Disclaimer: No apologies will be made. Thank you. —Desmond
This is supposedly the post granola-infused world where the kids are in charge of being influential to the “leaders”–those whom have become empowered by their very own imagination. The neutered, yawn-inducing, middlebrow bumpkins they are, these kids are not choosing to utilize their time to educate themselves–instead, they are subject to being dominated by social engineering and getting churned out as nothing more than a flaccid failure. My deconstructions do not require elaborate writing since high-level bossin’ has suffered a precipitous decline over the years spurred on not only by the evanescence of good people whom have passed on but also by the insane amount of nonsense propagated by the ne’er do well “visionaries” and the half-pieced mission statements they vomit on the regular.
Contrary to your outlook on me, I do not despise the existence of your psycho-neurotic blade swingers the likes of Elon, Sergey, Mark and the rest of the “automation gang”–but don’t jump to conclusions just yet. To the readers out there, the aforementioned are gods. To me, their significance isn’t elevated beyond a grain of sand on a beach or a restraining order in Weinstein’s wallet just because Zuckerberg contributes to the cycle of entropy in the realm of business–and I choose to spotlight it.
Irregardless of the fact that half of America’s tech heroes don the costume that’s akin to the mundane ice queen blonde in a leather jacket, I cannot fault them for their decision to forego the latest fashion trends (this is in reference to several articles that poked at the Zuck’s choice in suit attire during the Facebook hearings) but I was in anticipation of a witch-hunt. I didn’t get the witch-hunt, but what I did get, in return, is this general basic, LLB (low-level bitch) approach from politicians that they do not understand technology AND the general truth that there is no sincere interest nor curiosity concerning any probable technological advancement in society.
People, the world over, have demonstrated that they are not harboring any interest in what surrounds them nowadays, specifically man-made things. There was a time when people had a general interest in objects that surrounded them, especially objects that did not have some sort of a definition to them. People were curious enough to try and learn these objects that comprised their surrounding environment. Nowadays, nobody seems to care; it’s someone else’s job to undertake. Curiosity is defined as “being able to discover patterns and orchestrate and/or manipulate those patterns to serve a purpose“; but in today’s world, “curiosity” is just putting an image box that can connect to someone on the other side of the world, and yet those same people can’t even be bothered to take a screwdriver to see what goes on inside of that image box. Old paradigm thinking is demonized yet old paradigm thinking gave you products with purpose while new paradigm thinking is rewarded when new paradigm thinking is counterproductive; non-plussed by an absent purpose.
2018 has proven so far to be the year in which actual output, which is a-positive, is identified by having a purpose. Knowing stuff is looked down upon and not just by the LLBs, but mostly by those who claim that they are fixtures against the laws of oppression. The missions of most schools just isn’t all that appealing to those in attendance of them. Every teacher has jumped on the bandwagon promoting that school is “boring” by their actions (i.e., having sex with students). The more people think that way, the more it ends up becoming evidently true. Moore’s Law is dead, but people are still trying to resuscitate it. There are people who are frightened by [a-positive] intelligence–deathly afraid. For those gifted with the ability to read-between-the-lines, you look at Deep Blue differently from the “remainder population”. Deep Blue can beat (warlike verbiage) a chess master, however, it’s intelligence is still far less in magnitude in comparison to a snail. Being frightened at the sight of intelligence is to be diametrically opposed to harboring an a-positive disposition since proving a negative is something that no scientific materialist will engage in doing. Intelligence prevents a [materialist] from wasting their time trying to “prove the existence of God” or the existence of “A.I.” or that “A.I.” wants to kill every Homo Sapien Sapien.
So, what does that say about the members of the “automation gang”?
Answer: It means that they are busy taking part in the game of living in hard and real fantasies.
“God” is written in so many ways in so many books and the atoms that make up those books process in so many humans’ neurons that, it (“God”) must exist, right? You either believe in those fantasies or believe that those fantasies exist. This is how the “automation gang” think. “A.I.” does not exist; a–positive intelligence does exist. Intelligence is not defined as the “ability to process information“. Definitions are not to be meaningless but it says something about the gullibility of the general public to fall hook-line-and-sinker whatever the “automation gang” speak on which is highly-deserving of being laughed at–and if you don’t laugh at them then there’s something wrong with you [since “A.I.” does not exist]. If you’re intrigued by modern day soothsayer-swag that violates the so-called “first law of thermodynamics”–be my guest.
