AI, Is Concern Warranted?

[Radrook]

Which has nothing to do with recognizing abstract concepts intended by an author by understanding the culture for which it was written, such that the knowledge can be used anticipate questions people would ask and what information is important (and what is not) so it can be explained to them (e.g., thematic elements of the book, the use of color, idioms, mood, and photos) before they say anything.

The video points out that the accomplishments mentioned are not evidence of full human-type consciousness but merely constitute a limited feature of what it involves.

 

[RDKirk]

If memory serves me right, in total it was about 50/50 for wins vs losses/draws.

But think about that for a second....
A supercomputer, which was designed to play chess, didn't manage to whipe the floor consistently with a human. In fact, the supercomputer lost half the time.

This computer was an absolute beast that calculated the outcome of millions of potential chess moves in a split second.

The way Bill Gates put it: "A team of very good chess players armed with a supercomputer were able to beat a single chessmaster half the time."

 

[RDKirk]

Well, I see no reason why the authors would maliciously go out of their way to employ the deceptive strategies you describe. I perceive them as being merely striving to be informative by providing a timeline instead of striving to trick the reader.

Deception in media has become so commonplace in the last 30 years they probably don't even realize they're doing it.

You provide absolutely no reasons why attaining what is predicted on the chart is impossible.

The chart does not predict "nanobots." The chart predicts a surge in "nanotechnology"--which includes everything electronic.

 

[Radrook]

Deception in media has become so commonplace in the last 30 years they probably don't even realize they're doing it.



The chart does not predict "nanobots." The chart predicts a surge in "nanotechnology"--which includes everything electronic.

So now the deception is unconscious and the nano-bots are totally irrelevant to the general progress of nanotechnology?

 

[RDKirk]

So now the deception is unconscious and the nano-bots are totally irrelevant to the general progress of nanotechnology?

The deception is out of ignorance of good technical writing, and nanobots are to "nanotechnology" what warp drive is to space travel.

 

[Radrook]

The way Bill Gates put it: "A team of very good chess players armed with a supercomputer were able to beat a single chessmaster half the time."

That's not at all surprising. Very good chess players can be experts rated at 2000 who occasionally do score a win occasionally against a master even without the help of supercomputer. In fact, I am not an expert and I have beaten a chess master online and drew a game against a chess master rated 2400 at the local chess club and he had played against Fisher in a tournament. It doesn't mean that I was a great chess player or that I was at the master level. It merely means that it does happen and the higher rated a player is the more probability that it will happen. Throw in a supercomputer and the possibility that it will happen increases dramatically almost to a certainty.

BTW
Computers can overcome human chess players by brute force of examination and rejections of millions of possibilities. But they are still unconsciously computing. Also please note that what a strong chess player automatically rejects via automatic pattern recognition the computer has to numerically crunch out its ramifications in order to detect as unfeasible. So when it comes down to it-chess-playing computers merely very efficient number crunchers.

 

[Radrook]

This video explains exactly why it is useless to try to produce consciousness unless we try to employ material that is similar to that which constitutes the human brain.

 

[Radrook]

The deception is out of ignorance of good technical writing, and nanobots are to "nanotechnology" what warp drive is to space travel.

Well, I agree, those reasons are more logical than the malicious intent one. However, I still don't see any supported refutation for their estimate. Can you provide a source that specifically contradicts the prediction of the chart? For example, an alternate chart which shows a different prediction for nanobot development.

 

[RDKirk]

That's not at all surprising. Very good chess players can be experts rated at 2000 who occasionally do score a win occasionally against a master even without the help of supercomputer. In fact, I am not an expert and I have beaten a chess master online and drew a game against a chess master rated 2400 at the local chess club and he had played against Fisher in a tournament. It doesn't mean that I was a great chess player or that I was at the master level. It merely means that it does happen and the higher rated a player is the more probability that it will happen. Throw in a supercomputer and the possibility that it will happen increases dramatically almost to a certainty.

Apparently much less than "almost to a certainty," because "A team of very good chess players armed with a supercomputer were able to beat a single chessmaster [only] half the time."

 

[JoeP222w]

Is God sovereign?

