heideg: 459. Turing farm. Let's think about Cyberpunk future of roachblood humans. It's obvious that even capsule housing is still a ridiculously expensive thing. Plus you have to pay for nutrients, sanitation, electricity, Internet connection, etc. So, you need to have some work, but in the modern world, the work can be done online, without leaving your living pod. Original idea of "The Matrix" was not humans as batteries, but humans as processing nodes. That's what's going to happen, but due to financial reasons. So, what kind of work will still be available to humans? In "Sleep Dealer", it is remote control of robots. But even this looks obsolete - modern drones are autonomous, they don't require an operator. In a broad sense, it can apply to all computation that has no software equivalent yet. The closest example is CAPTCHA - poor man's Turing test. There is software for CAPTCHA-breaking, but it relies on low-paid outsourced workers. You'll help robots cheat on Turing test.
Hooligan Gang Fight Narrated by David Attenborough How Much Longer Before Our First AI Catastrophe? As I distinctly recall, some speculated that the Stock Market crash of 1987, was due to high frequency trading by computers, and mindful of this possibility, I think regulators passed laws to prevent computers from trading in that specific pattern again. I remember something vague about about "throttles" being installed in the trading software that kick in whenever they see a sudden, global spike in the area in which they are trading. These throttles where supposed to slow down trading to a point where human operators could see what was happening and judge whether there was an unintentional feedback loop happening. This was 1987. But yes, I definitely agree this is very good example where narrow AI got us into trouble. These are all examples of narrow machine intelligence. Obviously no system is going to be perfect. All we can hope for is enough redundancy in error checking to bring the odds of a disaster down to, what General "Buck" Turgidson called, "A very low order of probability."
How German sounds compared to other languages How consciousness works – Michael Graziano Scientific talks can get a little dry, so I try to mix it up. I take out my giant hairy orangutan puppet, do some ventriloquism and quickly become entangled in an argument. I’ll be explaining my theory about how the brain — a biological machine — generates consciousness. Kevin, the orangutan, starts heckling me. Kevin is the perfect introduction. Many thinkers have approached consciousness from a first-person vantage point, the kind of philosophical perspective according to which other people’s minds seem essentially unknowable. Lately, the problem of consciousness has begun to catch on in neuroscience. I believe that the easy and the hard problems have gotten switched around. In a period of rapid evolutionary expansion called the Cambrian Explosion, animal nervous systems acquired the ability to boost the most urgent incoming signals. Attention requires control. The most basic, measurable, quantifiable truth about consciousness is simply this: we humans can say that we have it Comments
Humans, Version 3.0 Credit: Flickr user Suvcon Where are we humans going, as a species? If science fiction is any guide, we will genetically evolve like in X-Men, become genetically engineered as in Gattaca, or become cybernetically enhanced like General Grievous in Star Wars. All of these may well be part of the story of our future, but I’m not holding my breath. Genetic engineering could engender marked changes in us, but it requires a scientific bridge between genotypes—an organism’s genetic blueprints—and phenotypes, which are the organisms themselves and their suite of abilities. And machine-enhancement is part of our world even today, manifesting in the smartphones and desktop computers most of us rely on each day. Simply put, none of these scenarios are plausible for the immediate future. There is, however, another avenue for human evolution, one mostly unappreciated in both science and fiction. Neuronal recycling exploits this wellspring of potent powers. But how do I know this is feasible?
Confessions of a Biological Scientist – Part I: The Limits of Meat | Thought Infection Science has proceeded uninterrupted for hundreds of years now, through its progress we have emerged from ignorance and awakened to the reality of our Universe. But scientific advancement is now retarded by a fundamental problem, the scientists. In the near future something as important as science will no longer be left to imperfect and inefficient biological scientists, but will become be the realm of digital scientists. I am a scientist. Notwithstanding the current challenge of obtaining and maintaining funding for scientific projects, being a scientist is a pretty good gig. What has been bugging me lately though, is the question of just how much value I am adding to this equation really. Before delving into the meat of my argument, I must make the obvious disclaimer that currently there is no alternative to employing scientists. The first limitation of our biological bodies is that we are provided with only a limited set of five senses by which we can absorb data. Like this:
The Frame Problem 1. Introduction The frame problem originated as a narrowly defined technical problem in logic-based artificial intelligence (AI). But it was taken up in an embellished and modified form by philosophers of mind, and given a wider interpretation. 2. Put succinctly, the frame problem in its narrow, technical form is this (McCarthy & Hayes 1969). Colour(x, c) holds after Paint(x, c) Position(x, p) holds after Move(x, p) Now, suppose we have an initial situation in which Colour(A, Red) and Position(A, House) hold. The most obvious way to augment such a formalisation so that the right common sense conclusions fall out is to add a number of formulae that explicitly describe the non-effects of each action. Colour(x, c) holds after Move(x, p) if Colour(x, c) held beforehand Position(x, p) holds after Paint(x, c) if Position(x, p) held beforehand In other words, painting an object will not affect its position, and moving an object will not affect its colour. 3. 4. 5.