Seriously. Would anyone of any real intelligence think that it’s permissible to let a white supremacist determine how the survival equation should be substantiated? I assure you that there will be processes of elimination in tow. Then again, that “program” has already been at play for centuries.
You already have institutions the likes of Intel and Nvidia working on the designing of “A.I.” chips so to reach the hard-headed and try to reason with them is futile. But, that won’t interfere with their intention to design their very own stupidity. I can’t be convinced that Nvidia can design intelligence. Flops are not intelligence. If a stupid program can run on a computer, then more flops will equate to more stupidity. It’s just that simple to comprehend. Besides, more flops and/or computer design are not ever-increasing of quantity.
The “Automation Gang”
Elon [the] Musk[rat]. Now, let me ask the readers and his exhilarated “fans” a simple question: since when did Elon become a noted expert on “A.I.” and society’s future? He seems to think that once we’re able to build computers with as many transistors as the number of neurons in the human brain (however many that is), that all hell will break loose. Just a lot of speculation, no demonstration [of this inevitable, pending “doom”], way too much misinformation, oversimplification, false imagery, digital apocalypse and so on and so on. He can’t rightly address disturbing questions from his disturbed base of acne-ridden “fans”, and don’t get me wrong–caution and concern are valuable attributes–but to tag-a-long fear isn’t sound especially when you need to be in the right frame of mind to make the correct assessments of the subject matter at hand.
Elon should have more faith in humanity and not try to convince the general public that we’re on the brink of sheer and utter self-destruction by way of persuasive curiosity. He seems pessimistic about people in the field doing the “right thing” yet he’s indirectly claiming to be an expert in the field and he’s worried about this very thing that disturbs him–the implementation of “A.I.”.
In my opinion (a factual opinion that actually matters), if it ever existed, “A.I.” isn’t a thing that I would be concerned about in regards to the “destruction of mankind” since technology itself has already set-off the first-stage battle against the perpetuation of the modern-day human species. Did that make any sense? No? Aight, I guess an even better way to convey the message is that technology has rendered people so dependent upon on the raw chain of machinery to help them get through the day and simultaneously wiping the slate clean of any conventional wisdom that is normally typical of being human. Laws of nature don’t apply to what you or your mother classifies as civilization. Those “laws” [written by white men who wore women’s clothing] are applied to atoms and other particles that were brought into existence by your “God’s” receding hairline and those atoms and other particles brought civilization and “A.I.” into existence yet those by-products only relish in a particular abstract domain (in Elon’s mind); in that domain, civilization changes over time. Make an attempt to translate that into the real world and you’ll find yourself immersed in extreme difficulty to draw-up relevancy to any sound and just social commitment.
Sergey Brin. Now, I will admit that one thing I find honorable about Sergey is that damn near eight out of every ten images you find of this man, you’ll see someone who’s very faithful about his own products (e.g., dead-in-the-water Google Glass) when you see him wearing them. I wouldn’t find it difficult to believe that he goes to bed with his very own, customized pair of Google Glass.
Notwithstanding, he’s a man that conflicted and stuck between a rock and a hard place (nh @ “hard”), “defending magic”, by hopping on the “…fears of a sci-fi style sentience” bandwagon.
“While I am optimistic about the potential to bring technology to bear on the greatest problems in the world, we are on a path that we must tread with deep responsibility, care and humility.”–Sergey Brin
Sergey, like Elon, makes his argument from the stance of sheer ignorance, and I find it utterly disturbing that Sergey refuses to back-up his loud but silent claims by showing that the so-called “laws of nature” that would permit this unspecified magical entity [the singularity] that will destroy human civilization. The “laws of nature” are staunchly against infinitive growth. Singularities cannot exist. Not even a steady progression is possible. The only exception to the rule is the cosmological constant. That’s it. Singularity is synonymous to a blind spot, not some grandiose doomsday scenario playing out where Arnold, dressed up as a Leather Bar-regular, rides a Harley barreling down street alleys with a Mossberg in tow. Even with his computer scientist sensibilities, as antiquated as they are, Sergey knows better to let emotion get in the way of decision-making. Droves of Google employees leaving because Google made the ill-fated choice to jump in the bed with the U.S. military’s collectively-declining T-cell count was emotionally-charged, but then again, you can’t help but be emotional when you’re hiring people whose hearts are absence of courage. I wouldn’t call those employees “honorable”. Those same employees that walked out on Google are going to go home to practice white supremacy and plan to meet up with and indulge in homoeroticism with strange men who will wear Jimmy Kimmel-face masks this Halloween. Loyalty doesn’t come in the form of paying salaries.
