Artificial intelligence and the future pose many important problems. I would like to discuss the conflict between human innovation and artificial intelligence. The problem is already on the horizon and, although no one really says it, it is only because we do not pay attention to our environment or our environment in the information age.
Many will tell you that artificial intelligence will never replace humans in certain areas, such as creativity, categories like; Art, storytelling, film, writing and innovation. Although I would like to assure you that these notions are true, I can not tell you in a rational or honest way that they are true. We already see the beginnings of AI in these categories, and the art of graffiti (writing) is on the wall. We already have an art of artificial intelligence, and some of them are indistinguishable from works done by humans. AI has already passed the Turing test in this area.
We also have new AI writers, writing software and songwriting, and it is also very good. We have also seen the first AI films, no, not yet on a human level, but we certainly do, and we consider the fact that there are very few new genres introduced these days, most of the movies. They are common scenarios with slight derivations in the genre. The intrigues are predictable enough and good Hollywood movies follow certain rules, as well as good writing and good art. The rules can be taught to computers, software and therefore to artificial intelligence. AI can also mix and match combinations never before tested, in real time and at a very low cost per new unit produced.
As I said before, most innovations also follow rules and often use easy-to-follow strategies. Also, for those who believe that all innovation educators today really help people learn to be more creative and innovative, it is obviously not that difficult to do. And if it's an easy task, then we can say that Artificial Intelligence can easily defeat it. In fact, it does not take a creative genius to understand how.
How to imitate creativity and innovation with artificial intelligence.
All you have to do is take the IBM Watson, connect it to a super computer and send it all the information of the world. Then, simply ask him to combine each word or phrase in each language, then ask Watson what this new sentence might mean. It will return with the answers and the probability percentage that each of these answers is correct for each new combination. Suppose that the results of the recomposition with high percentages, for example 75-99%, could be examined through collective purchases with people trained in these areas to determine if each of the answers obtained made sense. Using this technique, IA Innovating Watson could offer tens of millions of viable original ideas in one day.
Yes, this would be the first project in question, but this unique effort would create more original thoughts than the combined ones between Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin and Richard Feynman that they had imagined in their entire lives. Suppose that this number represents 10,000 new original ideas per man or 30,000 in total, an incredible number in all respects, but AI using a super computer and all the knowledge and information registered around the world, the innovative program The IA could propose a thousand millions of new original thoughts for the next weekend and this could continue until the exhaustion of the possibilities of combination.
Does this mean that AI will be the master of innovation? Does this mean that artificial intelligence will replace the human intellect? Does this mean that innovation consultants will become a thing of the past? Yes and no. Yes, because it is finally inevitable and not, because it will not happen overnight, and the AI will create a lot of work on the fly and humans will have to check all these new concepts, this could only employ millions of intellectuals in almost all the sectors, industries and intellectual domains. This project could last for decades and generate millions of jobs for more than 30 years.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Should Artificial Intelligent Robots Be Able to Tell Jokes?
There are obviously degrees of intelligence and if we call intelligent human beings, I hear people laughing in the background when I say that, but if we use the human brain as a model to design artificial intelligent robots, then we have: our work is done for us.
Indeed, I would think that a robot of high-end artificial intelligence should be able to think enough to invent his own jokes which his human companion might well make fun of. This topic was recently addressed in an online think tank when a member, Keith, said during the review of this topic;
"I could no longer disagree, humans expect computers and robots to respond with non-deceptive, jovial or other facts." Do you want to tolerate a washing machine or a dishwasher? saying the items were clean when they were not? Or wasting your time accepting an order but not running it, "like a joke"? "
This is of course not what I really thought, but it's an interesting point, indeed, that Keith argues. I thought instead that since humans have artificial intelligent companion robots, Android assistants, the human must unite with the artificial intelligent robot and try to keep things on an equal footing. respect. Because if you take the advice of a robot or an intelligent artificial machine, you must also respect them. And so you need a report.
