Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Jan Sand »

The government is already aware of the possibilities of an open revolution for the millions who are underpaid and the millions of kids who don't get enough to eat and the frightful hates of minorities that is a long tradition in the country. If I am in a crowd attacked by some idiot with an automatic gun I will not feel safer with hysterical old ladies with guns scared out of their minds shooting anybody near them in fright. Much of the police in the USA are already equipped with weaponry fit for a battlefront and insured by the law that because they are also scared they are fully justified in killing anybody that looks strange. Pulling out a gun to defend myself is probably a guarantee I will be one of the first victims of anybody else with a gun. That's pure insanity.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Eduk »

Greta you paint a bleak picture. Indeed you seem to be describing brave new world. A future where humans are redundant, pampered, controlled and numb. It makes sense, it's a possibility but all I am really saying is that we don't know the future will be so horrible. In my opinion there is every reason to remain optimistic.
I am reminded of music. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart have never really been matched. Today's most popular artists are awful beyond compare. Does that mean music is finished? That there was more appreciation for good music in the past than today? That people today are less gifted? Or will it come again? It is it that today's Mozart is simply doing something else?
Unknown means unknown.
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Jan Sand »

Although I also appreciate Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, where are the monstrous crowds today supporting that type of music? Even musicians have to eat and raise children. I have no idea as to the percentage of gifted musicians out of humanity in general but it doesn't seem to me that musicians of that inclination face much of a future these days.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Frost wrote:"Woo woo" is not a scientific argument.
Of course it's not, but it's the most accurate term to describe all this pseudoscientific nonsense of the "spiritual" kind.
Frost wrote: I see you are not the least bit familiar with statistics or scientific research when you say " a 53% success hit rate is not proof of psi abilities." First off, no one talks of "proof" in empirical research.
Actually, I'm familiar with the significance of statistics in empirical analysis in science. As you admit, it doesn't prove anything, which is relevant in the context of this discussion about the material, physical nature of reality, for which you provided these papers as a proof of something. Or so I thought. But then exactly what is it that they prove? Bem's paper doesn't say it either...well, actually he makes unsubstantiated claims at the beginning of the paper, as if psi and all of that were a given, but the inferences on the data he collects at best could be the initial observation to make an hypothesis. But then again, what's the hypothesis? Other than the underlying assumption that 53% is more significant than 52% or 50%. The null hypothesis seems to be here that whatever happens in the tests has to do with random effects, which then will be rejected by the statistical inferences.
Frost wrote: Second, that 53% had a p value of 1.34 x 10^-11
So what? It rests on the underlying assumption of which are the significant values and what threshold rejects the null hypothesis.
Frost wrote: Third, it had a Cohen's effect size of 0.22 which is in the standard effect sizes found in psychology research.
Another misguiding factor of statistical inferences. No doubt that it is used in psychology research and one of the reasons it fails as a science. Stats don't make it a hard science.
Frost wrote: If you think "Statistical meta-analysis is insufficient" then you have no clue how science is done.
If you think science is mere empirism, then you have no clue about how real science is done. The same claim is usually made to try to pass Economics as a hard science, which is not.
Frost wrote: Well that was a scientific analysis :roll: . All too easy to just dismiss it rather than provide a legitimate analysis or a single scientific argument. I guess all those physicists that reviewed the multiple papers were too stupid to see all the flaws...which you cannot name, of course. It is scientific fact that using Deepak's name will win any argument regardless of the scientific evidence. :roll:
Since this is referenced here without any specific content supporting an specific argument, then it can legitimately be treated as a general subject. The underlying argument might be, of course, that some people that work as scientists believe in something, and since they rationalize their beliefs with what appear to be the methods of mainstream science (which are not), then these beliefs are to be taken seriously. This is in the same fashion Creationism and Intelligent Design tried to pass as science some time ago. It's well established that Michael Behe and William Dembski have published in peer-reviewed journals. That doesn't make their case any more scientifically proven.

In any case, Mr. Radin does like to put Chopra's name along his, he even gives him the doubtful honor of writing the foreword to his books.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Eduk »

But Jan what I am saying is what conclusions do you draw?
Unknown means unknown.
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Jan Sand »

Eduk wrote: March 13th, 2018, 9:40 am But Jan what I am saying is what conclusions do you draw?
Sorry, the thread of the discussion is lost here. Conclusions about what?
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Eduk »

Although I also appreciate Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, where are the monstrous crowds today supporting that type of music?
But Jan what I am saying is what conclusions do you draw?
Unknown means unknown.
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Jan Sand »

Sorry for the mix-up. I draw only the obvious conclusions. I don't know how old you might be or what your affiliations with music might be. I am 92 and devoted to both the classical music you appreciate but also the popular music I grew up with in the couple of decades since the 1930's and even the music a decade before that. The latest stuff has no appeal for me but obviously I am not a contemporary creature. Any profitable professional must participate in the current designs to make a living. It's as simple as that.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Eduk »

I largely agree with you Jan (I am 38 by the way). But my original point was that we are not necessarily setting ourselves up for a Brave New World scenario in perpetuity (or in all things). Things change, both for the better and for the worse. There is no reason not to believe that music (for example) will improve again.
Unknown means unknown.
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Jan Sand »

The world cannot be predicted. Even our perceptual systems work only with possibility and probability. Much of music is closely related to mathematics and musical algorithms are already in operation so a good deal of the physical skills can be duplicated in digital form. I expect that artificial intelligence will be well into composing music within a reasonable time and things like dancing robots with skills not only to physically coordinate with music but reverse the process so that the dance creates the music rather than the other way around. Robot variations of human and other living creatures may well create new art forms like dancing sculptures that might be far more intriguing and beautiful than anything ever seen before. If the world survives this coming clash of humanity with nature it will be a wonderfully creative era.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Eduk »