Sergey makes mistakes that masquerade as simplifications; passing judgement when you’re cognizant of the facts. It’s easier to understand the consequences once they’ve been made apparent since that’ll position you as the hero of the masses. Doing so will have the future generations looking back at who made the prediction-of-the-outcome (i.e., the Doomsday scenario) and dedicate the praise to that namesake (Brin) and naysay the opinions of others of the time. In other words, Sergey just turned into a priest. A priest employs words of emotion to describe their disposition. I wouldn’t be all that shocked to see the word “destroy” [as associated with “A.I.”] in his “journal of mundane postulations“. This same exact school of thought also believes in factual incorrectness such as “technology advances rapidly“. Guess what? It doesn’t. It’s not my fault that the general public has submitted to the apperceived notion that intelligence equates to destruction by adhering to the ethnocentric viewpoints concerning the non-existent “A.I.” from the likes of Sergey & Co. and his a priori justification (poor reasoning).
Algorithms aren’t creative and they are harmless. Machines aren’t intelligent nor creative. They are ordered by programs; that’s it. There is power in an atom. There is no power in a neuron but they do consume power. Sergey’s stance on “A.I.” is cluttered with stale irrelevancy and tangential arguments that go nowhere. In whatever state Google intends for “A.I.” to be in will amount to nothing but a dynamic state of bytes changing memory rapidly or something. To optimize to gratify one specific goal is diametrically opposite of intelligence.
Does Sergey know that E.coli will kill millions while software will kill nth number of people?
I never “liked” nor respected Andrew Ng; probably never will either. People that spread fear always have something to sell. Even a mild intelligence (natural or “artificial”) would realize that sickness is not something that needs to erased. To conceptualize that would be nonsensical. See, the “A.I.”-doomsday proponents still would have to make a case. What exactly should we fear? Intelligence? Global stupidity is what’s rampant. I’d be more concerned about that than anything else.
You all are familiar with “stupidity“, correct? You know, when an individual can get up in front of a crowd of impressionable folk, say something that sounds “right”, but you don’t know for certain because the subject matter is nebulous, void and without form and still swoon the crowd with non-definition and bottomless rhetoric? See, it’s not intelligence that’s threatening or benevolent; it’s the individual that harbors the intelligence. To be defined as benevolent or as the nature of a threat–that decision is left up to him or her.
Comparable to the two aforementioned members of the “automation gang”, Mr. Ng runs his mouth off of half-baked mental projections and the error of relying on categorical imperatives to come through. As a matter of fact, I still do not see where this link between intelligence and destruction is found. Andrew needs to be forthright as to why “A.I.” is looked down upon by people like me. For starters, one of the main reasons why I look down upon “A.I.” is because of its failure to meet its promise in a timely manner. Let’s not pretend that all of this “A.I.” talk is something brand new; the [scientific] community have been parading this for decades. On its own leg, it can’t stand scrutiny and so far, hasn’t lived up to the hype. Those on the inside are insufferable and their inability to deal with the frustration has opened up the floodgates of “A.I.’s” bad rap in popular culture. For the past four or five decades, what we call “artificial intelligence” has been grossly oversold, and now, we have everyone and their mother jumping on the bandwagon. In 2018, we have too much “artificial” and not enough intelligence. But, in the case of Andrew’s capability of seeing the future, how can you forewarn the general public about worst-case scenarios [that play-out in your head] that occur around a subject matter that you haven’t mastered yet?
So, is Andrew going to be forthright and share the truth as to why “automation” is such a detriment to society?
But I will. In the early 1900s, all manufacturing was piecemeal, that is an individual worker produced a product. Henry Ford changed all that in 1912 by introducing the assembly method of production (you know, the “plant”, which he learned from George Washington Carver). Over the next ten years, that same method is implemented slowly by other car manufacturers, then rapidly implemented in the mid-1920s. The assembly line method of production is much more efficient, yet it requires few workers. That is what “automation” does; it displaces (not “replaces”) workers. Unemployment begins to ramp up. At the same time, manufacturers are taking advantage of the new technology enabled by electricity. Hand and foot operated lathes, mills, borers, planers and drill presses have now become electrified, so that one worker can now do the work of six workers operating a manual lathe that used a treadle. The use of this new technology and manufacturing methods is pervasive by the 1930s which generated more unemployed workers.
If the implementation of automation occurs at the same rate technology was implemented back in the 1920s, then this could create structural unemployment. I emphasized “electricity” in the former paragraph for a specific reason: Andrew Ng seems to believe that “A.I.” is going to be the next big commodity. Read for yourselves:
“Just as electricity transformed so many industries roughly 100 years ago, AI will also now change nearly every major industry–healthcare, transportation, entertainment, manufacturing–enriching the lives of countless people. I am more excited than ever about where AI can take us.” — Andrew Ng
Tell me how far “AI can take us” when a chess-playing program can’t even “learn” Tic-Tac-Toe. Far as I know, there is no general game-playing algorithm. There certainly is no general number-classifying algorithm either. Purportedly, an “A.I.” program is suppose to be specialized for the task they are to perform. I mean, regarding prime numbers, can an “A.I.” program get them right, in every case? Even if it has “learned” something, about math, can it “learn” what mathematicians mean by prime numbers? The inability to address the former inquiries leads one to think that all of this talk about “machine learning” and “machine” intelligence is merely metaphorical. Prime numbers are important because they are evident in theorems but an “A.I.” program will know nothing of this apparently. However, if researchers seek for “A.I.” to be deem as having the means to perform in this fashion then intelligence, in this sake, is rather paltry.
“A.I.” is not a technology; it is essentially a clickbait buzzword. Companies have adopted the meaningless term and added it to their names and business mission in order to entice poorly-informed investors just like they did a couple of decades ago with “.com” and they’re doing it even more with “blockchain” and “cryptocurrency”. These are poor investments, but we’ll let the chips fall where they may–in due time. I say that “A.I.” is not a technology because the definition is absent; it’s without a presence. If “artificial” intelligence is suppose to be computers (or computerized devices) that act and/or think like humans, are those the likes of Elon, Sergey, Andrew and company, seriously assure of themselves that this would actually be a good or useful thing? One would have to contemplate on what exactly makes humans and computers different (we had to do this during my stint at Fho-Bis, LLC. back in 2003-2006). For instance, aren’t computers better at tending to overlapping tasks in comparison to humans? I would think so.
Andrew’s one of the more peculiar members of the “automation gang” that tends to re-name old terms, such as neural networks know being dubbed as “deep learning”. People do this when the former isn’t positioned to satisfy years of dubious questioning and self-ponderance. Insight cannot rely solely on logical deduction. Andrew and Co. seem so ready for deterministic chaos that I can only give credence to complex science subjects that garner more attention than living on Mars. Guess that gives a pat on the back to Elon. Hell, next time, investors should pour money on the lap of Andrew Ng whenever he puts down his chopsticks and rants recklessly about nonlinear dynamical systems, but that would be a waste of money. Then again, that’s what most investors are good at–wasting money.
Someone needs to tell Andy Ng that the ultimate goal of “machine learning” is to program a flexible algorithm for following a pattern; not to destroy.
Ray Kurzweil, a flatline encephalograph weirdo extraordinaire. He’s a starved and weakened tiger–in a lion’s den. It’s time to eat this pseudo-luminary up once and for all.
There will never–and I mean never–be an algorithm named after Kurzweil, there will never be a “process” named after Kurzweil. Why should there be? This “A.I.” theory hasn’t inhaled a new fresh breath in decades; the hardware has though. Ray Kurzweil is the type of guy who will say anything and fix any graph and cherry pick any data that’ll support some quasi-religiosity regarding some “singularity”.
There’s no need to get scientific on Kurzweil since “to get scientific” would be an absolute waste. See, this is a privilege that white males have: the ability to get in front of the world and showcase your innate stupidity to the world and get rich by doing so.
Ray Kurzweil is selfish, but I liken his selfishness in the same vein as Anthony Bourdain whose death is something that should not be treated as this grand ejaculatory celebration. The media fawns over celebrity deaths the same way would-be scientists are obsequious over Kurzweil. The general public already views science as a joke to the point that it’s going to take a non-scientist to square-off with the likes of Kurzweil, Andrew Ng and the “gang” in order to orchestrate a correction in the divine order. The curse of Kurzweil has given credence to the ill-layer of biological longevity nonsense. When you look at him [Ray] you can tell that he is cancerous as well as aging. Ain’t nothing immortal about that, but most of you think it’s okay that he’s this evangelist of death disguised as perpetual hope. In reality, Kurzweil strives to maintain his mega-vitamin therapy so that he may live long enough to have sex with one of his future great-great grandchildren.
Death is not a problem or a default that nature cannot cure; it is a necessary occurrence in order for life to continue. Without death and reproduction there is no evolution and diversity, and without evolution and diversity, the “end of life” is assured. With diversity, nature continuously creates these “useless” forms of life that do not have the responsibility of adapting to the future it will encounter since the future that will happen might not be the one expected. Individuals are created to grow old in order be destroyed later (i.e., death) since natural resources are finite.
Kurzweil’s a scared man. He’s scared of dying. It’s just too bad that nature doesn’t feel the same way.
Facebook is an infection; Mark is the disease that follows. According to his co-hort, Elon, his [Mark’s] understanding of the subject, “artificial intelligence”, is limited. I’ll throw caution to the wind–Mark understands full-well of the aforementioned subject–he knows how to play the crowd as well all witnessed months ago during his testimony to Congress, a menagerie of dim-witted American trash whom have absolutely no business orchestrating the policies that govern this pathetic country.
This is the same man that proclaimed to pledge $3B to “fight disease” a few years ago. Ha, all the databases that’ll be needed for that supposed biohub–that’s a bioinformatics disaster-orgy waiting to happen.
And so, now, Marky and Elon are in a tit-for-tat over the diabolical aura that will be strikingly set-forth from the efforts of the many heavily-endowed [funded] “A.I.” labs that have been endorsed by not only every existent federal and state grant but also international efforts from afar as well as every single member of the “automation gang”, particularly Elon and Marky himself. Now, every media outlet that breathes-in dollars over dollars have posted their very own fiery brand of speechifying in the form of incendiary article after incendiary article but what makes my approach singular, uniquely positioned and individualized is that I’m cut from a different cloth and my vernacular isn’t cloaked hereditarily in Asperger’s. If the recent drama-without-a-stage that Marky showcased for all of us back in April is at all indicative of how Marky would defend himself and any semi-operable organization he chooses to attach his surname to (the Zuckerberg & Chan Initiative) were to suddenly find itself being backed in a corner by governmental oversight, with not a single escape plan within reach, then may mercy help us. Notwithstanding, Facebook is not necessarily as incorrigible as most would think. What’s not going to save $FB is this thing he’s frightened of called “A.I.” yet not too shook to try and implement this…thing.
Is it really a thing? That’s an ethics question, and I’m fairly certain Marky wouldn’t get the point. The effort poured forth by one of Marky’s labs’ leading in-house experts could turn the whole scene into a Grand Guignol horror show. See, it’s hard-work when you’re the guy who Marky has to lean on for answers.
Yann LeCun. The Director of “A.I.” Research at Facebook. This man not only dresses like a child molester but also emanates the ambiance of such an expectant lecher. I’m sure there’s a treehouse somewhere in the world with his DNA all over the place.
I’m no expert, but I find it quite difficult to wrap my mind around this idea that simulation of the human brain is a feat that can be accomplished. Also, I’m not stating this overly-taxing task is an assignment from Marky directly to Yann, but I have my suspicions (nh @ “suspicions”). If the train of thought isn’t knocked-off its tracks [meaning I’m right], then how does Facebook expect to accomplish this without input from a neurochemist? To simulate a human brain, in any attempt, to get positive human emotions also has the potential to invoke negative human emotions. In fact, in regards to “A.I.” and its impact on society overall, you’ll notice that there is a distinct group who believe that this “impact” rivaling human intelligence is nil even into the next century. Human understanding of cognitive processes and state-of-the-art computer systems does not support this convoluted idea of super general intelligence that idiots believe will out-do human, innate intelligence.
This has sparked debate, so much to the point that Yann LeCun stated that the state-of-the-art [computers] so far has been developed due to the “clever engineering” of researchers and that practical technology almost always precedes the theory developed to fully explain the aforementioned “practical” technology. Predictions are suppose to be rooted in realistic approaches–and realistic approaches aren’t overlapped by “autonomous driving” and humanoid robots because these applications that just replicate functions that are already applicable routinely by non-machine learning. In my viewpoint, “A.I.” would have some legs to stand on if the purpose weren’t laden with hidden intentions centered on replacement.
Technology allows people to be stupid; technology does not make someone more intelligent. The deeper problem is that a lot of “A.I.” enthusiasts are too caught up in the hype machine of criticism to utilitarianism which most “A.I.” enthusiasts promote nowadays [and not getting paid to do so]. This is why kids are so god-damn stupid–they’d rather listen to Elon as he fills their impressionable minds with space garbage and their minds end up awash in faux realism and fantasy worlds replete with lies and pseudo-academia wonderland.