Now, if your washing machine confused you and you could not trust it, it's one thing, a negative point, but if you had to live with an artificial person, that person would then need more human traits at beyond the behavior. Humor is something important. the comic relief makes sense. Interesting topic probably and you could perhaps consider this in 2006.
Indeed, I would think that a robot of high-end artificial intelligence should be able to think enough to invent his own jokes which his human companion might well make fun of. This topic was recently addressed in an online think tank when a member, Keith, said during the review of this topic;
"I could no longer disagree, humans expect computers and robots to respond with non-deceptive, jovial or other facts." Do you want to tolerate a washing machine or a dishwasher? saying the items were clean when they were not? Or wasting your time accepting an order but not running it, "like a joke"? "
This is of course not what I really thought, but it's an interesting point, indeed, that Keith argues. I thought instead that since humans have artificial intelligent companion robots, Android assistants, the human must unite with the artificial intelligent robot and try to keep things on an equal footing. respect. Because if you take the advice of a robot or an intelligent artificial machine, you must also respect them. And so you need a report.
Now, if your washing machine confused you and you could not trust it, it's one thing, a negative point, but if you had to live with an artificial person, that person would then need more human traits at beyond the behavior. Humor is something important. the comic relief makes sense. Interesting topic probably and you could perhaps consider this in 2006.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Artificial Intelligence Possible Concepts - Are You Ready for the Future
Artificial intelligence has come a long way in the last decade and has yet to be consulted; Where we are today Looking at the brief history of artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence, we see things like chess champions between humans and machines, but current research goes much further.
The applications and uses of artificial intelligent machines are endless. The forecasting software can help us in the areas of medicine, environmental monitoring, weather warnings and even to optimize our transportation systems and cash flows, and help us protect our country. The way forward for artificial intelligence is closer to the track and you can expect us to do the same in the next five years.
For example, if you are worried that your CEO is making too much money in your business, you will not have to worry, as it will soon be replaced by an artificial business tool; That's right, meet your new CEO.
Artificial intelligence will be used at work, but also at home and probably in your future flying car, which will be centrally connected to all other cars on the road to avoid crashing and letting you read your newspaper put your lipstick and talk on your cell phone while your car drives alone.
This is the future of artificial intelligence and it will arrive soon. Of course, artificial intelligence and future transport controls are likely to have disadvantages. For example, every time you accelerate, you receive a ticket by email, which you must pay because the system will be connected to electronic government.
If you think you can park in a prohibited parking area without getting a parking ticket, think again because in the future you will not be able to get a parking ticket because the system knows everything.
The applications and uses of artificial intelligent machines are endless. The forecasting software can help us in the areas of medicine, environmental monitoring, weather warnings and even to optimize our transportation systems and cash flows, and help us protect our country. The way forward for artificial intelligence is closer to the track and you can expect us to do the same in the next five years.
For example, if you are worried that your CEO is making too much money in your business, you will not have to worry, as it will soon be replaced by an artificial business tool; That's right, meet your new CEO.
Artificial intelligence will be used at work, but also at home and probably in your future flying car, which will be centrally connected to all other cars on the road to avoid crashing and letting you read your newspaper put your lipstick and talk on your cell phone while your car drives alone.
This is the future of artificial intelligence and it will arrive soon. Of course, artificial intelligence and future transport controls are likely to have disadvantages. For example, every time you accelerate, you receive a ticket by email, which you must pay because the system will be connected to electronic government.
If you think you can park in a prohibited parking area without getting a parking ticket, think again because in the future you will not be able to get a parking ticket because the system knows everything.
What Will the Artificial Intelligent Robotic Androids Be like in the Future?
The answer is relatively simple and you can expect artificially intelligent robotic androids at home, similar to the Hollywood movie "AI." Your artificial and intelligent robotic androids will also be a member of the family and a companion.
