[IP] Re NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots

[Dave Farber]

Date: June 11, 2018 at 8:59:13 AM PDT
Subject: Re: [IP] NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots

evolution does not turn rocks into birds.

Huh? Actually that is exactly what evolution does.
It takes a very long time: 4 billion years ago there were only rocks on Earth, no birds. Now we have birds, and we've had them for a few tens of millions of years.
There are those who are asking whether the evolution of evolution, the emergence of tools that produce faster solutions to changing conditions, has leveled up. After the way biology has been able to produce these solutions, we've seen the way human culture and technology did the same: the difference is astonishing, when you look around the planet. Will we see a similar step function change with ever smarter autonomous systems?
Even if you believe we won't, it is worth letting those who want to find out the answers run their experiments. And if in the meantime they sell stock of their companies, let them. Once they are going to be found to have been wrong to worry, we can all rejoice, and sell the stock in their respective companies. Were it that they were right, helping them may save the human race.
David Orban
"What is the question that I should be asking?"
twitter, linkedin, etc: davidorban
ᐧ

Date: June 11, 2018 at 04:29:32 PDT
Subject: NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots
Dave,
For IP, the NYTimes pretends in a Sunday article the Musk/Zuckerberg "feud" anchors two sides of the AI debate.
"Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/technology/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-artificial-intelligence.html
Nope. Elon and Mark evangelize the same promise/threat of a "Singularity" where AI (aka computers) surpass humans.
The "debate" is actually over whether or not this Singularity ever happens.
George Gilder answers with an emphatic *not* in his next book "Life After Google" .
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-after-google-george-gilder/1126605456
The plans of Elon and Mark and their fellow AI evangelists suffer the "Real Boy Fantasy".
Geppetto's ambitions to turn Pinnochio into a real boy required a magical animate piece of wood.
Elon and Mark rely on the inevitable force of evolution, but I am afraid evolution does not turn rocks into birds.
Evolution also does not involve software programing (aka human) intervention.
The march to infinite processing capacity is irrelevant to this fact.
Processing does not bring symbols to life any more than an effort to perfect the painting of a portrait.
The only super intelligence revealed in the NYTimes article and the entire AI debate is the ability of Elon and Mark to sell stock.
Dan
..........................................
Daniel Berninger
Founder, Voice Communication Exchange Committee
tel SD: +1.202.250.3838
w: www.vcxc.org

This message was sent to the list address and trashed, but can be found online.

-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=26461375
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=26461375&id_secret=26461375-c2b8a462&post_id=20180611122657:4045186C-6D94-11E8-AFA2-963A591B8250
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

[Dave Farber]

Date: June 11, 2018 at 10:15:09 AM PDT
Subject: Re: [IP] Re NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots
Dear Dave and list,
We are working on this theme, and contributions are welcome for a potential participation. Our initial results are given below, and there is also a Question in ResearchGate, and a Project group, in addition to a LinkedIn article, all to help collect participation.
Reference: From Molecules to Mind: CAN MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS BE UNDERSTOOD USING NATURAL SCIENCE?
If any process in the brain can be described in natural science terms, what is mind, what is consciousness? What would become, in consciousness terms, Artificial Intelligence?
Biology, in the form of botany, asked a question that physics could eventually answer, but only after 80 years of intense work was the Brownian movement explained. We can imagine 80 years, almost two generations of wrong directions. Biology could not answer, and can not today, nor neuroscience, because the cause of Brownian motion is not biological at all.
Could the same affect our study of consciousness? If consciouness is not biological, what success are we going to have if we look into the neuroscientific, the biological, where it is not?
Here, we don't intend to solve the whole question, pronto. If we just want to shed some light into what is consciouness, from a natural law perspective, we can work with the inanimate as well, considering first the hypothesis that consciousness is not biological, is not to be found in some organ, nor even in aggregate.
The idea that consciousness is not biological opens new perspectives. We no longer have Artifical Intelligence, for example. It may naturally exist, without creation by Humans. Any extra-terrestrial lifeform that exists, biological and Carbon-based or not, is an artificial intelligence (even though not made by us, humans; we seem to feel "especial" also in regard to consciousness, only we could have and transmit).
Molecules, dipeptides, being formed in space, such the Bubble Nebula 8,000 light-years away, not just on Earth, is part of the same picture. What guides a dipeptide to create a protein? What physical principles define the configuration? And folding? What if consciousness is part of it, not end of it?
Of course, staying within natural science, can we even ask the questions? Well, the rule has been that if we can formulate the question well enough, the answer is obvious. If the answer is not biologic, we can't find it using neuroscience. But neuroscience can help even more, in the formation of neurons from a matrix already showing consciousness, in rudimentary form, rather than creating it.

