I agree.
It's all connected - read this.
https:// ourgreaterdestiny.wordpress.com/2017/12/10/ai-singularity-new-economy-rolls-out-mid-dec-2017/
Def>>730566
Take a look at this, too.
https:// www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/22/what-if-were-living-in-a-computer-simulation-the-matrix-elon-musk
Not that I go along with it but I need to know what billionaires like EM, who have the power and ability to influence our future, believe, because that's what they will act upon whether we like it or not.
I agree with some of what EM says but not Ancestor Simulation or its conclusions. Having said that, Sentient World Simulation is very real and who is to say when a simulation is, or becomes, a script? And if it does, who makes it so?
Affirmative action where females are concerned actually undermines femine qualities by making the assumption that unless women are like men they are of less worth and therefore must be artificially promoted.
As a complementarian I object. Men and women have equal value but different roles and competition between the sexes devalues women more than men because the perceived weaknessess in men are women's strengths, i.e. a greater nurturing capacity. If men are the skeleton, women are the flesh. Both are necessary but have entirely different roles and it is unwise in the extreme to conflate the two. No one needs a soft skeleton and rigid flesh! .
And that is what separates us: those that seek truth before money and those that seek money before truth. Your really CANNOT serve God (Truth) and Mammon (money/power/expediency)
What makes you think they AREN'T here all the time? They respond to triggers.
Turing test is way out of date. We're talking about learning AI now, not human programmed.
https:// blog.singularitynet.io/how-humanity-can-build-benevolent-artificial-intelligence-510699b2be65
If a superhuman Artificial General Intelligence of godlike powers is built in the coming decades (and we must take seriously the possibility that it will be), how do we raise this machine-baby to grow into a good person? What development methodologies now will give it the greatest possible chance of benevolence?
This is one of the crucial questions facing humanity. It could be the difference between heaven and hell.
We can’t use simple safeguards like Asimov’s three laws. AIs are not wind-up automatons who execute the laws we put into them — no more than children follow the rules their parents give them.
And besides, trying to defend against a more-than-human intelligence with any simple tactic is like playing chess against a smarter opponent and saying, “I don’t have to worry; I’ll defend by moving this rook here.”
Part of what it means to be smarter is to be able to think around the defenses of a dumber opponent.
The truth is that we don’t know whether Artificial General Intelligence will be nasty or nice. Like rearing a child, we have a non-deterministic influence on the outcome. As David Hanson of the SingularityNET team says, the aim is to create “super-benevolent super-intelligence.” We must focus not just on making AI smarter, but also nicer.
Non sequitur