Of course, in the future, there will be colonies on Mars and the Moon and artificially intelligent systems will help humans manage these habitats to protect them from damage. Of course, there will be similar systems that will protect our country from damage. Our national defense will be made up of artificially intelligent robotic computer systems, including AI in the battle space centered on the network.
The complete logistics chain for the army will be run using artificially intelligent software that predicts needs as they occur in real time. The NSA, the FBI and the CIA will have artificially intelligent supercomputers, which sweep a billion bytes of information every minute to protect our country.
Will artificially intelligent robotic androids merge with humans?
We already see artificial components used in the medical industry to help people with lost members in the future. These robotic arms and legs will work with wireless devices and will be controlled by brain thinking. Should we be alarmed by the fusion of man and machine?
AI in your brain and AI controlling your electronic devices thinking?
In the future, you can get your PhD. and it will simply be a small information chip that will connect to your brain's port. You can have multiple PhDs in many different areas and your CV will be really out of the ordinary, combining artificial intelligence with real human intelligence. Please consider all this.
Of course, in the future, there will be colonies on Mars and the Moon and artificially intelligent systems will help humans manage these habitats to protect them from damage. Of course, there will be similar systems that will protect our country from damage. Our national defense will be made up of artificially intelligent robotic computer systems, including AI in the battle space centered on the network.
The complete logistics chain for the army will be run using artificially intelligent software that predicts needs as they occur in real time. The NSA, the FBI and the CIA will have artificially intelligent supercomputers, which sweep a billion bytes of information every minute to protect our country.
Will artificially intelligent robotic androids merge with humans?
We already see artificial components used in the medical industry to help people with lost members in the future. These robotic arms and legs will work with wireless devices and will be controlled by brain thinking. Should we be alarmed by the fusion of man and machine?
AI in your brain and AI controlling your electronic devices thinking?
In the future, you can get your PhD. and it will simply be a small information chip that will connect to your brain's port. You can have multiple PhDs in many different areas and your CV will be really out of the ordinary, combining artificial intelligence with real human intelligence. Please consider all this.
Monday, October 22, 2018
The Turing Test, Artificial Intelligence and Science Fiction
It is even difficult to start a debate about the possibility of artificial intelligence, because we have to eliminate so many semantic debris before we can agree on what we are talking about.
For starters, does artificial intelligence imply an artificial consciousness of the self, an artificial consciousness? In my opinion, this should be the case. Otherwise, we are really talking about advanced machines.
But some would disagree and say that the question of conscience is not important; It is the construction of an expert system that simulates human intelligence for practical purposes.
This may well turn out to be an issue that deserves to be decided, since many experts predict that artificial intelligence (AI) will be realized in the current century and will pose a great threat to human supremacy on this planet.
Another point, perhaps less urgent, but equally interesting at the philosophical level, is this: can all intelligence be artificial? If a machine becomes conscious of itself, should not it be considered that this condition has been activated instead of "created" by the human constructors of the physical structure of the machine? After all, parents who father children are considered to be issuers rather than creators of life.
In my opinion, if a machine is built with a level of recursive complexity that leads to self-consciousness, it will be thanks to an attraction that complexity will be exercised at any level of reality that governs the arrival of consciousness. In the words of Philip K. Dick, the machine "caught" life.
Another point is that it is possible, in a more distant future, that the automation of the machine advances to such an extent that adjustments and automatic adaptations begin to present a close analogy with biological evolution. In this case, the notion of "artificiality" is relegated to a second plane, because machines in fact become an integral part of nature and react to natural conditions as other creatures do. This idea is brilliantly described in the Poul Anderson story, "Epilogue" (1962). Electronic models, which contain complete information on the design of machines, play the role of DNA. Hard radiation affects these recordings because they would affect an organic gene, and the resulting mutations play a role in natural selection. The superior machines have something analogous to sexual reproduction ("... their body diagram has been crossed by currents and magnetic fields ... the two heterodyned patterns and in the deepest part of it had had the first crystallization to place").