Date: June 11, 2018 at 8:59:13 AM PDT
Subject: Re: [IP] NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots

evolution does not turn rocks into birds.

Huh? Actually that is exactly what evolution does.
It takes a very long time: 4 billion years ago there were only rocks on Earth, no birds. Now we have birds, and we've had them for a few tens of millions of years.
There are those who are asking whether the evolution of evolution, the emergence of tools that produce faster solutions to changing conditions, has leveled up. After the way biology has been able to produce these solutions, we've seen the way human culture and technology did the same: the difference is astonishing, when you look around the planet. Will we see a similar step function change with ever smarter autonomous systems?
Even if you believe we won't, it is worth letting those who want to find out the answers run their experiments. And if in the meantime they sell stock of their companies, let them. Once they are going to be found to have been wrong to worry, we can all rejoice, and sell the stock in their respective companies. Were it that they were right, helping them may save the human race.
David Orban
"What is the question that I should be asking?"
twitter, linkedin, etc: davidorban
ᐧ

Date: June 11, 2018 at 04:29:32 PDT
Subject: NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots
Dave,
For IP, the NYTimes pretends in a Sunday article the Musk/Zuckerberg "feud" anchors two sides of the AI debate.
"Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/technology/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-artificial-intelligence.html
Nope. Elon and Mark evangelize the same promise/threat of a "Singularity" where AI (aka computers) surpass humans.
The "debate" is actually over whether or not this Singularity ever happens.
George Gilder answers with an emphatic *not* in his next book "Life After Google" .
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-after-google-george-gilder/1126605456
The plans of Elon and Mark and their fellow AI evangelists suffer the "Real Boy Fantasy".
Geppetto's ambitions to turn Pinnochio into a real boy required a magical animate piece of wood.
Elon and Mark rely on the inevitable force of evolution, but I am afraid evolution does not turn rocks into birds.
Evolution also does not involve software programing (aka human) intervention.
The march to infinite processing capacity is irrelevant to this fact.
Processing does not bring symbols to life any more than an effort to perfect the painting of a portrait.
The only super intelligence revealed in the NYTimes article and the entire AI debate is the ability of Elon and Mark to sell stock.
Dan
..........................................
Daniel Berninger
Founder, Voice Communication Exchange Committee
tel SD: +1.202.250.3838
w: www.vcxc.org

Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now

-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=26461375
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=26461375&id_secret=26461375-c2b8a462&post_id=20180611133327:8A5D3D7C-6D9D-11E8-8C66-B6C50ED3DB56
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

[Dave Farber]

