, entailing immense rationality, is the best way to define highest intelligence.

Intelligence is technological utopia or the creation of it. Technology is a good way to define intelligence. Greater technology means greater intelligence. Intelligence increases relative to the actualisation, or reality, of utopia. If we are very far aware from utopia, while doing absolutely nothing to actualise it, we are very unintelligent. Progressing towards utopia is intelligent, it is the definition of intelligence.

Greater proximity to the actualisation of utopia state entails greater proximity to greater intelligence. The more our purpose correlates with achieving the utopian purpose the more intelligent we are.

For me the link between intelligence and technology is indistinguishable. No intelligence means no technology. If there is no technology there is no intelligence.

Does this mean animals without technology are unintelligent? Yes animals without technology, for example dolphins, are unintelligent. All animals have a measure of intelligence, but the issue here is significant intelligence. Every brain has a level of intelligence, but deficient technology regarding animals means their absent technological civilization renders them essentially unintelligent.

The intelligence of weak-AI is not intelligent, which means we are considering significant intelligence where a threshold is passed entailing high reasoning, self-awareness, high purpose.

Weak-AI, dogs, ants, or dolphins all posses the foundations of intelligence but they are not intelligent. They lack worthwhile purpose, they lack significant technology. Their intelligence is insignificant, they are essentially unintelligent, their minds have no value, no merit. The issue is significant intelligence worthy of definition. Technology is very significant.

Highly refined sensibilities are vital. Deepest consciousness, potent awareness, incisive perception, dazzling perspicaciousness, and indomitable rationality are all essential.

It is all about utilizing our brains to reduce scarcity. I suppose it is more accurate to say technology reduces scarcity, but for me it seems clearer to state intelligence reduces scarcity because intelligence, brainpower, it is the seed of technology. It is all about value, meaning, worth, purpose, definition.

We increase our efficiency. Limitations are overcome. Technology increases thus scarcity is reduced.

A rock without human intervention is not technology, it is dumb matter. Human ingenuity can chisel the rock into arrowheads, axe heads, or home building material. The rock then becomes technology, it is an aspect of our intelligence, it has value. From the Stone-Age our intelligence (technology) has improved.

Words resemble rocks, we can reshape them. Some sentences are smarter than others. Some paragraphs are very intelligent; they are great technological tools. What are we really looking at regarding words. Light? Glass? Silicon dioxide? Matter? Electricity? Defining, reshaping, or clarifying are vital aspects of technology, language, intelligence.

It is all about perfection. Perfect and utopia are two very valuable words. The whole purpose of words and consciousness is assigning value; thus the highest value, the greatest perfection, should be valued highly. Intelligence is value, importance.

Utopia and perfect are two words I value highly despite not everyone agreeing what perfection is. The battle of values is the battle of intelligence, which should entail the best values winning through. We will continue to evolve, our intelligence and standards will grow towards utopia.

Utopia (super-intelligence, the Singularity) is a state of existence, a point of achievement, a perfect civilization, a situation where everyone is happy, it is a system of total competence, total power, total automation, total freedom.

Consider the details regarding the ultimate reduction of scarcity. Post-Scarcity (Singularity, utopia) entails medical immortality, all jobs automated thereby making everything free regarding access to limitless resources (nobody will need to work). Imagine all crime and wars ended, all governments obsolete. This purpose is extremely intelligent.

Utopia is a situation where all the pressures are off, a point where we can rest on our laurels while the love of life deepens. It is about everyone being perfectly happy, similar to a perfect romance, which requires a large amount of intelligence to implement it for everybody. 

# Blog visitors since 2010:



Archive History ▼

S. 2045 | plus@singularity-2045.org