In the Ooranye project, a series of stories that take place on the giant planet Uranus, not well known to astronomers, but its most real and archetypal: the process of evolution of the machine has resulted in a category of beings, Ghepiones. , which are partly organic. Components of the city, means of transport or even the landscape.
After considering all this, what is left of the usefulness of the Turing test?
This is the test suggested by Alan Turing (1912-1954) in his 1950 article entitled "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". To perform the test, someone questions an invisible human and an invisible machine, and tries to distinguish them by the quality of their responses. If the machine responds so well that it can not be separated from the human respondent, it has passed the test and can be considered a successful imitator of the human mind.
Maybe Turing himself was happy to leave him there. If we only talk about evaluating the degree of imitation, the test is good. But, of course, it is impossible to leave it there, because the broader philosophical questions attract attention. It is unfortunate that some authors, such as Arthur C Clarke, seem to think that the Turing test is something more useful. It's as if they said that the issue of self-consciousness is not important.
On the other hand, I can underestimate Clarke; perhaps when he says that we are all machines (thus emphasizing that it is the motive that counts and not the material), he argues in favor of a transcendent consciousness that both organic and inorganic organisms possess as soon as possible. They reach a certain level of complexity. In other words, he says that complexity is consciousness, which is a wise or stupid thing, depending on whether, in the back of his mind, he allows a higher level of reality in which consciousness can register.
If you do not allow this higher level of reality, you can only allow many particles and force fields to interact at the same monistic level. In this case, whatever the complexity, nothing qualitative. Without transcendence, you can not even have sensitivity, let alone intelligence.
I do not base this claim on my religious nature, but on the absolutely fundamental distinction made / value in philosophy. This distinction has never been convincingly refuted and certainly must be one of the few solid conclusions that philosophers have reached over millennia of intellectual effort and controversy. You can not take a value out of a fact. That is, he can not draw a word from an article without presupposing a "better" and a "worse".
If you do not believe me, try it. Is life better than death? Yes? Why? Why does life add complexity and variety to the universe? But who says that complexity and variety are better than simplicity and monotony? It is not good to discuss alone. The value comes from its own dimension. It has its own origin, its own aspect or its own level of reality. If I could extract a value from a fact, it would immediately cease to be a value. ("This mother died to save her children!" "Ah, I was just obeying her imperative of evolution").
Maybe in the coming decades, a machine will "wake up" with a personality. Some people can use this to argue against spiritual beliefs, as if proving that we brought the spirit back to earth and showed that it was just a refined circuit board. On the contrary, I would say: the creation of an artificial intelligence will be the last nail in the coffin of materialism.
For starters, does artificial intelligence imply an artificial consciousness of the self, an artificial consciousness? In my opinion, this should be the case. Otherwise, we are really talking about advanced machines.
But some would disagree and say that the question of conscience is not important; It is the construction of an expert system that simulates human intelligence for practical purposes.
This may well turn out to be an issue that deserves to be decided, since many experts predict that artificial intelligence (AI) will be realized in the current century and will pose a great threat to human supremacy on this planet.
Another point, perhaps less urgent, but equally interesting at the philosophical level, is this: can all intelligence be artificial? If a machine becomes conscious of itself, should not it be considered that this condition has been activated instead of "created" by the human constructors of the physical structure of the machine? After all, parents who father children are considered to be issuers rather than creators of life.
In my opinion, if a machine is built with a level of recursive complexity that leads to self-consciousness, it will be thanks to an attraction that complexity will be exercised at any level of reality that governs the arrival of consciousness. In the words of Philip K. Dick, the machine "caught" life.
