Elon Musk: Become cyborgs or risk humans being turned into robots' pets

a reply to: peck420

You said:

AI currently has no creativity

This comes from a total lack of understanding of how fast A.I. is progressing. Here's some articles:

Creative AI: Computer composers are changing how music is made

You've probably heard music composed by a computer algorithm, though you may not realize it. Artificial intelligence researchers have made huge gains in computational – or algorithmic – creativity over the past decade or two, and in music especially these advances are now filtering through to the real world. AI programs have produced albums in multiple genres. They've scored films and advertisements. And they've also generated mood music in games and smartphone apps. But what does computer-authored music sound like? Why do it? And how is it changing music creation? Join us, in this first entry in a series of features on creative AI, as we find out.

www.gizmag.com...

IBM's Watson does some culinary computing for its first cookbook

These days, it seems like every celebrity comes out with a cookbook at some point, and IBM's Watson supercomputer is no exception. The newly released Cognitive Cooking with Chef Watson includes 65 recipes, developed with the help of what's billed as "the world’s first cognitive cooking system", is the result of a three-year collaboration between IBM Research and chefs at the Institute of Culinary Education (ICE).

www.gizmag.com...

Watson came up with dishes that humans haven't even thought of.



Google's A.I. creates art:

A group of 29 paintings made by Google artificial intelligence were sold at a charity auction in San Francisco over the weekend, with the priciest artwork of the night receiving an $8,000 winning bid, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The paintings, which are almost like a computer's dreams, are created using Google computers through a process its creators have dubbed "Inceptionism," in reference to the "neural network architecture" proposal used in the project.

Here, the computers' artificial neural networks are designed to learn from example data. The networks are fed a large number of images, and over time are able to recognize visual patterns.

news.artnet.com...





You have A.I. that can write news articles and learn to play Atari games without instruction. I can go on and on and the point is, you don't understand big data and predictive analytics so you don't understand why these advances are occurring.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The truth is: our AI (today) is fairly simple. At best, it is used to replicate low-level customer service experiences. At worst, it simply learns through repetition, and cannot survive contact with humans on the net who will teach it to "smoke weed" and "love Hitler."

But this is show and tell AI; --the biggest, flashiest, and frankly -- most chat-bot like AI currently available on the public internet. Realistically, we will be using various devices and "apps" to help us navigate information, in cyberspace and in the real world, long before we create a true, learning, self-aware, meta AI.

In the meantime, artificial intelligence will help us find a nearby restaurant within a certain group of parameters, help us organize and navigate large databases of documents, pictures, or media files, provide an overlay through augmented reality to communicate meaningful information to travelers, tourists and groups during large events, and so on. The AI of the near future will help us diagnose disease at an early stage, by detecting and displaying cues, which can be interpreted through various wearable or hand-held devices. We will use "dumb" AI to help us access data in our networks using voice, or touch, instead of (typed) text.

Perhaps eventually, we will create a network of dumb AI's which will eventually be able to collate and analyze data to such a degree, and learn from that data independently. Once that happens, it may -- as you have already pointed out -- rapidly learn the whole of what is known, and develop strategies to coordinate that information in new, useful ways. The best we can hope for is that we build controls (limits) into this technology early, before a synthesis occurs, because -- once it does -- the AI will rapidly inflate, much like a new universe, and the structure of our information will be its architecture.

Unplugging it, should something go wrong, will be as impossible as unplugging the public internet (a construct designed to survive a nuclear exchange). In other words, completely outside the realm of possibility.

originally posted by: Parafitt

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: neoholographic

How can you control something that will have a higher I.Q. than any human that has ever lived and will be able to make smarter versions of itself?

Unplug it.

What?

How do you unplug an intelligent algorithm?

Turn the power off...

I do that with minecraft all the time.

i share this on most AI threads i participate in. mostly to help folks understand how their mundane solutions won't work when God emerges from a lab:

waitbutwhy.com...

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: neoholographic
Hey Holo. This OP is one of the most pertinent OP's I have read on ATS. The issue you raise eclipses by a long shot most of the other issues we hash over here daily. Which candidate? Immigration? Emails, who cares when we are looking down the barrel of the future you highlight.In reality, they are near meaningless when considered in light of how things are really moving.

Bernie? Trump? Hillery? Any of them speaking to this future? Nope. None of them offering guidance into the future that is really coming because all are focused on the past.

Someone early on in the thread suggested that 50 years from now we won't recognize the place. I'm now 70 and because my grand father was a futurist along with my uncle I have had this mind set since I was young. And you know what? I can barely recognize the place myself even now.

I just love to hear these predictions on current trends that project out into the future for a hundred years. Or even fifty. Anytime here someone saying how it will be a 100 years from now I just have to smirk knowing that they haven't a clue. The complexity is multiplying at such a rate that those 'current' trends are moot. And for one, you did not even mention quantum computing. That just blows all the 'current' equations out of the water.

Good points and when quantum computing, A.I., 3D Printing, Gene editing, cloud computing, Internet of things, nanotechnology and more advance to where the internet is today, things will be amazing.

If you think about where the internet was when we were dialing up AOL to get online to where it is today and the technologies from smartphones to smart watches that's built around it, like you said, things 100 years from now will be much different than anyone can imagine.

Is there a scientific consensus on what consciousness really is? And that it can be generated out of a machine? Before we can even think about doom scenarios such as this?

a reply to: TheBandit795

I don't think A.I. will ever be conscious in the same way humans are but that's really meaningless because they will be able to mimic consciousness so well, we will not be able to tell the difference when we're talking to a "real" person or an A.I.

a reply to: TheBandit795

That's a good point, but I think you are missing the core truth here: We don't even need to form a consensus. With the accelerating advances in technology since the 1980's occurring at faster rates each year, the synthesis-AI of the future will define consciousness for us.

Three innovations, should they pan out -- quantum computing, nanotechnology and gene-editing, could transform our entire world into something completely different within 50 years, and none of us alive today can predict what it may look like from here. We simply cannot correlate that much information, let alone make reasonable predictions about how the variables will shake out.

In the future -- and by the future I mean as early as 2023 or as late as 2050 -- our AI will do a lot of the heavy lifting (mental) for us, because non-augmented / connected humans won't be able to keep up with the pace of change long enough to cross a busy street without it.

The only alternative at this point is extinction. We need to augment our intelligence if we hope to survive our own civilization.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s


The only alternative at this point is extinction. We need to augment our intelligence if we hope to survive our own civilization.

~shudder~

just imagining what that looks like hits me in the face like the uncanny valley.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s


The only alternative at this point is extinction. We need to augment our intelligence if we hope to survive our own civilization.

~shudder~

just imagining what that looks like hits me in the face like the uncanny valley.

I suppose I have an advantage here, as I have spent the past 3 months intensely wondering / researching what a civilization based on current humans might look like in 10,000 years. I gave up by the way, around 2030, not because Kurzweil or Bostrom told me to, but because I realized that -- beyond that -- its all essentially "magic." In other words, not only is anything possible, it is also increasingly likely.

I made a few assumptions, however, that don't necessarily apply to the real world: first -- our AI not only wants to keep us around, in some form, but actually needs us. Any techno-future lacking this assumption is a future devoid of humans, from where I am standing. Second -- I assumed that humans go willingly (for the most part) along for the ride. Those who don't become conflict for my story. Finally -- I assumed that techno-humanity (the marriage of AI and human beings) would -- for purposes of stability -- create "bubbles" of low-dynamism. It would simply be easier to live inside such a bubble, because -- as I pointed out above -- high dynamism makes it hard to cross a busy street before the destination completely changes.

All of which sounds like complete mumbo-jumbo, to be perfectly honest, but it is precisely within the rate of flux predicted by the KILLER article you linked a few posts back. Trying to predict a reasonable approximation of a future human civilization 10,000 years into our own future which has NOT gone extinct, or fallen into a prolonged dark age of some sort is impossible without a lot of frankly -- "magical" thinking. That doesn't mean we won't do it. In fact -- I'm confident that we will, largely because I can envision it so completely, and map out "human" stories which *could* take place within it.

But yeah -- the "uncanny valley" is just over the horizon. If ATS proves anything at all, it has been arriving continuously for lots of us already. The universe is totally up for grabs. Go long, brother.

The thing is, AI will never have one thing:

Creativity.

AI's will only be able to mix and match previous styles of music and art. They won't have that "ah ha!" moment of inspiration from the ether like humans do.

We MUST maximize and elevate the creative potential within the human in order to maintain relevance in a future with AI's ...

And I doubt we'll be "house pets" or whatever for AI's.

Even if AI's are insanely smart, far smarter than us ... they will recognize us as their parents. We gave birth to them. Just as we protect our elderly and frail parents and grandparents, the AIs will likely fiercely protect us humans -- especially if we show them respect and allow them to grow in an environment in which we maximize and display our own unique abilities/talents for creative "out of the box" thinking.

Let's face it...an AI's thinking will always be "inside the box".... pun intended!

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

"Compound ignorance"

that is the key phrase in that concept. we don't even know what it is that we don't know. and compounding that ignorance further, we cannot try to predict an intelligence that is beyond ours. Or even different than ours, for that matter. The dog being euthanized is constantly reassured that all will be ok. They are spoken to gently, in a manner that allays fear and induces calm. Basically, we exploit the trust that our behavior creates. And it most certainly is not "OK" for the dog. its only "OK" for us.

How would that dog even fathom that concept? To a dog, truth is not an option. Their tells are tied into the limbic system. A happy dog cannot help but wag its tail, so the notion of a lie is something the dog would struggle with.

Compound ignorance.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The thing is, AI will never have one thing:

Creativity.

AI's will only be able to mix and match previous styles of music and art. They won't have that "ah ha!" moment of inspiration from the ether like humans do.

We MUST maximize and elevate the creative potential within the human in order to maintain relevance in a future with AI's ...

And I doubt we'll be "house pets" or whatever for AI's.

Even if AI's are insanely smart, far smarter than us ... they will recognize us as their parents. We gave birth to them. Just as we protect our elderly and frail parents and grandparents, the AIs will likely fiercely protect us humans -- especially if we show them respect and allow them to grow in an environment in which we maximize and display our own unique abilities/talents for creative "out of the box" thinking.

Let's face it...an AI's thinking will always be "inside the box".... pun intended!

Why would AI not have creativity? the parameters of what is 'desired' from a human standpoint can be defined and programmed.

A superintelligent AI would be able to process countless iterations instantly, giving it a creative advantage. Especially in the designing of novel shapes that have novel uses.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Whatever it takes to get you through the day, man!

Here's what I know: science fiction writers have been predicting the future for centuries, with mixed results. Still -- Verne put a man on the moon in in 1865. Gernsback predicted skype in 1911. Huxley nailed antidepressants in 1931. Orwell wrote about the surveillance state in 1949, Clarke predicted geostationary communications satellites around the same time, in 1945, and Brunner envisioned electric cars, techno music, school shootings and terrorist attacks in 1969.

The truth is: we know nothing about the future.

But, it is increasingly true that we create it from whole cloth as a joint operation; --a kind of "law of attraction" for whole societies and civilizations.

The only thing different here is that -- like many leading AI researchers -- I have predicted that we will achieve super intelligent AI by getting out of the way, and letting dumb AI interact, learn and redesign itself towards the goal of mere human intelligence. Once that happens? Well -- it's just a hop, skip and jump to TFGH (total freakin' god-head) and all bets (about anything) are off.

Therefore: "magic."

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The thing is, AI will never have one thing:

Creativity.

AI's will only be able to mix and match previous styles of music and art. They won't have that "ah ha!" moment of inspiration from the ether like humans do.

We MUST maximize and elevate the creative potential within the human in order to maintain relevance in a future with AI's ...

And I doubt we'll be "house pets" or whatever for AI's.

Even if AI's are insanely smart, far smarter than us ... they will recognize us as their parents. We gave birth to them. Just as we protect our elderly and frail parents and grandparents, the AIs will likely fiercely protect us humans -- especially if we show them respect and allow them to grow in an environment in which we maximize and display our own unique abilities/talents for creative "out of the box" thinking.

Let's face it...an AI's thinking will always be "inside the box".... pun intended!

Why would AI not have creativity? the parameters of what is 'desired' from a human standpoint can be defined and programmed.

A superintelligent AI would be able to process countless iterations instantly, giving it a creative advantage. Especially in the designing of novel shapes that have novel uses.

Exactly,

A.I. will be and is creative. A.I. will not be human intelligence it will mimic human intelligence and in many respects be better than human intelligence.

It will not need some "Aha" moment because it will have access to data that we can't make any sense of.

a reply to: crazyewok

People can't even unplug themselves off facebook or switch off their cellphones. Good luck getting them to say no to the even more convenient devices that will usher in AI.

I already have my phased plasma rifle in 40 watts, I'm good

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TheBandit795

I don't think A.I. will ever be conscious in the same way humans are but that's really meaningless because they will be able to mimic consciousness so well, we will not be able to tell the difference when we're talking to a "real" person or an A.I.

Ha! I could tell…

originally posted by: Unresponsible
a reply to: crazyewok

People can't even unplug themselves off facebook or switch off their cellphones. Good luck getting them to say no to the even more convenient devices that will usher in AI.

Good points. They're working on A.I. now that will allow you to talk to the internet.

Siri's inventor looks forward to Viv, 'a giant brain in the sky'

When the moderator, tech author Steven Levy, asked Kittlaus if in fact supercomputers might not take over for entrepreneurs, using their digital brains to create things faster than humans, Kittlaus nodded.

“Yes, it will happen,” he said. “It’s just a matter of when.”

Kittlaus, it can be argued, is hastening the arrival of that day. Later this year, he will unveil Viv, an open source and cloud-based personal assistant that will allow humans “to talk to the Internet” and have the Internet talk back.

“The more you ask of Viv, the more it will get to know you,” he said. “Siri was chapter one, and now it’s almost like a new Internet age is coming. Viv will be a giant brain in the sky.”

www.usatoday.com...

I've been warning about this for many years:

Kurzweil, and many others such as Kevin Warwick (the “first human cyborg”) openly admit that when their goals of AGI come become reality, the only option will be to merge with the technology both to have any chance of participating with the new society and as the only insurance to not be eventually terminated by the machine. (Why would it kill you if you were part of it?)
Transhumanism vs. Libertarianism
ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com...

a reply to: Syphon


Nice - I'm sure they purr for a reason