Re: Positive AI

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 1/16/2018 8:55 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: --What is the craziest AI application you can think of? A machine learned pet translator p

Re: Positive AI

On 1/16/2018 8:55 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: --What is the craziest AI application you can think of? A machine learned pet translator perhaps... they're actually working on that app, Amazon amongst others. So, it seems the big players Google as well, are running

Re: Positive AI

--What is the craziest AI application you can think of? A machine learned pet translator perhaps... they're actually working on that app, Amazon amongst others.So, it seems the big players Google as well, are running in that race... think of the potential market of pet owners forking over

Re: Positive AI

Oh, no! As an media art student, I don’t believe in strict rules oft usefulness (of course!). It was a rather suggestive or maybe even sarcastic approach to get unusual thoughts from everything. Maybe I should rephrase my question: What is the craziest AI application you can think of? K E N O

Re: Positive AI

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 12 Jan 2018, at 20:48, K E N O <lucky@kenokeno.bingo> wrote: Nice! Can you imagine something totally useless as an application of AI? What would you creative if you

Re: Positive AI

> On 12 Jan 2018, at 20:48, K E N O <lucky@kenokeno.bingo> wrote: > > Nice! Can you imagine something totally useless as an application of AI? What > would you creative if you just wanted to have fun with AI? Are you suggesting that fun is useless? I can agree that the

Re: Positive AI

Sure! Things that generate interesting images, sounds or videos. One of my favorite simple ideas is to use genetic programming (an AI approach based on pseudo-Darwinian evolution of computer programs -- it's much simpler than it sounds) to evolve functions that define images, for example

Re: Positive AI

Nice! Can you imagine something totally useless as an application of AI? What would you creative if you just wanted to have fun with AI? K E N O > Am 12.01.2018 um 14:43 schrieb Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>: > > Hi Lara, > > My view is that, as with al

Re: Positive AI

Hi Lara, My view is that, as with all scientific theories and technologies, AI is morally neutral. it has the potential for both extremely good and extremely nasty practical applications. That being said, the unusual thing about AI is that it has the potential to generate *something that replaces

Positive AI

Dear Everything, I have been working on my bachelor project with the topic *Artificial Intelligence*. Even though I have decided I want to create an AI-something to support an everyday activity, I am lost. I have done a lot of research and most of the time I am very critical: A lot of negative

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

introducing the material of the first class explained that, "Intelligence is whatever a computer can't doyet." Brent The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic reminiscent of "will" and exhibit it maliciously against humans. I su

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic reminiscent of "will" and exhibit it maliciously against humans. I suppose for you that's not a problem since, IIRC, you deny the existence of will. AG I don't deny the existence of will. I deny t

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

..yet." Brent The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic reminiscent of "will" and exhibit it maliciously against humans. I suppose for you that's not a problem since, IIRC, you deny the existence of will. AG

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

:42 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> When I took a series of classes in Artificial Intelliegence at UCLA in >>> the '70s the professor introducing the material of the first class >>> explained that, "Intelligence is whatever a computer can't doy

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

the professor introducing the material of the first class explained that, "Intelligence is whatever a computer can't doyet." Brent The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic reminiscent of "will" and ex

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

he material of the first class >> explained that, "Intelligence is whatever a computer can't do....yet." >> >> Brent >> > > The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic > reminiscent of "will" and exhibit it maliciou

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

; explained that, "Intelligence is whatever a computer can't doyet." >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a >> characteristic reminiscent of "will" and exhibit it maliciously against

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

at UCLA in the '70s the professor introducing the material of the first class explained that, "Intelligence is whatever a computer can't doyet." Brent The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic reminiscent of "will" and exhibit it m

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:47:42 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> When I took a series of classes in Artificial Intelliegence at UCLA in >>> the '70s the professor introducing the material of the first class >>> e

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

l of the first class >> explained that, "Intelligence is whatever a computer can't doyet." >> >> Brent >> > > The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic > reminiscent of "will" and exhibit it maliciously agains

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

t UCLA in >> the '70s the professor introducing the material of the first class >> explained that, "Intelligence is whatever a computer can't doyet." >> >> Brent >> > > The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic >

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

that, "Intelligence is whatever a computer can't doyet." Brent The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic reminiscent of "will" and exhibit it maliciously against humans. I suppose for you that's not a problem since, IIRC, you deny the existence o

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

..yet." > > Brent > The fear of AI is that computers could eventually exhibit a characteristic reminiscent of "will" and exhibit it maliciously against humans. I suppose for you that's not a problem since, IIRC, you deny the existence of will. AG > > On 12/7/2017 1:32

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

n mmwwahahah > > Every decade it is predicted that 50 years from now AI would surpass human > beings. > > The level of AI was pathetic 50 years ago. It is pathethic now and will be > pathetic 50 years later. Are you claiming that it can't fundamenta

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 at 8:32 pm, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > Both: is very very hard to simulate and impossible to achieve, > The first computer scientists though that making mathematical computations > was a sign of intelligence. But failed miserably with the next goal, and so