Another point is that it is possible, in a more distant future, that the automation of the machine advances to such an extent that adjustments and automatic adaptations begin to present a close analogy with biological evolution. In this case, the notion of "artificiality" is relegated to a second plane, because machines in fact become an integral part of nature and react to natural conditions as other creatures do. This idea is brilliantly described in the Poul Anderson story, "Epilogue" (1962). Electronic models, which contain complete information on the design of machines, play the role of DNA. Hard radiation affects these recordings because they would affect an organic gene, and the resulting mutations play a role in natural selection. The superior machines have something analogous to sexual reproduction ("... their body diagram has been crossed by currents and magnetic fields ... the two heterodyned patterns and in the deepest part of it had had the first crystallization to place").
In the Ooranye project, a series of stories that take place on the giant planet Uranus, not well known to astronomers, but its most real and archetypal: the process of evolution of the machine has resulted in a category of beings, Ghepiones. , which are partly organic. Components of the city, means of transport or even the landscape.
After considering all this, what is left of the usefulness of the Turing test?
This is the test suggested by Alan Turing (1912-1954) in his 1950 article entitled "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". To perform the test, someone questions an invisible human and an invisible machine, and tries to distinguish them by the quality of their responses. If the machine responds so well that it can not be separated from the human respondent, it has passed the test and can be considered a successful imitator of the human mind.
Maybe Turing himself was happy to leave him there. If we only talk about evaluating the degree of imitation, the test is good. But, of course, it is impossible to leave it there, because the broader philosophical questions attract attention. It is unfortunate that some authors, such as Arthur C Clarke, seem to think that the Turing test is something more useful. It's as if they said that the issue of self-consciousness is not important.
On the other hand, I can underestimate Clarke; perhaps when he says that we are all machines (thus emphasizing that it is the motive that counts and not the material), he argues in favor of a transcendent consciousness that both organic and inorganic organisms possess as soon as possible. They reach a certain level of complexity. In other words, he says that complexity is consciousness, which is a wise or stupid thing, depending on whether, in the back of his mind, he allows a higher level of reality in which consciousness can register.
If you do not allow this higher level of reality, you can only allow many particles and force fields to interact at the same monistic level. In this case, whatever the complexity, nothing qualitative. Without transcendence, you can not even have sensitivity, let alone intelligence.
I do not base this claim on my religious nature, but on the absolutely fundamental distinction made / value in philosophy. This distinction has never been convincingly refuted and certainly must be one of the few solid conclusions that philosophers have reached over millennia of intellectual effort and controversy. You can not take a value out of a fact. That is, he can not draw a word from an article without presupposing a "better" and a "worse".
If you do not believe me, try it. Is life better than death? Yes? Why? Why does life add complexity and variety to the universe? But who says that complexity and variety are better than simplicity and monotony? It is not good to discuss alone. The value comes from its own dimension. It has its own origin, its own aspect or its own level of reality. If I could extract a value from a fact, it would immediately cease to be a value. ("This mother died to save her children!" "Ah, I was just obeying her imperative of evolution").
Maybe in the coming decades, a machine will "wake up" with a personality. Some people can use this to argue against spiritual beliefs, as if proving that we brought the spirit back to earth and showed that it was just a refined circuit board. On the contrary, I would say: the creation of an artificial intelligence will be the last nail in the coffin of materialism.
Artificial Intelligence and the Turing Test
The Turing test is often discussed without reference to the fact that it is not a test but a definition of artificial intelligence.
Before explaining this statement, allow me to sketch the background of the subject.
Thirty years ago, computers grew so fast and became so powerful that "artificial intelligence" chairs were created in the best universities and it was feared that computers would take over. Nowadays, computers are much more powerful and much more portable, but humans still seem to control them.
The idea of taking over computers was always absurd. A computer takes into account the data provided by human beings, executes a program of instructions written by humans and transmits the output data to its human operator, who can activate and deactivate them at any time. The output data can be used for a variety of purposes, including robot control as in the automotive industry. But we are far from a robot that plays tennis and can beat Djokowic, Nadal, Andy Murray or Federer. The only type of robot that would probably approach him would be one with a pseudo-biological construction that imitates muscle and bone. Such a robot would be an intelligent device, but far from being equivalent to a human clone playing tennis. Such a clone is a distant possibility but it would not be a human design computer.
But even thirty years ago, the subject was not new. The pioneer of computer science, Alan Turing, had analyzed the question "Can computers think" in the 1940s and suggested a test to answer it, what is now called the Turing test? ? Essentially, a human interrogator was sitting alone in a room with a keyboard on which he could ask questions. The written answers would be provided by an entity in another room and published in the interrogator. After about ten minutes of interrogation, the interrogator would declare the human or artificial entity. If the entity had been declared human but in fact was artificial, it would have passed the test.
We could design a refinement of the test by replacing the questions with movements in a chess game. Nowadays, the artificial player almost always defeats any human opponent in chess, but that does not mean that the computer thinks about its actions as a great master does. It is simply a matter of following the instructions of a very long program designed by man. The grand master has the understanding of the whole game; The computer calculates the best opportunities for your next move. It is a simple combat partner for the human, not a substitute for live game that is more popular than ever. The fact that a computer can beat a human does not destroy the appeal of chess, rather than the fact that a cheetah can defeat a man destroys the attractiveness of athletics. Neither computers nor cheetahs take over.
The philosopher John Searle gave an example in the 1980s in which the test consisted of translating Chinese messages into English. It was conceivable that an artificial device could be built to do it perfectly according to a routine programmed step by step. But as Searle pointed out, that would not prove that the computer could think.
When a computer "passes the test", we should ask ourselves: "What did he really do?" And the answer is that the computer simply performed a prescribed task also or better than the human being. It is a mistake to conclude that the Turing test showed that the computer can think. The test is simply a way of deciding whether or not to think about the task at hand. If there seems to be a reflection, we can say, by definition, that the computer shows artificial intelligence.
In summary, the Turing test should be seen as a way to determine if the computer shows "artificial intelligence," not to decide if it really thinks.
And the display of "artificial intelligence" by a computer does not prove that it has fundamental beliefs or self-awareness. In fact, as Bertrand Russell argued, we can not prove that our partners have a spirit like us. We are forced to believe it without proof. But there is no reason to believe the same about computers. (See next note in 'Creeds').
I hope that one day public figures (scientists, broadcasters, presenters, religious, commentators) will see it as a duty to tell us clearly and briefly "where they come from", that is, to publish their beliefs or "My Creed in a few words" (acronym) mycian ").
Before explaining this statement, allow me to sketch the background of the subject.
Thirty years ago, computers grew so fast and became so powerful that "artificial intelligence" chairs were created in the best universities and it was feared that computers would take over. Nowadays, computers are much more powerful and much more portable, but humans still seem to control them.
The idea of taking over computers was always absurd. A computer takes into account the data provided by human beings, executes a program of instructions written by humans and transmits the output data to its human operator, who can activate and deactivate them at any time. The output data can be used for a variety of purposes, including robot control as in the automotive industry. But we are far from a robot that plays tennis and can beat Djokowic, Nadal, Andy Murray or Federer. The only type of robot that would probably approach him would be one with a pseudo-biological construction that imitates muscle and bone. Such a robot would be an intelligent device, but far from being equivalent to a human clone playing tennis. Such a clone is a distant possibility but it would not be a human design computer.
But even thirty years ago, the subject was not new. The pioneer of computer science, Alan Turing, had analyzed the question "Can computers think" in the 1940s and suggested a test to answer it, what is now called the Turing test? ? Essentially, a human interrogator was sitting alone in a room with a keyboard on which he could ask questions. The written answers would be provided by an entity in another room and published in the interrogator. After about ten minutes of interrogation, the interrogator would declare the human or artificial entity. If the entity had been declared human but in fact was artificial, it would have passed the test.
