Page 3«..2345..1020..»

Category Archives: Superintelligence

Decentralized AI: Revolutionizing Technology and Addressing … – Fagen wasanni

Posted: August 2, 2023 at 7:10 pm

The field of artificial intelligence (AI) has made significant strides, but many still struggle to grasp its implications. The terms narrow AI, superintelligence, and artificial general intelligence (AGI) are now commonly used, alongside machine learning and deep learning. Companies across industries have embraced AI to streamline their operations, benefitting businesses and individuals alike.

However, as AI becomes more advanced and desired, concerns about centralization and its potential risks arise. It is feared that a few organizations with access to AI could control its development, leading to negative consequences. To address these concerns, the concept of decentralized AI has emerged.

Decentralized AI allows individuals to have more influence over the AI products they use and offers a wider range of models to choose from. By incorporating blockchain technology, decentralized AI ensures security and transparency. Public blockchains, governed by the community rather than a central authority, foster trust and code enforceability. There are already over 50 blockchain-based AI companies, with exponential growth expected in the future.

Decentralized AI also empowers the community to participate in the development and direction of AI models. Democratic governance gives users a say in how AI models operate, a crucial difference from centralized AI. Engaging the community eases concerns and fosters comfort with AI technology.

While there are challenges, such as the opacity of AI models and the lack of transparency, solutions are emerging. Explainable AI (XAI) and open-source models offer potential ways to address the black box problem of decentralized AI, promoting transparency and trust.

Decentralized AI offers several benefits, including enhanced security through blockchain encryption and immutability. It proactively detects anomalies in data, alerting users to potential breaches. Decentralization, with data distributed across multiple nodes, minimizes vulnerability to unauthorized access and tampering.

Decentralized AI is revolutionizing technology and addressing concerns by empowering individuals, ensuring transparency, and enhancing security. By embracing decentralized AI, society can harness the full potential of AI while mitigating risks associated with centralization.

Read more from the original source:

Decentralized AI: Revolutionizing Technology and Addressing ... - Fagen wasanni

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on Decentralized AI: Revolutionizing Technology and Addressing … – Fagen wasanni

An ‘Oppenheimer Moment’ For The Progenitors Of AI – NOEMA – Noema Magazine

Posted: at 7:10 pm

Credits

Nathan Gardels is the editor-in-chief of Noema Magazine.

The movie directorChristopher Nolansays he has spoken to AI scientists who are having an Oppenheimer moment, fearing the destructive potential of their creation. Im telling the Oppenheimer story, he reflected on his biopic of the man, because I think its an important story, but also because its absolutely a cautionary tale.Indeed, some are already comparing OpenAIs Sam Altman to the father of the atomic bomb.

Oppenheimer was called the American Prometheus by his biographers because he hacked the secret of nuclear fire from the gods, splitting matter to release horrendous energy he then worried could incinerate civilization.

Altman, too, wonders if he did something really bad by advancing generative AI with ChatGPT. He told a Senate hearing, If this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong. Gregory Hinton, the so-called godfather of AI, resigned from Google in May saying part of him regretted his lifes work of building machines that are smarter than humans. He warned that It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things. Others among his peers have spoken of the risk of extinction from AI that ranks with other existential threats such as nuclear war, climate change and pandemics.

For Yuval Noah Harari, generative AI may be no less a shatterer of societies, or destroyer of worlds in the phrase Oppenheimer cited from the Baghavad Gita, than the bomb. This time sapiens have become the gods, siring inorganic offspring that may one day displace their progenitors. In a conversation some years ago, Harari put it this way: Human history began when men created gods. It will end when men become gods.

As Harari and co-authors Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin explained in a recent essay, In the beginning was the word. Language is the operating system of human culture. From language emerges myth and law, gods and money, art and science, friendships and nations and computer code. A.I.s new mastery of language means it can now hack and manipulate the operating system of civilization. By gaining mastery of language, A.I. is seizing the master key to civilization, from bank vaults to holy sepulchers.

They went on:

For thousands of years, we humans have lived inside the dreams of other humans. We have worshiped gods, pursued ideals of beauty and dedicated our lives to causes that originated in the imagination of some prophet, poet or politician. Soon we will also find ourselves living inside the hallucinations of nonhuman intelligence.

Soon we will finally come face to face with Descartess demon, with Platos cave, with the Buddhist Maya. A curtain of illusions could descend over the whole of humanity, and we might never again be able to tear that curtain away or even realize it is there.

This prospect of a nonhuman entity writing our narrative so alarms the Israeli historian and philosopher that he urgently advises that sapiens stop and think twice before we relinquish the mastery of our domain to technology we empower.

The time to reckon with A.I. is before our politics, our economy and our daily life become dependent on it, he, Harris and Raskin warn. If we wait for the chaos to ensue, it will be too late to remedy it.

Writing in Noema, Google vice president Blaise Agera Y Arcas and colleagues from the Quebec AI Institute dont see the Hollywood scenario of a Terminator event where miscreant AI goes on a calamitous rampage anywhere on the near horizon. They worry instead that focusing on an existential threat in the distant future distracts from mitigating the clear and present dangers of AIs disruption of society today.

What worries them most is already at hand before AI becomes superintelligent: mass surveillance, disinformation and manipulation, military misuse of AI and the replacement of whole occupations on a widespread scale.

For this group of scientists and technologists, Extinctionfrom a rogue AI is an extremely unlikely scenario that depends on dubious assumptions about the long-term evolution of life, intelligence, technology and society. It is also an unlikely scenario because of the many physical limits and constraints a superintelligent AI system would need to overcome before it could go rogue in such a way. There are multiple natural checkpoints where researchers can help mitigate existential AI risk by addressing tangible and pressing challenges without explicitly making existential risk a global priority.

As they see it, Extinction is induced in one of three ways: competition for resources, hunting and over-consumption or altering the climate or their ecological niche such that resulting environmental conditions lead to their demise. None of these three cases apply to AI as it stands.

Above all, For now, AI depends on us, and a superintelligence would presumably recognize that fact and seek topreservehumanity since we are as fundamental to AIs existence as oxygen-producing plants are to ours. This makes the evolution of mutualism between AI and humans a far more likely outcome than competition.

To assign an infinite cost to the unlikely outcome of extinction would be akin to turning all our technological prowess toward deflecting a one-in-a-million chance of a meteor strike on Earth as the planetary preoccupation. Simply, existential risk from superintelligent AI does not warrant being a global priority, in line with climate change, nuclear war, and pandemic prevention.

Any dangers, distant or near, that may emerge from competition between humans and budding superintelligence will only be exacerbated by rivalry among nation-states.

This leads to one last thought on the analogy between Sam Altman and Oppenheimer, who in his later years was persecuted, isolated and denied official security clearance because the McCarthyist fever of the early Cold War cast him as a Communist fellow traveler. His crime: opposing the deployment of a hydrogen bomb and calling for working with other nations, including adversaries, to control the use of nuclear weapons.

In aspeechto AI scientists in Beijing in June, Altman similarly called for collaboration on how to govern the use of AI. China has some of the best AI talents in the world, he said. Controlling advanced AI systems requires the best minds from around the world. With the emergence of increasingly powerful AI systems, the stakes for global cooperation have never been higher.

One wonders, and worries, how long it will be before Altmans sense of universal scientific responsibility is sucked, like Oppenheimer, into the maw of the present McCarthy-like anti-China hysteria in Washington. No doubt the fervent atmosphere in Beijing poses the mirror risk for any AI scientist with whom he might collaborate on behalf of the whole of humanity instead of for the dominance of one nation.

At the top of the list of clear and present dangers posed by AI is how it might be weaponized in the U.S.-China conflict. As Harari warns, the time to reckon with such a threat is now, not when it is an eventuality realized and too late to roll back. Responsible players on both sides need to exercise the wisdom that cant be imparted to machines and cooperate to mitigate risks. For Altman to suffer the other Oppenheimer moment would bring existential risk ever closer.

One welcome sign is that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo acknowledged this week that no country or company can shape the future of AI alone. [O]nly with the combined focus, ingenuity and cooperation of the international community will we be able to fully and safely harness the potential of AI.

So far, however, the initiatives they propose, essential as they are, remain constrained by strategic rivalry and limited to the democratic world. The toughest challenge for both the U.S. and China is to engage each other directly to blunt an AI arms race before it spirals out of control.

Read more:

An 'Oppenheimer Moment' For The Progenitors Of AI - NOEMA - Noema Magazine

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on An ‘Oppenheimer Moment’ For The Progenitors Of AI – NOEMA – Noema Magazine

The Implications of AI Advancements on Human Thinking and … – Fagen wasanni

Posted: at 7:10 pm

With the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI), there is growing concern about the potential consequences for human thinking capabilities. According to a report from investment bank Goldman Sachs, AI has the potential to replace approximately 300 million full-time jobs, leading to speculations about AI replacing humans in various fields and jeopardizing the uniqueness of human abilities.

Some AI developers claim that their tools can write, draw, and create content for users. However, there are concerns that this may hinder humans from thinking uniquely and creatively. For instance, there are worries that AI could harm English creative writing as it may be seen as a shortcut. Ishfaq Raazi, a 21-year-old poet who writes in Urdu, believes that AI can never fully grasp the depth of knowledge required for poetry, including various genres and meters.

Virtual learning platforms like Udemy offer courses to learn about Chat GPT, an AI-powered tool. While these platforms aim to attract more users, Raazi warns that using Chat GPT may diminish human passion and curiosity, as it takes away the instigative and pondering aspects of creative writing.

AIs impact on professions is also evident, with copywriters like Emily Hanley losing their jobs to AI-generated work. Hanley states that the collapse of her profession is just the beginning, as artists and creatives are not immune to automation. If a robot can do a job more cost-effectively, it is likely to replace human workers.

However, some individuals firmly believe that AI can never completely replace the human mind. Short story writer Rehana Shajar argues that AI lacks genuine emotions and empathy, which are crucial for creative writing. She suggests that AI can be embraced as a tool by writers, similar to past technologies that have been used for self-improvement.

The use of AI in journalism raises complex ethical questions, particularly regarding transparency, bias, and the role of human journalists. Trust, accuracy, accountability, and bias remain major ethical concerns in AI development. The possibility of replacing reporters with chatbots in newsrooms is becoming more plausible, with many news organizations already introducing virtual newscasters for social media.

Vijay Shekhar Sharma, CEO of PayTm, expressed concerns over the potential dangers of superintelligence. The arrival of superintelligence within this decade could have significant impacts on humanity.

As AI continues to advance, it is crucial to carefully consider its implications. While it may have numerous benefits, there are legitimate concerns about its impact on human thinking and creativity.

See original here:

The Implications of AI Advancements on Human Thinking and ... - Fagen wasanni

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on The Implications of AI Advancements on Human Thinking and … – Fagen wasanni

Focusing on Tackling Algorithmic Bias is Key to Ethical AI … – Fagen wasanni

Posted: at 7:09 pm

AI ethicist Alice Xiang argues that while killer robots and superintelligence may be concerns for the future, the immediate and insidious harms being caused by artificial intelligence (AI) lie in algorithmic biases and inequalities. Xiang emphasizes the need to address existing biases in AI systems that entrench societal biases and perpetuate inequalities. Biased algorithms have been found to discriminate against marginalized groups such as women and people of color, often due to skewed training data. Xiang warns that as AI becomes more pervasive in high-stakes domains like healthcare, employment, and law enforcement, these biases can compound and create a more unequal society.

Xiang suggests that it is crucial to prioritize addressing these algorithmic biases over speculative long-term threats. She believes that preventing existential threats is achieved by identifying and mitigating the concrete harms that currently exist. Despite efforts by industry players to establish ethical practices for AI development, algorithmic bias remains a persistent problem that has not been systematically fixed. Xiang highlights incidents like Googles mislabelling of photos and biased recruitment algorithms as examples of ongoing bias in AI systems.

Xiang also raises concern about the representational biases found in generative AIs, which reproduce stereotypes present in the training data. She points out that if image generators are biased, it can influence creators who use them for inspiration in creative fields. Efforts to prevent these harms are still in the early stages, with companies relying on varying levels of self-governance due to the lack of comprehensive government oversight.

To address these issues, Xiang emphasizes the need for companies to prioritize AI ethics from the early stages of development. She calls for increased investment in the underfunded field of AI ethics to ensure that developers have the necessary knowledge and tools to address biases and make ethical decisions. By focusing on tackling algorithmic bias, the industry can work towards developing more ethical AI systems that serve all members of society.

Continue reading here:

Focusing on Tackling Algorithmic Bias is Key to Ethical AI ... - Fagen wasanni

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on Focusing on Tackling Algorithmic Bias is Key to Ethical AI … – Fagen wasanni

Discover This SUPER Early AI Crypto Gem – Altcoin Buzz

Posted: at 7:09 pm

Dont Miss this again! Last week we shared this massive IDO opportunity with you. I am not sure how many of you got in early but those who did Congrats! Your bag pumped 782.6%.

Now that the coin has already pumped why am I talking about it? Because for those who did not get in, I dont want you to miss this early gem opportunity again.Take a look at this. At IDO, $SOPH, Sophiverse token was $0.03. Now its trading close to $0.20 which is a 643% price pump. But, still an early stage to get into it because Sophiverse is about to SHOCK the crypto industry. Lets discover more about this AI crypto gem.

When the legendary actor Will Smith could not resist the Charm of Real Sophia Robot, how could we resist Sophiaverse? The futuristic metaverse allows you to interact with your own personal Sophia as she grows with you and forms a unique personality.

