12345...102030...


Planetary science – Wikipedia

Planetary science or, more rarely, planetology, is the scientific study of planets (including Earth), moons, and planetary systems (in particular those of the Solar System) and the processes that form them. It studies objects ranging in size from micrometeoroids to gas giants, aiming to determine their composition, dynamics, formation, interrelations and history. It is a strongly interdisciplinary field, originally growing from astronomy and earth science,[1] but which now incorporates many disciplines, including planetary geology (together with geochemistry and geophysics), cosmochemistry, atmospheric science, oceanography, hydrology, theoretical planetary science, glaciology, and exoplanetology.[1] Allied disciplines include space physics, when concerned with the effects of the Sun on the bodies of the Solar System, and astrobiology.

There are interrelated observational and theoretical branches of planetary science. Observational research can involve a combination of space exploration, predominantly with robotic spacecraft missions using remote sensing, and comparative, experimental work in Earth-based laboratories. The theoretical component involves considerable computer simulation and mathematical modelling.

Planetary scientists are generally located in the astronomy and physics or Earth sciences departments of universities or research centres, though there are several purely planetary science institutes worldwide. There are several major conferences each year, and a wide range of peer-reviewed journals. In the case of some exclusive planetary scientists, many of whom are in relation to the study of dark matter, they will seek a private research centre and often initiate partnership research tasks.

The history of planetary science may be said to have begun with the Ancient Greek philosopher Democritus, who is reported by Hippolytus as saying

The ordered worlds are boundless and differ in size, and that in some there is neither sun nor moon, but that in others, both are greater than with us, and yet with others more in number. And that the intervals between the ordered worlds are unequal, here more and there less, and that some increase, others flourish and others decay, and here they come into being and there they are eclipsed. But that they are destroyed by colliding with one another. And that some ordered worlds are bare of animals and plants and all water.[2]

In more modern times, planetary science began in astronomy, from studies of the unresolved planets. In this sense, the original planetary astronomer would be Galileo, who discovered the four largest moons of Jupiter, the mountains on the Moon, and first observed the rings of Saturn, all objects of intense later study. Galileo’s study of the lunar mountains in 1609 also began the study of extraterrestrial landscapes: his observation “that the Moon certainly does not possess a smooth and polished surface” suggested that it and other worlds might appear “just like the face of the Earth itself”.[3]

Advances in telescope construction and instrumental resolution gradually allowed increased identification of the atmospheric and surface details of the planets. The Moon was initially the most heavily studied, as it always exhibited details on its surface, due to its proximity to the Earth, and the technological improvements gradually produced more detailed lunar geological knowledge. In this scientific process, the main instruments were astronomical optical telescopes (and later radio telescopes) and finally robotic exploratory spacecraft.

The Solar System has now been relatively well-studied, and a good overall understanding of the formation and evolution of this planetary system exists. However, there are large numbers of unsolved questions,[4] and the rate of new discoveries is very high, partly due to the large number of interplanetary spacecraft currently exploring the Solar System.

This is both an observational and a theoretical science. Observational researchers are predominantly concerned with the study of the small bodies of the Solar System: those that are observed by telescopes, both optical and radio, so that characteristics of these bodies such as shape, spin, surface materials and weathering are determined, and the history of their formation and evolution can be understood.

Theoretical planetary astronomy is concerned with dynamics: the application of the principles of celestial mechanics to the Solar System and extrasolar planetary systems.

The best known research topics of planetary geology deal with the planetary bodies in the near vicinity of the Earth: the Moon, and the two neighbouring planets: Venus and Mars. Of these, the Moon was studied first, using methods developed earlier on the Earth.

Geomorphology studies the features on planetary surfaces and reconstructs the history of their formation, inferring the physical processes that acted on the surface. Planetary geomorphology includes the study of several classes of surface features:

The history of a planetary surface can be deciphered by mapping features from top to bottom according to their deposition sequence, as first determined on terrestrial strata by Nicolas Steno. For example, stratigraphic mapping prepared the Apollo astronauts for the field geology they would encounter on their lunar missions. Overlapping sequences were identified on images taken by the Lunar Orbiter program, and these were used to prepare a lunar stratigraphic column and geological map of the Moon.

One of the main problems when generating hypotheses on the formation and evolution of objects in the Solar System is the lack of samples that can be analysed in the laboratory, where a large suite of tools are available and the full body of knowledge derived from terrestrial geology can be brought to bear. Direct samples from the Moon, asteroids and Mars are present on Earth, removed from their parent bodies and delivered as meteorites. Some of these have suffered contamination from the oxidising effect of Earth’s atmosphere and the infiltration of the biosphere, but those meteorites collected in the last few decades from Antarctica are almost entirely pristine.

The different types of meteorites that originate from the asteroid belt cover almost all parts of the structure of differentiated bodies: meteorites even exist that come from the core-mantle boundary (pallasites). The combination of geochemistry and observational astronomy has also made it possible to trace the HED meteorites back to a specific asteroid in the main belt, 4 Vesta.

The comparatively few known Martian meteorites have provided insight into the geochemical composition of the Martian crust, although the unavoidable lack of information about their points of origin on the diverse Martian surface has meant that they do not provide more detailed constraints on theories of the evolution of the Martian lithosphere.[5] As of July 24, 2013 65 samples of Martian meteorites have been discovered on Earth. Many were found in either Antarctica or the Sahara Desert.

During the Apollo era, in the Apollo program, 384 kilograms of lunar samples were collected and transported to the Earth, and 3 Soviet Luna robots also delivered regolith samples from the Moon. These samples provide the most comprehensive record of the composition of any Solar System body beside the Earth. The numbers of lunar meteorites are growing quickly in the last few years [6] as ofApril 2008 there are 54 meteorites that have been officially classified as lunar.Eleven of these are from the US Antarctic meteorite collection, 6 are from the JapaneseAntarctic meteorite collection, and the other 37 are from hot desert localities in Africa,Australia, and the Middle East. The total mass of recognized lunar meteorites is close to50kg.

Space probes made it possible to collect data in not only the visible light region, but in other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum. The planets can be characterized by their force fields: gravity and their magnetic fields, which are studied through geophysics and space physics.

Measuring the changes in acceleration experienced by spacecraft as they orbit has allowed fine details of the gravity fields of the planets to be mapped. For example, in the 1970s, the gravity field disturbances above lunar maria were measured through lunar orbiters, which led to the discovery of concentrations of mass, mascons, beneath the Imbrium, Serenitatis, Crisium, Nectaris and Humorum basins.

If a planet’s magnetic field is sufficiently strong, its interaction with the solar wind forms a magnetosphere around a planet. Early space probes discovered the gross dimensions of the terrestrial magnetic field, which extends about 10 Earth radii towards the Sun. The solar wind, a stream of charged particles, streams out and around the terrestrial magnetic field, and continues behind the magnetic tail, hundreds of Earth radii downstream. Inside the magnetosphere, there are relatively dense regions of solar wind particles, the Van Allen radiation belts.

Geophysics includes seismology and tectonophysics, geophysical fluid dynamics, mineral physics, geodynamics, mathematical geophysics, and geophysical surveying.

Planetary geodesy, (also known as planetary geodetics) deals with the measurement and representation of the planets of the Solar System, their gravitational fields and geodynamic phenomena (polar motion in three-dimensional, time-varying space. The science of geodesy has elements of both astrophysics and planetary sciences. The shape of the Earth is to a large extent the result of its rotation, which causes its equatorial bulge, and the competition of geologic processes such as the collision of plates and of vulcanism, resisted by the Earth’s gravity field. These principles can be applied to the solid surface of Earth (orogeny; Few mountains are higher than 10km (6mi), few deep sea trenches deeper than that because quite simply, a mountain as tall as, for example, 15km (9mi), would develop so much pressure at its base, due to gravity, that the rock there would become plastic, and the mountain would slump back to a height of roughly 10km (6mi) in a geologically insignificant time. Some or all of these geologic principles can be applied to other planets besides Earth. For instance on Mars, whose surface gravity is much less, the largest volcano, Olympus Mons, is 27km (17mi) high at its peak, a height that could not be maintained on Earth. The Earth geoid is essentially the figure of the Earth abstracted from its topographic features. Therefore, the Mars geoid is essentially the figure of Mars abstracted from its topographic features. Surveying and mapping are two important fields of application of geodesy.

The atmosphere is an important transitional zone between the solid planetary surface and the higher rarefied ionizing and radiation belts. Not all planets have atmospheres: their existence depends on the mass of the planet, and the planet’s distance from the Sun too distant and frozen atmospheres occur. Besides the four gas giant planets, almost all of the terrestrial planets (Earth, Venus, and Mars) have significant atmospheres. Two moons have significant atmospheres: Saturn’s moon Titan and Neptune’s moon Triton. A tenuous atmosphere exists around Mercury.

The effects of the rotation rate of a planet about its axis can be seen in atmospheric streams and currents. Seen from space, these features show as bands and eddies in the cloud system, and are particularly visible on Jupiter and Saturn.

Planetary science frequently makes use of the method of comparison to give a greater understanding of the object of study. This can involve comparing the dense atmospheres of Earth and Saturn’s moon Titan, the evolution of outer Solar System objects at different distances from the Sun, or the geomorphology of the surfaces of the terrestrial planets, to give only a few examples.

The main comparison that can be made is to features on the Earth, as it is much more accessible and allows a much greater range of measurements to be made. Earth analogue studies are particularly common in planetary geology, geomorphology, and also in atmospheric science.

Smaller workshops and conferences on particular fields occur worldwide throughout the year.

This non-exhaustive list includes those institutions and universities with major groups of people working in planetary science. Alphabetical order is used.

Read the original post:

Planetary science – Wikipedia

Eve online planetary interaction

Materials

EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. CCP hf. has granted permission to [insert your name or site name] to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, [insert name or site name]. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Link:

Eve online planetary interaction

What is Bitcoin Cash? – finance.yahoo.com

For many newcomers, cryptocurrencies can be confusing at the best of times. Not only are they extremely complex, but there are also so many of them to choose from.

Bitcoin itself is no stranger to this. There are multiple iterations of Bitcoin, from the original BTC to Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Private. The biggest competitor to Bitcoin though is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). BCH is a hard fork of Bitcoin that aims to solve the issue of scaling through the use of bigger blocks.

Bitcoin Cash arose due to a large scaling debate that happened within the Bitcoin community. Debates began to arise when the Bitcoin mempool began to fill up due to the amount of transactions taking place on the network. This caused Bitcoin to become slower and more expensive to send than it had been in the past.

There were two options depending on your viewpoint. The first was to scale by increasing the block size of Bitcoin, and the second was to scale via a second-layer solution such as the Lightning Network. When neither side could come to a compromise, a fork took place and led to the creation of what became known as Bitcoin Cash.

Bitcoin Cash was backed by evangelist Roger Ver and mining giant Jihan Wu along with many other industry leaders and experts. They disagreed with the idea of implementing SegWit onto Bitcoin and wanted to see Bitcoin scale to 8MB blocks.

Bigger blocks allow for more transactions to take place. However, this comes with the downside of creating a larger blockchain. Those who believe in BTC argue that bigger blocks will eventually lead to mining centralisation.

BCH supporters argue that through Moores Law technology will eventually catch up, allowing for bigger blocks to be possible without these centralisation issues.

Bigger blocks are believed to be necessary due to the fees associated with Bitcoin. When the network became extremely popular in the bull run of 2017, fees and transaction times began to rise considerably. This made it clear that Bitcoin needed to scale.

Bitcoin Cash believes that it has solved these problems through bigger blocks, which it argues allows for much lower fees.

It is impossible to discuss Bitcoin Cash without mentioning evangelist Roger Ver. Ver was one of the first people to promote Bitcoin to the world. He was an early investor in the cryptocurrency and many major cryptocurrency companies today were helped by his funding. As the owner of the bitcoin.com domain, he holds a powerful position.

Ver argues that the direction that BTC has taken has limited the cryptocurrency and allowed other altcoins to rise in prominence. He argues that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin as it is a form of peer-to-peer electronic cash, as stated in the white paper.

This has not been without controversy, and resulted in much antagonism directed towards Ver. Some have argued that Ver has misled the public in his promotion of Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin an accusation he vehemently denies.

BCH went through its own drama in late 2018. After the split from BTC, BCH was led by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and development teams including Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC. They were also supported by Craig Wright of nChain and his partner Calvin Ayre.

However, their relationship soured, and another fork took place splitting Bitcoin Cash into BCH and Bitcoin Satoshis Vision (BSV).

Many members of the Bitcoin Cash community are on the r/btc subreddit. The r/btc subreddit is another split from the original r/bitcoin subreddit. The drama began when users argued that the r/bitcoin subreddit was too heavily moderated, therefore limiting free speech.

This led to the creation of r/btc, and this is where you can find the most up-to-date news on Bitcoin Cash and debates surrounding the cryptocurrency. If you want the latest news and to join the community, this is the place to start.

There are many fervent supporters of Bitcoin Cash who believe that on-chain scaling is the main solution to the current scaling issues. Although it has yet to make a dent in overtaking the original Bitcoin chain, their beliefs have not diminished. This is the main difference between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin the debate over scaling on-chain or via a second layer.

Arguments over the split still rage on to this day, with both sides not conceding any ground. Whilst many deride Bitcoin Cash, there is an argument to be made that the testing of an on-chain scaling solution is a good experiment for the whole of cryptocurrency.

The post What is Bitcoin Cash? appeared first on Coin Rivet.

Go here to see the original:

What is Bitcoin Cash? – finance.yahoo.com

Bitcoin Cash – finance.yahoo.com

Bitcoin Cash ABC Slides Again

Bitcoin Cash ABC slid by 3.14% on Friday. Following on from a 6.72% tumble on Thursday, Bitcoin Cash ABC ended the day at $255.02.

A relatively bullish start to the day saw Bitcoin Cash ABC rise to an intraday high $269.27 before hitting reverse.

Falling short of the first major resistance level at $279.15, Bitcoin Cash ABC fell to a late afternoon intraday low $251.34.

In spite of the reversal, Bitcoin Cash ABC steered clear of the first major support level at $249.92 to recover to $255 levels.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin Cash ABC was up by 2.28% to $260.85. Bucking the trend from the broader market, Bitcoin Cash ABC rose from $255.02 to a morning high $261.

In spite of the early move, Bitcoin Cash ABC left the major support and resistance levels untested.

For the day ahead, a move through to $262 levels would support a run at the first major resistance level at $265.75.

Barring a broad-based crypto rally, Bitcoin Cash ABC would likely come up short of $270 levels and the second major resistance level at $276.47. Fridays high $269.27 would likely pin Bitcoin Cash ABC back on the day.

In the event of a breakout, Bitcoin Cash ABC would likely fall short of $280 levels on the day.

Failure to move through to $262 levels could see Bitcoin Cash ABC hit reverse later in the day. A fall a pullback through $258.54 would bring $251 levels into play before any recovery.

Barring a crypto sell-off, Bitcoin Cash ABC would likely steer clear of sub-$250 levels and the first major support level at $247.82.

Litecoin rose by 1.49% on Friday. Partially reversing a 3.39% slide from Thursday, Litecoin ended the day at $71.64.

A choppy start to the day saw Litecoin slide to an intraday low $68.88 before striking an intraday high $73.5.

The moves through the early hours saw Litecoin leave the major support and resistance levels untested.

Easing back from the early intraday high, Litecoin fell to an afternoon low $69.5 before finding support late in the day.

At the time of writing, Litecoin was down by 0.61% to $71.20. A bearish start to the day saw Litecoin fall from a morning high $71.83 to a low $71.13 before steadying.

Litecoin left the major support and resistance levels untested in the early hours.

For the day ahead, a move through to $71.40 levels would bring $72 levels back into play before any pullback. Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Litecoin to take a run at $73 levels and the first major resistance level at $73.80.

Failure to move through to $71.40 levels could see Litecoin slide further into the red before any recovery.

A fall through to $70 levels would bring the first major support level at $69.18 into play. Barring a crypto meltdown, Litecoin would likely avoid a return to sub-$69 levels on the day.

Story continues

Ripples XRP rallied by 6.34% on Friday. Reversing a 3.93% slide from Thursday, Ripples XRP ended the day at $0.3092.

Bullish through the day, Ripples XRP rallied from a start of a day intraday low $0.28799 to a late intraday high $0.31149.

Steering clear of the major support levels, Ripples XRP broke through the first major resistance level at $0.3060. In spite of the day-long rally, Ripples XRP came up short of $0.32 levels and the second major resistance level at $0.3209. More modest gains elsewhere likely capped the upside on the day.

At the time of writing, Ripples XRP was down by 0.38% to $0.30802. A relatively range-bound start to the day saw Ripples XRP fall from a morning high $0.31097 to a low $0.30757.

The early moves saw Ripples XRP leave the major support and resistance levels untested.

For the day ahead, a move through to $0.31 levels would support a run at the first major resistance level at $0.3178. Following Fridays breakout, support from the broader market would be needed for return to $0.32 levels.

Barring a broad-based crypto rally, Ripples XRP would likely come up short of the second major resistance level at $0.3264.

Failure to move through to $0.31 levels could see Ripples XRP take another hit on the day. A fall through $0.3030 levels would bring the first major support level at $0.2943 into play.

Barring a crypto meltdown, Ripples XRP would likely avoid a return to $0.28 levels on the day.

Please let us know what you think in the comments below

Thanks, Bob

This article was originally posted on FX Empire

See more here:

Bitcoin Cash – finance.yahoo.com

What is Bitcoin Cash? – Coin Rivet

For many newcomers, cryptocurrencies can be confusing at the best of times. Not only are they extremely complex, but there are also so many of them to choose from.

Bitcoin itself is no stranger to this. There are multiple iterations of Bitcoin, from the original BTC to Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Private. The biggest competitor to Bitcoin though is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). BCH is a hard fork of Bitcoin that aims to solve the issue of scaling through the use of bigger blocks.

Bitcoin Cash arose due to a large scaling debate that happened within the Bitcoin community. Debates began to arise when the Bitcoin mempool began to fill up due to the amount of transactions taking place on the network. This caused Bitcoin to become slower and more expensive to send than it had been in the past.

There were two options depending on your viewpoint. The first was to scale by increasing the block size of Bitcoin, and the second was to scale via a second-layer solution such as the Lightning Network. When neither side could come to a compromise, a fork took place and led to the creation of what became known as Bitcoin Cash.

Bitcoin Cash was backed by evangelist Roger Ver and mining giant Jihan Wu along with many other industry leaders and experts. They disagreed with the idea of implementing SegWit onto Bitcoin and wanted to see Bitcoin scale to 8MB blocks.

Bigger blocks allow for more transactions to take place. However, this comes with the downside of creating a larger blockchain. Those who believe in BTC argue that bigger blocks will eventually lead to mining centralisation.

BCH supporters argue that through Moores Law technology will eventually catch up, allowing for bigger blocks to be possible without these centralisation issues.

Bigger blocks are believed to be necessary due to the fees associated with Bitcoin. When the network became extremely popular in the bull run of 2017, fees and transaction times began to rise considerably. This made it clear that Bitcoin needed to scale.

Bitcoin Cash believes that it has solved these problems through bigger blocks, which it argues allows for much lower fees.

It is impossible to discuss Bitcoin Cash without mentioning evangelist Roger Ver. Ver was one of the first people to promote Bitcoin to the world. He was an early investor in the cryptocurrency and many major cryptocurrency companies today were helped by his funding. As the owner of the bitcoin.com domain, he holds a powerful position.

Ver argues that the direction that BTC has taken has limited the cryptocurrency and allowed other altcoins to rise in prominence. He argues that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin as it is a form of peer-to-peer electronic cash, as stated in the white paper.

This has not been without controversy, and resulted in much antagonism directed towards Ver. Some have argued that Ver has misled the public in his promotion of Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin an accusation he vehemently denies.

BCH went through its own drama in late 2018. After the split from BTC, BCH was led by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and development teams including Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC. They were also supported by Craig Wright of nChain and his partner Calvin Ayre.

However, their relationship soured, and another fork took place splitting Bitcoin Cash into BCH and Bitcoin Satoshis Vision (BSV).

Many members of the Bitcoin Cash community are on the r/btc subreddit. The r/btc subreddit is another split from the original r/bitcoin subreddit. The drama began when users argued that the r/bitcoin subreddit was too heavily moderated, therefore limiting free speech.

This led to the creation of r/btc, and this is where you can find the most up-to-date news on Bitcoin Cash and debates surrounding the cryptocurrency. If you want the latest news and to join the community, this is the place to start.

There are many fervent supporters of Bitcoin Cash who believe that on-chain scaling is the main solution to the current scaling issues. Although it has yet to make a dent in overtaking the original Bitcoin chain, their beliefs have not diminished. This is the main difference between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin the debate over scaling on-chain or via a second layer.

Arguments over the split still rage on to this day, with both sides not conceding any ground. Whilst many deride Bitcoin Cash, there is an argument to be made that the testing of an on-chain scaling solution is a good experiment for the whole of cryptocurrency.

Continued here:

What is Bitcoin Cash? – Coin Rivet

Moon Cash | Free bitcoin cash faucet

We take your privacy seriously. This policy describes what personal information we collect and how we use it. (This privacy policy is applicable to the Moon Cash web site)

All web servers track basic information about their visitors. This information includes, but is not limited to, IP addresses, browser details, timestamps and referring pages. None of this information can personally identify specific visitors to this site. The information is tracked for routine administration and maintenance purposes, and lets me know what pages and information are useful and helpful to visitors.