Daphne Koller. Aside from her Ewok-like appearance, here’s a female who single-handedly can turn a peculiar interest into a peculiar disinterest. She’s comparable to her peer, Andrew Ng, in the same vein of extreme dislike that I have for him as well as her. Thanks to her, I view “A.I.”, in its entirety, akin to the Book of Daniel: a story centered around a fictional character used for literary convention. Daphne, no different from any of the other members of the “gang”, is a propped-up fanatical evangelical who tries hard to crow-bar a crowd into the excitement of some thing [that doesn’t even exist]. They call it “A.I.”.
Daphne Koller defines the fictional aspect of “A.I.”, which in itself is non-existent and not a threat to humans because it does not exist. “A.I.”, even if it did exist, would be the fictitious character based on a real person. All of these articles from various media outlet (i.e., Venture Beat, Business Insider, Entrepreneur, Recode, Mashable, TechCrunch, etc.) compound on this fictitious character called “A.I.”–and you, as the reader, have to understand that in order to wrap your head around the nonsensical characteristics that comprise this book of blatant stupidity–and Daphne is the perfect author.
Yes. Bezos is part and parcel of this whole “automation gang” thang thang, despite all of this recent malarkey concerning his goal to establish a human-manned base on the Moon. It won’t happen, and no, it’s not on part of disbelief, it’s mostly because of mankind’s overlapping ignorance of the very planet on which we all currently inhabit.
However, I tend to lean a little bit on the positive side of things in regards to Bezos’ interest in things automation. Unlike the aforementioned members of the “automation gang”, Bezos doesn’t necessarily have his head in the clouds. The Mars thing and the Moon thing are of two different worlds from one another and, although somewhat tied-in with automation, those are subject matters distinguished from the topic at hand. Like Elon, J. Bezos puts his ambitions and “dreams” to action; unlike Elon, Bezos has yet to have one of his Blue Origin rockets go KAPUT! on him–yet (“Step By Step, Ferociously”).
Nevertheless, Bezos, “the world’s richest man”, only looks forward to Cyber Monday. What he’s doing is playing us for dummies–for a short-term gain. Only a select few realize that it’s a stunt. He’ll lose respect and credibility. Anything from Amazon that sparks an interest in “the people”, it is immediately questioned and weighed against practicality and civilian expectation. It’s not good enough that he wasn’t traumatized by the whiskers of a pre-HIV Asimov as a child growing up, J. Bezos finds himself in a situation where he has to attempt to orchestrate the means by which will be utilized to dissuade the nebulous clouds of confusion concerning space “colonization”–and whether or not he’s able to do so without being seen holding hands with Elon as they skip through the forest. He’s a determined individual. Truthfully speaking, for Bezos, this attempt to take mankind boldly to lands never before trekked [by mankind]–I’m referring to Mars–would be akin to a Cristobol Colón-styled voyage, because others have made it to the Moon before. However, falling back on Mars, no one’s been there, and like Elon, Bezos is unprepared to take that step. If I come-off not so constructive in my deconstruction of Bezos’ psychosocial character then blame it on the fact that I can direct my excitement towards other goals that are drenched in practicality rather than sit here fixated on zapping about the Solar system as a space tourist or establishing an “A.I.”-controlled penal colony on the “red planet”.
The Reign of Drones is not a reality that will materialize anytime in this decade nor the next, however, I will not disgrace the name of Bezos any further since I am of the school of thought that if any member of the “automation gang” can pull-off a “convenient” product that is remotely close to an “artificial means”–it would be Bezos.
Eric Schmidt. Here’s the man that made former Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, hurl a chair across a table as he cried out his frustration over Google’s then-dominance in the high-tech market. Stress triggers are loose around Eric. Although, that’s besides the point. Schmidt is having trouble comprehending the reality that automation is akin to playing the lottery–you’re longing for that “weird feedback”. Suppose your chances of winning the lottery is X%. You make the decision to not play the lottery. But, by not playing the lottery you end up boosting the odds of other people who do decide to play the lottery. You find yourself taking deep philosophical guesses [and questions] that hits at the nature of probability. This is how algorithms can get things wrong–in addition to the utilization of weak-data arguments.
I’m pinning this on Eric since he’s adamant that Elon and other members of the “automation gang” are on the wrong side of the tracks when it comes to inferential points that some would consider unfavorable aspects of “A.I.”. Sure, Eric Schmidt may have the strategical mindset of an emergency room code surgeon, but tell me how useful that is when you’re in a board room attempting to explain how your company’s “A.I.” aspects ain’t quite panning-out the way you formerly anticipated. Schmidt is the type of psychopath that’ll hurl ingenuine nonce terms in the mix to inflate his arguments that have already been ballooned by other members of “da’ gang”, primarily Sergey.
People have a tendency to forget that the world breathes off of spin and hype (i.e., Elon’s bloodstream). For Schmidt, that’s a given, seeing how Alphabet is a bread factory of spin and hype. Spin and hype are just as much a part of the fabric of any high-tech company, or, should I say, a marketing company masquerading as a “high-tech” company. The problem for Alphabet is that they’re apparently unaware that spin and hype have to be based off of reality. This is the brick wall for “artificial intelligence” because continuously spouting-off at the mouth about humanoid robots taking over the planet; gerbil-in-wheel-spinning about colonizing Mars; drones delivering pizza and raining bullets down on enemy territories from altitudes upon high; and Moon bases aren’t cemented in reality. However, what is based in reality is that everyone mentioned so far ( as well as the closing member of the “automation gang”) have mastered the art of begging for money. Notice I stated begging; not “raising”. Eric Schmidt understands the business of spin and hype. A lot of these startups that beg for money and obtain “small numbers” (e.g., $2 million, $100 million, etc.) aren’t positioning themselves to change the world, rather they’ll be changed by the world (forced into an acquisition, a hostile takeover or end up in a fire sale). The reason why residents of particular cities end up having to put up with electric scooters all over the place is because some startup begged some white men who are partners at firms the likes of Goldman Sachs and Fidelity Investments for $2.5 billion so that they can convince the city councils and district attorneys to force their residents to put up with all of the malarkey. You can pull this off when you pretend to be something that you’re really not. It’s called deception. The wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing approach has worked wonders for Eric Schmidt over the past couple of decades. Has it not?
Answer: Of course it has.
The same ignorant people who fall hook-line-and-sinker for rumors of “global nuclear annihilation” are the same ignorant mawfuckas succumbing to propaganda and disinformation concerning “A.I.”, but intelligently-informed people do not. Eric Schmidt and the rest of the “automation gang” love taking advantage of the former.
Stephen Hawking. He’s dead, he died, he ain’t livin’ no mo’. It’s time to cry about it.
Straight to the point: Hawking was a staunch “believer” in “A.I.”, which makes sense if you draw the parallel between this worship dedicated towards “artificial intelligence” and liken it to peoples’ belief in Christianity in that people find themselves overwhelmed to direct their lively-purpose to appeasing some thing that does not exist.
“The automation of factories has already decimated job in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.” —Stephen Hawking
People, Hawking chased red herrings–and when he couldn’t absolve himself, he would find more red herrings to chase after. Think of the “cigar-shaped” object floating through space he had considered to be an alien spaceship just weeks before his long, overdue demise. Thing is, why would someone like me want to put a stop to it? The man was dying, his waning imagination hanged in the balance, the man needed one last hurrah before kicking the bucket. He was longing to be amongst the prime arbiters of this newfangled religion known to him [and the other members of the “automation gang”] as “A.I.”. Yeah, he spent a lot of the remaining years of his life chasing black holes; yeah, he spent a lot of the remaining years of his life dilly-dallying about E.T.; yeah, he spent a lot of the remaining years of his life taking pictures with “fans”, students and socialites of the wacky ilk. The man wasn’t an atheist; just confused by his disabled soul.
If Hawking’s viewpoint on “God” affirms the position he had prior to passing on, then it would conclude that “A.I.” indeed does not exist since a creation cannot be without the conditions having been orchestrated by a “creator”, however, what’s to say that some thing can’t exist without having to have been created in the first place. For instance, I’m of the opinion that this universe exist as an increate. It’s the nature of the matter that posed itself as a “problem” for Hawking, who, as a theoretical physicist, was a problematic magnet himself. Technology solves some problems as well as create new ones. Technology, in all of its self-imposed glory, is nothing more than a golden calf–and you have idolaters the likes of Ray Kurzweil and the late Stephen Hawking who have offered sacrifices to their very own imagined Molochs. Zealotry notwithstanding, the absence of practicality in the fragile bones of Hawking is something that I always found puzzling about him. I mean, sure, the adjective–theoretical–precedes the noun physicist–however, you’d still think the residual elements of what remained human about him [Hawking] were ever-present.
Seems as if you all lost an unattainable “god”, which is a cosmological and poetic justice that is only fitting since Hawking didn’t believe one existed anyway.
The High Priest.
Yes, I’m well-aware that “high priest” is not a title to be minimized down to the murky outlook comparable to street affairs but bear with me for a bit.
Bill Gates is the primary character in the world’s faux-demand for automation.
