- This topic has 36 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have just read an article written by a woman who previously worked on the Google AI development team. She was so concerned; at the way data being entered into the vast AI database was biased towards white, male, wealthy, right wing attitudes and beliefs; that she wrote a report about the dangers of the wider public assuming AI decisions would be unbiased.
Google sacked her when she refused to withdraw the report from circulation.
Be very afraid of the AI juggernaut which the MSM seems to think is the answer to all our prayers.
“
Don’tBe Evil”, huh?AI is listed among “uncontrollable technologies”, one of the ten “mega risks” to human existence:
Most of the global threats on that list are quite obvious ones which, although can be denied by the psychopaths and their slavering followers, they eventually cannot be ignored by the global population.
The more sinister problem with AI is that it is already being promoted as a natural progression, whereby our lives are run increasingly by computers. However, no one mentions GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) any more, and the process is already accelerating.
We have witnessed how Wikipedia can be altered/corrupted by the likes of Philip Cross and there are probably millions of innocent people who believe the website must be true, or someone else would have amended the pages. All that information will now be stored in the AI development databases, along with billions of gigabytes of other data from unreliable sources; but how much will be from left of centre publications and reports?
AI is going to be a steady infiltration of bias into the ‘knowledge’ of the planet’s population, and you can bet the Bilderbergers have had it all planned for years.
Our minds are about to be taken over by stealth. Or, at the very least they are going to have a bloody good try. How long before anything which contradicts AI will be labelled “fake news” (or whatever new buzz words they can dream up for telling the truth)?
As a fully paid up ‘psychoslaverer’, all I can suggest is that everybody just calms down.
I am, however, very happy to find I have a new adjective to go with my prized ‘denier’.
Thank you…_I don’t see anyone getting hysterical here, Digger_uk.
Why do you feel the need to be quite so patronising? Other than doing so, I see zero contribution to the discussion from you here. Or in any of the other discussions, for that matter. Maybe you’re just one of those people who like popping up to be ‘controversial’ – is that how you get your kicks?
More likely, that is how he earns his salary.
First things first, I don’t recall claiming anyone is hysterical. In my view the link to ‘The MegaRisks’ reveals nothing more than outlandish claims with no substance…. and why ten?
As to intimating I am a paid schill and puzzling where my finances come from, how silly. I am retired with pensions, savings and investments.
In case you haven’t cottoned on, there are many who no longer support the alarmist arguments you make, time you got used to it…_
First you suggest people should calm down, and then you use words such as alarmist in order to describe my genuine concerns over the increasing use of AI by social media companies. At the same time you choose your denial words carefully, to insist you did not accuse anyone of being hysterical (correct).
I am used to people not supporting my arguments, whether on a salary or an index linked pension. It matters not. What folk like me get very used to is the form of words used during message boards such as this; almost identical implications, patronisation, and trying to make the point that the majority have now seen sense and supported your argument.
At least when in future years AI is used to counteract arguments such as mine, you will not be needed for rapid rebuttal; the AI will do it for you. I hope you will be able to see the irony, but by then it will be too late to put the genie back into the bottle.
I have changed my pronoun, pronouns and also my noun and nouns; DiggerAI is born, be afraid, be very very afraid…. truth is, that AI won’t be needed to counter your alarmist claims…_
It was quite unnecessary, Digger_uk, but still good of you to provide further examples of exactly what I was talking about.
Highly patronising, and snidely making the point that there’s nothing to see here, move along.
So let me get this straight – you tell people to “calm down” even though you don’t think they are panicking. Uh huh.
It’s also “alarmist” to discuss concerns about the development of a new technology, even though it has very wide implications. OK.
Perhaps you simply lack the ability to think about how the massive outsourcing of work might impact society, maybe you don’t remember the effect that transferring millions of jobs to the far east had – although as a retiree you’re surely old enough to do so. Assuming still functioning faculties, of course.
So I’m wondering why someone would want to come along and insult others having a perfectly reasonable discussion about a very current topic, with a clear aim of making them feel silly and shutting down the conversation. Exactly as you do on a number of subjects.
Perhaps you could get honest, for once, and tell us?
Perhaps it would help if you put some substance with your alarmist claims. Clark’s alarmist link had this to say in one part…..