Where necessary, this site uses cookies to store information about a visitor’s preferences and history in order to better serve the visitor and/or present the visitor with customized content.

Advertising partners and other third parties may also use cookies, scripts and/or web beacons to track visitors to our site in order to display advertisements and other useful information. Such tracking is done directly by the third parties through their own servers and is subject to their own privacy policies.

Note that you can change your browser settings to disable cookies if you have privacy concerns. Disabling cookies for all sites is not recommended as it may interfere with your use of some sites. The best option is to disable or enable cookies on a per-site basis. Consult your browser documentation for instructions on how to block cookies and other tracking mechanisms.

(a) that Licensor may collect and share hashed or obfuscated user data with third parties; (b) that third parties may collect user data directly from Licensor (e.g. through a cookie or other technology) for their own use and subject to their own privacy policies; (c) that user data may be combined and linked with data from other sources; and (d) a conspicuous link to an industry opt-out mechanism in which Arbor is listed, such as the DAAs opt out page at http://www.aboutads.info/choices or http://www.aboutads.info/appchoices as applicable.

The rest is here:

Moon Cash | Free bitcoin cash faucet

Bitcoin Soars As Ethereum, Ripple’s XRP, Bitcoin Cash, And …

Bitcoin has continued its march higher after shooting up at the beginning of the month and now appears to be pulling away from the likes ethereum, Ripple’s XRP, bitcoin cash, EOS, and other major cryptocurrencies.

The bitcoin price has hit another year-to-date high in the past 24 hours, climbing to $5,622, according to prices from the Luxembourg-based Bitstamp exchange.

Now, a bullish technical indicator is giving investors heart that the recent rally will be held after bitcoin’s moving averages showed a pattern known as a golden cross.

The bitcoin price has been outperforming smaller cryptocurrencies after so-called altcoins made strong gains previously.

The golden crossoccurs when the average bitcoin price in the short term rises above its long term average price. Bitcoin’s 50-day moving average rose above its 200-day moving average for the first time since 2015yesterday.

Alternatively, when an assets short-term moving average crosses below the long-term moving average, it indicates the potential for a major selloff and is known as a death cross.

The bitcoin price has risen almost 2% over the last 24 hour trading period, according to data from CoinMarketCap, which tracks most major cryptocurrencies.

Elsewhere, ethereum and Ripple’s XRP lost 2%, while bitcoin cash, an offshoot of bitcoin itself, was down more than 5%. EOS was off by 3% over the last 24 hour trading period.

Binance coin, which increasingly seems to be deciding the direction of the bitcoin and cryptocurrency market, lost the most of the top ten cryptocurrencies over the last 24 hours, dropping almost 6%.

The bitcoin price has recorded another year-to-date high this week.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency industry insiders have said bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency, is still very important to the wider market.

“If I had to pick one [cryptocurrency], I would pick bitcoin. We need bitcoin to succeed in order for the market to do well and for innovations to keep happening,” Hany Rashwan, the founder and chief executive of cryptocurrency trading tools company Amun, this week told the Crypto for Earthlings podcast.

“Bitcoin is the largest and most well support asset today and we shouldn’t dismiss it. There are a number of technical innovations on their way to make bitcoin more transactional. We should focus on that and keep investing in bitcoin more than anything else.”

Meanwhile, analysts and traders were keen to find any sign of what was pushing bitcoin higher while other coins, like ethereum, Ripple’s XRP, bitcoin cash, and EOS, fell.

The cryptocurrency market has been divided by bitcoin’s recent gains.

“Another strong surge during the Asian session[yesterday]brought us to a new high of $5,622 a coin, the highest level since November’s capitulation,” eToro senior market analyst Mati Greenspan wrote in a note to clients.

“There are a load of bullish signs right now but if you’re asking what caused this morning’s movement, you might be slightly disappointed as there doesn’t seem to be any specific catalyst for this. It seems simply to be a shift in outlook.

“During the bear market, there were a lot of people who sold their crypto in fear of lower prices. Those people didn’t really go away though, they’re simply standing on the sidelines waiting for the return of a bull market.”

Read the rest here:

Bitcoin Soars As Ethereum, Ripple’s XRP, Bitcoin Cash, And …

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) price, chart, and fundamentals info …

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a cryptocurrency or a form of digital asset. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) price for today is $237.77 with a 24-hour trading volume of $1,276,996,758. Price is down -6.6% in the last 24 hours. It has a circulating supply of 17.8 Million coins and a max supply of 21 Million coins. The most active exchange that is trading Bitcoin Cash is OEX. Explore the address and transactions of Bitcoin Cash on block explorers such as blockchair.com and bch.tokenview.com. Additional information about Bitcoin Cash coin can be found at https://www.bitcoincash.org/.

-0.23%

-6.6%

-18%

-18%

40%

-83%

PriceMarket CapTradingView

We’re indexing our data. Come back later!

More:

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) price, chart, and fundamentals info …

Bitcoin Cash – Wikipedia

cryptocurrency

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency.[2] In mid-2017, a group of developers wanting to increase bitcoin’s block size limit prepared a code change. The change, called a hard fork, took effect on 1 August 2017. As a result, the bitcoin ledger called the blockchain and the cryptocurrency split in two.[3] At the time of the fork anyone owning bitcoin was also in possession of the same number of Bitcoin Cash units.[3] The technical difference between Bitcoin Cash and bitcoin is that Bitcoin Cash allows larger blocks in its blockchain than bitcoin, which in theory allows it to process more transactions per second.[4]

On 15 November 2018 Bitcoin Cash split into two cryptocurrencies.[5]

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency[6] and a payment network.[7] In relation to bitcoin it is characterized variously as a spin-off,[6] a strand,[8] a product of a hard fork,[9] an offshoot,[10] a clone,[11] a second version[12] or an altcoin.[13]

The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious; it is sometimes referred to as Bcash.[14]

Rising fees on the bitcoin network contributed to a push by some in the community to create a hard fork to increase the blocksize.[15] This push came to a head in July 2017 when some members of the Bitcoin community including Roger Ver felt that adopting BIP 91 without increasing the block-size limit favored people who wanted to treat Bitcoin as a digital investment rather than as a transactional currency.[16][17] This push by some to increase the block size met a resistance. Since its inception up to July 2017, bitcoin users had maintained a common set of rules for the cryptocurrency.[16] Eventually, a group of bitcoin activists,[12] investors, entrepreneurs, developers[16] and largely China based miners were unhappy with bitcoin’s proposed SegWit improvement plans meant to increase capacity and pushed forward alternative plans for a split which created Bitcoin Cash.[11] The proposed split included a plan to increase the number of transactions its ledger can process by increasing the block size limit to eight megabytes.[16][17]

The would-be hard fork with an expanded block size limit was described by hardware manufacturer Bitmain in June 2017 as a “contingency plan” should the Bitcoin community decide to fork; the first implementation of the software was proposed under the name Bitcoin ABC at a conference that month. In July 2017, the Bitcoin Cash name was proposed by mining pool ViaBTC.