Technology has been with us since humans built their first tools. Frankly, one wouldn’t expect the increase of our knowledge changing much more than what it did for us millenniums ago aside from increase the human population on Earth as well as the lifespan of humans. But let’s not pretend that we don’t know what the actual intent behind “artificial intelligence” is; folks like Billy Gates aren’t looking for the means to eradicate diseases, rather, they’re interest is embedded in knowing that there will be a system intact that will guarantee that specific “laws” are still held together by strings. Truth is, for Billy specifically, is that “A.I.” is everything in form akin to medicine. Problem is that no two people on Earth have the exact same body chemistry, brain chemistry or blood chemistry. So, how do researchers expect to replicate human variations in an “artificial” object that they believe can exhibit intelligent attributes that are typical of the human experience?
With Bill Gates, the story is still the same: for one, there is something seriously wrong (i.e., natural selection); and second, a centralized top-down design and control system is better able to see the optimum direction for society [“artificial intelligence”]. It’s as old as written history. Gates is a prime example of what happens when you give a particular group the power to anoint themselves as the chosen since all it seems to take is money or a market-advantageous technology/product. The results are always the same. Understand, that the authors of your very society are less concerned about the proper use of a possible future technology and more about the corruption of existing technology since it’s a visible and apparent demonstration of humanity’s inability to moderate its own behavior. The more pervasive the technology, the more expedient the complete social collapse will take place.
Here is where the evolution of choice kicks in. Before modern medicine improved the survivability of abnormal births, a deformed child was simply allowed to die or even be quietly killed. However, with the progress of technology, we can sustain life [longer], thereby shaming parents into wasting their lives while tending a marginal contributor. Population pressures are a pain. Exactly how will “artificial intelligence” alleviate that kind of a biological headache? How will it deal with deterioration of citizenship preparation and participation? An emerging technology with a seemingly good solution can’t be successfully accepted if the social inhibitions can be overcome, covered up or changed through “thought management”. If that technology is preferably handled by an autocratic class that’s willing to make the tough choices and direct society toward the end state of “happiness” as that society passes through a period of ill-preparation. With the implementation of what is called “artificial intelligence”, how would you avoid loss of self-determination, participation in major life choices, opportunities to overachieve? How would you deal with the inability to use the “gifts” that sets us apart, the operation of cognizance and systematic non-abductive learning?
The “automation gang” have made it look cute to narrow-down on the negatives and have marginalized the positives of so-called “artificial intelligence”. But, for Bill Gates, as the “high priest”, it would be a little concerning since as the “high priest”, he is effectively amongst the designers of the system. Thing is, he’s a designer of a system that does not exist, however, this falls on deaf ears since we’re aware that the common layperson won’t be able to understand this complex “A.I.” system they so desperately want to have in existence.
As I finally arrive to the conclusion of explicably going into detail concerning the mass, nightmarish misdirection of “A.I.” from the collective fence-clinching by members of the “automation gang”, who, themselves are deftly clung to the prevailing and willful ignorance of the world’s most gullible, it would be a forceful and almost magnetic cling close to a unpardonable sin if I did not infer a definition to the term that amplifies the purpose behind not only Hexagon Lavish® but also informational interpretation software.
I.I. (informational interpretation) software is scientific, first and foremost; secondary is “consumer-oriented”. See, the whole entire point of orchestrating the means for informational interpretation is that the finished product is not developed around consumer expectation, but rather the reality bombardment that has been initiated by scientific measure. Information retrieval remains as an “untapped market”; it is not a feat that has already been accomplished. We’re not talking about marketing here; I.I. is not a stand-in label for “artificial intelligence”, rather it is the demarcation between the realistic and the unrealistic.
Hint: Image recognition ≠ I.I.
The evil motive to abduct the information vehicle that we know as computer vision and make the ill-adaption of C.V. to the inexistent “artificial intelligence” slick strain has effectively pushed back any and all “progress” that various articles by Recode and TechCrunch have failed to bring to face. Determining I.I.‘s already-demonstrable ability of conducting its rescue mission for computer vision, percentage-wise, is aneurysm-inducing enough.
So, what does this say about investors and the economic sectors they choose to pour money into?
If I haven’t made it apparently obvious that I do not engage in mind-reading or palmistry, but it ain’t hard to tell that peoples’ dependence on industrial tarot cards to reveal the “future” to them always leads them astray. All I can say is that there are only a select few who’ll take the initiative to break the “strength code”, drop Meeker’s weak data points and make the move.