Again I agree with you Jan :) I don't really see a coming clash of humanity with nature though. For one thing humans are nature (and so too is AI). Also life is death (for something else). Humans have always been killing something, just by existing. The holocene extinction has been ongoing for some time.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Frost »

Count Lucanor wrote: March 13th, 2018, 9:37 amOf course it's not, but it's the most accurate term to describe all this pseudoscientific nonsense of the "spiritual" kind.
I’ve been through enough of these exchanges to know it’s what you get when you have no scientific argument.
Count Lucanor wrote: March 13th, 2018, 9:37 am Actually, I'm familiar with the significance of statistics in empirical analysis in science. As you admit, it doesn't prove anything, which is relevant in the context of this discussion about the material, physical nature of reality, for which you provided these papers as a proof of something. Or so I thought. But then exactly what is it that they prove? Bem's paper doesn't say it either...well, actually he makes unsubstantiated claims at the beginning of the paper, as if psi and all of that were a given, but the inferences on the data he collects at best could be the initial observation to make an hypothesis. But then again, what's the hypothesis? Other than the underlying assumption that 53% is more significant than 52% or 50%. The null hypothesis seems to be here that whatever happens in the tests has to do with random effects, which then will be rejected by the statistical inferences.
No one in science talks of “proof.” If you are requiring that there be proof, then you are not talking science. The paper is a replication as is evidenced by the paper Bem also published that was a meta-analysis of 90 previous similar experiments which also established an effect. The effect was measured and it was very significant. Again a z score of 6.66 is a significant effect. If you understand statistics as you claim, then you should be stunned by this z score in this context.
Count Lucanor wrote: March 13th, 2018, 9:37 am
Frost wrote: Second, that 53% had a p value of 1.34 x 10^-11
So what? It rests on the underlying assumption of which are the significant values and what threshold rejects the null hypothesis.
You do realize that typically a p value of 0.05 is the standard for finding an effect, right? I thought you claimed that you’re “familiar with the significance of statistics in empirical analysis in science.”
Count Lucanor wrote: March 13th, 2018, 9:37 am
Frost wrote: Third, it had a Cohen's effect size of 0.22 which is in the standard effect sizes found in psychology research.
Another misguiding factor of statistical inferences. No doubt that it is used in psychology research and one of the reasons it fails as a science. Stats don't make it a hard science.
Psychology fails as a science? That is just pure nonsense. You do realize that the Cohen’s effect size is used in medical research, too, right? I guess that’s not a science, either? It’s a standard method of statistical analysis for effect sizes. Please explicitly describe how it is a “misguiding factor of statistical inferences.” Use statistical arguments only since it is a statistical claim.
Count Lucanor wrote: March 13th, 2018, 9:37 amIf you think science is mere empirism, then you have no clue about how real science is done. The same claim is usually made to try to pass Economics as a hard science, which is not.
Economics has nothing to do with science. Science uses statistical analysis which you apparently don’t believe in, for whatever reason since you never gave a scientific or mathematical reason. I guess we should just reject vast swaths of science and statistics that have permitted a tremendous amount of progress of knowledge. Please, then, tell me how science is really done.
Count Lucanor wrote: March 13th, 2018, 9:37 amSince this is referenced here without any specific content supporting an specific argument, then it can legitimately be treated as a general subject. The underlying argument might be, of course, that some people that work as scientists believe in something, and since they rationalize their beliefs with what appear to be the methods of mainstream science (which are not), then these beliefs are to be taken seriously. This is in the same fashion Creationism and Intelligent Design tried to pass as science some time ago. It's well established that Michael Behe and William Dembski have published in peer-reviewed journals. That doesn't make their case any more scientifically proven.

In any case, Mr. Radin does like to put Chopra's name along his, he even gives him the doubtful honor of writing the foreword to his books.
What on earth are you talking about? When you say it is “without any specific content supporting an specific argument,” did you miss the part where I posted three research papers with multiple studies in a mainstream peer-reviewed physics journal? Try addressing the research instead of this blatant ad hominem attempt and what amounts to a “nuh uh” argument with no scientific or statistical arguments.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Eduk »

Frost if I just take your first paper from Bem it quickly becomes obvious that it is far from the consensus of expert opinion. Although well done for finding woo that is at least published.
This article is in particular interesting (though probably not to you) as it both tackles Bem's problems in an easy to understand manner and talks about the issue you raised with medical research (not the given that you assumed - which is to be expected as you aren't an expert).

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ind ... -research/
Unknown means unknown.
Jan Sand
Posts: 658
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Jan Sand »

Eduk wrote: March 13th, 2018, 12:43 pm Again I agree with you Jan :) I don't really see a coming clash of humanity with nature though. For one thing humans are nature (and so too is AI). Also life is death (for something else). Humans have always been killing something, just by existing. The holocene extinction has been ongoing for some time.
The common habit of justifying the most horrible consequences of natural phenomena as a natural occurrence gives me no sense of acceptance. Swallowing indiscriminately everything both good and bad because they both must conform to natural laws is a most distasteful phenomena. Humans do have the possibility of avoiding catastrophes where that is possible. And the coming horrors are avoidable if humans are determined to avoid them.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?

Post by Eduk »

Oh my point wasn't that nothing is good or bad. Just that 'natural' doesn't mean good or bad, it is often used to mean good. Of course humans should do their best (that should go without saying).
Unknown means unknown.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021