The person you replied to already covers that in the following sentences. Why else would you need to prove your education except for work?
In a hypothetical post-work era where people no longer build their reputation via career, it’s not hard to imagine group dynamics emerging such that education level is no longer a means to an end, but an end unto itself. Essentially a new way to establish hierarchies.
Sure... if we ever get there, I could potentially see that.
But we're nowhere close to that. Also, if it's being used to establish hierarchies, I could still see that proof being important.
This author is mostly writing an update of 1950s science fiction about a robot takeover. Things to worry about in the near term: - Really effective targeted advertising. Most computers already have a camera watching you. That's now coming to TV sets. Amazon and Google are always listening. So far, all this info is only used to select ads. Soon, it should be possible to generate customized marketing content for each c…
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished betwe…
The author is basically trying to set the same premise as Bolstrom's "intelligence explosion", that is that if AIs are driving the further advancement of AI then we enter a sort of "recursive" self improvement during which they advance further than we can develop constraints, eventually getting completely out of hand. Although I don't broadly disagree with the author, I think there's two very important points of mode…
> frustration when a bureaucrat is refusing to do the common-sense thing Bureaucracy-induced frustration predates computers by centuries.
Computers have, just like they have with a lot of other things, made insane enforcement of inapplicable rules more faster, cheaper, and more efficient, and have entirely diluted responsibility for them to the nebulous, unimpeachable, unreachable 'vendor'. A sufficiently large quantitative difference turns into a qualitative difference. We're becoming a people that, at work, are turning all of our thinking over to mac…
> called a corporation That’s banal, self-interested human evil. Corporations and governments alike have perpetuated mass crimes and cover-ups.
Corporations are designed to do so. So spake Milton Friedman.[1] That was when "greed is good, greed works" became respectable. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...
This applies to all human institutions. Friedman studied private enterprise, so his insights are thereby scoped. Ecologists recognise inter-species competition; that doesn’t make it the exclusive domain of life.
For this to be true, we'd had to assume sentience + malevolence. The shortest explanation for why an AI give us correct data currently is a range of confidence. We instructed it to pick the one with the highest number. We instructed it to give us a similar next data etc. We reinforced it, yes, but we'd have to be naive to believe that taking a small part of what makes something "intelligent" and training the shit out…
> For this to be true, we'd had to assume sentience + malevolence. No we don't. A "dumb," "parrot-like" AI is perfectly capable of large amounts of damage if it just happens to be really good at doing something that, in the limit, isn't very good for humans and is good at replication. See for example Meta's Diplomacy-playing bots. They were perfectly capable of natural-language deception at the expense of other human…
If i understood your point correctly: the places we decide to use them and our confidence in their output can become negative if we decide to trust the output as is, without any human supervision/decision. So, what you’re saying is that we carry risk if we have a high enough confidence in its output to let is unsupervised - this counteracts my point of the necessity of malevolence, as the (even slightly)wrong reinforcement can have negative consequences also. At the same time, we do this exercise every time we have a new policy in the wild, and sometimes we get unintended consequences.
I’m expecting even worse: heavily weaponized political influencing by AI bots. Brexit was won in 2016 by microtargeting ads on facebook based on individual profiles, and since then this has become a common strategy. Think of what a game changer it will be to have convincing AI bots engaging one on one with people online to give them exactly the arguments needed to make them vote the right way. The candidate with the…
We're gonna have to choose between a free, semi-anonymous, international communication network, and democracy. Probably very soon. I've long suspected China had the right idea here, and am, in this case, not happy to be proven right.
Care to explain more?
Especially what do you think China's idea is?
And also how that idea relates to, in your words but abbreviated, «choosing between a network and democracy».