|
No doubt that AGI is the ultimate demise fear for mankind if we don't handle it properly, but obtaining it really is our next computing challenge. We will achieve it even it kills us at the end. To succeed, we are not only have to over come the software capabilities but also need to change the hardware infrastructure as we know today as well.
I don't fear intelligence without emotion, I fear AGI without ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
Leng Vang wrote: I don't fear intelligence without emotion, I fear AGI without ethics.
That is where I was coming from. I don't think Ethics work without empathy/emotion. We are human BECAUSE we feel, we do not feel because we are human. At the two extremes are:
- I breathe/consume therefore I destroy the earth (or creatures on it) therefore I should not exist.
and
- I overcame step one because I realize my importance above the other life forms on this planet, which makes me the Alpha Predator, therefore [insert horrific world dominance by machine]...
And THAT is the balance. While I believe it is JUST FINE for doling out justice, I get concerned at the thought that my automated (AGI) car could go up on the sidewalk and run down a purse thief. Although I would LOVE to defend myself in court by swearing "I *thought* about it, sure... I just did not think the car would go and actually do it! It was awesome! He won't be stealing any other purses. On the downside, we ruined the purse, and are being sued..."
LOL...
|
|
|
|
|
Kirk 10389821 wrote: I don't think Ethics work without empathy/emotion.
Exactly. It's impossible to understand ethics/morality without empathy, and you can't practice what you don't understand. Try explaining morality to a psychopath and see how far you get. People with no empathy who act rationally can do great evil while thinking they are doing good (corporations tend to behave this way, they are amoral by design).
|
|
|
|
|
Kirk 10389821 wrote: I fear the day they have AGI running.
Routers don't fear the Reaper, nor do the bits, buses and cache...
I'm not worried about AGI, at least not until it's scientifically credible. The Kurzweil cult has really stirred up the popular imagination with the idea that our super AI overlords are just around the corner, based on little more than wishful thinking about immortality. A lot of people believe Kurzweil just because he's smart, but the smarter you are the better you are at fooling yourself, and that's what Kurzweil is doing. His delusional fantasies about the "singularity" are very well thought-out, but based on nothing more than an extrapolation fallacy. In reality, expert systems are proving to be very useful, but natural language recognition seems to have hit a wall and there is nothing even close to artificial consciousness coming down the pipe.
A neural net isn't a brain any more than a globe is a planet, it's just a model folks. The idea that modelling accurately enough will somehow cause consciousness to appear as an emergent property is just ridiculous, it's like that Far Side cartoon about the equation with "and then a miracle happens" in the middle. Might need to explain that bit, smells like faith not science.
|
|
|
|
|
If we design computers with AI that is designed to think like humans, isn't that just going to mean a bunch of computers as thick as most of us? Ah, the sweet smell of progress 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
AI but with care. We don't need to cought up with iRobot like situation.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say: everything, what makes life better.
- Connectivity with Everything (see 4.)
- True Artificial Intelligence
- More storage capacity than the oldest HD's
- Common power & video sockets (mobiles, tablets, laptops, etc.) - one standard!
- Common standard for documents (it might be OpenXML)
|
|
|
|
|
Reliability and security. Can we have those things anymore?
Back when large-scale system life cycles went on for years or even decades, we had some really solid, proven systems. Nowadays tech companies are so in love with shiny new things that it seems like technologies get ditched for something new before they have a chance to mature. I wish we would stop this make-something-new-for-reasons attitude and slow the hell down and focus on making what we have actually work as it should. The faster software changes, the less reliable and secure it becomes. If you don't believe me, update your Windows box.
|
|
|
|
|
1) Efficiency in power in all electronics.
2) Memory speed persisted storage (cheap and lot of it).
3) Better batteries.
|
|
|
|
|
Ive done this job for 35 years, I still love it but wont lose any sleep when I don't have to any more 
|
|
|
|
|
The most important next step in computing could be solving the legacy problem. A significant majority of the software that manages our lives is obsolete.
|
|
|
|
|
And it will only get worse I am afraid. How many "dead" languages will there be in 20 years? I maintain a key program initially written in Fortran in 1981 and still gets new features. It is like playing Jenga but I am powerless to replace it. Pretty sure it will still be running after I retire.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you see, languages are tools. Hammers were invented quite a long time ago, and they're still produced, used, mantained and improved. Why? Because they are very good to solve some classes of problems. And that can be said for pincers, knives, C, FORTRAN nad any other tool, IMHO.
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
FORTRAN is still a very good tool to solve the class of mathematical problems but you wont see many programmers making it their language of choice for that. No modern IDE, not hip, never was exposed to it, etc. many reasons I suppose. It's not still used because it's a good tool, it's still used because it would be expensive to rewrite the programs.
|
|
|
|
|
Rosenne wrote: A significant majority of the software that manages our lives is obsolete.
According to whom? Just because software is old doesn't mean it's useless, it's as useful as it ever was, and given the fact that it's been maintained for so long it's likely more reliable. What do you want to use for a mission-critical system, an old program that has been doing the job fine for 30 years, or something just cooked up by the new kid?
|
|
|
|
|
This is precisely the problem. It does work, it is mission critical, but it is expensive to maintain, difficult to adapt, and what does one do when the programmers who know it retire?
|
|
|
|
|
That smells like opportunity, maybe I need to learn me some FORTRAN and COBOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really only available to those with multi-thousand dollar ASIC miners...
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
what are you talking about ? you don't have to mine to get it.
Actually, mining is not profitable right now, better buy it on exchanges.
The explosion of service this technology unlocks will keep us busy in the future
|
|
|
|
|
Digital payments as Paypal or ApplePay arent bound to Bitcoins. So Bitcoins arent so important - only for miners and speculants. 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Listening music and looking at movie works good enough with radio and TV, no need for internet, it is only good for nerds
|
|
|
|
|
if these throw-backs keep listening only to their core constituency (fat wallets with a short term view of filling the wallets even more) - then they will break our wonderful toy.
It's that's simple.
P.S. I hope Google moves all of it's offices and employment out of Europe - (vide infra).
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
"You must use Windows XP since that's what we've been using for the past 10 years at this company!"
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU..........
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
"Regulators who actually understand the technology"
That will be somewhere after AI, so the technology can explain itself....
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
