Quote note (#288)

James Lovelock stirs things up in The Guardian:

… The most sensible energy solution would be to cover 100 sq miles of the Sahara in solar panels. “It would supply the whole of Europe with all the energy they needed,” but it won’t happen “because it would be so easy for terrorists to go and bugger it up”. So for now, nuclear energy is the only viable option. […] But all this, he clarifies cheerfully, is more or less academic. “Because quite soon – before we’ve reached the end of this century, even – I think that what people call robots will have taken over.” Robots will rule the world? “Well, yes. They’ll be in charge.” In charge of us? “Yes, if we’re still here. Whether they’ll have taken over peacefully or otherwise, I have no idea.” […] … when Lovelock outlines this vision, his tone is so matter-of-fact that for a moment I wonder if he’s joking. He isn’t. “We’re already happily letting computers design themselves. This has been going on for some time now, particularly with chips, and it’s not going to be long before that’s out of our hands, and we’ll be standing aside and saying, ‘Oh well, it’s doing a good job designing itself, let’s encourage it.’” Computers will develop independent volition and intuition (“To some extent, they already have”) and become capable of reproducing themselves, and of evolving. “Oh yes, that’s crucial. We’ll have a world where Darwin’s working.” Darwinism doesn’t work now? “Oh no, we’ve temporarily turned Darwinism backwards. I mean, we preserve the ones that would not have survived.” […] He pauses, and adds quickly: “Don’t let’s get dangerous on this one. I don’t want this appearing in the Guardian that he just wants all the dumb and the lowlifes wiped out.” …

October 2, 2016admin 24 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Trends

TAGGED WITH : , ,

24 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Civilization reverses Darwinism temporarily. Robots — the ultimate autists — have no such pretense of “getting along with others” and “keeping the group together,” and will approach civilization as a logical problem and in the process, cull out not just the idiots and lowlifes but the physically weak, insane, retarded, and Democrats.

    I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    What *would* be the diagnosis of the “personality” of such machines? I’m thinking psychopath would be more correct than autistic. I think phenomenologically inhuman people, like serial killers and “minus men,” better represent raw machinic “minds.”

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    cyberpath

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 2nd, 2016 at 2:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    It would seem like liberals support reverse Darwinism, being ‘pro life’ for the least fit and ‘choice’ for the fittest

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 2nd, 2016 at 3:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    If collapse is inevitable, then variation with selection is still working, but we’ve gone from a laminar flow to a turbulent system.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 2nd, 2016 at 3:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Evan White Says:

    I don’t think “computers designing themselves” is happening to the extent he thinks it is.

    Public intellectuals seem to be dog-piling in on the AI issue these days, and a few professor-emeritus types in the field occasionally issue somber words of warning. I’m more interested in the what the AI researchers in the primes of their careers have to say, though, and from what I can tell, they’re still rolling their eyes at a lot of this stuff.

    [Reply]

    Anon Reply:

    I’m a bit skeptical of AI being a factor anytime soon as well. Down the line it’s certainly possible, but they’ve been working on automating the Air Traffic Control system for a while now and the capability just isn’t there. The technology is either not sophisticated enough or they have the wrong kind of people working on it, it’s hard to tell. Ironically, and contrary to my observations, we are now able to develop AI quick enough to get the better of military pilots in dogfights. But dogfighting might be a different kind of intelligence than wide-scope, long-term planning.

    For a more mundane example, I think it was Jim that brought up how we don’t even have a robot that can fold clothes by itself (that is, without any kind of mechanical input whatsoever from a human being). If we aren’t capable of designing an AI that can handle a basket of dirty laundry by itself then we’re quite a bit away from putting Mexican immigrant bathroom janitors out of a job, and extend this exponentially re complexity.

    [Reply]

    M Reply:

    indeed, the bit about computers designing themselves just rendered the whole screed invalid.

    as far as today’s “AI” goes, the raw number crunching capacity of common hardware is finally enough for a lot of impressive stuff, like actually practical specialized neural nets (which, mind you, are old hat as a concept). but whatever qualitative leaps necessary for anything resembling “real” intelligence (to wit: flexibility, practical self-correction, approximate reasoning that does not go off the rails spectacularly — heck, even ability to reuse NN training in a different domain) to appear have not happened yet. and the opacity of today’s practical neural nets does not inspire much optimism (or sweet, sweet sense of impending doom, depending on the audience) either. the required leaps might happen tomorrow, or in 10 years, or in 100 years, or never; it boggles the mind that people would even endeavor to predict something like this, let alone base alarmistic TED talks on it.

    [Reply]

    A Christian Negro that is actually a better person than many of the Alt-Right Reply:

    >alarmistic TED talks on it.

    One reason is that portraying things as scary or as a threat gets people interested in it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 2nd, 2016 at 7:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anon Says:

    >we’ve temporarily turned Darwinism backwards

    I think this is a flawed interpretation. Selection is working always and everywhere. It just matters what any given society is selecting for, and the current globalist society seems to be selecting for a short-lived wireheading that is allowed to have its heyday for as long as Gnon is snoring.

    [Reply]

    Nicean Negropolitical Reply:

    >Selection is working always and everywhere.

    It´s remarkable how many have difficulty with this concept.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Selection is modeled as pressure. In same cases this analogy becomes exact, as the mathematical quanity of selection pressure can usefully be defined as the derivative of a tendency to flow. Gene frequencies are like molecules of water, and selection pressure is like water pressure in a pipe, which defines which way the water molecules flow on average, without saying anything about any specific water molecule. As in a water system, there can be more or less pressure; it isn’t constant. In the limit case, If 100% of offspring manage to reproduce, then there is no selection at all.

    Right now selection pressure is relaxed against humans living in modern societies, as a greater portion of humanity is able to reproduce. That’s why I say genes are in turbulent flow, as they are not proceeding smoothly along any pressure gradient. Rather they are vortexing around bubble/collapse cycles.

    NRx’s preference for “order over chaos” can be formally defined as a preference for letting things move along laminar flows and avoiding turbulent flow. In other words, we’re cyber-Taoists.

    [Reply]

    Archon Alarion Reply:

    Please keep going with this analogy!

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 2nd, 2016 at 8:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dick Wagner Says:

    *nasally sneer* Aether/or fallacy! AI that rigorously evaluates rulers of the world for their whirl-ruding I mean world-ruling capabilities is a more temperate position.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 3rd, 2016 at 2:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Uriel Alexis Says:

    Sahara could become a major zone of conflict between the West and China (China probably has the upper hand here, given their massive investment in Africa recently), dramatically crushing Islam on their way, especially if oil indeed becomes rarer and more expensive. As long as there is oil, each one will focus on other stuff.

    Anyway, any sort of arms race in the future (be it for solar energy, nuclear combustibles or simply consumer markets) is going to include IA, especially since it is being monetized so fast (Netflix, Uber, SpaceX, Google, etc). Lovelock is not wrong to guess IA will have such enormous impact on our lives in the next century. He’s probably wrong on “robots”, in the sense of Androids. Automation apparently will take mainly two forms: Cyborgs (as electronic body-mods become hip) and Distributed IA (as ever more capital becomes operated by adaptable multi purpose IAs and then integrated into global networks).

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 3rd, 2016 at 12:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Robots are not going to rule the world niggers are – oh yeah they already do theres one in the white house and tens of millions pouring into western nations at his behest. dont think they are going to prioritize nigger killing robots in the budgets

    [Reply]

    Henk Reply:

    Yes, googles will run the world. Regarding dreams of intelligence explosion, I don’t think google will ever reach the general intelligence of even the average google, while deskilling induced by the likes of google will simultaneously lower average human intelligence to about google levels.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Why do you do this? I’m beginning to think you have to be a communist agent provocateur. At least, you might as well be, on consequentialist grounds.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    because youre wasting valuable resources and encouraging others to as well on stuff that will never happen because you ignore the problem at hand for the one you prefer to play with. Yeah i too wish i had the luxury of being able to pretend what you pretend unfortunately I was born a realist and so must sully my mind on actual monkeys not theoretical angels

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Obama isn’t black.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 3rd, 2016 at 12:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    @ Michael

    @ Henk

    David Palmer, a white US Army veteran was deployed overseas in a pointless war to ensure that googles have the right to riot/loot/burn and attack white people in America.

    On returning to the USA, he was attacked by 10 googles with his attackers allegedly saying, “you’re in the danger zone now white boy” during the google riots in Charlotte

    The googles fractured his eye socket and broke multiple bones in his face. Palmer is going to have a metal plate on the left side of his face and will need reconstructive surgery.

    [Reply]

    Henk Reply:

    In other news, Alphabet Inc. has announced the rebranding of its search subsidiary. The company formerly marketed its search services under the [g-word] brand, but according to a spokesperson, news of multiple incidents of customers who mentioned the search giant’s former name in mixed-race company needing reconstructive facial surgery prompted the quest for a new corporate identity.

    [Reply]

    Henk Reply:

    That was somewhat tasteless. No more commenting this month.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 3rd, 2016 at 1:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • R. J. Moore II Says:

    So, computers are not intelligent. There is no rational capacity whatsoever in computers, and rational capacity is fundamentally different than the process of computing. We may be reaching pooh physical limits on computing soon, but even if not they’re still nowhere close to making actual intelligence. I’m entirely with John Searle on this. I’m not saying AI isn’t possible, I’m saying that nothing remotely like it exists, and that it never will come from binary computing.
    Unless some new innovations in designing recursive, integrated, physiological approaches (not software, not variants on I/O machines) occurs, we are not going to see AI. There’s no evidence that this is going on, not any developed idea of how to do it. Computers are not AI, they never will be, they never could be. You need intelligence in the first place – artificial or otherwise – to even make computers useful.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 13th, 2016 at 10:29 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment