dust

It's celebratory in nature, not maudlin or despondent, so you're all good

Now now... let's not get too serious. (I think what both of you have said holds true to an extent, though I think introversion (as opposed to social anxiety and other learned states) is an inborn tendency and must be accepted in order for one to live a satisfying life. And I must wholeheartedly disagree about speeches. I will never give another speech as long as I live.) http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-introvert-comics/ Some of these are very good

Not sure if this is introversion so much as misanthropy though either way I'm not one to judge.. I must assume that the army is not a good place for people who don't enjoy being around other people most of the time... though an APC might be a good way to get around without people bothering you!

First off, I'd just like to urge anyone who hasn't to watch the video from the OP, or even just respond to the actual words I wrote in the OP. The question in hand is the potential future dangers of AI, and general AI in particular. Not that I'm suggesting everyone must agree with what Deutsch says, but that if you have an idea of the view being put forward, have considered AI from this slightly different perspective than is usually found in mainstream media/culture, and perhaps most importantly we are all starting from the same point of discussion, the thread would be a bit more coherent. Dissecting Obama and Musk and their personal take on the issue, and talking about job loss to machines and other stuff is all fine, but it's not the point. There is a recent topic in Off Topic regarding ever-increasing automation and job loss etc. He didn't claim that AI can cure diseases right now, but that if harnessed properly it 'can' (will be able to) cure diseases in the future. And yes, neural networks have existed since the '60s, and major developments were made in the '80s and '90s, but new developments within the area are certainly still being made. I won't pretend to understand anything beyond a very simple idea of how these various neural networks work, but as I understand it, AlphaGo combines the Monte Carlo tree search (random search of possible moves (more than billions!)) with a convolutional neural network, and is able to use this CNN alone (without the tree search) to beat some other Go programs (e.g. Patchi!). So yes, processing power is much higher than it was when Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess, for example, but it is not so simple as just speed/computing power being improved. Also the machine would need a body fit for task...

To respond to both of you in one comment... Yeah. Well, maybe not most people, but a lot. Social anxiety and other learned mental issues (as opposed to inborn tendencies such as introversion) are supposedly becoming more commonplace in modern society, and I suspect many latch on to the 'introvert' label -- maybe it's easier to believe that. Then again, one can experience a combination of the 3 (shy, anxiety, introversion). I was shy and introverted as a child. The shyness is gone, I've been around the block (not too far but enough) -- I can talk to anyone, I just don't want to most of the time.

Obama? I think he displays a rare intelligence, and a good understanding of the issues surrounding this topic. Of course he has advisers to tell him stuff, and part of his job is to know about these things, but I can only imagine what Trump would sound like in this conversation. Actually we don't have to imagine. We know that he sounds like a moron. Anyway apologies for going off-topic in my own thread but a defence of Obama had to be made; he's worth listening to.

I can always count on you for an interesting disagreement and some kind of revelation about the nature of things. In turn you can always count on me to demand proof, though... or at least evidence that isn't entirely personal. So I don't know where to take this... Yes, your story of the human race in an oystershell is precisely right. There is our area of agreement. But understanding and accepting that this is the way humans are might be part of the key to preventing as much damage as we've done in the past, no? Also.. regarding the term 'advance': it's not that the mollusc should 'advance', or that advancement is necessarily a good thing. He was, I think, using advancement in a purely linear sense. I might advance towards the precipice, or towards a loving embrace... one is probably bad, the other good.

Wasn't aware of this announcement... heh. He is certainly a character. Whether for 'good' or 'bad', he is a force. Yes, it's irreversible. My notion of getting rid of all the geeks and going back to another century was simply meant to illustrate how impossible it would be, how impossible to get away from technology. We disagree on the vaccine thing, and I won't get into that. And in other areas of hidden superpower influence... yes, there are people with esoteric knowledge, people in 'high positions' working from the shadows who understand how to push populations around. But their influence is not almighty. from Samuel Butler's Erewhon, 1872 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1906/1906-h/1906-h.htm Do you believe that the shadow-running elite types were pushing writers like Butler to imagine machine takeover nearly 150 years ago with a view to inspiring geeky types creating ever-more-complex machines and giving future shadow-runners the opportunity to enslave humanity using AI some decades or centuries later? Sci-fi writers have been talking of this stuff for a long time. And do you believe these nefarious schemes go back all those 15,000 years in an unbroken plan of domination? If "they" are intent on pushing AI upon "us" now, it is no more their doing than that of evolution, that of humans in general.

Yeah, the employment thing can be an obstacle. I wonder about these people who need interaction on an hourly basis, though. I used to have a very extroverted friend who, because I am often quite quiet and thoughtful (until you get to know me) latched onto me. Because she never stopped talking, she never noticed how uncomfortable certain behaviour made me, and never allowed me the chance to open up. Eventually I just had to make a break. I feel guilty still, as when I moved away I just lost contact with her, and I believe she was quite upset and confused. But I don't know how else to handle it! "No" is not in her vocabulary. And the thing is, I know that she's emotionally very vulnerable and needs good friends around her, and I feel bad for not being able to be one of them. Hmm...that's enough lamentation from me.

Yes, it's a good thing.. my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. (Not so obviously, I guess.) The whole point of this thread is an online celebration of introversion! (edited OP to hopefully reflect this!)

As I see it, though there is certainly a "them", and most of "us" are to a certain extent programmed by them, there are different types of "them", and majority of "them" are born among "us", and a good many of them have good intentions. I don't know Demis Hassabis (DeepMind founder) but reading a little about him, he sounds like an extremely intelligent version of an ordinary person. Child chess prodigy, and eventually went on to university to study computer science and cognitive neuroscience, but the first thing he did when leaving school was design videogames for a living. He didn't have some nefarious plan to invent AI and push it onto the population. He's a smartguy, maybe a geek, who I can only assume wants to design cool shit and maybe make some impact, in a nice way, on society. Either way -- whether there's an invisible elite programming the people, or the people are being driven by the ease-making promises of technology and a few smart people who create and sell it -- the question of what we envision for AI, what we hope or fear it could be, is relevant. Because it is going to happen -- the only way "they" are not going to create it, the only way "we" are not going to become consumed by it as we have with laptops and phones and music players and cars and TVs and fridges and lamps -- is if all the computer geeks are done away with. And if that happened, technology would regress, and we'd all slip into an apocalyptic version of the 18th, 16th, 14th, 12th, 10th Century, and "we" are unfortunately too many and too stupid to handle that eventuality with anything less than terrible confusion and violence. What would the world look like if people stopped advancing tech? If, then, we started forgetting how to design and make things? Regardless of how we've come to this stage, and what elite might be benefiting from it all, I don't see that happening. People are not going to stop. I don't know Musk, and won't defend him directly. I only posted the video of him as an afterthought because it showed some discussion between two powerful tech magnates mentioning a couple of things the Deutsch video didn't cover. Musk is involved in AI research only as an investor, and I'm not sure that this discussion benefits from talking about him and his childhood or indeed anyone else who we have never met. I certainly think Musk is a little loony with his Mars colony plan... but that doesn't need to come into this topic. Whatever we think about any individual -- Musk, Gates, whoever -- and their reasons for what they do and why they are the way they are, it seems clear that what they're saying is going to happen is going to happen...

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/dec/09/amazon-go-means-more-than-just-job-losses-it-will-restructure-the-economy I'm just learning about Amazon Go and similar further implications of technology's unstoppable development. Article is worth a read. Apologies if this is being discussed somewhere else already. Certainly the whole article is worth discussion, but the conclusion perhaps most of all:

When you get to a sit-down computer I'm curious to know what dissolving the economy would look like in your view. As I understand the term 'economy', it's no more than the relationship between producers and consumers, or the process in which goods and services are exchanged. Even if there were just 2 humans on the planet, there could still be an economy of 2 in which, for a very simple example, one makes tools and the other makes clothes and they both grow different types of food, and they exchange things with each other as needed. Assuming this definition of economy (production, exchange, and consumption of goods & services between 2 or more people), it's impossible to not have any economy unless we all do everything by ourselves. But in theory we could drastically change the way we produce and exchange. But anyway, yeah I'm curious to know how you think we might achieve such a change.

