[FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW

[Steve Smith]

> Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism. E.g.
> https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m

<tongue-in-cheek>

    sounds like the "woke mob" is interfering with patriotic bestial
    pedophiles who are just exercising their first, second, maybe fifth
    and just in case, the ninth amendment rights? ...

</tic>

Every time I respond to a Captcha challenge, I feel as if I'm being 
conscripted to help train an image recognition ML model. And do we know 
how (not if) OpenAI, et alii are using *our questions* to train a new 
(subset of) model?


>
> On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>> I totally agree that realizable behavior is what matters.
>>
>> The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of course) will 
>> (not to replace but to) be able to do better than humans in all 
>> respects, including come up with creative solutions to not only the 
>> world's most pressing problems but also small creative things like 
>> writing poems, and then to do the mental and physical tasks required 
>> to provide goods and services to all in the world,
>>
>> Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our future; 
>> intelligence and energy. If we have real abundant intelligence and 
>> energy, the world will be very different indeed.
>>
>> To quote Sam Altmen at 
>> https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms 
>> <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms> 
>>  :
>>
>> "intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards 
>> most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting 
>> reagents will be radically different, and can be amazingly better."
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com 
>> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior is 
>> what matters.   Analog computers will have imperfect behavior, and 
>> there will be leakage between components.   A large network of 
>> transistors or neurons are sufficiently similar for my purposes.  
>>  The unrolling would be inside a skull, so somewhat isolated from 
>> interference.
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com 
>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of glen
>>     Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM
>>     To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>>     Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW
>>
>>     I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion implies 
>> no interaction with the outside world, right? If you can tolerate the 
>> ambiguity in that statement, the artifacts laying about from an 
>> unrolled recursion might be seen and used by outsiders. That's not to 
>> say a trespasser can't have some sophisticated intrusion technique. 
>> But unrolled seems more "open" to family, friends, and the occasional 
>> acquaintance.
>>
>>     On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>      > I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread some time 
>> ago on serialization, but to me recursion is hard to distinguish from 
>> an unrolling of recursion.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230118/3560bbec/attachment.html>