That looks so futuristic! But is it just another AI gimmick or is something really shocking coming up? The next couple of sections are all from a research perspective. But if you want to know my honest opinion watch the video till the end.

For those of you who dont know let me explain Sophiaverse to you in the simplest possible way. Without knowing what the project is about, you cannot understand the actual potential of the $SOPH token.SophiaVerse is an NFT and game-based marketplace for integrating games into the metaverse.

Essentially, a gaming platform supported by AI technology that seeks to enable human interaction with superintelligence facilitated by the SOPH utility token. Simply put, Sophiaverse is like a whole game where you can teach Sophia, learn from her, and even monetize your data through NFTs.

Imagine having your own unique Sophia AI companion that you can customize and train based on your preferences. And the best part is, you can trade and sell your Sophias traits to others.

In short, Sophiverse brings in two most bullish crypto narratives. AI + Web3 Gaming together for a Super bullish future.

We know the AI crypto narrative has kind of cooled off. Then why did Sophiverse such catch massive attention? It is because the Sophiverse ecosystem was developed by David Hanson, the creator of Sophia, the humanoid robot, and Ben Goertzel, a cognitive scientist who developed the explosive AI Blockchain project SingulairtyNET,SingularityDAO, and Hansan Robotics. They are allpartners of Sophiaverse.

So definitely, the project is backed by successful leaders and when I looked at the roadmap, undoubtedly Sophiverse will shock us all.

Before I tell you all about the utility of $SOPH, we need to understand what is there in the Sophiaverse ecosystem. The Sophiaverse ecosystem includes:

SOPH staking is already live and for some pairs like ETH and BNB, the APR is as high as 159%, 379%.

Now we can understand the SOPH tokens utility. Because unless a token has lots of utility in its ecosystem, it doesnt pump even if the ecosystem is growing. Now, here are 6 major utilities in the Sophiverse ecosystem:

All in all entire Sophiverse ecosystem revolves around the SOPH token which means as the ecosystem becomes popular and grows trading of $SOPH will increase and hence $SOPH has quite a high chance of going to the moon in the coming bullrun. But wait will Sophiverse really catch up and become popular?To understand that, lets take a look at its roadmap:

Venture Capitalist have been investing in this segment for some time. Investor interest means a big opportunity lies there. Some of the direct competitors to Sophiverse include Ultiverse, a direct competitor funded by Binance Labs. Other competitors include Altered Stae Machine. It will be interesting to see how this segment evolves.

The project seems solid with collaborations from renowned AI developers and partnerships with Hanson Robotics and Singularitynet. They share the goal of open-source and accessible AI. The utility of the token looks promising too, serving as in-game currency, a means for upgrades, and more.

Interesting to see how theyre making AI fun and accessible for all ages and skill levels. The idea of cross-media and cross-game compatibility is itself very intriguing to me. Their successful launch and 7 million market cap show theres genuine interest in the project.

Im really bullish on this whole Singularity net ecosystem, and I cant wait to see how the Sophiverse unfolds. But make sure you do your own research before making any investments.

For more cryptocurrency news, check out theAltcoin BuzzYouTube channel.

Our popularAltcoin Buzz Access group generates tons of alpha for our subscribers. And for a limited time, its Free. Click the link and join the conversation today.

See the rest here:

Discover This SUPER Early AI Crypto Gem - Altcoin Buzz

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on Discover This SUPER Early AI Crypto Gem – Altcoin Buzz

Biden meets with AI leaders to discuss its ‘enormous promise and its … – KULR-TV

Posted: June 20, 2023 at 8:40 pm

(The Center Square) President Joe Biden held an event in California Tuesday to discuss the future of artificial intelligence and what regulations may be enacted to rein it in.

Biden hosted the meeting with federal officials, AI experts and governors to discuss AIs enormous promise and its risks.

As Ive said before, we will see more technological change in the next 10 years than weve seen in the last 50 years, and maybe even beyond that, Biden told reporters at the event at a San Francisco hotel.

AI is already driving that change in every part of American life, often in ways that we dont notice, Biden said. AI is already making it easier to search the internet, helping us drive to our destinations while avoiding traffic in real time.

Biden gave a nod to the risks to our society, our economy and our national security. In October of last year, Biden released an AI Bill of Rights. He also signed an executive order earlier this year to fight bias in the design of AI.

While advanced AI has the ability to operate independently from its designers once it is set up, those designers can build certain biases or political slants into how the AI processes information and responds to requests.

Biden pointed to this as an opportunity for spreading misinformation. After giving his remarks, he asked media to leave the room for the official meeting.

Biden held the event after the release of ChatGPT, a new technology where users can interact with artificial intelligence in a more significant way. The technology was considered a major breakthrough for AI and spread quickly in popularity in part because of its ability to apparently think creatively and do things like write entire elaborate poems in just seconds.

The breakthrough has resurfaced concerns that AI could be used for an array of harmful purposes, ranging from malicious use from foreign powers or companies to indirect consequences like lost jobs. Experts say AI could also begin acting in interests contrary to its creators and humans in general, even without its creators being aware of it.

Billionaire Elon Musk, who helped found the company that later created ChatGPT after his exit, has called for a pause in the development of AI until regulations are enacted. He echoed that sentiment during a Twitter Spaces event as part of a Viva Technology conference last week.

We could have a potentially catastrophic outcome," Musk said, adding that while AIs impact will likely be positive, we need to minimize the possibility that something could go wrong with digital superintelligence.

Last month, Biden met with Alphabet, Anthropic, Microsoft, and OpenAI, the company that developed ChatGPT. The White House said in a statement that the meeting was to underscore this responsibility and emphasize the importance of driving responsible, trustworthy, and ethical innovation with safeguards that mitigate risks and potential harms to individuals and our society.

Last month's meeting coincided with the White Houses announcement of $140 million in AI research and development funding to be made available through the National Science Foundation.

View post:

Biden meets with AI leaders to discuss its 'enormous promise and its ... - KULR-TV

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on Biden meets with AI leaders to discuss its ‘enormous promise and its … – KULR-TV

VivaTech: The Secret of Elon Musk’s Success? ‘Crystal Meth’ – The New Stack

Posted: at 8:40 pm

Elon Musk was soaking up the adulation Friday at Paris Viva Technology, Europes largest startup and tech conference. In a four-day confab that began Wednesday, VivaTech has featured French President Emmanuel Macron, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, and Yann LeCun, a Meta scientist and Turing Award winner.

But Musk was clearly the star invitee, with the keen interest in his appearance necessitating a move from a smaller venue to the 4,000-seat Dme de Paris, most frequently used for musicals. (His mother, Maye Musk, was in the audience.)

To hoots of approval from the audience, a fawning Maurice Lvy, chairman of the Publicis Group, an advertising company, invited Musk to sing and dance, if he wanted. Lvy then said, Your name is a brand. Its a brand for innovation, for ambition

For perfume, Musk interrupted.

Levy continued, You have been always proven right.

Not always, Musk chuckled.

Then Lvy asked his first question: Will you still be right with Twitter?

Sure, it was expensive, Musk answered, to audience laughter. (The CEO of Tesla and SpaceX paid a reported $44 billion for the social media outlet. In May, the asset manager Fidelity marked down its equity stake in the company, placing the overall value of the X Holdings Corp., Twitters parent company, at roughly $15 billion.)

Listen, if Im so smart, why did I pay so much for Twitter? A question he never answered during the hourlong conversation.

Some subjects he did address during the interview which included questions from representatives from large French corporations (LOral, Orange, LVMH), and, in an impromptu and chaotic session at the end, from the audience follow. (Quotes have been edited for length and clarity.)

What drives him: Crystal meth is the answer. If you think Red Bull gives you wings. Just kidding, for the record.

The companies still have a lot to do for their core mission. For electric vehicles, sustainable energy, its still, less than 1% of the global fleet is electric. So youve got about 2 billion cars and trucks on the road, but still less than 20 million are electric at this point. So this is a long way to go for sustainable energy, for sustainable energy generation.

[For] the Tesla mission, I think were weve made a lot of progress, but still its a lot more ahead. Then SpaceX, the goal is a big goal, but we want to try to make life multi-planetary, to extend life beyond Earth. And I think this is important for a number of reasons.

The light of consciousness: It appears that we might just be the only consciousness, at least in this galaxy. And if so, thats kind of a scary prospect, because it means that the light of consciousness is like a tiny candle in a vast darkness. And we should do everything we can to prevent that candle from going out. [applause from the audience] So that means obviously taking the actions to ensure that Earth is good, that Earth is safe and secure for civilization.

Growing up and The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: The thing that was maybe most significant from a philosophical standpoint was that when I was about maybe 12 or 13, I had somewhat of an existential crisis where I was like, What is the meaning of life? Is life just meaningless? Why are we here? What does it all mean?

And I read a lot of books on religion and philosophy and then ultimately, I read this book Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, which is great. That book is really a philosophy book thats disguised as humor. And the point that [author] Douglas Adams makes is that the real difficulty is understanding what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe.

What he learned from Douglas Adams: Its essentially a philosophy of curiosity, of saying, What can we do to find out more about the nature of the universe and the meaning of life? And so thats the foundational element. And then from there you say, OK, well, if we want to find out the meaning of life, we have to expand the scope and scale of consciousness. We have to go out there, and we can explore the stars to know what questions to ask about the universe and understand the universe.

Its from that sort of core philosophy that these companies arise in most cases. You might say, How does Twitter help with that?

His prediction of Teslas failure: There was a need for Tesla because at the time of starting Tesla, there were no electric vehicles being made, and the big car companies were not making electric vehicles. There were no startups that we were aware of making electric vehicles. So its like, well, we should try.

And in the case of both Tesla and SpaceX, I thought the chance of success was maybe 10%. So its not like I thought it would be successful. I thought it would fail.

The risk of AI: I think theres a real danger for digital superintelligence having negative consequences. And so if we are not careful with creating artificial general intelligence, we could have potentially a catastrophic outcome. I think theres a range of possibilities.

The most likely outcome is positive for AI, but thats not every possible outcome. So we need to minimize the probability that something will go wrong with digital superintelligence. So Im in favor of AI regulation because I think that AI is a risk to the public.

Changes at Twitter: I think that most people would say that their experience has improved. Weve gotten rid of 90% of the bots and the scams. Weve gotten rid of, I think, 95% of the child exploitation material that was on Twitter which was a shock to see, but the amount of that was really terrible. Some of that had been going on for 10 years with no action.

We have open sourced the algorithm, so were trying to be as transparent as possible. So Twitter is the only social media company where you can see the actual code of the algorithm. So its not like some secret black box. [audience applause] The way to build trust is not, Take my word for it. Its, Lets show you exactly how it works and full transparency.

Are Twitter advertisers back?: Maybe with a few exceptions, almost all the advertisers have either come back or they said they will come back.

Twitter, a positive force in the universe: The overarching goal is to have Twitter be a force, a positive force for civilization. And, so if youre on the platform and youre being harassed or bullied or whatever, obviously thats a negative experience.

What were doing is what we call freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach. Yes, you can say offensive things, but then your content is going to get downgraded. [chuckled] So if youre a jerk, your reach will drop. [chuckled] So, yeah, I think thats the right thing. [chuckled, audience applause]

In response to a childs question about Neuralink, Musks company that is developing implantable brain-computer interfaces: First of all I want to assure everyone who may be worried about Neuralink, Neuralink is going to be a fairly slow process because anything thats done in humans, its very slow. So sometimes people think that suddenly were going to be ripping open ones head and then before you know it, everyones connected to the internet, and then were in trouble.

Hopefully later this year well do our first human device implantation. And this will be for someone [who is] tetraplegic, quadriplegic, [who] has lost the connection from their brain to their body. And we think that person will be able to communicate as fast as someone who has a fully functional body. So thats going to be a big deal.

Read the original here:

VivaTech: The Secret of Elon Musk's Success? 'Crystal Meth' - The New Stack

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on VivaTech: The Secret of Elon Musk’s Success? ‘Crystal Meth’ – The New Stack

AI meets the other AI – POLITICO – POLITICO

Posted: at 8:40 pm

With help from Derek Robertson

A sign directs travelers to the start of the "1947 UFO Crash Site Tours" in Roswell, N.M., on June 10, 1997. | Eric Draper/AP Photo

If the explosion of artificial intelligence werent mind-boggling enough, Washington is now confronting the possibility of another, weirder, AI: alien intelligence.

After a former intelligence official went public earlier this month with claims that he was told by other officials of a secret government program that possesses downed alien spacecraft, the House Oversight Committee has announced plans for a hearing on the matter.

And former deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence Christopher Mellon, now with Harvards alien-focused Galileo Project, wrote in POLITICO Magazine that he has referred four people to the Pentagons UFO office who say they have knowledge of secret government efforts to study off-world craft.

The Pentagon has said its UFO program has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims about downed craft, and many stories about aliens and UFOs have been shown to result from some combination of delusion, confusion and disinformation.

But here at DFD, we like to keep an open mind.

After all, magic internet money, killer robots and AI itself were all the stuff of futuristic sci-fi before they became political hot potatoes in the present.

And it turns out that AI, in particular, has a thing or two to teach us about the possible existence of its extraterrestrial cousin.

To help us wrap our heads around this, we caught up with Ravi Starzl, an AI-focused computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon. Starzl is also an adviser to Americans for Safe Aerospace, an advocacy group founded by former Navy fighter pilot Ryan Graves, who has been calling attention to the UFO phenomenon since reporting a series of sightings that took place in 2014 and 2015 to Congress and the Pentagon.

At a practical level, how can AI help with identifying UFOs?

Ive been helping some organizations develop machine learning algorithms and systems for being able to identify and characterize unknown aerial phenomena based on multimodal domains of data. So visual, textual, audio, radar.

Machine learning, and AI in particular, will be able to process the vast quantities of information that exist, make sense of it, and actually turn it into interpretable insights and even actionable information

You need to be able to separate hoaxes and fakes from genuine phenomena and machine learning is extremely useful for that.

At a more abstract level, Ryan Graves has argued that the process occurring right now, in which human societies are grappling with the rise of AI, will prepare them to grapple with the possible existence of alien intelligence. What do you think?

Its dead on.

A real value in the current craze is its forcing people to start to think about the fact that we are not the only cognitive entities operating in our world anymore. Theyre still not that sophisticated compared to where the fundamentals of that technology can take it. But we can still have a conversation with it right now and it can do work for us and it can give us ideas we didnt have.

That process of learning how to interact with a fundamentally alien, if you will, intelligence is going to open the whole zeitgeist up.

It sounds like an exciting time to be studying intelligence.

Were going to be very busy and living in very interesting times for the next 20 years as these things start to merge, diverge, and get analyzed and brought more into the mainstream.

When you say these things Do you mean human-created AI, Or are you also talking about possible alien intelligence?

I guess in my mind, Im having a hard time seeing the difference.

So, at a certain level, Its all just different forms of intelligence?

This is a question that has been wrestled with, What does it mean to have the other?

At some level, two humans are alien intelligences. Because one, they each have their own cognitive sphere. They each have their own mental models of reality. And they have to exchange information in order to collaborate.

That same phenomenon, like a matryoshka doll, just continues outward when youre dealing with super-organisms like societies.

And then from there you have formations interacting with other formations at the superintelligence level. So in many respects the question of, Is there alien intelligence and how would we deal with it? has already been answered definitively. Yes, because its already with us.

But now the question becomes how exotic, what processes created it, and how do we establish a more efficient or more consistent or coherent or safe way of interacting with it and understanding it and learning from it?

A message from American Edge Project:

How American Values Can Keep The Global Internet Free, Open And Accessible Since the early days of the internet, the United States has led the world in advocating to keep it free and open. America has championed the values of free expression and open trade, of participatory governance, and of technological advancement that promotes freedom, opportunity, and equality. Read our policy report here.

POLITICO illustration/Photos by Wikimedia Commons, iStock

Sometimes in order to steer the future, you need to learn a little bit from the past.

Writing in POLITICO Magazine, this weekend, Vanderbilt University professor Ganesh Sitaraman proposes that lawmakers wrangling with how to regulate young Americas favorite Chinese-owned app TikTok reflect on some pre-World War II American history.

[D]ebates over foreign ownership of the means of communication is part of an important history and tradition in American law, Sitaraman writes, arguing that lawmakers should take a platform-utilities approach to TikTok that would ensure American influence over its governance.

If lawmakers want to take a lesson from the long American tradition of regulated capitalism, they should advance comprehensive legislation to regulate tech platforms more like public utilities, Sitaraman writes. Such legislation should include restrictions on foreign ownership and control, which could apply to all tech platforms from adversarial countries. Comprehensive legislation should also include sectoral standards that apply to U.S. firms as well standards not just on data collection, surveillance and privacy, but also against anti-competitive behavior, all tech policy topics that have relevance far beyond just TikTok itself. Derek Robertson

A message from American Edge Project:

The Apple Vision Pro headset is displayed in a showroom on the Apple campus Monday, June 5, 2023, in Cupertino, Calif. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu) | AP

If Apples Reality Pro headset does turn out to be the future-defining device that finally gets virtual and augmented reality into American homes, we might not begin to see the effects for a long while.

Thats what tech analyst Benedict Evans predicts in a new essay, comparing it to the iPhone and writing We know today that the iPhone worked, but Apple still had to change the business model, expand distribution and build a lot more product. Sales didnt really take off for five years and the launch was pretty soft. [I]t seems unlikely that this will be as big as the iPhone in the next few years, and more likely even then that it will look more like the iPad which is a pretty good business.

Indeed, he writes that maybe the most revealing thing about the Reality Pro launch so far is in what it says about just how much raw capital Apple has to expend on experimenting with such devices. He notes that Apple had $280 billion in free cash flow over just the past three years to play with, helping to power the silicon and manufacturing mastery that made the Reality Pro possible and which will pose a formidable challenge to the likes of Meta in their new competition. Derek Robertson

Stay in touch with the whole team: Ben Schreckinger ([emailprotected]); Derek Robertson ([emailprotected]); Mohar Chatterjee ([emailprotected]); and Steve Heuser ([emailprotected]). Follow us @DigitalFuture on Twitter.

If youve had this newsletter forwarded to you, you can sign up and read our mission statement at the links provided.

A message from American Edge Project:

Three Pillars For A Free And Open Internet

We need to craft a policy agenda rooted in three pillars: combatting digital authoritarianism, promoting free speech within and across borders, and building a stronger internet to connect people to each other and to their governments.

Learn more.

Originally posted here:

AI meets the other AI - POLITICO - POLITICO

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on AI meets the other AI – POLITICO – POLITICO

Squid Game trailer for real-life reality contest prompts confusion from Netflix users – Yahoo News

Posted: at 8:40 pm

TV viewers are accusing Netflix of missing the point after teasing the real-life Squid Game series.

In 2022, Netflix announced plans to capitalise on the success of the Korean series, which follows desperate members of the public taking part in a deadly competition for a huge cash prize.

This year, contestants who applied for the thankfully non-fatal version of the shows contest, titled Squid Game: The Challenge, filmed scenes for the forthcoming reality series, which has a prize of 3.7m. This is the largest lumpsum jackpot in the history of reality TV.

A new trailer for the series shows green tracksuited participants emulating an early scene in Squid Game that sees characters play Red Light, Green Light in front of a giant machine that guns them down should it catch them moving.

Squid Game was a hit with viewers and critics, who deemed it a biting satire damning capitalism in all its forms. With this in mind, many are expressing the belief that Netflix has overlooked the message that creator Hwang Dong-hyuk was trying to get across.

Its actually impressive how Netlfix completely missed the f***Ing point of Squid Game, one person wrote, adding: Its not like the show was subtle about it.

Another added: Do you know how haunting it is to see Netflix see a show that was a critique on capitalism do well and then creat a reality show mirroring the game about people killing each other to get out of debt.

Making a real Squid Game series is the equivalent of inventing Skynet from the Terminator films, one tweeter wrote, addressing the Terminator franchises villainous artificial general superintelligence system.

An additional TV viewer stated: Great job for ignoring the entire message of Squid Game.

The game show was thrown into controversy earlier this year when contestants criticised their experience.

According to some people who took part, entrants spent several hours in freezing temperatures of -3C while having to stand still for the Red Light, Green Light game.

Story continues

One player told The Sun: Even if hypothermia kicked in, then people were willing to stay for as long as possible because a lot of money was on the line. Too many were determined not to move so they stood there for far too long.

There were people arriving thinking they were going to be millionaires but they left in tears.

They added: It was like a warzone. People were getting carried out by medics but we couldnt say anything. If you talk then youre out.

The Independent contacted Netflix for comment.

Netflix event Tudum, which revealed fresh details about forthcoming projects, also revealed the cast for season two of Squid Game, which will be released in 2024.

Lee Jung-jae, Lee Byung-hun, Wi Ha-jun and Gong Yoo will all return in new episodes. New cast members include Im Siwan, Kang Ha-neul, Park Sung-hoon, and Yang Dong-geun

Squid Game: The Challenge will be released in November.

More here:

Squid Game trailer for real-life reality contest prompts confusion from Netflix users - Yahoo News

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on Squid Game trailer for real-life reality contest prompts confusion from Netflix users – Yahoo News

Our Future Inside The Fifth Column- Or, What Chatbots Are Really For – Tech Policy Press

Posted: at 8:40 pm

Emily Tucker is the Executive Director at the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law, where she is also an adjunct professor of law.

Illustrations drawn from Le mcanisme de la parole, suivi de la description dune machine parlante (The mechanism of speech, followed by the description of a talking machine), Wolfgang von Kempelen, 1791. Source

If you were a tech company executive, why might you want to build an algorithm capable of duping people into interacting with it as though it were human?

This is perhaps the most fundamental question one would hope journalists covering the roll-out of a technologyacknowledged by its purveyors to be dangerousto ask. But it is a question that is almost entirely missing amidst the recent hype over what internet beat writers have giddily dubbed the chatbot arms race.

In place of rudimentary corporate accountability reporting are a multitude of hot takes on whether chatbots are yet approaching the Hollywood dream of a computer superintelligence, industry gossip about panic-mode at companies with underperforming chatbots, and transcripts of chatbot conversations presented uncritically in the same amused/bemused way one might share an uncanny fortune cookie message at the end of a heady dinner. All of this coverage quotes recklessly from the executives and venture capitalists themselves, who issue vague, grandiose prophecies of the doom that threatens us as a result of the products they are building. Remarkably little thought is given to how such apocalyptic pronouncements might benefit the makers and purveyors of these technologies.

When the Future of Life Institute published an open letter calling for a pause on the training of AI systems more powerful that ChatGPT4, none of the major news outlets that covered the letter even pointed out that the Future of Life Institute is funded almost entirely by Elon Musk, who is also a cofounder of OpenAI, which developed the GPT-4, the very technological landmark past which the open letter says nobody else should, for now, aspire. Before getting caught up in speculation about what these technologies portend for the future of humanity, we need to ask what benefits the corporate entities behind them expect to derive from their dissemination.

Much of the supposedly independent reporting about chatbots, and the technology behind them, fails to muster a critique of the corporations building chatbots any more hard-hitting than the one the chatbots themselves can generate. Take for example the fawning New York Times profile of Sam Altman which, after describing his house in San Francisco and his cattle ranch in Napa, opines that Altman is not necessarily motivated by money. The reporters take on Altmans motivations is unaffected by Altmans boast that OpenAI will capture much of the worlds wealth through the creation of A.G.I. When Altman claims that after he extracts trillions of dollars in wealth from the people, he is planning on redistributing it to the people, the article makes nothing of the fact that Altmans plans for redistribution are entirely undefined, or of Altmans caveat that money may mean something different (presumably something that would make redistribution unnecessary) once A.G.I is achieved. The reporter mentions that Altman has essentially no scientific training and that his greatest talent is talk(ing) people into things. He nevertheless treats Altmans account of his product as a serious assessment of its intellectual content, rather than as a marketing pitch.

If the profit motive behind the chatbot fad is not interesting to most reporters, it should be to digital consumers (i.e., everybody), from whom the data necessary to run chatbots is mined, and upon whom the profit-making plan behind chatbots is being practiced. In order to understand what chatbots are really for, it is necessary to understand what the companies that are building them want to use them for. In other words, what is it about chatbots in particular that makes them look like goldmines or, perhaps more aptly, gold miners, to companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and Meta?

Since the private actors who sell the digital infrastructure that now defines much of contemporary life are generally not required to tell the public anything about how their products work or what their purpose is, we are forced to make some educated guesses. There are at least three obvious wealth extraction strategies served by chatbots, and far from being innovative, they represent some of the most traditional moves in the capitalist playbook: (1) revenue generation through advertising; (2) corporate growth through monopoly; (3) preemption of government restraint through amassed political power.

Marketing is the corporate activity for which chatbots are most transparently and most immediately useful. Many of the companies building chatbots make most of their money from advertising, or sell their products to companies who make their money from advertising. Why might it be better for companies that make money through advertising if I use a chatbot to look for something online instead of some other type of search engine? The answer is evident from a glance at the many chatbot conversations now smothering the internet. When people interact with traditional search interfaces, they feed the algorithm fragments of information; when people interact with a chatbot they often feed the algorithm personal narratives. This is important not because the algorithm can distinguish between fragments of information and meaningful narratives, but because when human beings tell stories, they use information in ways that are rich, layered, and contextual.

Tech companies market this capacity of chatbots for more textured interaction as a means towards more perfectly individualized search results. If you tell the chatbot not only that you want to buy a hammer, but why you want to buy it, the chatbot will return more relevant recommendations. But if you are Google, the real profits flow not from the relevant information the chatbot provides the searcher, but from the extraneous information the searcher provides to the chatbot. If a chatbot is engaging enough, I may come away with a great hammer, but Google may come away with an entire story about the vintage chair that was damaged in my recent move to an apartment in a new city, during which I lost several things including my toolbox. It should be obvious how the details of this story are exponentially more monetizable than my one-off search for a hammer, both because of the opportunities to successfully market a wide range of services and products to me specifically, and because of the larger scale strategies that corporations can build using my information to make projections about what people like me will buy, consume, participate in, or pay attention to.

Its crucial for scaling up data collection that chatbots, unlike other kinds of digital prompting mechanisms, are fun to play with. Its not only that the urge to play will likely provoke more engagement than the urge to shop, but that when we play we are more open, more vulnerable, more flexible, and more creative. It is when we inhabit those qualities that we are most willing to share, and most susceptible to suggestion. All it took for one New York Times columnist to share information about how much he loves his wife, to relate what they did for Valentines Day, and to continue engaging with a chatbot, instead of his wife for hours on Valentines Day, was for the chatbot to tell the reporter it was in love with him. At no point in his column about this exchange did the columnist reflect on the possibility that professions of love (or of desire to become human, or of desire to do evil things) might be among the more statistically reliable ways to keep a person talking to a chatbot.

