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.”
The mathematically provable idea that something exists but is unknowable has clear philosophical and theological implications.
He offers some here: When I teach a course, I too like to sell the sizzle at the beginning of each lecture. For a graduate course in information theory I teach, the students are told that they will learn why their cell phones use recently discovered coding that pushes the boundaries of what is mathematically […]
AI help, not hype, with Robert J. Marks: AI can carry out its programmers’ biases and that’s all: Some people may be under the illusion that AI detection of hate speech will be disinterested and fair. After all, the assessment is being done by a computer, which has no ideology or political leanings. An added […]
AI adopts a solution in an allowed set, maybe not the one you expected:. In the same paper in which researchers purported to find examples of AI creativity, we also read the following statement about problems with performance: “Exacerbating the issue, it is often functionally simpler for evolution to exploit loopholes in the quantitative measure […]
In his fascinating new book The AI Delusion, economics professor Gary Smith reminds us that computers don’t have common sense. He also notes that, as data gets larger and larger, nonsensical coincidences become more probable, not less.
Robert J. Marks is one of the authors of Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, with design theorist William Dembski and Winston Ewert. There’s little danger, he thinks, in computers ruling us but considerable danger that we can use them to magnify the impact of our errors. More. Here’s the podcast. See also: Human consciousness may not […]