@unseenactive 1 minute ago
Forum Replies Created
October 26, 2020 at 8:57 pm #33857
Davis: No unseen. As stem fields are slowly (hardly there yet) becoming less hostile to women entering stem fields, the enrolment of women in STEM university courses are over all reaching parity with men (in some fields surpassing them). Sexual harassment and discrimination against women in STEM fields is still rampant to the point that it is seriously no surprise that women are only just now reaching parity with men in the field. It is not a case if “interest” in the field but until recently the realistic likelihood that you would be hired and not ignored or passed over for promotions or ridiculed or sexually harassed while working in the field. For example at the moment the percentage of women earning their PhDs in STEM in the US is 42% and growing (likely to surpass men in the future).October 26, 2020 at 4:38 pm #33851
Of course, one of the problems of preventing self-aware (conscious) Ai is the undeniable fact that we know less about consciousness than almost anything else we study. I don’t mean in terms of dynamics, what conscio9us beings behave like. I mean WTF it is, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of consciousness.
We literally know far more about the birth of the universe, the Mariana Trench, and perhaps even dark matter and energy than we do about consciousness.
That leaves the frightening prospect that we are well on our way to creating it accidentally. Is it simply a state that results once a certain level of complexity is achieved? If so, then we need to put a stop to computer complexity and accept what that means for the advancement of the human race.October 26, 2020 at 4:21 pm #33850
A plea to PopeBeanie and all who want to enumerate points: Do not use the n. format (1., 2., 3., …) because to someone like me wanting to embed responses in the original text, it becomes heck on Earth as the software thinks it’s being called on to repair the numbering. Instead, use this format: 1), 2), 3)… to make it easy on respondents.
Agreed, it gets messy. I didn’t expect that, and will be aware of it next time. And numberless bullet points probably cause similar difficulty.
I suspect so. Thanks.October 26, 2020 at 1:37 am #33846
Unseen – if the problem was on a tablet then make sure nothing is stuck on the touchscreen. If on a laptop then update the touch-pad drivers, even if a mouse is attached.
Actually both were Windows 10 Dell laptops. It’s the later generation one that has the problem.October 26, 2020 at 12:00 am #33843
I did not have any “auto scrolling” problem.
Hmm. A problem on one computer but not the one I’m on now.October 25, 2020 at 10:06 pm #33840
I gave up trying to discover any fallacies in that article when I realized it wouldn’t stop scrolling. In addition to rotting my brain, they seem to want to put me into a strait-jacket.October 25, 2020 at 9:08 pm #33839
When Jeff Bezos buys Apple and Google, we’re done. LOL
I wish he would buy Fox.October 25, 2020 at 9:05 pm #33837
Uhhh…Unseen I wasn’t disagreeing with you in any way nor challenging you nor trying to twist your words. While you have in the past made gender generalisations that I believe are informed by stereotypes I didn’t claim you had in this case. I was talking about something that was similarly related. Please don’t jump to conclusions that you are being challenged when you are not. However, that being said, you have just now in your reply made a broad generalisation which I definitely question:
forgetting or ignoring the fact that something that resembles a real living being is an artful simulation and not a “thing.” Men are likely less susceptible to this because I think—and most observant people will probably agree—that men will in addition to appreciating how something does what it does, will also be conscious that there is an underlying mechanism creating the artifice.
Can you source any empirical evidence to back this up? Any interesting well designed experiments or research? Or is this all anecdotally based?
More males than females go into STEM fields, so it’s really kind of a duh.
And as I emphasized above, who knows why this is at this point. Hardwiring or socialization or a mix? I’m not criticizing women and men have their own separate set of issues, of which I’m sure you are aware.October 25, 2020 at 8:56 pm #33835
men will in addition to appreciating how something does what it does, will also be conscious that there is an underlying mechanism creating the artifice.
Maybe, but many more of them than women, don’t seem to care.
I’m unclear on your point, but you can not-care while still being aware. I think a guy can have sex with a robotic woman, aware that “she” is artificial, not care about that at all, and think “At least this gizmo doesn’t need me to take her out to dinner, and unlike a real wife, I won’t have to put up with complaining about my wanting a motorcycle instead of renovating the kitchen.”October 25, 2020 at 7:53 pm #33832
Davis, you are missing the point, which is not generalized responding to something, being turned on by it, but rather either forgetting or ignoring the fact that something that resembles a real living being is an artful simulation and not a “thing.”
Men are likely less susceptible to this because I think—and most observant people will probably agree—that men will in addition to appreciating how something does what it does, will also be conscious that there is an underlying mechanism creating the artifice.
Whether this general gender distinction is genetic hard-wiring or socialization is a topic for another day. I submit it just is.
Please don’t once again try to turn things I say, intended as generalizations, into anything more than that. When I refer to males as a class, of course there is a spectrum of realities within any real class like “males.”October 25, 2020 at 5:57 pm #33829
A plea to PopeBeanie and all who want to enumerate points: Do not use the n. format (1., 2., 3., …) because to someone like me wanting to embed responses in the original text, it becomes heck on Earth as the software thinks it’s being called on to repair the numbering. Instead, use this format: 1), 2), 3)… to make it easy on respondents. I had to make these changes (see below) in order not to be carried off kicking and screaming. The numbering embeds in the paragraph and doesn’t end up in a column of its own to the left of the text, which is what I think throws the software off. A small price to pay, since everyone knows what is meant.
