Robert J. Marks and Oxford mathematician John Lennox discuss that in connection with Lennox’s new book, 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity (2020).
Marks: It’s very easy to determine if who you’re talking to is a computer. You just ask them to compute the square root of 30 or something, because a human would take a while to get the square root of 30.
Especially to conservation of information theory: This brings us to a more general result known as the conservation of information. Design theorists William Dembski and Robert J. Marks defined the law of conservation of information in their 2009 paper “Conservation of Information in Search” and then proved the result in their follow-on 2010 paper “The Read More…
The Big Bang Theory sitcom’s Sheldon Cooper insists that in no universe would he dance with Penny. That mighrt be true, says Marks but there still isn’t an infinite number of universes: But, some claim, there is an infinite number of universes in the multiverse. That is ludicrous because there are no infinities in the Read More…
Marks: The assumption that today’s peer-reviewed paper has been vetted by experts and therefore has been awarded a blue ribbon for excellence is far from the truth. Peer review often does not do its job. Consequently, today’s collection of scholarly literature is exploding in quantity and deteriorating in quality.
In Silicon Valley that has long been a serious belief. But are we really anywhere close?
One interesting aspect of near-death experiences is that survivors’ accounts speak of sensing things they had not sensed before. What they sense is non inconsistent with science but it is typically unknown to most people.
Today, we know much more about what happens to people when they die—and what we are learning does not support materialism.
Robert J. Marks: It’s always easy to determine if you are talking to a computer or a human. You can just ask them to compute the square root of 30 or something because a human would take a while to get the square root of thirty …
Why it isn’t: Biomedical engineer Yuri Danilov: Again, it is a separate discussion, extremely painful for many but it is something that is happening right now.
Marks’s point is that such biases are not a matter of villains taking over. It’s a normal feature of the way people think. And people program computers. Doubtless, it finds its way into evolution issues for which people say they ran a simulation on a computer.
It seems that the programmer would have to make the computer smarter than he is, which means smarter than itself. That’s a challenge.
Laws concerning the way people behave around numbers mean that quantification itself invites certain types of corruption.
Many biologists claimed to have written code to simulate evolution. But the popularization of the No Free Lunch theorems showed that the computer programmer must infuse guiding information into the evolutionary program to make it work. To explain the diversity of creativity, an evolution process must be directed.
One outcome of Simpson’s Paradox is that machines cannot replace statisticians in analysing results. A great deal depends on interpretation, as Marks shows. “Clustering remains largely an art.”