Second, AI fans usually treat consciousness as either non-existent, or else just some trivial mechanical side effect of data processing power, neither of which are at all helpful considering that, as human beings, we know consciousness exists.
This professor doesn't get what artificial intelligence (AI) is. There really is no difference between AI and "real intelligence" the only difference is in size. We only call it AI because it isn't very smart yet. If we could construct a computer that would be at the size of a human brain in terms of neurological connections and had the same capacity we would actually have constructed a self aware computer.
The only real answer to this sort of nonsense is to say "go ahead and build your AI then".
Of course, the ability to do so will always be about twenty years in the future.
Even the notions "aware" and "sentient" are themselves misleading.
You are free to believe that you have no more awareness or sentience than a half brick, but it's simply untrue
The "singularity" does not necessarily require artificially intelligent computers vs. pseudo-intelligent computers. It only requires an exponential growth of change in technology, mediated or enabled by some sort of computation. The details are semantics I suppose, the key is the exponential technological feedback cycle. I think you could make the argument that we are already in it, via augmented intelligence. Used Wikipedia or IMdB lately? From your smartphone? Remember when you had to know stuff, instead of efficiently looking it up? I think the professor is right in one sense, but misses the bigger picture, we are already in a technological singularity.
I think you're the one missing the point. The fact that computers/the internet are making better tools available to human beings says abslutely nothing about whether computers/the internet will eve acquire sentience.
If mother nature can create human minds that function on a few sandwiches a day, I'm sure we'll be able to surpass that
This sort of feeble handwaving is why most AI advocates come across as drooling idiots.
there is a very important thing to consider.
that the reason computers seem so slow at somethings like ai is because we are already inside a singularity, and that as entities inside the construct have no way to 'meet' the intelligence of our singular mind. to create a true singularity from within a true singularity would be akin to rewriting the whole thing and as the singularity we have no way to overwrite our existence except to die and rejoin it. assuming the developers designed it that way.
I think the first thing you should consider is the whereabouts of your shift key.
Third hand smoke and farts are legitimate concerns, but until manufacturers stop putting toxic fragrance chemicals in personal care and laundry products I will be keeping my own private, personal vehicle for health reasons. Any time I take public transit I get sick for days. In the future, maybe people will wake up and stop drenching themselves in poison.
You're like a little ray of sunshine.
How in the world do we come to the idea that just because something is disruptive it is a good thing? In most cases, I would argue the opposite.
"Disruptive" is the buzzword du jour for all the libertarian fruitbats who read Dystopian novels as aspirational lifestyle guides.
a noteworthy scholar had commented once that a hunter-gatherer from 100,000 BC lived better than the average man in 19th century London.
The average working man led a pretty horrible life in an industrialised 19th century city, so that is entirely possible.
However, the relevant comparison is with an average person in 21st century London. I know which lifestyle I'd prefer, and as a clue it's the one where I can walk into a supermarket and buy food for my kids.
It's a pity you don't seem to be able to distinguish fact from fiction, form from substance, or even identify the important facts. But such is often the case on Slashdot where memes substitute for thinking, troublesome facts are ignored, and wishful thinking treated as facts. Not being able to distinguish between the USSR and the US? Pitiful.
What makes you think scientists are "always wrong"?
It's not about making machines smarter than us, it's about making machines that replace us in the workforce.
You may recall that Eisenhower warned about the so-called "Military Industrial Complex." At the end of WW 2 the GDP devoted to defense spending was just under 40%. It has been falling since then with just a few interruptions. Today defense spending hovers around 4-5% of GDP after climbing a bit after 9/11. If the "MIC" is a "state within a state" it isn't a very successful one given its long slide in the resources it controls which is now only about 10% of what it controlled when Eisenhower was a General of the Army.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
Man, that raises goose pimples.
As to voting
* US remains a democratic republic with a more or less capitalist economy, civil rights are good, foreign powers aren't allowed to invade, Europe is a friend, racism is bad, something resembling law and order will be maintained, etc..
Excellent question. I see you're coming along nicely.
The subject of the article is centered on investigation and actions by local police, not the federal government. Based on your post that must mean that the US is a republic again. That's a good thing since the US just held an election for the next Congress. If the US wasn't a republic anymore then the candidates that just won would have nowhere to go in January next. Thank goodness they still do. And when they get there they will be about the People's business again. It looks like it was a good thing I was here to explain that to you since you got it wrong.