“New technologies like Artificial Intelligence, Killer Robots, Universal Surveillance, Nanotechnology and novel man-made life-forms are arriving far faster than society can understand or control. Uncontrolled techno-risk is an emergent threat to our survival”
….please, do us all a favour and recognise that this would be considered a good plot line to pitch for a sci-fi movie, such as Terminator, but just alarmist nonsense to most people listening.
So when you complain…. “It’s also “alarmist” to discuss concerns about the development of a new technology, even though it has very wide implications” you need to put an argument against these dire implications and say what they are. Instead all we get is you saying that you’re not keen on AI, without any reasons of substance or note.
The world is always changing, always has. As this AI genie is only just out of the bottle let’s see exactly what it is, it could just be another money making racket till the next one comes along.
Many seem to know of it, but little about it, same as jazz…_@Denialist Digger:
Ok, so you didn’t answer any of my questions for you, but you did manage to shoe-horn the word ‘alarmist‘ into almost every sentence. “Proof by repeated assertion”, no doubt.
Impressive that you speak for “most people“. “Please, do us all a favour“. Yet another clumsy and wearingly predictable tactic, meant to give the impression of “common sense” and working the well-trod line of being patronisingly dismissive.
“The world is always changing, always has.” – yet again, you affect to bestow wisdom on simple underlings who fail to grasp such simple matters, and who need to be told how the world works. A one-trick pony for sure.
All devices, sorry to say, of an intellect that would like to be able to counter arguments but simply isn’t up to it, and so instead plays to an imaginary supportive audience, and speaks on its behalf.
A full case doesn’t have to be made before it can even be discussed, as you should know very well, DD, having yet to make much of a case for anything in your entire posting history.
Let’s start by considering the actual issues Fat Jon raised:
– “…a woman who previously worked on the Google AI development team”
So Jon is alerting us to insider information.
– “…data being entered into the vast AI database was biased towards white, male, wealthy, right wing attitudes and beliefs”
And this was the insider’s direct professional experience.
– “…she wrote a report about the dangers of the wider public assuming AI decisions would be unbiased”
So she’s a whistleblower, same as our host Craig.
– “Google sacked her when she refused to withdraw the report from circulation.”
Oh look; that’s exactly what Jack Straw did to Craig.
– – – – – – – –I then posted a link to a site that considers AI as part of a larger problem, uncontrollable technologies, including killer robots. Oh look! That’s exactly what Craig has been posting about recently, here, here and here; people trying to shut down a killer robot factory, and the extreme measures the powers-that-be are taking to protect production of them. It seems inescapable that producing machines designed to autonomously kill humans is a threat to human life. But we, the people are to be prevented from stopping such technology, making it, for the public, “uncontrollable”.
– – – – – – – –Up pops DiggerUK – “Nothing to see here, or anywhere else for that matter. Go back to sleep, or I’ll call you an alarmist. Yeah, civilisations crash; they always have, get used to it. Human suffering is unimportant”.
It does make you wonder why such commenters bother commenting at a blog such as this one, unless merely to denigrate. And what a lovely person!
Interesting link you have there, Clark.
Perhaps the Denialist Digger should have read on to the final point – Mass Delusion, which surely includes denialism and knee-jerk dismissal.
The inability of people to understand the deadly threats that now confront us all is the greatest barrier to global action for a safe human future. Disinformation, lies and false beliefs pose an existential risk to our survival
Surely there cannot be any real danger, the denialists convince themselves and assure others, or the Good People in charge would be Doing Something about it.
It’s almost touching in its child-like faith, wouldn’t you say? And most definitely a child-like ignorance about the horrors we have inflicted on ourselves throughout history, combined with the vastly increased capacity for doing so now, and ever greater potential in the future.
“New deadly virus and quarter of a million killed? Pah; nonsense. Climate collapse? Pah; who gives a monkey’s. Multiple existential threats to humanity? Pah; all alarmist nonsense. I’ll tell you what’s important: 1% more Britons voted to leave the EU than voted not to, so it’s imperative that Britain leaves the EU with no further ado, or democracy is dead”.
OK DiggerUK, you’re so concerned about democracy, here’s one way AI could interfere with that.
Slaughterbots, YouTube, under 8 minutes.
I assume you mastered joined-up writing at primary school. Now you’re retired and comfortably off, you’ll have time to practice joined-up thinking.
Though some of your recent contributions have made me wonder what awful professional decisions you might have made in between.
I wouldn’t worry about it, Clark. Someone who’s entire career doubtless consisted of saying, “Yes sir! At once, sir! No problem at all, sir!” is unlikely to have caused much of a stir with their, ehem, “professional decisions”.
We’ve seen as much independent thinking in these denialists as one might anticipate from a nail upon application of a hammer.
@ Clark… I have seen it before, quite a while ago if I remember right. A whole number of movie plot lines come together; Swarm Of The Killer Bees, iRobot, Armies of Jedi and let’s not forget The Daleks!
All technological advances can be turned to war and they can also be turned to good. Progress can never be stopped, stop frightening the kids.
We’re using the internet right now… guess how it started…_@DiggerUK – I see that you have now reached phase 2 of the typical denialist forum rebuttal; that of erecting straw men arguments and non-sequiturs.
But as you have mentioned the infant internet, I’m sure you will agree with me that 30 years ago it was a much more liberal and free thinking place. If only my 1600 baud dial-up connection would persist long enough to get search results back before I fell asleep.
However, those search results returned simple websites which contained the search strings I entered; not millions of sponsored irrelevant sites which I did not want (as is the case now) and am not going to spend money with. Also, I used to be able to read all manner of conflicting arguments online, and make my own choices; rather than have the “page not found” message or “these comments conflict with our current policy” warning nonsense, now that the security services and other government’s agencies have muscled in on the internet big time.
This illustrates precisely the problems I foresee with AI. Interacting with a current chatbot may appear naive and mildly amusing; but are we going to get true AI answers to questions such as “Why was Margaret Thatcher so very friendly with Jimmy Savile?” or “Why did the security services need to remove the roof of Sergei Skripal’s house in Salisbury”?
I don’t need to guess how the internet started, but I know how most of it has been ruined by shady operators with massive budgets; and you have yet to provide me with any evidence that AI is not already going the same way. In fact, I don’t think you have provided any evidence of anything, except for the fact that you have “savings and investments” in addition to your pension. Did you assume we would be impressed?
Fat Jon, I recommend The Emperor’s New Mind, and Shadows of the Mind, both by Roger Penrose, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford.
And I think you should persevere with Wikipedia, but making judicious use of its Article History and Article Talk facilities. Yes, influence campaigns operate at Wikipedia (indeed I happened to help bust one of them), and pages on contentious subjects should not be taken at face value. But it is mostly compiled by real intelligences rather than fake ones, or at least has been until now. Tip; if a page seems biased, scan through its Article History looking for conspicuously large deletions, ie. what “they” might not want you to know! 😀 Deletion sizes are highlighted conveniently in red.
Thanks Clark, I will see if they are available as e-books (my wife has banned any further physical book buying, as our shelves are full and I find it hard to part with older volumes).
I do use Wikipedia occasionally, but was seriously rebuked by them some years ago for making a genuine alteration to a ‘celebrity’ page. The alteration was completely true, but the person concerned seemed to favour a rather airbrushed description of their past, in order to promote a perfect image.
The rebuke, and continued begging for donations from a site owned by one of the worlds’ richest men, have soured my view of them.
DiggerUK, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the theory of thermodynamics, and the study of palaeontology. Just because you’ve reached a ripe old age doesn’t mean everyone else does or will; you have merely been lucky. In the meantime, while you’re brushing up your knowledge, please try to sound less cocky, because it’s highly distasteful…
Consider Mississippi, for instance. When the White Man invaded he dismissed the locals as primitive, because they lived in mere tents. So he drove out the locals, straightened the river to reduce travel times for his ships, built levees so he could farm on the flood plains, and erected loads of big, elaborate and beautiful buildings, solidly built to last. Ah, progress! But pretty soon, the river rose more than he expected and taught him why the locals had lived in tents.
“Your investments can fall as well as rise. They can become worthless, or even liabilities. Success is not guaranteed, and if your underwriter goes by the name of God, be warned that his number is ex-directory. We therefore recommend that you seek out and heed professional advice”.
I’ve just had a sandwich therefore world hunger does not exist.
Fat Jon, it sounds like you crossed paths with a Reputation Management agent at Wikipedia; they can be a pain. If you post a ‘diff’ of your edit I’ll see what I can do.
