Re: Man of the People : Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:42 pm  

The evolution of predictive text is an example of how machine learning has developed under our own eyes, without us really noticing how powerful, and accurate, it has become. When it first started, it could pretty much complete a word, but it had to almost see a majority of the letters typed to offer up what it thought you were typing. It was often wrong, but got better as the technology improved. It then developed into predicting what the next word would be, based on how a simple sentence is structured. Then a more complex sentence based on the previous words used in the sentence. Then it became more personalised to the user, by building a dictionary of commonly typed words to suggest. Then there was the feature that learnt from the user's writing style, by analysing texts and emails. I've had the same Android phone for the last six years. It's scanned multiple emails and texts, and has built up a dictionary so personal, it knows pretty much every word I use. All my nuances, slang, swear words, brand names, beer styles, rugby teams, places. When I start a text to certain people, it pretty much knows the tone of the text by multiple words in advance, and can almost complete the sentences for me. I haven't programmed it in the traditional sense of programming. It's just learnt from repetition over a period of time. This is an interesting read regarding the future of predictive text. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 ... new-yorker

The evolution of predictive text is an example of how machine learning has developed under our own eyes, without us really noticing how powerful, and accurate, it has become. When it first started, it could pretty much complete a word, but it had to almost see a majority of the letters typed to offer up what it thought you were typing. It was often wrong, but got better as the technology improved. It then developed into predicting what the next word would be, based on how a simple sentence is structured. Then a more complex sentence based on the previous words used in the sentence. Then it became more personalised to the user, by building a dictionary of commonly typed words to suggest. Then there was the feature that learnt from the user's writing style, by analysing texts and emails. I've had the same Android phone for the last six years. It's scanned multiple emails and texts, and has built up a dictionary so personal, it knows pretty much every word I use. All my nuances, slang, swear words, brand names, beer styles, rugby teams, places. When I start a text to certain people, it pretty much knows the tone of the text by multiple words in advance, and can almost complete the sentences for me. I haven't programmed it in the traditional sense of programming. It's just learnt from repetition over a period of time. This is an interesting read regarding the future of predictive text. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 ... new-yorker

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:53 am  

Mild Rover wrote: I'm thinking of something like the Minds in the Culture series of novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture While made-up, they are interesting and entertaining. Does a post-scarcity future, managed by hyperintelligent AIs, appeal hypothetically? Or would the lack of economic competition and status make it feel sterile, d'you reckon? I read those books and it struck me that if the development of AI was in the hands of benevolent actors, that is more than likely what they would aim for; it was refreshing to explore a utopian future, rather than the dystopia that is often the default of sci-fi writers. Cory Doctorow has also written some interesting stuff around post-scarcity anarchy, and the future of society and how it interacts with technology. To the question - I would happily live as a Culture citizen: "The Culture's economy is maintained automatically by its non-sentient machines, with high-level work entrusted to the Minds' subroutines, which allows its humanoid and drone citizens to indulge their passions, romances, hobbies, or other activities, without servitude. Biologically, the Culture's citizens have been genetically enhanced to live for centuries, and have modified mental control over their physiology, including the ability to introduce a variety of psychoactive drugs into their systems, change biological sex, or switch off pain at will. Culture technology is able to transform individuals into vastly different body forms, although the Culture standard form remains fairly close to human." Works for me.

Mild Rover wrote: I'm thinking of something like the Minds in the Culture series of novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture While made-up, they are interesting and entertaining. Does a post-scarcity future, managed by hyperintelligent AIs, appeal hypothetically? Or would the lack of economic competition and status make it feel sterile, d'you reckon? I read those books and it struck me that if the development of AI was in the hands of benevolent actors, that is more than likely what they would aim for; it was refreshing to explore a utopian future, rather than the dystopia that is often the default of sci-fi writers. Cory Doctorow has also written some interesting stuff around post-scarcity anarchy, and the future of society and how it interacts with technology. To the question - I would happily live as a Culture citizen: "The Culture's economy is maintained automatically by its non-sentient machines, with high-level work entrusted to the Minds' subroutines, which allows its humanoid and drone citizens to indulge their passions, romances, hobbies, or other activities, without servitude. Biologically, the Culture's citizens have been genetically enhanced to live for centuries, and have modified mental control over their physiology, including the ability to introduce a variety of psychoactive drugs into their systems, change biological sex, or switch off pain at will. Culture technology is able to transform individuals into vastly different body forms, although the Culture standard form remains fairly close to human." Works for me.

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:20 am  

bren2k wrote:

I read those books and it struck me that if the development of AI was in the hands of benevolent actors, that is more than likely what they would aim for; it was refreshing to explore a utopian future, rather than the dystopia that is often the default of sci-fi writers. Cory Doctorow has also written some interesting stuff around post-scarcity anarchy, and the future of society and how it interacts with technology.

To the question - I would happily live as a Culture citizen:

"The Culture's economy is maintained automatically by its non-sentient machines, with high-level work entrusted to the Minds' subroutines, which allows its humanoid and drone citizens to indulge their passions, romances, hobbies, or other activities, without servitude. Biologically, the Culture's citizens have been genetically enhanced to live for centuries, and have modified mental control over their physiology, including the ability to introduce a variety of psychoactive drugs into their systems, change biological sex, or switch off pain at will. Culture technology is able to transform individuals into vastly different body forms, although the Culture standard form remains fairly close to human."

Works for me.

Fantasy works for some, we all have views and opinions, and we are better for it. Personally I do not think AI is a positive thing... taken to it's extreme, when robots can build robots where does the human race fit in. Maybe our extinction will be at the hands of drones and droids. We have middle ages thinking ruling Parliament (MP's can vote, but the "Lords" can vote them down), Governments make decisions, but the unelected "Supreme" court dig up legislation older than Ken Clarke.

As an example, Windows 7 is no longer supported, what is to say AI x.y will not become defunct.

Utopia is a VERY dangerous dream, and I defy anyone to build AI that feels true love, hate, remorse, compassion, hunger, the need to procreate.

Society has spent thousands of years believing in a book, by some blokes, about a virgin, who got pregnant via an omnipresent god, who sent his son to slaughter. A man who built a boat that saved 2 of everything (no mention of sea creatures not needing saving), a man who recieved some tablets on the mountain... a bloke who seperated a sea, another bloke who defeated a bloke much bigger....

humanity is built on myth and legend, AI is the next one.

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:01 pm  

IR80 wrote:

Utopia is a VERY dangerous dream, and I defy anyone to build AI that feels true love, hate, remorse, compassion, hunger, the need to procreate.

I would have thought that the very human qualities you've described are exactly what you *wouldn't* want an AI to feel - as they're what produce irrational, flawed and illogical decisions and subsequently, actions; all the things that a benevolent oversight model should seek to eliminate - so that us lesser, biological entities, with all our flaws and idiosyncrasies, could enact them freely, without causing harm to society.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:38 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I read those books and it struck me that if the development of AI was in the hands of benevolent actors, that is more than likely what they would aim for; it was refreshing to explore a utopian future, rather than the dystopia that is often the default of sci-fi writers. Cory Doctorow has also written some interesting stuff around post-scarcity anarchy, and the future of society and how it interacts with technology.

To the question - I would happily live as a Culture citizen:

"The Culture's economy is maintained automatically by its non-sentient machines, with high-level work entrusted to the Minds' subroutines, which allows its humanoid and drone citizens to indulge their passions, romances, hobbies, or other activities, without servitude. Biologically, the Culture's citizens have been genetically enhanced to live for centuries, and have modified mental control over their physiology, including the ability to introduce a variety of psychoactive drugs into their systems, change biological sex, or switch off pain at will. Culture technology is able to transform individuals into vastly different body forms, although the Culture standard form remains fairly close to human."

Works for me.

Yeah, sounds alright dunnit? I agree about the utopian take. There’s a theory that entertainment tones tends to go in the opposite direction to societies’ current feeling. So real-world hard times drive up production of happy, feelgood stories and good times see more gritty realism on the page/screen. I’m a bit dubious about the theory, but all the ecological breakdown and demagoguery I need, I can get from the news.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:01 pm  

IR80 wrote:

Utopia is a VERY dangerous dream, and I defy anyone to build AI that feels true love, hate, remorse, compassion, hunger, the need to procreate.

Over what sort of time frame? Like, ever? Do you think it is impossible or infeasible even in the long-term?

Do you think intelligence sentience require emotion and desire?

Do you believe in the soul (or similar, if you prefer a different word)?

I agree there are dangers in dreams of any particular Utopia, in that it could inspire people to ruthlessness that they believe is justified by their goal. But would you agree that it is desirable (if almost inherently unachievable) goal?

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:13 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Over what sort of time frame? Like, ever? Do you think it is impossible or infeasible even in the long-term?

Do you think intelligence sentience require emotion and desire?

Do you believe in the soul (or similar, if you prefer a different word)?

I agree there are dangers in dreams of any particular Utopia, in that it could inspire people to ruthlessness that they believe is justified by their goal. But would you agree that it is desirable (if almost inherently unachievable) goal?

Anything is possible - the beauty of the human is the way we all react differently to exactly the same input. Are we going have AI that react in 7 billion different ways to one single input?

[Mild Rover]

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:28 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Anything is possible - the beauty of the human is the way we all react differently to exactly the same input. Are we going have AI that react in 7 billion different ways to one single input?

I think it is plausible, yes, given the complexity required. Even non-sentient, narrow function bots respond differently to the same input. I think key to it is that they wouldn’t be designed in a traditional sense. In that sense, I agree with IR80 that nobody is going to ‘build’ an AI based on blueprints or similar.

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:26 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Anything is possible - the beauty of the human is the way we all react differently to exactly the same input. Are we going have AI that react in 7 billion different ways to one single input?

Over time, with AI taking full effect, would it's influence take out some of the "bumps" in how we all behave, with human beings becoming more and more like the robot's that are having more and more influence on our lives.
It's the nuance within our thoughts and reactions that would be hardest to detect by "machine" and as you say, we could all be thinking "exactly" the same but, our reactions would usually be different.
Taking bereavement as an example, we may all be equally upset at the loss of someone but, one person would have uncontrollable grief, wheras the next person may still be able to carry on.

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:33 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Yeah, sounds alright dunnit? I agree about the utopian take. There’s a theory that entertainment tones tends to go in the opposite direction to societies’ current feeling. So real-world hard times drive up production of happy, feelgood stories and good times see more gritty realism on the page/screen. I’m a bit dubious about the theory, but all the ecological breakdown and demagoguery I need, I can get from the news.

Indeed - I'm a huge fan of Bladerunner; these days however, it just feels like a documentary.