1) We’ll see (unless it’s hidden from us) AI’s advancement occur incrementally. For starters, we’re seeing what I’d call the beginnings of AI at tech companies like Facebook and Google, as they constantly improve on how to “serve us better and keep us coming back to them”.
Incrementally doesn’t necessarily mean slowly. AI seems to be advancing apace.
2) In light of 1 above, I feel strongly that AI will, at first, operate according to their designer’s and owner’s wishes. I.e. we’ll see undesirable side-effects of AI even before AI becomes self-aware, or “conscious”.
Already are seeing, you mean.
3) Speaking of consciousness, I believe strongly that we should never attempt to endow AI with consciousness as we know it. Imagine e.g. that modifying or experimenting on one’s human consciousness could happen in an unethical manner, e.g. without one’s permission, and prone to accidental creation of pain and misery. If we ever chose to emulate consciousness in AI without any kind of humane oversight, we could do similar harm to conscious AI beings. Perhaps we’d even cause dysfunctions or traumas that could come back to haunt us?
The singularity comes about through strides in algorithms, along with algorithms designed to fine-tune algorithms, and then feedback will make those algorithms better. This is how we end up with the much-feared “singularity” of self=aware computers and robots.
Start thinking about the ethical problems arising once AI becomes, essentially, “alive.”
4) In light of 3 above, in line with never intentionally creating consciousness in AI, perhaps our rule should be that we should never, ever feel it would be inhumane to pull the plug on any AI. We want AI to only be benevolent machines that serve us, or more precisely that serve the “right” people, not just profit-seeking opportunists who, like many humans who gain power, would use AI too heavily or carelessly for profit or as weapons against humanity.
Refer to my answer to 3.
5) Only after considering 1 through 4 above would I feel it may become possible to address how we could survive an AI that became self-aware, and was allowed to become autonomous. If we fail to manage AI during phases 1 through 4, I think phase 5 would be completely unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Unpredictable and uncontrollable is what we have now, and I’m not talking about AI. I’m talking about chaos theory.
October 25, 2020 at 5:03 pm #33825
- This reply was modified 1 day, 3 hours ago by Unseen.
PopeBeanie: I think we relate to dogs because of their remarkable ability, gained through evolution, to mimic human expressions. With cats, it’s the opposite, we learn to read their body language and tails, and as for their relatively expressionless faces by contrast with dogs, after reading their body language, we project feelings onto their faces, “seeing” more than is actually there.
I once watched a piece by a psychologist who was concerned about robots increasingly mimicking human facial expressions and body language, which he warned would have us believing that they are, if not persons, so person-like that we wouldn’t take a rational attitude toward such mecha-beings.
He felt this way based on real-life evidence. He was in a mall in Japan and a manufacturer created cute puppy- and kitten-like toys, realistic enough in their behavior that a small crowd, mostly women, had stopped to enjoy them. He said, to his dismay, that almost all of the people mostly female in this particular case, responded to them exactly as they would living puppies and kittens. He reminded them that these were mechanical toys, cleverly designed to simulate real puppies and kittens, and their behavior became more subdued and rational, but only briefly. Soon, it seemed, they had forgotten the truth about the toys again.
Now, it’s no surprise that females responded more strongly than males to this particular stimulus value. No doubt, there will be robots more likely to appeal to men. Already, there is a market for lifelike (well, almost lifelike) sex dolls that look like women and have places built-in for depositing sperm. They are dolls. They have no behavior, so they aren’t robots, and it takes an alarming leap of the imagination, I suppose, to think of one as a true sex partner, but imagine how much bigger the market will become once they can simulate real women.
Suppose you are a hunter, and you could buy a fully functional robotic Irish setter, that wouldn’t die in 12 or 15 years? which would defend your home from intruders, and watch over your children?
Is it too hard to imagine a robotic male doll having sex with a robotic female doll, no human needed? A robotic hunter hunting with its robotic Irish setter. And robot-run companies manufacturing more robots in a world where humans have become irrelevant if they haven’t been exterminated?
Once that time is reached, won’t self-aware robots figure out that simulating people is just so much silliness? Why not just be robots?October 25, 2020 at 4:30 pm #33821October 24, 2020 at 7:12 pm #33794
I’m sure I’m not the only guy who gets friend requests from hot young babes. I only accept friend requests from (a) people I know or (b) for some compelling reason, which can be a mutual friend, they appreciated a post I made, or a mutual interest.
Often, this babe who looks to be in the late teens or 20’s, has only been on Facebook for days or months. A young women who just joined Facebook? I don’t think so.
Often, she’ll have relatively few friends, all male. A young woman with no female besties? Once again, I don’t think so.October 23, 2020 at 8:35 pm #33773