Date: June 11, 2018 at 10:15:09 AM PDT
Subject: Re: [IP] Re NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots
Dear Dave and list,
We are working on this theme, and contributions are welcome for a potential participation. Our initial results are given below, and there is also a Question in ResearchGate, and a Project group, in addition to a LinkedIn article, all to help collect participation.
Reference: From Molecules to Mind: CAN MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS BE UNDERSTOOD USING NATURAL SCIENCE?
If any process in the brain can be described in natural science terms, what is mind, what is consciousness? What would become, in consciousness terms, Artificial Intelligence?
Biology, in the form of botany, asked a question that physics could eventually answer, but only after 80 years of intense work was the Brownian movement explained. We can imagine 80 years, almost two generations of wrong directions. Biology could not answer, and can not today, nor neuroscience, because the cause of Brownian motion is not biological at all.
Could the same affect our study of consciousness? If consciouness is not biological, what success are we going to have if we look into the neuroscientific, the biological, where it is not?
Here, we don't intend to solve the whole question, pronto. If we just want to shed some light into what is consciouness, from a natural law perspective, we can work with the inanimate as well, considering first the hypothesis that consciousness is not biological, is not to be found in some organ, nor even in aggregate.
The idea that consciousness is not biological opens new perspectives. We no longer have Artifical Intelligence, for example. It may naturally exist, without creation by Humans. Any extra-terrestrial lifeform that exists, biological and Carbon-based or not, is an artificial intelligence (even though not made by us, humans; we seem to feel "especial" also in regard to consciousness, only we could have and transmit).
Molecules, dipeptides, being formed in space, such the Bubble Nebula 8,000 light-years away, not just on Earth, is part of the same picture. What guides a dipeptide to create a protein? What physical principles define the configuration? And folding? What if consciousness is part of it, not end of it?
Of course, staying within natural science, can we even ask the questions? Well, the rule has been that if we can formulate the question well enough, the answer is obvious. If the answer is not biologic, we can't find it using neuroscience. But neuroscience can help even more, in the formation of neurons from a matrix already showing consciousness, in rudimentary form, rather than creating it.

Date: June 11, 2018 at 8:59:13 AM PDT
Subject: Re: [IP] NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots

evolution does not turn rocks into birds.

Huh? Actually that is exactly what evolution does.
It takes a very long time: 4 billion years ago there were only rocks on Earth, no birds. Now we have birds, and we've had them for a few tens of millions of years.
There are those who are asking whether the evolution of evolution, the emergence of tools that produce faster solutions to changing conditions, has leveled up. After the way biology has been able to produce these solutions, we've seen the way human culture and technology did the same: the difference is astonishing, when you look around the planet. Will we see a similar step function change with ever smarter autonomous systems?
Even if you believe we won't, it is worth letting those who want to find out the answers run their experiments. And if in the meantime they sell stock of their companies, let them. Once they are going to be found to have been wrong to worry, we can all rejoice, and sell the stock in their respective companies. Were it that they were right, helping them may save the human race.
David Orban
"What is the question that I should be asking?"
twitter, linkedin, etc: davidorban
ᐧ

Date: June 11, 2018 at 04:29:32 PDT
Subject: NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots
Dave,
For IP, the NYTimes pretends in a Sunday article the Musk/Zuckerberg "feud" anchors two sides of the AI debate.
"Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/technology/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-artificial-intelligence.html
Nope. Elon and Mark evangelize the same promise/threat of a "Singularity" where AI (aka computers) surpass humans.
The "debate" is actually over whether or not this Singularity ever happens.
George Gilder answers with an emphatic *not* in his next book "Life After Google" .
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-after-google-george-gilder/1126605456
The plans of Elon and Mark and their fellow AI evangelists suffer the "Real Boy Fantasy".
Geppetto's ambitions to turn Pinnochio into a real boy required a magical animate piece of wood.
Elon and Mark rely on the inevitable force of evolution, but I am afraid evolution does not turn rocks into birds.
Evolution also does not involve software programing (aka human) intervention.
The march to infinite processing capacity is irrelevant to this fact.
Processing does not bring symbols to life any more than an effort to perfect the painting of a portrait.
The only super intelligence revealed in the NYTimes article and the entire AI debate is the ability of Elon and Mark to sell stock.
Dan
..........................................
Daniel Berninger
Founder, Voice Communication Exchange Committee
tel SD: +1.202.250.3838
w: www.vcxc.org

Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now

-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=26461375
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=26461375&id_secret=26461375-c2b8a462&post_id=20180611132453:58743B9A-6D9C-11E8-8730-D9E1122D5CD3
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com