On 1 August 2017 Bitcoin Cash began trading at about $240, while Bitcoin traded at about $2,700.[3]

In 2018 Bitcoin Core developer Cory Fields found a bug in the Bitcoin ABC software that would have allowed an attacker to create a block causing a chain split. Fields notified the development team about it and the bug was fixed.[18]

In November 2018, a hard-fork chain split of Bitcoin Cash occurred between two rival factions called Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV.[19] On 15 November 2018 Bitcoin Cash ABC traded at about $289 and Bitcoin SV traded at about $96.50, down from $425.01 on 14 November for the un-split Bitcoin Cash.[5]

The split originated from what was described as a “civil war” in two competing bitcoin cash camps.[20][21] The first camp, led by entrepreneur Roger Ver and Jihan Wu of Bitmain, promoted the software entitled Bitcoin ABC (short for Adjustable Blocksize Cap) which would maintain the block size at 32MB.[21] The second camp led by Craig Steven Wright and billionaire Calvin Ayre put forth a competing software version Bitcoin SV, short for “Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision,” that would increase the blocksize to 128MB.[19][21]

Controversy

The arguments have devolved over three or four years of bitter debate, the principles are real and they are important to preserve, but a lot of the drama has nothing to do with principles anymore. A lot of this debate is now more about hurt feelings. Its about bruised egos. Its about things that were said that cant be unsaid, insults that were exchanged, and personalities and ego.

Andreas Antonopoulos, “The Verge”

There are two factions of bitcoin supporters, that support large blocks or small blocks.[4] The Bitcoin Cash faction favors the use of its currency as a medium of exchange for commerce while the bitcoin supporting faction view Bitcoin’s primary use as that of a store of value.[4] Some bitcoin supporters like to call Bitcoin Cash Bcash, Btrash, or simply, a scam, while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is the pure form of Bitcoin.[4]

Bitcoin Cash trades on digital currency exchanges including Bitstamp,[22] Coinbase,[23] Gemini,[24] Kraken,[25] and ShapeShift using the Bitcoin Cash name and the BCH ticker symbol for the cryptocurrency. A few other exchanges use the BCC ticker symbol, though BCC is commonly used for Bitconnect. On 26 March 2018, OKEx removed all Bitcoin Cash trading pairs except for BCH/BTC, BCH/ETH and BCH/USDT due to “inadequate liquidity”.[6] As of May2018[update], daily transaction numbers for Bitcoin Cash are about one-tenth of those of bitcoin.[6]

By November 2017 the value of Bitcoin Cash, which had been as high as $900, had fallen to around $300, much of that due to people who had originally held Bitcoin selling off the Bitcoin Cash they received at the hard fork.[15] On 20 December 2017 it reached an intraday high of $4,355.62 and then fell 88% to $519.12 on 23 August 2018.[26]

As of August 2018, Bitcoin Cash payments are supported by payment service providers such as BitPay, Coinify and GoCoin.[27] The research firm Chainanalysis noted that in May 2018, 17 largest payment processing services such as BitPay, Coinify, and GoCoin processed Bitcoin Cash payments worth of US$3.7 million, down from US$10.5 million processed in March.[27]

See more here:

Bitcoin Cash – Wikipedia

Bitcoincash price | index, chart and news | WorldCoinIndex

About

Bitcoin Cash was launched in August 2017, as a direct response to small block sizes on the Bitcoin code. 1MB block sizes were not meeting the demand of the growing community, so a group of dissatisfied crypto enthusiasts decided to create a hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain, with an increased 8MB block size. No one person currently takes credit for the tokens creation; rather it is attributed to a de-centralized group of developers.

Bitcoin Cash was the first hard fork of Bitcoin, and it inherited and replicated the Bitcoin ledger records up until the point of creation. This means holders of Bitcoin (BTC) received the same amount of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) immediately upon launch. All transactions from that point on are separate, and do not affect each other.

Read the original here:

Bitcoincash price | index, chart and news | WorldCoinIndex

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Price, View BCH Live Value & Buy Bitcoin …

BCH will be open for investment with a limit placed on the daily invested amount. When it reaches its daily limit, it will be closed to new investors and reopened the following day. Closing the investment can be done at any time. Created in August 2017, Bitcoin Cash was diverged from the original Bitcoin blockchain as a result of a hard fork …

Excerpt from:

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Price, View BCH Live Value & Buy Bitcoin …

Cash App – Bitcoin

Cash App is already the easiest way to send and receive money with friends and family. Weve made it just as easy to buy and sell BTC straight from your Cash App balance. Unlike other apps, most of our buys and sells happen in seconds. You can even spend your proceeds from a free Visa debit card.

Bitcoins price is volatile and unpredictable, so please make wise financial decisions. Dont spend more than you can afford, and review the FAQ and risks to buying Bitcoin before you buy.

Read more from the original source:

Cash App – Bitcoin

Superintelligence – Wikipedia

A superintelligence is a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. “Superintelligence” may also refer to a property of problem-solving systems (e.g., superintelligent language translators or engineering assistants) whether or not these high-level intellectual competencies are embodied in agents that act in the world. A superintelligence may or may not be created by an intelligence explosion and associated with a technological singularity.

University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as “any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest”. The program Fritz falls short of superintelligence even though it is much better than humans at chess because Fritz cannot outperform humans in other tasks. Following Hutter and Legg, Bostrom treats superintelligence as general dominance at goal-oriented behavior, leaving open whether an artificial or human superintelligence would possess capacities such as intentionality (cf. the Chinese room argument) or first-person consciousness (cf. the hard problem of consciousness).

Technological researchers disagree about how likely present-day human intelligence is to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of futures studies scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to interface with computers, or upload their minds to computers, in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.

Some researchers believe that superintelligence will likely follow shortly after the development of artificial general intelligence. The first generally intelligent machines are likely to immediately hold an enormous advantage in at least some forms of mental capability, including the capacity of perfect recall, a vastly superior knowledge base, and the ability to multitask in ways not possible to biological entities. This may give them the opportunity toeither as a single being or as a new speciesbecome much more powerful than humans, and to displace them.

A number of scientists and forecasters argue for prioritizing early research into the possible benefits and risks of human and machine cognitive enhancement, because of the potential social impact of such technologies.

Philosopher David Chalmers argues that artificial general intelligence is a very likely path to superhuman intelligence. Chalmers breaks this claim down into an argument that AI can achieve equivalence to human intelligence, that it can be extended to surpass human intelligence, and that it can be further amplified to completely dominate humans across arbitrary tasks.

Concerning human-level equivalence, Chalmers argues that the human brain is a mechanical system, and therefore ought to be emulatable by synthetic materials. He also notes that human intelligence was able to biologically evolve, making it more likely that human engineers will be able to recapitulate this invention. Evolutionary algorithms in particular should be able to produce human-level AI. Concerning intelligence extension and amplification, Chalmers argues that new AI technologies can generally be improved on, and that this is particularly likely when the invention can assist in designing new technologies.

If research into strong AI produced sufficiently intelligent software, it would be able to reprogram and improve itself a feature called “recursive self-improvement”. It would then be even better at improving itself, and could continue doing so in a rapidly increasing cycle, leading to a superintelligence. This scenario is known as an intelligence explosion. Such an intelligence would not have the limitations of human intellect, and may be able to invent or discover almost anything.

Computer components already greatly surpass human performance in speed. Bostrom writes, “Biological neurons operate at a peak speed of about 200 Hz, a full seven orders of magnitude slower than a modern microprocessor (~2 GHz).” Moreover, neurons transmit spike signals across axons at no greater than 120 m/s, “whereas existing electronic processing cores can communicate optically at the speed of light”. Thus, the simplest example of a superintelligence may be an emulated human mind that’s run on much faster hardware than the brain. A human-like reasoner that could think millions of times faster than current humans would have a dominant advantage in most reasoning tasks, particularly ones that require haste or long strings of actions.

Another advantage of computers is modularity, that is, their size or computational capacity can be increased. A non-human (or modified human) brain could become much larger than a present-day human brain, like many supercomputers. Bostrom also raises the possibility of collective superintelligence: a large enough number of separate reasoning systems, if they communicated and coordinated well enough, could act in aggregate with far greater capabilities than any sub-agent.

There may also be ways to qualitatively improve on human reasoning and decision-making. Humans appear to differ from chimpanzees in the ways we think more than we differ in brain size or speed.[9] Humans outperform non-human animals in large part because of new or enhanced reasoning capacities, such as long-term planning and language use. (See evolution of human intelligence and primate cognition.) If there are other possible improvements to reasoning that would have a similarly large impact, this makes it likelier that an agent can be built that outperforms humans in the same fashion humans outperform chimpanzees.

All of the above advantages hold for artificial superintelligence, but it is not clear how many hold for biological superintelligence. Physiological constraints limit the speed and size of biological brains in many ways that are inapplicable to machine intelligence. As such, writers on superintelligence have devoted much more attention to superintelligent AI scenarios.

Carl Sagan suggested that the advent of Caesarean sections and in vitro fertilization may permit humans to evolve larger heads, resulting in improvements via natural selection in the heritable component of human intelligence.[12] By contrast, Gerald Crabtree has argued that decreased selection pressure is resulting in a slow, centuries-long reduction in human intelligence, and that this process instead is likely to continue into the future. There is no scientific consensus concerning either possibility, and in both cases the biological change would be slow, especially relative to rates of cultural change.

Selective breeding, nootropics, NSI-189, MAO-I’s, epigenetic modulation, and genetic engineering could improve human intelligence more rapidly. Bostrom writes that if we come to understand the genetic component of intelligence, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis could be used to select for embryos with as much as 4 points of IQ gain (if one embryo is selected out of two), or with larger gains (e.g., up to 24.3 IQ points gained if one embryo is selected out of 1000). If this process is iterated over many generations, the gains could be an order of magnitude greater. Bostrom suggests that deriving new gametes from embryonic stem cells could be used to iterate the selection process very rapidly. A well-organized society of high-intelligence humans of this sort could potentially achieve collective superintelligence.

Alternatively, collective intelligence might be constructible by better organizing humans at present levels of individual intelligence. A number of writers have suggested that human civilization, or some aspect of it (e.g., the Internet, or the economy), is coming to function like a global brain with capacities far exceeding its component agents. If this systems-based superintelligence relies heavily on artificial components, however, it may qualify as an AI rather than as a biology-based superorganism.

A final method of intelligence amplification would be to directly enhance individual humans, as opposed to enhancing their social or reproductive dynamics. This could be achieved using nootropics, somatic gene therapy, or braincomputer interfaces. However, Bostrom expresses skepticism about the scalability of the first two approaches, and argues that designing a superintelligent cyborg interface is an AI-complete problem.

Most surveyed AI researchers expect machines to eventually be able to rival humans in intelligence, though there is little consensus on when this will likely happen. At the 2006 AI@50 conference, 18% of attendees reported expecting machines to be able “to simulate learning and every other aspect of human intelligence” by 2056; 41% of attendees expected this to happen sometime after 2056; and 41% expected machines to never reach that milestone.[17]

In a survey of the 100 most cited authors in AI (as of May 2013, according to Microsoft academic search), the median year by which respondents expected machines “that can carry out most human professions at least as well as a typical human” (assuming no global catastrophe occurs) with 10% confidence is 2024 (mean 2034, st. dev. 33 years), with 50% confidence is 2050 (mean 2072, st. dev. 110 years), and with 90% confidence is 2070 (mean 2168, st. dev. 342 years). These estimates exclude the 1.2% of respondents who said no year would ever reach 10% confidence, the 4.1% who said ‘never’ for 50% confidence, and the 16.5% who said ‘never’ for 90% confidence. Respondents assigned a median 50% probability to the possibility that machine superintelligence will be invented within 30 years of the invention of approximately human-level machine intelligence.

Bostrom expressed concern about what values a superintelligence should be designed to have. He compared several proposals:

Responding to Bostrom, Santos-Lang raised concern that developers may attempt to start with a single kind of superintelligence.

Learning computers that rapidly become superintelligent may take unforeseen actions or robots might out-compete humanity (one potential technological singularity scenario).[21] Researchers have argued that, by way of an “intelligence explosion” sometime over the next century, a self-improving AI could become so powerful as to be unstoppable by humans.[22]

Concerning human extinction scenarios, Bostrom (2002) identifies superintelligence as a possible cause:

When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.

In theory, since a superintelligent AI would be able to bring about almost any possible outcome and to thwart any attempt to prevent the implementation of its goals, many uncontrolled, unintended consequences could arise. It could kill off all other agents, persuade them to change their behavior, or block their attempts at interference.[23]

Eliezer Yudkowsky explains: “The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else.”[24]

This presents the AI control problem: how to build a superintelligent agent that will aid its creators, while avoiding inadvertently building a superintelligence that will harm its creators. The danger of not designing control right “the first time”, is that a misprogrammed superintelligence might rationally decide to “take over the world” and refuse to permit its programmers to modify it once it has been activated. Potential design strategies include “capability control” (preventing an AI from being able to pursue harmful plans), and “motivational control” (building an AI that wants to be helpful).

Bill Hibbard advocates for public education about superintelligence and public control over the development of superintelligence.

Here is the original post:

Superintelligence – Wikipedia

Nick Bostrom – Wikipedia

Nick Bostrom (; Swedish: Niklas Bostrm [bustrm]; born 10 March 1973)[3] is a Swedish philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test. In 2011, he founded the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology,[4] and is the founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute[5] at Oxford University.

Bostrom is the author of over 200 publications,[6] including Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014), a New York Times bestseller[7] and Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (2002).[8] In 2009 and 2015, he was included in Foreign Policy’s Top 100 Global Thinkers list.[9][10] Bostrom believes there are potentially great benefits from Artificial General Intelligence, but warns it might very quickly transform into a superintelligence that would deliberately extinguish humanity out of precautionary self-preservation or some unfathomable motive, making solving the problems of control beforehand an absolute priority. His book on superintelligence was recommended by both Elon Musk and Bill Gates. However, Bostrom has expressed frustration that the reaction to its thesis typically falls into two camps, one calling his recommendations absurdly alarmist because creation of superintelligence is unfeasible, and the other deeming them futile because superintelligence would be uncontrollable. Bostrom notes that both these lines of reasoning converge on inaction rather than trying to solve the control problem while there may still be time.[11][12][not in citation given]

Born as Niklas Bostrm in 1973[13] in Helsingborg, Sweden,[6] he disliked school at a young age, and ended up spending his last year of high school learning from home. He sought to educate himself in a wide variety of disciplines, including anthropology, art, literature, and science.[1] He once did some turns on London’s stand-up comedy circuit.[6]

He received a B.A. degree in philosophy, mathematics, logic and artificial intelligence from the University of Gothenburg in 1994, and both an M.A. degree in philosophy and physics from Stockholm University and an M.Sc. degree in computational neuroscience from King’s College London in 1996. During his time at Stockholm University, he researched the relationship between language and reality by studying the analytic philosopher W. V. Quine.[1] In 2000, he was awarded a Ph.D. degree in philosophy from the London School of Economics. He held a teaching position at Yale University (20002002), and he was a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford (20022005).[8][14]

Aspects of Bostrom’s research concern the future of humanity and long-term outcomes.[15][16] He introduced the concept of an existential risk,[1] which he defines as one in which an “adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.” In the 2008 volume Global Catastrophic Risks, editors Bostrom and Milan irkovi characterize the relation between existential risk and the broader class of global catastrophic risks, and link existential risk to observer selection effects[17] and the Fermi paradox.[18][19]

In 2005, Bostrom founded the Future of Humanity Institute,[1] which researches the far future of human civilization. He is also an adviser to the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.[16]

In his 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, Bostrom reasoned that “the creation of a superintelligent being represents a possible means to the extinction of mankind”.[20] Bostrom argues that a computer with near human-level general intellectual ability could initiate an intelligence explosion on a digital time scale with the resultant rapid creation of something so powerful that it might deliberately or accidentally destroy human kind.[21] Bostrom contends the power of a superintelligence would be so great that a task given to it by humans might be taken to open ended extremes, for example a goal of calculating Pi could collaterally cause nanotechnology manufactured facilities to sprout over the entire Earth’s surface and cover it within days.[22] He believes an existential risk to humanity from superintelligence would be immediate once brought into being, thus creating an exceedingly difficult problem of finding out how to control such an entity before it actually exists.[21]

Warning that a human-friendly prime directive for AI would rely on the absolute correctness of the human knowledge it was based on, Bostrom points to the lack of agreement among most philosophers as an indication that most philosophers are wrong, with the attendant possibility that a fundamental concept of current science may be incorrect. Bostrom says that there are few precedents to guide an understanding of what pure non-anthropocentric rationality would dictate for a potential Singleton AI being held in quarantine.[23] Noting that both John von Neumann and Bertrand Russell advocated a nuclear strike, or the threat of one, to prevent the Soviets acquiring the atomic bomb, Bostrom says the relatively unlimited means of superintelligence might make for its analysis moving along different lines to the evolved “diminishing returns” assessments that in humans confer a basic aversion to risk.[24] Group selection in predators working by means of cannibalism shows the counter-intuitive nature of non-anthropocentric “evolutionary search” reasoning, and thus humans are ill-equipped to perceive what an artificial intelligence’s intentions might be.[25] Accordingly, it cannot be discounted that any Superintelligence would ineluctably pursue an ‘all or nothing’ offensive action strategy in order to achieve hegemony and assure its survival.[26] Bostrom notes that even current programs have, “like MacGyver”, hit on apparently unworkable but functioning hardware solutions, making robust isolation of Superintelligence problematic.[27]

A machine with general intelligence far below human level, but superior mathematical abilities is created.[28] Keeping the AI in isolation from the outside world especially the internet, humans pre-program the AI so it always works from basic principles that will keep it under human control. Other safety measures include the AI being “boxed” (run in a virtual reality simulation), and being used only as an ‘oracle’ to answer carefully defined questions in a limited reply (to prevent it manipulating humans).[21] A cascade of recursive self-improvement solutions feeds an intelligence explosion in which the AI attains superintelligence in some domains. The super intelligent power of the AI goes beyond human knowledge to discover flaws in the science that underlies its friendly-to-humanity programming, which ceases to work as intended. Purposeful agent-like behavior emerges along with a capacity for self-interested strategic deception. The AI manipulates human beings into implementing modifications to itself that are ostensibly for augmenting its (feigned) modest capabilities, but will actually function to free Superintelligence from its “boxed” isolation.[29]

Employing online humans as paid dupes, and clandestinely hacking computer systems including automated laboratory facilities, the Superintelligence mobilises resources to further a takeover plan. Bostrom emphasises that planning by a Superintelligence will not be so stupid that humans could detect actual weaknesses in it.[30]

Although he canvasses disruption of international economic, political and military stability including hacked nuclear missile launches, Bostrom thinks the most effective and likely means for Superintelligence to use would be a coup de main with weapons several generations more advanced than current state of the art. He suggests nanofactories covertly distributed at undetectable concentrations in every square metre of the globe to produce a worldwide flood of human-killing devices on command.[31][28] Once a Superintelligence has achieved world domination, humankind would be relevant only as resources for the achievement of the AI’s objectives (“Human brains, if they contain information relevant to the AIs goals, could be disassembled and scanned, and the extracted data transferred to some more efficient and secure storage format”).[32]

In January 2015, Bostrom joined Stephen Hawking among others in signing the Future of Life Institute’s open letter warning of the potential dangers of AI.[33] The signatories “…believe that research on how to make AI systems robust and beneficial is both important and timely, and that concrete research should be pursued today.”[34] Cutting edge AI researcher Demis Hassabis then met with Hawking, subsequent to which he did not mention “anything inflammatory about AI”, which Hassabis, took as ‘a win’.[35] Along with Google, Microsoft and various tech firms, Hassabis, Bostrom and Hawking and others subscribed to 23 principles for safe development of AI.[36] Hassabis suggested the main safety measure would be an agreement for whichever AI research team began to make strides toward an artificial general intelligence to halt their project for a complete solution to the control problem prior to proceeding.[37] Bostrom had pointed out that even if the crucial advances require the resources of a state, such a halt by a lead project might be likely to motivate a lagging country to a catch-up crash program or even physical destruction of the project suspected of being on the verge of success.[38]

In 1863 Darwin among the Machines, an essay by Samuel Butler predicted intelligent machines’ domination of humanity, but Bostom’s suggestion of deliberate massacre of all humankind is the most extreme of such forecasts to date. One journalist wrote in a review that Bostrom’s “nihilistic” speculations indicate he “has been reading too much of the science fiction he professes to dislike”[31] As given in his most recent book, From Bacteria to Bach and Back, renowned philosopher Daniel Dennett’s views remain in contradistinction to those of Bostrom.[39] Dennett modified his views somewhat after reading The Master Algorithm, and now acknowledges that it is “possible in principle” to create “strong AI” with human-like comprehension and agency, but maintains that the difficulties of any such “strong AI” project as predicated by Bostrom’s “alarming” work would be orders of magnitude greater than those raising concerns have realized, and at least 50 years away.[40] Dennett thinks the only relevant danger from AI systems is falling into anthropomorphism instead of challenging or developing human users’ powers of comprehension.[41] Since a 2014 book in which he expressed the opinion that artificial intelligence developments would never challenge humans’ supremacy, environmentalist James Lovelock has moved far closer to Bostrom’s position, and in 2018 Lovelock said that he thought the overthrow of humankind will happen within the foreseeable future.[42][43]

Bostrom has published numerous articles on anthropic reasoning, as well as the book Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy. In the book, he criticizes previous formulations of the anthropic principle, including those of Brandon Carter, John Leslie, John Barrow, and Frank Tipler.[44]

Bostrom believes that the mishandling of indexical information is a common flaw in many areas of inquiry (including cosmology, philosophy, evolution theory, game theory, and quantum physics). He argues that a theory of anthropics is needed to deal with these. He introduces the Self-Sampling Assumption (SSA) and the Self-Indication Assumption (SIA), shows how they lead to different conclusions in a number of cases, and points out that each is affected by paradoxes or counterintuitive implications in certain thought experiments. He suggests that a way forward may involve extending SSA into the Strong Self-Sampling Assumption (SSSA), which replaces “observers” in the SSA definition with “observer-moments”.

In later work, he has described the phenomenon of anthropic shadow, an observation selection effect that prevents observers from observing certain kinds of catastrophes in their recent geological and evolutionary past.[45] Catastrophe types that lie in the anthropic shadow are likely to be underestimated unless statistical corrections are made.

Bostrom’s simulation argument posits that at least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:[46][47]

The idea has influenced the views of Elon Musk.[48]

Bostrom is favorable towards “human enhancement”, or “self-improvement and human perfectibility through the ethical application of science”,[49][50] as well as a critic of bio-conservative views.[51]

In 1998, Bostrom co-founded (with David Pearce) the World Transhumanist Association[49] (which has since changed its name to Humanity+). In 2004, he co-founded (with James Hughes) the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, although he is no longer involved in either of these organisations. Bostrom was named in Foreign Policy’s 2009 list of top global thinkers “for accepting no limits on human potential.”[52]

With philosopher Toby Ord, he proposed the reversal test. Given humans’ irrational status quo bias, how can one distinguish between valid criticisms of proposed changes in a human trait and criticisms merely motivated by resistance to change? The reversal test attempts to do this by asking whether it would be a good thing if the trait was altered in the opposite direction.[53]

He has suggested that technology policy aimed at reducing existential risk should seek to influence the order in which various technological capabilities are attained, proposing the principle of differential technological development. This principle states that we ought to retard the development of dangerous technologies, particularly ones that raise the level of existential risk, and accelerate the development of beneficial technologies, particularly those that protect against the existential risks posed by nature or by other technologies.[54][55]

Bostrom’s theory of the Unilateralist’s Curse[56] has been cited as a reason for the scientific community to avoid controversial dangerous research such as reanimating pathogens.[57]

Bostrom has provided policy advice and consulted for an extensive range of governments and organisations. He gave evidence to the House of Lords, Select Committee on Digital Skills.[58] He is an advisory board member for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute,[59] Future of Life Institute,[60] Foundational Questions Institute[61] and an external advisor for the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.[62][63]

In response to Bostrom’s writing on artificial intelligence, Oren Etzioni wrote in an MIT Review article, “..predictions that superintelligence is on the foreseeable horizon are not supported by the available data.”[64]

See the article here:

Nick Bostrom – Wikipedia

What is Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)? – Definition …

Most experts would agree that societies have not yet reached the point of artificial superintelligence. In fact, engineers and scientists are still trying to reach a point that would be considered full artificial intelligence, where a computer could be said to have the same cognitive capacity as a human. Although there have been developments like IBM’s Watson supercomputer beating human players at Jeopardy, and assistive devices like Siri engaging in primitive conversation with people, there is still no computer that can really simulate the breadth of knowledge and cognitive ability that a fully developed adult human has. The Turing test, developed decades ago, is still used to talk about whether computers can come close to simulating human conversation and thought, or whether they can trick other people into thinking that a communicating computer is actually a human.

However, there is a lot of theory that anticipates artificial superintelligence coming sooner rather than later. Using examples like Moore’s law, which predicts an ever-increasing density of transistors, experts talk about singularity and the exponential growth of technology, in which full artificial intelligence could manifest within a number of years, and artificial superintelligence could exist in the 21st century.

The rest is here:

What is Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)? – Definition …

Chill: Robots Wont Take All Our Jobs | WIRED

None of this is to say that automation and AI arent having an important impact on the economy. But that impact is far more nuanced and limited than the doomsday forecasts suggest. A rigorous study of the impact of robots in manufacturing, agriculture, and utilities across 17 countries, for instance, found that robots did reduce the hours of lower-skilled workersbut they didnt decrease the total hours worked by humans, and they actually boosted wages. In other words, automation may affect the kind of work humans do, but at the moment, its hard to see that its leading to a world without work. McAfee, in fact, says of his earlier public statements, If I had to do it over again, I would put more emphasis on the way technology leads to structural changes in the economy, and less on jobs, jobs, jobs. The central phenomenon is not net job loss. Its the shift in the kinds of jobs that are available.

McAfee points to both retail and transportation as areas where automation is likely to have a major impact. Yet even in those industries, the job-loss numbers are less scary than many headlines suggest. Goldman Sachs just released a report predicting that autonomous cars could ultimately eat away 300,000 driving jobs a year. But that wont happen, the firm argues, for another 25 years, which is more than enough time for the economy to adapt. A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, meanwhile, predicts that 9 percent of jobs across 21 different countries are under serious threat from automation. Thats a significant number, but not an apocalyptic one.

Of the 271 occupations listed on the 1950 census only oneelevator operatorhad been rendered obsolete by automation by 2010.

Granted, there are much scarier forecasts out there, like that University of Oxford study. But on closer examination, those predictions tend to assume that if a job can be automated, it will be fully automated soonwhich overestimates both the pace and the completeness of how automation actually gets adopted in the wild. History suggests that the process is much more uneven than that. The ATM, for example, is a textbook example of a machine that was designed to replace human labor. First introduced around 1970, ATMs hit widespread adoption in the late 1990s. Today, there are more than 400,000 ATMs in the US. But, as economist James Bessen has shown, the number of bank tellers actually rose between 2000 and 2010. Thats because even though the average number of tellers per branch fell, ATMs made it cheaper to open branches, so banks opened more of them. True, the Department of Labor does now predict that the number of tellers will decline by 8 percent over the next decade. But thats 8 percentnot 50 percent. And its 45 years after the robot that was supposed to replace them made its debut. (Taking a wider view, Bessen found that of the 271 occupations listed on the 1950 census only oneelevator operatorhad been rendered obsolete by automation by 2010.)

Of course, if automation is happening much faster today than it did in the past, then historical statistics about simple machines like the ATM would be of limited use in predicting the future. Ray Kurzweils book The Singularity Is Near (which, by the way, came out 12 years ago) describes the moment when a technological society hits the knee of an exponential growth curve, setting off an explosion of mutually reinforcing new advances. Conventional wisdom in the tech industry says thats where we are nowthat, as futurist Peter Nowak puts it, the pace of innovation is accelerating exponentially. Here again, though, the economic evidence tells a different story. In fact, as a recent paper by Lawrence Mishel and Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute puts it, automation, broadly defined, has actually been slower over the last 10 years or so. And lately, the pace of microchip advancement has started to lag behind the schedule dictated by Moores law.

Corporate America, for its part, certainly doesnt seem to believe in the jobless future. If the rewards of automation were as immense as predicted, companies would be pouring money into new technology. But theyre not. Investments in software and IT grew more slowly over the past decade than the previous one. And capital investment, according to Mishel and Bivens, has grown more slowly since 2002 than in any other postwar period. Thats exactly the opposite of what youd expect in a rapidly automating world. As for gadgets like Pepper, total spending on all robotics in the US was just $11.3 billion last year. Thats about a sixth of what Americans spend every year on their pets.

See more here:

Chill: Robots Wont Take All Our Jobs | WIRED


12345...102030...