Good question. No idea.

Why? Right off the bat, why? Because you refuse to believe anything bad about Trump, so any article making these kinds of claims must be wrong right off the bat? The intent is not to claim that Trump is a puppet going back to the '70s and that everything he's ever done was directed by Russia. In terms of Trump, the intent is to claim that Trump's existence is good for Putin's plans and that Putin has been doing his best to elevate Trump. In general, the article shows just how involved Putin is in supporting certain undesirable factions across Europe and America. I'm not here to defend Slate as an entity -- I couldn't care less about it. But the article makes many valid points, and nobody has actually negated any of them. You prefer to make general claims about the nature of the article's intent without actually talking about what it says. That's dishonest. You've turned my original comment into a conversation about Slate's trustworthiness, which is also dishonest. This conversation should be about what we know and can deduce. Perhaps someone would care to link to a source full of information showing how Putin is a wonderful guy with no sour intentions towards Europe and America? Coming from a guy who believed Pizzagate right off the bat based on a half-assed wordpress post, this is a bit rich. Yes, I was swayed by it a little at first also, but the entire lack of proof soon became obvious. There's no proof of the Russian hacks (do you expect there to be, or that it would be released if there was?), but a bit of reasoning suggests a lot. 1) Someone was able to hack the DNC, Hillary's e-mails, Podesta's e-mails, etc multiple times. So we are not talking about a dude in his mum's basement. We are talking about lots of people, money, and organization. That basically narrows things down to big countries and big IT corporations. 2) These hackers did not attack Hillary in the Primaries, or anytime before or after the election. So this is not against Clinton's policies or her corruption -- this is for Trump. 3) The only major power in the World that likes Trump is Russia. It wasn't anyone from the EU, China, India... big IT companies hate Trump, South Americans hate Trump, Africans don't have the power and also hate Trump. So this basically narrows things down to Russia. 4) Before being elected, Trump was consistent on almost nothing. He contradicted himself so many times, you can't even try to count. But he was 100% consistent on being friendly to Russia. Even when it hurt him. 5) After being elected, Trump put people with Russian ties into power. Who was it, if it wasn't Russia? And what are these "good reasons to believe it's a lie"?

Yeah I don't expect anyone to pay particular attention over time to that kind of thing Zero? No merit at all, nothing it says is true whatsoever? Would you care to expand? That's a bit of a task, I suppose...breaking it down, what about just one element of the article? The beginning will do well enough. Link by link (I missed out the bit about a bottle of wine because it doesn't seem important): 1) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/world/europe/russia-fights-wests-ukraine-sanctions-with-aid-and-ideology.html?_r=0 The German tabloid Bild reported that the anti-euro Alternative for Germany Party had benefited from cheap gold sales from Russia, which the party denied. There have been investigations into some members of Hungary’s far-right Jobbik Party for any financial ties to Russia. And there have been similar accusations and inquiries in Bulgaria, with its far-right Attack Party; in Slovakia, with its People’s Party; and in the Baltic States, especially with Latvia’s pro-Russian party. Far-right parties seen as aligned with Moscow vote against resolutions in the European Parliament critical of Russia and have sent observers to referendums and elections in separatist-held regions of Ukraine like Crimea and Donetsk, alongside members of some far-left parties like Die Linke in Germany and KKE in Greece. 2) http://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/national-front-s-russian-loans-cause-uproar-in-european-parliament/ The National Front (NF) confirmed it had received a loan of 9 million euro from the First Czech Russian Bank, a private company based in Russia, following the revelation of the information by Médiapart. ... “We turned to Russia as a last resort, after having tried in France, Switzerland and the Middle East. We did not go to a state-owned bank because we knew that would make it a state matter,” the MEP said. 3) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-cables-berlusconi-putin However, "contacts in both the opposition centre-left Partito Democratico and Berlusconi's own PdL party … have hinted at a more nefarious connection. They believe that Berlusconi and his cronies are profiting personally and handsomely from many of the energy deals between Italy and Russia." Spogli continued: "The Georgian ambassador in Rome has told us that the government of Georgia believes Putin has promised Berlusconi a percentage of profits from any pipelines developed by Gazprom in co-ordination with ENI." 4) http://www.riskandforecast.com/useruploads/files/pc_flash_report_russian_connection.pdf Way too much info to quote, and a lot of it could be as much nonsense as Pizzagate, but a lot of it is quite interesting and certainly supportive of the article 5) https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-03-25/putins-western-allies Among many things, One Golden Dawn­­–linked website reports that Michaloliakos even received a letter in prison from Moscow State University professor and former Kremlin adviser Alexander Dugin, one of the authors of Putin’s “Eurasian” ideology. It was also Dugin who hosted Jobbik leader Vona when he visited Moscow. In his letter, Dugin expressed support for Golden Dawn’s geopolitical positions and requested to open a line of communication between Golden Dawn and his think tank in Moscow. 6) http://www.interpretermag.com/putins-media-are-pushing-britain-for-the-brexit/ The whole article lists how Russia's 2 major media outlets were pretty clearly pro-Brexit 7) dead link Pretty sure there's some merit in that.

Sorry liminal, I wasn't ignoring this... missed it somehow. I know you weren't up for a tit-for-tat but I do feel I (or someone) need to respond. This is one of those ones. 1) They choose lettuce, the most useless and watery vegetable imaginable, to compare on a calorie basis? I don't eat lettuce, and whether lettuce is nutritionally or calorifically equal to pig is irrelevant: it's bizarre to argue that lettuce is the major element in a veg diet and that they're therefore somehow responsible for more environmental damage. It's bizarre to suggest that lettuce could ever be equivalent to pig in the diet. 2) Lettuce grows. It's in the ground, water and sun fall on it, and it grows -- you can grow it at home if you like it (not sure why people like it..). It has a small nutritional benefit and people eat a little at a time. It doesn't require much extraneous energy to produce. Pigs? Pigs require a lot. A lot more space, a lot more energy. Not per calorie, but in general. There is no way that lettuce is taking up more than a tiny tiny portion of CO2 equivalent emissions or other environmental damage, but pigs are taking up a lot. 3) Let's talk about a plant that's actually worth something, one that can reasonably be compared to pig. Peanuts. Or any other legume or nut, really. http://www.uark.edu/ua/cars/Subpages/Reports/Peanut_Report.pdf This is American peanut butter -- a relatively wasteful and complicated process compared to how it could be (removing sugar and palm oil and salt from the ingredients, not blanching, roasting for less time perhaps). There are various PBs available which almost certainly have a smaller footprint than a brand like Skippy. So, rounding up, peanut butter claims a GHG impact of 3kg CO2e per kg. Lamb claims 39kg per kg, beef 27, and pork 12. Looking at the nutritional values of nuts/legumes vs these meats (nuts are amazingly full of good things), it should be obvious that nuts and legumes are healthier and more environmentally friendly than meats. Fish is not so bad environmentally, though there are other issues with that. See also comparison of milk vs soy juice ("soy milk"): http://envormation.org/environmental-comparison-of-cows-and-soy-milk/ 1) This is again assuming that veg diets must contain heavily processed meat analogues. This isn't true. Very selective. 2) It's comparing domestic meat to imported tofu, but there in most nations there's plenty of imported meat and domestic meat substitutes, so this seems unfair. Very selective. 3) http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-top-10-foods-with-the-biggest-environmental-footprint-2015-9?r=US&IR=T Note that tofu is way down on the list. Fine by me if Quorn is done away with, but let's not blame tofu itself. As the article says, it applies to Australia but not necessarily anywhere else. Regardless, 1) They're talking about grains and pulses and comparing kg of usable protein -- selective, once again. Grains are higher in protein than milk, but not any other animal products (close to eggs). It would be more honest to compare crops such as beans, almonds, peanuts, chickpeas, etc. Comparing wheat and meat, it would be more honest to compare in terms of calories this time. Wheat: 339/100g, Beef: 250/100g. Wheat wins. Rice: 130/100g. Beef wins. But on average, I think it's pretty equal. 2) We can compare various food types in terms of calories and animal deaths and see what happens:

If you pay close attention to my posts (which I certainly don't expect you to, I'm just saying) I endeavour to use a variety of sources. In terms of news media I have linked to the Guardian, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and many others (perhaps even a Daily Mail once). I've responded to many posts in which a member linked to a Daily Mail or Fox News article, and not once have I dismissed the point based purely on the source they chose to quote. If we strive for integrity, for balance, we take each individual/news story/philosophical argument on its own merits. Looking through Google for something that summed up some of the ideas I couldn't be bothered to write an essay about, the Slate article seemed relevant. And it is full of links to other news sources backing it up (NYT, Guardian, Telegraph, Politico, NBC, Foreign Affairs, WaPo, RT, Moscow Times, CNN, etc). I assume you get my point.

Not to defend Obama (I'm hardly paying attention this week) but Putin hasn't exactly been focused solely on Russia and liberty for the last 17 years. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html

If you're talking autarky, I can agree to an extent. Every nation, city, village, family, individual should have a certain amount of self-sufficiency. And yes, the exploitation of the world's poor by the world's not poor is nasty. But I don't see how Fascism comes into it -- Fascism maintains a strict class structure, the result of which is obviously exploitation. I hate to bring this up, but... it leads to things like the Holocaust. The Nazis brutally murdered a lot of people because of their belief in hierarchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Yes, it's just some text copied from Wikipedia, but all pretty accurate nonetheless. Fascism was and is a real political philosophy, originating last century, and has fairly specific tenets. Before anyone accuses anyone else of being Fascist, or anyone claims to be Fascist, saying "Fascism is actually a good thing", I'd suggest making sure that said beliefs are genuinely and specifically Fascist in nature. And I really hope that none of you are truly Fascists.

Interesting that the planned anti-propaganda measures don't seem to include official US state propaganda. Sounds pretty sinister. At the same time, do you believe that this is something new? The US government trying to control what you think, limiting access to information? (Rhetorical really, as I'm assuming the answer is "No")

Jesus was a blasphemer, claiming to be the Christ (chosen one), and claiming indeed that all men are gods. He threatened the Jewish religion and way of life, and many couldn't accept that. John 10 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? Mark 14 Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. 65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows. Neither Pilate nor Herod saw any reason to execute him, but the Jewish leaders, and the crowd outside the court who they rallied, were adamant. One could see it, if one chose, in parallel with Trump: a great leader doing great work and uniting people behind him to try and save his people from a foreign threat, those who oppose him tricked by evil politicians who fear a change to their way of life. Equally, one could see it, if one chose, in parallel with Trump: a liar and trickster with a multitude of idiots uniting behind him because he claims to be the 'chosen one', but who is actually just some guy from round the way who's good at bullshitting. I choose to see it a third way: Jesus was a nice guy -- his mother pretended to be a virgin and for some reason people believed her, and he grew up thinking he was the son of God, and he did his best to live up to it all, and his legacy has its good and bad sides. And Trump is nothing like Jesus, and he's actually been chosen leader by his own people rather than crucified, though it remains to be seen whether he'll be crucified in the future when he makes a dog's dinner of it all.