We could design a refinement of the test by replacing the questions with movements in a chess game. Nowadays, the artificial player almost always defeats any human opponent in chess, but that does not mean that the computer thinks about its actions as a great master does. It is simply a matter of following the instructions of a very long program designed by man. The grand master has the understanding of the whole game; The computer calculates the best opportunities for your next move. It is a simple combat partner for the human, not a substitute for live game that is more popular than ever. The fact that a computer can beat a human does not destroy the appeal of chess, rather than the fact that a cheetah can defeat a man destroys the attractiveness of athletics. Neither computers nor cheetahs take over.
The philosopher John Searle gave an example in the 1980s in which the test consisted of translating Chinese messages into English. It was conceivable that an artificial device could be built to do it perfectly according to a routine programmed step by step. But as Searle pointed out, that would not prove that the computer could think.
When a computer "passes the test", we should ask ourselves: "What did he really do?" And the answer is that the computer simply performed a prescribed task also or better than the human being. It is a mistake to conclude that the Turing test showed that the computer can think. The test is simply a way of deciding whether or not to think about the task at hand. If there seems to be a reflection, we can say, by definition, that the computer shows artificial intelligence.
In summary, the Turing test should be seen as a way to determine if the computer shows "artificial intelligence," not to decide if it really thinks.
And the display of "artificial intelligence" by a computer does not prove that it has fundamental beliefs or self-awareness. In fact, as Bertrand Russell argued, we can not prove that our partners have a spirit like us. We are forced to believe it without proof. But there is no reason to believe the same about computers. (See next note in 'Creeds').
I hope that one day public figures (scientists, broadcasters, presenters, religious, commentators) will see it as a duty to tell us clearly and briefly "where they come from", that is, to publish their beliefs or "My Creed in a few words" (acronym) mycian ").
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Roboethics and the Inevitability of Artificial Intelligence
The opinions expressed in the ethical debate about the creation of artificial intelligence (AI) are as diverse as the most heated debates. Not only is there the question of whether or not we will "play God" by creating a real AI, but also the question of how to install a set of respectful ethics of human beings in a sensitive machine.
As humanity is currently divided into many countries, religions and groups, the question of who should make the last call is delicate. The country that comes first and the dominant opinion in its government and scientific community may be left behind. After that, we may have to let it work and hope that everything goes well.
Is the birth of artificial intelligence inevitable?
Each week, dozens of academic publications are published in universities around the world, firmly defending different opinions. An interesting factor here is that it is widely accepted that this event will occur in the coming decades. After all, in 2011, Caltech created the first artificial neural network in a test tube, the first robot with "muscles" and "tendons" that are currently with us in the form of Ecci, and considerable progress has been made in Almost all the scientific discipline.
It is as exciting as it is amazing to think that we could attend such an event. Nick Bostrom, of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, said in an article: "There does not seem to be a good reason to attribute an insignificant probability to the assumption that a superintelligence will be created during the lives of some people alive today." It is a complicated way of saying that super intelligent science fiction machines are a very likely future reality.
Roboethics and Machine Ethics
So, what ethics is involved here? Roboethics considers the rights of the machines that we create in the same way as our own human rights. Examining the rights of a sensitive robot, such as freedom of expression and personal expression, is a reality.
The ethics of machines is slightly different and applies to computers and other systems sometimes called artificial moral agents (AMA). A good example of this is in the army and in the philosophical enigma of responsibility that would fall on someone who died in a "friendly fire" of an artificially intelligent drone. How can you make a martial machine?
In 1942, Isaac Asimov wrote a short story that defined his Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot can not hurt a human being or, by his inaction, allow a human being to hurt himself.
2. A robot must obey the orders given by human beings unless such orders are contrary to the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as this protection does not conflict with the first or second law.
This trio of well-designed rules of behavior seems infallible, but how will they behave in real life? Asimov's series of stories on the subject suggested that no rule could properly govern behavior in a completely infallible way in all potential situations and inspired the 2004 film of the same name: "I, Robot".
Who Gets to Call the Shots?
Other controversial areas of development, such as biotechnology, also raise the question of whether we are trying to interpret God. These are difficult questions, but it seems almost inevitable that scientific progress is pushing the limits in the coming decades. The powerful combination of our endless curiosity and possible commercial applications will inevitably continue to move things forward.
So, where is this artificial intelligence technology? Certainly, the power potentially controlled by a super artificial intelligence, the technology it could create and the devastation it could cause if it became uncontrollable, would place it in a completely different sphere to create algae that harness the energy of the sun?
It can be argued that Japan is currently at the forefront of robotic systems, and in view of the declining population of a growing percentage of older people who need pensions and medical care funded by a limited number of active contributors, it seems unlikely that Japan is suddenly held back due to the current situation. ethical debate.
As interesting as it is to take into account the ethical implications of artificial intelligence, it is easy to overlook the fact that it is a global problem, a human race rather than a specific problem. a country It is not like landing on the Moon where countries can compete in a space race scenario. But perhaps with the growing effect of the Internet that unites us all, some decisions will be made in the general way they deserve.
As humanity is currently divided into many countries, religions and groups, the question of who should make the last call is delicate. The country that comes first and the dominant opinion in its government and scientific community may be left behind. After that, we may have to let it work and hope that everything goes well.
Is the birth of artificial intelligence inevitable?
Each week, dozens of academic publications are published in universities around the world, firmly defending different opinions. An interesting factor here is that it is widely accepted that this event will occur in the coming decades. After all, in 2011, Caltech created the first artificial neural network in a test tube, the first robot with "muscles" and "tendons" that are currently with us in the form of Ecci, and considerable progress has been made in Almost all the scientific discipline.
It is as exciting as it is amazing to think that we could attend such an event. Nick Bostrom, of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, said in an article: "There does not seem to be a good reason to attribute an insignificant probability to the assumption that a superintelligence will be created during the lives of some people alive today." It is a complicated way of saying that super intelligent science fiction machines are a very likely future reality.
Roboethics and Machine Ethics
So, what ethics is involved here? Roboethics considers the rights of the machines that we create in the same way as our own human rights. Examining the rights of a sensitive robot, such as freedom of expression and personal expression, is a reality.
The ethics of machines is slightly different and applies to computers and other systems sometimes called artificial moral agents (AMA). A good example of this is in the army and in the philosophical enigma of responsibility that would fall on someone who died in a "friendly fire" of an artificially intelligent drone. How can you make a martial machine?
In 1942, Isaac Asimov wrote a short story that defined his Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot can not hurt a human being or, by his inaction, allow a human being to hurt himself.
2. A robot must obey the orders given by human beings unless such orders are contrary to the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as this protection does not conflict with the first or second law.
This trio of well-designed rules of behavior seems infallible, but how will they behave in real life? Asimov's series of stories on the subject suggested that no rule could properly govern behavior in a completely infallible way in all potential situations and inspired the 2004 film of the same name: "I, Robot".
Who Gets to Call the Shots?
Other controversial areas of development, such as biotechnology, also raise the question of whether we are trying to interpret God. These are difficult questions, but it seems almost inevitable that scientific progress is pushing the limits in the coming decades. The powerful combination of our endless curiosity and possible commercial applications will inevitably continue to move things forward.
So, where is this artificial intelligence technology? Certainly, the power potentially controlled by a super artificial intelligence, the technology it could create and the devastation it could cause if it became uncontrollable, would place it in a completely different sphere to create algae that harness the energy of the sun?
It can be argued that Japan is currently at the forefront of robotic systems, and in view of the declining population of a growing percentage of older people who need pensions and medical care funded by a limited number of active contributors, it seems unlikely that Japan is suddenly held back due to the current situation. ethical debate.
As interesting as it is to take into account the ethical implications of artificial intelligence, it is easy to overlook the fact that it is a global problem, a human race rather than a specific problem. a country It is not like landing on the Moon where countries can compete in a space race scenario. But perhaps with the growing effect of the Internet that unites us all, some decisions will be made in the general way they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)