As a friend says, nice knowing you all… after all this time.
Worst of all, he wants “regulatory oversight.” So those who can’t stop or fix the machine will spy on the rest of us instead?
One of the saddest aspects of the debates over the design inference on empirically reliable signs such as FSCO/I, is the way evolutionary materialist objectors and fellow travellers routinely insist on distorting the ID view, even after many corrections. (Kindly, note the weak argument correctives, accessible under the UD Resources Tab, which address many of Read More…
What if the machine is a superintelligence that just loves paper clips?
It is unlikely that idioms are imagined in the brain. Most people are not in fact aware, most of the time, what common idioms reference.
Bostrom: Machines have a number of fundamental advantages, which will give them overwhelming superiority
A food-for-thought lecture: [youtube U5baL9oh430] Thoughts? END PS: Kindly note this (and the discussion in the original post here with onward discussion and video here) on the problem of neural networks, computation vs contemplation and trying to get North by heading West:
Sounds fishy. What’s in it for a robot to lie, unprogrammed?
It’s not the machines who would take over but their designers.
Design theory infers to design on inductive inference on tested reliable empirical signs. While many are disinclined to accept such inferences on matters linked to origins, that says more about lab coat clad materialist ideological a prioris and their cultural influences than it does about the actual balance of evidence on the merits. But also, Read More…
Even if they could, the programmer should claim the prize.
The UK Independent is noting how Stephen Hawking says of the Film on AI, Transcendence — plot summary here at wiki, that ‘Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence – but are we taking AI seriously enough?’ First off, I think “implications” is probably over the top — we seem to be more looking Read More…