Archive for the ‘Artificial Intelligence’ Category

Object Proliferation

Where does all the stuff come from in a house?  Each item at some point was a choice…  some of these choices may or may not have been logical.

Object proliferation exists in all governments, corporations, etc and is killing humanity and sapping away at life itself.

Object proliferation is also not good from the aspect of tight and efficient code and can lead to resource consumption.

If there are only so many useful memes, object proliferation as a concept seeks to sap meaning away from that which truly has meaning and value in life.  Too many memes yields too much confusion yields too much waste yields pain across the board.  How do lawyers even effectively map or otherwise analyze or organize their case law especially given the subtle nuance in language and syntax of language itself?

Where the hell does all this stuff come from anyhow?  Look around you… stuff everywhere.  Someone digs it up, manufactures it, transports it, markets it, moves it, breaks it, takes it, etc… how much of our reality can truly be boiled down to assembly code?

Every great idea ends up creating more waste if the old waste isn’t remediated.  Can’t we find a good way to simplify things?

Intention Mapping

Intention mapping as a concept.  What is intention mapping?  Intention mapping could to some extent be an aspect of game theory, artificial intelligence, highway driving, war, relativistic psychology, and just about anything.

How does one guarantee or prove intent?  Intent to murder.  Intent to do just about anything?  Intention mapping can be preemptive or after the fact analysis of things.  We will focus on the possibilities or the yet to become perspective.

Where does an intention come from?  What given the uncertainty principle is ever truly fully concrete?  If our psychologies are a maelstrom of chemicals and we do not have access to quantum space to guarantee things at an atomic level or to rigidly program logic into our own minds, then what percentage of free will do we really have?  How much of free will is left up to fate or some behind the scenes neuro chemistry?

The intentions of a player are highly dependent on the situation that player is in?  Let us take war for example.  If the US invades a country, it should be obvious that the inhabitants of that country are going to be inherently militant simply based on our presence there.  What gives the US or any other country the “right” to invade or occupy another country other than to attempt to proactively shape that country?  Other means are surely more effective at doing this.

Mapping out the possibilities of two or more players in a game yields a complex network of possibility trees based on the inputs into the system.  Players that have higher intelligence or deeper insight may utilize intention mapping to determine all possible moves or situations.  This is likely not such a great tactic in real time combat unless the analyzer was preemptively superior in its calculations or timing of given events.  Do football players use the concept of intention mapping when trying to run for a touch down?

Aggressive drivers almost certainly use intention mapping against their associative memory of pre-preprogrammed driver behaviors and further mapped against a set of probabilities of outcomes.  When driving aggressively, one must analyze all players in parallel while planning their route through the field.  Most players drive predictably.  Other players drive in concert with other aggressors.  Every once in awhile there is a disruptive player that seeks to have the aggressors step in line while not minding their own business.  When using these tactics without also using great care in planning flow, this can be dangerous and therefore truly aggressive.  I would however suggest that finding efficient flow through traffic while using due care is not dangerous nor is it particularly aggressive especially when said driver seeks efficiency in his travel and homeostasis with others instead of aggressive queue hopping.  Flow is good in all aspects of reality.

The Disturbing Future of Artificial Intelligence

Many scholars and technologists of today are asserting and pursuing an artificially intelligent future.  While these quests may be noble in understanding consciousness, intelligence, the human condition, and the inner workings of the mind, one has to consider the more deeply philosophical concerns with creating such an entity.

A few observations:

  • grants.gov has some philosophically disturbing requests from DARPA and other organizations.

Questions:

  • Who will utilize or use these beings and to what end?

Assumptions:

  • AI will require some kind of prime directive so as to not harm humanity or life itself.
  • To be conscious and/or human-like, the entity will need to be able to read.

Problems:

  • If a humanoid robot can read, interpret, analyze, extrapolate, and pontificate on the data that has been read, wouldn’t it then be able to therefore judge humanity?
  • Even if you were to create a robot in such a way as to protect humanity and life, wouldn’t the creation of two robots enable them to debug, rewire, reverse engineer, or otherwise reprogram each other?
  • Couldn’t a human also in the purchase or utilization of such entity, rewire, reverse engineer, or otherwise access the robot in such a way as to reprogram it?
  • Wouldn’t it be possible for a human or robotic conspirator to reprogram an AI or robot in such a fashion such that a single being could control them all?
  • Would the installation of a global kill switch or code bring about any additional safety when it is likely (as has been proven throughout eternity) that just about any code or system, no matter how complicated, can in fact be broken, disrupted, or otherwise disabled?

Just a few problems to consider…

Return top