Yes, God is sovereign.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, I agree, those reasons are more logical than the malicious intent one. However, I still don't see any supported refutation for their estimate. Can you provide a source that specifically contradicts the prediction of the chart? For example, an alternate chart which shows a different prediction for nanobot development.

The chart is not about nanobots. There is no estimate anywhere in that article or on that chart about nanobots. That's where the deceptiveness falls into play.

The chart is not about nanobots. In fact, most of the article is not about nanobots. The chart is about "nanotechnology" which includes, for instance, formulating extremely small microparticles of printer ink for color inkjet printers. It includes microbiology. It includes any deliberate engineering of anything at the "nano" level, not just (and not even particularly) nanobots.

Let me go back to my analogy of space travel.

What if we plotted the impact of space travel on the lives of human beings starting from, say, 1940 to today. We'd see an incredibly steep line from about 1970--especially considering how significant satellite communications and guidance systems are in the lives of ordinary people today compared to just 40 years ago.

And yet...we are nowhere near warp driven space ships. We don't even have Jetson air cars or a Von Braun space station. We can talk for days about space travel and never get to warp drive. It would be deceptive to point to the tremendous impact and rising importance of space travel as evidence that warp drive is just around the corner.

We can talk for days about nanotechnology, nanotechnology may one day become as critical in our lives as electricity... and never get to nanobots.

 

[durangodawood]

Apparently much less than "almost to a certainty," because "A team of very good chess players armed with a supercomputer were able to beat a single chessmaster [only] half the time."

Well, that was then. Now its advantage computer, if Im not mistaken.

And computers are still getting faster/better at a good clip. Humans, not so much.

 

[durangodawood]

Is God sovereign?

Yes, God is sovereign.

Do you fasten your seat belt? Purchase a fire extinguisher? Keep a gun for self defense?

Or.... leave all that stuff to God?

 

[RDKirk]

Well, that was then. Now its advantage computer, if Im not mistaken.

And computers are still getting faster/better at a good clip. Humans, not so much.

But as I said before, even years earlier than that, Bobby Fisher had asserted that most chess play was really only the utilization of excellent memory...and computers do excel in memory. Fisher attempted to create a style of chess play that depended less on memory...I'd wonder how well computers do with that.

 

[durangodawood]

But as I said before, even years earlier than that, Bobby Fisher had asserted that most chess play was really only the utilization of excellent memory...and computers do excel in memory. Fisher attempted to create a style of chess play that depended less on memory...I'd wonder how well computers do with that.

I think it would (did?) get blown away by the advance of sheer processing power, plus better programming by chess savvy coders.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But as I said before, even years earlier than that, Bobby Fisher had asserted that most chess play was really only the utilization of excellent memory...and computers do excel in memory. Fisher attempted to create a style of chess play that depended less on memory...I'd wonder how well computers do with that.

I guess my dad does / did something similar. I remember when I still lived at home, he could get all excited not about winning against the computer, but about the way he won.
I'm not much of a chess player and it's been a long time since then.... But I do remember my dad attempting to explain it to me in all his enthousiasm and ending it with "this would never work against a human".

 

[durangodawood]

In college I once played chess against my room mate... except I had the board, and he was on the other side of the room never looking at it. I lost.

I'm no expert but I wasnt awful either.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I do remember my dad attempting to explain it to me in all his enthousiasm and ending it with "this would never work against a human".

Computer scientists used to say that a computer could never get better than its programmer.

That is, until computer scientists were proven wrong.

Of course, it was "just a theory," so scientists are never wrong ... their theories are just falsified.

Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.

 

[JoeP222w]

Do you fasten your seat belt? Purchase a fire extinguisher? Keep a gun for self defense?

Or.... leave all that stuff to God?

Please don't read into my comment that I am anti-science. I am not against science or technology.

However, man will never create a computer that can exceed the complexity and power that God has granted the human brain by His grace.

 

[durangodawood]

Please don't read into my comment that I am anti-science. I am not against science or technology.

However, man will never create a computer that can exceed the complexity and power that God has granted the human brain by His grace.

Maybe not.
But I dont see at all how you can say that for sure, except as a matter of pure faith.