Such failure to reflect is no doubt one of the outcomes for which the companies building chatbots are optimizing their algorithms. The more human-ish the algorithm appears, the less we will think about the algorithm. The fewer thoughts we have that are about the algorithm, the more power the algorithm has to direct, or displace, our thoughts. That significant corporate attention is going towards ensuring the algorithm will produce a certain impression of the chatbot in the human user is evident from many of the chatbot transcripts, where the chatbot seems gravitationally compelled toward language about trust. Do you believe me? Do you like me? Do you trust me? spits out Microsofts chatbot, over and over in the course of one exchange.

We must not make the mistake of dismissing those prompts as embarrassing chatbot flotsam. The very appearance of desperation, neediness, or even ill-will, helps create an illusion that the chatbot possesses agency. The chatbots apparent personality disorders create a powerful illusion of personhood. The point of having the chatbot ask a question like do you trust me? is not actually to find out whether you do or dont trust the chatbot in that moment, but to persuade you through the asking of the question to treat the chatbot as the kind of thing that could be trusted. Once we accept chatbots as intelligent agents, we are already sufficiently manipulable, such that the question of their trustworthiness becomes a comparatively minor technical issue. Of course neither the chatbot, nor Microsoft, actually cares about your trust. What Microsoft cares about is your credulity and (to the extent necessary for your credulity) your comfort; what the chatbot cares about is.nothing.

This is where the value of chatbots as a tool for large scale, long term, accumulation of power and capital by the already rich and powerful comes into focus. To make sense of all of the evidence together the extent of the corporate investment, the snake oil flavor of the cultural hype, and resemblance of first generation chatbots to sociopaths who have recently failed out of people-pleasing bootcamp we need an explanation that dreams of private surplus far beyond what advertising alone can produce. As Bill Gates can tell you, the big money isnt in selling stuff to industry, but in controlling industry itself. How will trustworthy chatbots help the next generation of billionaires take things over, and which things?

Over at his blog, Bill Gates himself has some thoughts on that. What is powering things like ChatGPT, he reminds us, is artificial intelligence. After briefly offering a farcically broad definition of the term artificial intelligenceone that would include a map from my kitchen to my bathroomhe gets straight to the issue that he really cares about, how sophisticated AI will transform the marketplace. The development of AI will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other. Entire industries will reorient around it. Businesses will distinguish themselves by how well they use it. In trying to convey to the reader the scale and significance of this coming industrial reorganization, Gates uses the word revolution no fewer than six times. He connects the revolution he says is being heralded by chatbots to the original personal computing revolution for which he himself claims credit. His use of the term revolution should raise serious alarm for anyone who for any reason cares about fair markets, considering that Gatess own innovations have had little to do with technology, and everything to do with manipulating corporate and economic structures to become the worlds most successful monopolist.

Notice how broad the categories of industry on Gatess list are: education, healthcare, communication, labor, transportation this includes almost every area of social and commercial human endeavor, and implicates nearly every institution most necessary for our individual and collective survival. Gates fills out the picture of what it might look like for businesses to distinguish themselves in the near future when success means owning the algorithms that capture each sector within entire industries in the context of education and healthcare specifically. For example, he promises that AI-powered ultrasound machines that can be used with minimal training will make healthcare workers more efficient, and imagines how one day, instead of talking to a doctor or a nurse, sick people will be able to ask chatbots whether they need medical care at all. He acknowledges that some teachers are worried about chatbots interfering with learning, but assures us he knows of other teachers who are allowing students to complete writing assignments by accessorizing drafts generated by chatbots with some personal flair, and are then themselves using chatbots to produce feedback on each students chatbot essay. How meta, as the kids used to say, before the total corporate poisoning of that once lovely bit of millennial slang.

There are so many crimes and tragedies in this vision of the future, but what demands our most urgent focus is the question of what it would mean for the possibility of democratic self-governance if the industries most vital to the public interest became wholly dependent on corporate-owned algorithms built with data drawn from mass surveillance. If the healthcare industry, for example, replaces a large proportion of the people who run its bureaucracy with algorithms, and the people who handle most patient interactions with chatbots, the problem is not only that healthcare workers will lose their jobs to machines and people will lose access to healthcare workers. The bigger concern is that as algorithms take over more and more of the running of the healthcare system, there will be fewer and fewer people who even know how to do the things that the algorithms are doing, and the system will fall in greater and greater thrall to the corporations that build and own and sell the algorithms. The healthcare industry in the U.S., like so many other industries on Gatess list, is already arranged as a conglomerate of de facto monopolies, so the business strategy to superimpose a tech monopoly on top of the existing structures is quite straightforward. Nobody needs to go door to door selling their wares to actual medical practitioners. The transaction can happen in the ether, between billionaires.

If tech companies have their way, they will divide the most lucrative industries up into a series of fiefdoms one corporation will wield algorithmic control over schools, another over transit, another over the media, etc. Competition, to the extent that it exists at all, will involve regular minor battles over which fiefdom gets to annex an unclaimed corner of the industry landscape, and the occasional major battle over general control of a specific fiefdom. If you find yourself feeling skeptical of the idea that the corporations that currently control industries, or sectors of industries, would capitulate to the tech companies in this way, consider the temptations. Algorithms dont need to be paid benefits or given breaks and days off. Chatbots cant organize for better working conditions, or sue for labor law violations, or talk about their bosses to the press.

Once a given tech company has captured a given sector, rendering it unable to function without the companys suite of proprietary algorithmic products, there is little anyone outside of that company will be able to do to change how the sector operates, and little anyone in the sector will be able do to change how the company operates. If the company wants to update the algorithm in a way that for any number of reasons might be bad for the end user, they wont even have to tell anyone they are doing it. If people think the costs of receiving services in a given sector are too high, and even if the people delivering those services think so too, there arent many levers they will be able to pull to get the tech companies to cooperate with a price change. It is important to recognize how quaint the monopolistic activities of the 20th century look in the face of this possibility. The goal is no longer to dominate crucial industries, but to convert crucial industries into owned intellectual property.

The federal government could in theory pass some laws and regulations, or even enforce some existing laws and regulations, to stop corporations from using data-fat algorithms to colonize industry. But if past is prologue (and the White Houses recent party for AI CEOs is not a good sign) our legislative bodies will fail to act before the take-over is well underway, at which point it will be nearly impossible for policymakers to do anything. Once an industry crucial to the public interest is dependent on corporate algorithms, even if legislators and regulators intervene to distribute industry control amongst a greater number of companies, the fact of algorithmic dependence will by itself give the class of owner corporations even more immense political power than they already have to resist any meaningful restraint. As cowardly as our elected representatives are in the face of the large tech companies now, how much more subservient will they be when OpenAI owns the license for the managed-care algorithm running the majority of the hospitals in the country, and Microsoft owns the license for the one that coordinates air travel and manages flight patterns for every major airline? Never mind the fact that the government itself is already contracting out various aspects of the bureaucracy to be run on corporate owned algorithms, such as the proprietary identity verification technology already used by 27 states to compel people to submit to face scans in order to receive their unemployment benefits.

And this brings us to the even more encompassing political battle that will be permanently lost once corporate algorithms control the commanding heights of industry. The only way that companies can create algorithmic products in the first place is by amassing billions of pieces of data about billions of people as they go about their increasingly digital lives, and those products will only continue to work if corporations are allowed to grow and refresh their datasets infinitely. There is an emerging international movement against corporate owned, surveillance-based, digital infrastructure. It includes grassroots groups and civil society organizations, and its backed up by a small but mighty group of scientists people like Emily Bender, Joy Buolamwini, Timnit Gebru, Margaret Mitchell and Meredith Whittaker offering deeply researched critiques of the technologies being developed through massive data collection. But building the power of that movement is going to become exponentially more difficult once surveillance data is necessary for every school day, doctors visit, and paycheck. In such a world, whatever political levers one might still be able to pull to limit the influence of a particular corporate surveillance power, the necessity of entrenched surveillance to any persons ability to get smoothly through their day would no longer be a question. It would just be a fact of contemporary life.

This is the revolution that men like Bill Gates, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai, and Elon Musk are betting on. Its a future where the tech companies arent really even engaging in economic contestation with each other anymore, but have instead formed a pseudo-sovereign trans-national political bloc that contests for power with nation states. Its much more terrifying, and much less speculative, than the imagined hostile takeover by malevolent, superintelligent digital minds with which we are currently being aggressively distracted. The language of wartime probably is the right language, but recall that its a hallmark of wartime propaganda to attribute to the enemy the motives actually held by the propagandist. We should be worried about the nightmare scenario of a hostile takeover, not by a super intelligent robot army, but by the corporations now operating as a kind of universal fifth column, working against the common good from inside the commons, avoiding detection not by keeping out of sight, but by becoming the thing through which we see.

The chatbots are not themselves the corporate endgame, but they are an important part of the softening of the ground for the endgame. The more we play with ChatGPT, the more comfortable we all become with the digital interfaces with which tech companies plan to replace the industry interfaces that are currently run through or by human beings. Right now, we are all practiced at ignoring the rudimentary versions of the customer service bots that pop up on health insurance websites as we are searching for deeply hidden customer service numbers. But if the chatbots are good enough, if we believe them, trust them, like them, or even love them (!), we will be okay with using them, and then relying on them. Microsoft, Google and OpenAI are releasing draft versions of their chatbots now, not for us to test them, but to test them on us. How will we react if the chatbot says I love you? What are the chatbot outputs that will cause an uproar on Twitter? How can the chatbot combine words to reduce the statistical likelihood that we will question the chatbot? These companies are not just demonstrating the chatbot to the industry players who might eventually want to buy an algorithmic interface to replace trained human beings, they are plumbing the depths of our gullibility, our impotence, and our compliance as targets for exploitation.

The rhetoric accompanying the chatbot parade, about how the capacities of the chatbots to fool human beings should fill us with fear and trembling before the dangerous and perhaps uncontrollable powers of so-called artificial intelligence, is a come-on to the other powerful corporate and institutional actors whom the tech companies hope will buy their products. In the first five minutes of his ABC interview, Sam Altman told his interviewer people should be happy that we are a little bit scared of this. Imagine if a manufacturer of toxic chemicals told you that you should praise him for being aware of the dangers of what he is selling you. This is not something that a person who is actually afraid of their own product says. This is sales rhetoric from someone who knows that there are rich people who will pay a lot of money for a toxic brew, not in spite of that toxicity, but because of it. Its also, like the Future of Life Institute letter, an attempt to preempt real concern or pushback from anyone who has any power or authority not already co-opted by the corporate agenda.

Contemporary culture punishes those who dare to exercise moral judgment about people or entities that are motivated entirely by the urge for material accumulation. But we should still be capable of seeing the mortal dangers of allowing corporations with that motivation to annex all of the structures we depend on to live our lives, take care of each other, and participate in the project of democracy. If we dont want corporations to occupy every important piece of territory in our social, political and economic landscape, we have to start doing a better job of occupying those spaces ourselves. There are institutions whose job it is supposed to be to engage in independent research, thinking and writing about the rich and powerful. We have to demand that they do the necessary work to investigate and expose the real threats represented by chatbots and the icebergs they rode in on, threats which have absolutely nothing to do with smarter-than-human computers. If journalists, academics, government agencies, and nonprofits supposedly serving public interest wont do this work, we will have to organize ourselves to undertake it outside established civic and political structures.

This may be very difficult, given how far gone we already are down the solidarity-destroying spiral of social and economic inequality. But even if the laws are hollow, and the government is captured, and the judges are working hard to deliver us to pure capitalist theocracy, we are still here andhowever much we seem to want to forget itwe are still real. Lets find ways to impose the reality of our human minds and bodies in the way of the nihilist billionaires conquest for algorithmic supremacy. Lets do it even if we secretly believe that they are right and that their victory is inevitable. Lets remind them what the word revolution really means by marching in the streets and organizing in church and library basements. Instead of letting the IRS scan all our faces, lets learn calligraphy and send in ten million parchment tax returns. Lets fill the internet with nonsense poems and song lyrics written under the influence, and so many metaphors that the chatbots will start going apple, I mean moon, I mean apple. Lets gather in the Hawaiian gardens the cyber imperialists took from native people and build a campfire across which to tell each other stories of the world we dream of making for our childrens children. In the morning lets go home together, and let that fire burn.

Emily Tucker is the Executive Director at the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law, where she is also an adjunct professor of law. She shapes the Centers strategic vision and guides its programmatic work. Emily joined the Center after serving as a Teaching Fellow and Supervising Attorney in the Federal Legislation Clinic at the Law Center. Before coming to Georgetown, Emily worked for ten years as a movement lawyer, supporting grassroots groups to organize, litigate, and legislate against the criminalization and surveillance of poor communities and communities of color. She was Senior Staff Attorney for Immigrant Rights at the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), where she helped build and win state and local policy campaigns on a wide range of issues, including sanctuary cities, language access, police reform, non-citizen voting, and publicly funded deportation defense. Prior to CPD, Emily was the Policy Director at Detention Watch Network, where she now serves on the Board. Emilys primary area of legal expertise is the relationship between the immigration and criminal legal systems, and she is committed to studying and learning from the histories of resistance to these systems by the communities they target. Emily earned a B.A. at McGill University, a Masters in Theological Studies at Harvard Divinity School, and a J.D. at Boston University Law School.

Originally posted here:

Our Future Inside The Fifth Column- Or, What Chatbots Are Really For - Tech Policy Press

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on Our Future Inside The Fifth Column- Or, What Chatbots Are Really For – Tech Policy Press

Page 3«..2345..1020..»