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

h the next goal, and so > on. You are arguing that no progress has been made? > program something that humans do. if your program does it, then it becomes > non intelligent. This last sentence is usually the AI researcher's lament: that people always move the goalposts when something

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

intelligent. 2017-12-06 14:40 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Yes. we are all robots. You are the only human mmwwahahah > > > > Every decade it is predi

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. we are all robots. You are the only human mmwwahahah > > Every decade it is predicted that 50 years from now AI would surpass human > beings. > > The level of AI was pathetic 50 years

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. we are all robots. You are the only human mmwwahahah > > Every decade it is predicted that 50 years from now AI would surpass human > beings. > > The level of AI was pathetic 50 years

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 04 Dec 2017, at 01:17, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: I can understand how in the darwinian sense, it could makes predators and prey less successful.

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

news group that did the whole thing against ACORN has tried to get a woman to make an accusation with the intention of exposing this as a Democratic fake attack. What does this mean for AI? It means robotic sex partners and significant others. Seriously, it things are on the cusp of going co

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Yes. we are all robots. You are the only human mmwwahahah Every decade it is predicted that 50 years from now AI would surpass human beings. The level of AI was pathetic 50 years ago. It is pathethic now and will be pathetic 50 years later. 2017-11-27 22:32 GMT+01:00 <agrays

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Hi Telmo, On 04 Dec 2017, at 11:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, I have a lot of sympathy for the quote above, as you can guess, which are all rather close to the "theology of number", but my Lôbian Fear get trigged by the terming "perfectly benevolent". The Lôbian machine can

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

from the rest of the universe. Rather than attaching ourselves to some independent entity, Gautama Buddha tells us: "All that we are is the result of what we have thought." To defend my faith: independently of the truth, if everyone operates on this belief we are all better off.

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:00:49 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/4/2017 4:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:19:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/4/2017 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:41:39 PM

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/4/2017 4:41 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:19:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2017 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:41:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:19:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/4/2017 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:41:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/4/2017 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:41:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're destroying our life > support systems with the obvious implication that we

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:41:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're destroying our life > > support systems with the obvious implication that we will go extinct. > > The evidence favors this

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 8:41:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're destroying our life > > support systems with the obvious implication that we will go extinct. > > The evidence favors this

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're destroying our life support systems with the obvious implication that we will go extinct. The evidence favors this view IMO. AG Predator/prey cycles don't result in extinction of the predator.

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:29:11 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/3/2017 5:11 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:17:18 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Hi Bruno, > I have a lot of sympathy for the quote above, as you can guess, which are > all rather close to the "theology of number", but my Lôbian Fear get trigged > by the terming "perfectly benevolent". > > The Lôbian machine can understand intellectually that "she", the ultimate > owner of

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

ven them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are >> one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. " > > > Fritjof Capra, author of the Tao of Physics, writes of Hindusim: >> >> "The basic recurring theme in Hindu

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/3/2017 5:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:11:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:17:18 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/3/2017 5:11 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:17:18 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: I

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:11:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:17:18 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6,

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:17:18 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> I can understand how in the darwinian sense, it could makes

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> I can understand how in the darwinian sense, it could makes predators and >> prey less successful. But in the sense of humans, who have

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > I can understand how in the darwinian sense, it could makes predators and > prey less successful. But in the sense of humans, who have technologically > escaped most of the darwinian pressures, could this idea not improve life

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

that they may be one as we are >> one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. " > > > Fritjof Capra, author of the Tao of Physics, writes of *Hindusim*: > >> "The basic recurring theme in Hindu mythology is the creation of the >&

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

there is the concept of anattā which refers to the illusion of the self. According to the doctrine of anattā there is no such thing as a self independent from the rest of the universe. Rather than attaching ourselves to some independent entity, Gautama Buddha tells us: "All that we are

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

more grey, though so far I > don't think there are recent accusations. It gets greyer and more black > with Weinstein, Trump and Cosby. Then comes the news that the rightwing > fake news group that did the whole thing against ACORN has tried to get a > woman to make an accusatio

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

and Cosby. Then comes the news that the rightwing fake news group that did the whole thing against ACORN has tried to get a woman to make an accusation with the intention of exposing this as a Democratic fake attack. What does this mean for AI? It means robotic sex partners and significan

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/30/2017 11:45 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/30/2017 10:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: To go further: not so

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/30/2017 11:45 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/30/2017 10:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: To go further: not so long ago, most people would freely defend that the lives of people from their ethnicity are more

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/30/2017 10:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> To go further: not so long ago, most people would freely defend that >> the lives of people from their ethnicity are more valuable than those >> of other ethnicities.

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

the centuries. From the might, or power, of the > divine actor and > magician, it came to signify the psychological state of anybody under the > spell of the magic play. > As long as we confuse the myriad forms of the divine lila with reality, > without perceiving the unity > of

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/30/2017 10:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: To go further: not so long ago, most people would freely defend that the lives of people from their ethnicity are more valuable than those of other ethnicities. It seems to me that only recently did the civilization process start to oppose this way

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

t's leave it at that...), I fluctuate between "yes, we are all the same person" and "bullshit". To defend my faith: independently of the truth, if everyone operates on this belief we are all better off. Of course I am not claiming to be a saint or even close, I am just saying that

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

reyer and more black with Weinstein, Trump and Cosby. Then comes the news that the rightwing fake news group that did the whole thing against ACORN has tried to get a woman to make an accusation with the intention of exposing this as a Democratic fake attack. What does this mean for AI? It means robotic

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 29 Nov 2017, at 21:38, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/29/2017 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Nov 2017, at 18:49, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This question is more interesting. I tend to fall in the camp that we

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/29/2017 9:54 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:38:50 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 11/29/2017 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Nov 2017, at 18:49, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:38:50 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/29/2017 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Nov 2017, at 18:49, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> >> This question is more interesting. I

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/29/2017 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Nov 2017, at 18:49, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: This question is more interesting. I tend to fall in the camp that we exercise little

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 29 Nov 2017, at 01:52, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while avoiding and minimizing bad experiences. Mostly, but not

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 28 Nov 2017, at 18:49, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This question is more interesting. I tend to fall in the camp that we exercise little control over the ultimate decision made by such a super intelligence, but I am

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/28/2017 6:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 11:52 am, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is >

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 11:52 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is > > ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while > > avoiding and minimizing

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is >> ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while >> avoiding and minimizing

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while avoiding and minimizing bad experiences. Mostly, but not entirely.  People (especially parents) sacrifice for

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > This question is more interesting. I tend to fall in the camp that we > exercise little control over the ultimate decision made by such a super > intelligence, but I am optimistic that a super intelligence will, during

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Jason, I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? No more than a not well educated kid. Especially when with guns and bombs. I think the answer is most

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > If you have some time/patience, let me know what you think of my arguments > here: > https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02009 > > Telmo, Interesting read. In general I have a lot of sympathy for this view. I think

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Hi Jason, On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different > answers. > > The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? > > I think the answe

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

There is an old sci-fi novel (by Stanislaw Lem I believe), where the main powers decide to move all the automatic weapons to the moon and fight a permanent war there, without harming anyone on earth. Who knows... :) On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: >

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/27/2017 2:35 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? I

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:09:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different > answers. > > The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? > > I think the answer is most definite

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/27/2017 2:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? I think the answer is most definitely yes. Some examples: - Large scale unemployment

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different > answers. > > The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? > > I think the answer is m

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Scary video...because it's nearly true. http://autonomousweapons.org/ Brent On 11/27/2017 1:32 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: IIRC, this is the view of Hawking and Musk. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? I think the answer is most definitely yes. Some examples: - Large scale unemployment/disempowerment of people who cannot compete

Is AI really a threat to mankind?

IIRC, this is the view of Hawking and Musk. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 01 Nov 2017, at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times. It's dangers have been exaggerated, but there are dangers as with

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 11/4/2017 3:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its >> danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times. > > > It's dangers have been

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 9:51:33 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its > > danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times. > > It's dangers have been

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times. It's dangers have been exaggerated, but there are dangers as with alcohol, tobacco, and other things.  My wife's

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 30 Oct 2017, at 20:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/30/2017 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2017, at 07:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/30/2017 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2017, at 07:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid,

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 30 Oct 2017, at 07:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the psycho-tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 3:08:58 PM UTC+1, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2017-10-30 14:58 GMT+01:00 PGC : > >> On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 6:40:53 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> Right. >>> >>> >>> >>> In acute, severe pain they are often the only

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-30 14:58 GMT+01:00 PGC : > On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 6:40:53 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> Right. >> >> >> >> In acute, severe pain they are often the only thing that works, and >> denying them to a suffering patient is inhumane. In chronic pain,

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 6:40:53 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Right. > > > > In acute, severe pain they are often the only thing that works, and > denying them to a suffering patient is inhumane. In chronic pain, their use > is more controversial. Perhaps not widely known is that

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The "Schedule One" notion does not make sense: to forbid research on something because it would be dangerous. Why not forbid research in guns, bombs, or car, plane train, I meant, except cannabis,

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the psycho-tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of mice was dismissed and stopped, and remain

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 28 Oct 2017, at 14:55, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 3:30 am, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​> ​There are a lot of other painkillers But​ ​marijuana​ ​is the only painkiller I

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2017 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​> ​ There are a lot of other painkillers But ​ ​ marijuana ​ ​ is the only painkiller I know of that has a 0% chance of

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the psycho- tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of mice was dismissed and stopped, and remain largely ignored. It is a total inhuman shame! I

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 3:30 am, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> There are a lot of other painkillers >> > > But > ​ ​ > marijuana > ​ ​ > is the only painkiller I know of that has a 0% chance of

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >