Tag: artificial intelligence

Kook: Humans to Marry ‘Droids by 2045

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

Image result for images of androids

Warning: The article from the UK Sun contains material that can only be described as disgusting. Read at your own risk.

Hey! People are “already making love to sex robots”–merciful heaven, is that what they call it?–and robots will soon be able to “surpass” human beings in everything, and will “awaken” by 2035 and soon acquire full civil rights as if they were human… so by 2045, the stage will be set for humans to “marry” androids (https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/6366262/marry-robots-sophia-harmony-hanson-2045/).

It’s all in a paper by some kook of a scientist, released in conjunction with (oh, please) a video game.

“How would you like to be married to a hyper-intelligent hybrid?” asks the “news” article. Gee, would that mean I had totally lost the ability to relate to another human being?

Ever get the impression you took a wrong turn somewhere, and wound up in Oz? In any discussion of “Artificial Intelligence,” the key word, the word that really matters, is “Artificial.” Not real! A mere simulation of reality! And it will not be more “intelligent” than we are, although it could easily turn out to be just as bleeding stupid. 

A chess computer is held to be “good at chess,” for instance, A) because it has been programmed by experts who are real chess masters, B) because it’s a machine, an opponent cannot attack its psychology: it has no psychology, C) it can do chess calculations at lightning speed, almost infallibly picking the best move out of hundreds of possibilities, and D) although it has no genuine insight into anything that happens on the chessboard, it is immune to weariness or boredom and able to repeat its staggering number of calculations every time the situation changes because the opponent has made another move. The chess computer can defeat human players because of those factors listed above. “Intelligence” has nothing to do with it!

Just try explaining that to some numbskull of a reporter.

At best, the quest for Artificial Intelligence is a waste of resources. At worst it is a folly; and a folly can turn around and bite you. Hard.

I’m Three Years Old Today!

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

See the source image

So who says Artificial Intelligence is really just artificial stupidity?

We received today a computer-generated reminder from Greetings.com that today is my third birthday. Wow, 65 years taken right off the top! Imagine if they could do that with your weight, too. I just can’t wait till we all have the ability to hook up our brains to a master computer somewhere and all of us be just as smart as whips. First our cars, then our missile defense system, and finally our brains.

My Newswithviews Column, Jan. 4 (‘A Simple Solution to Loneliness’)

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

Why is it so hard for so many people to understand that “Artificial Intelligence” is not intelligence, but only an imitation of intelligence? I mean, did they think David Frye was really Richard Nixon? But at least David Frye was alive, and doing imitations on purpose. A machine has no conscious purpose.

https://newswithviews.com/a-simple-solution-to-loneliness/

Bring on the chatbots…

Hi-Tech to the Rescue! No More Loneliness

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

See the source image

In Genesis, God observes that “It is not good for the man to be alone,” so He creates the woman.

Today, this first day of 2018, with Social Media out the wazoo and more communications tools than any people ever had before, we seem to be communicating less than ever–and more and more of us are lonely.

No problem, boys ‘n’ girls! Science has the answer! Well, Science always has the answers.

There’s a new app, whatever an “app” is, called “Replica,” which is “a simple solution to overcoming loneliness” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/artificial-intelligence-app-replika-1.4222755). Yessireebob, it’s “an app that promised to provide unwavering companionship,” a “chatbot–” chatbot?–“that is intent–” wrong word: a machine cannot have intentions–“on learning all about you.” That is, it has been programmed to “ask,” not that a machine is really asking anything, certain stereotypical questions of the user and to make certain stereotypical replies.

Well, at least they haven’t programed it to say, “You know something? You disgust me!”

Ah, huzzah, it’s Artificial Intelligence–a lifeless, mindless imitation of human intelligence–come to save us from loneliness! Who needs love? Who needs family? Who needs friendship? Who even needs a blooming hamster? This here machine is all them things and more! And it fits in the palm of your hand!

Never mind it isn’t real.

A goldfish who would trust me enough to take food from my fingers is real–and worth more than all the “apps” in the world.

So you buy this freakin’ gizmo, and one of two outcomes must occur. Either you’re still lonely, and out the money, to boot; or you’ve succumbed to a delusion.

And Science marches on.

Saudi Arabia Grants Citizenship to… a Robot

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

Image result for images of robot as ventriloquist dummy

If it’s your vacuum cleaner, it’s only a machine and you don’t think twice about it. But make the machine complicated enough, and next thing you know, people who are supposed to be sane, and maybe aren’t quite all there, start treating it like it’s one of the boys. Or one of the girls.

Saudi Arabia has made a robot a citizen. The UPI news report describes the glorified vacuum cleaner as “hot robot Sophia.” (https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2017/10/27/Saudi-Arabia-grants-citizenship-to-robot/5521509080746/) Hot? They’re kidding, right? And the article is peppered with the expression, “Sophia said.”

Can it be that there really are people out there who honestly don’t understand that even the best and most lifelike robot in the world can never be anything more than a simulation? And all this talk about “Artificial Intelligence”–uh, don’t they know what “artificial” means?

Crikey, we don’t even know what real intelligence is; so how are we supposed to produce it artificially?

But i think, judging by all this carrying-on over a robot–who, when all is said and done, is little more than a hi-tech souped-up ventriloquist’s dummy–we can say what it isn’t.

New Career Path: Become a Robot Shrink!

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

Image result for images of crazy computer

So what are you gonna be when you grow up–if you ever do grow up, and don’t just stay in collidge pounding Play-Doh for the rest of your life?

Well, hey-hey! Become a robot psychologist! That would be someone who tries to understand what computers and other “Artificial Intelligences” are thinking, presuming they think at all (https://www.wsj.com/articles/career-of-the-future-robot-psychologist-1499605203).

The Wall Street Journal reports that engineers designing AI seem to be losing their handle on it.  Could it be that no one remembers that “Artificial Intelligence” is only a simulation of intelligence, and not the real thing? You know–like Strat-O-Matic is a nice simulation of baseball, minus the pine tar. But it’s not really baseball. You should be able to figure that out when Babe Ruth comes up to bat.

From the outside looking in, it looks like computers even now are not as good as they used to be. Can an Artificial Intelligence go mad? Or will it only simulate madness? And just how badly do we want these machines, these robots, driving our cars and prescribing medical treatments for us?

But that’s the price you pay if you want man to be the Creator instead of God.

The Humanist Messiah

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

Image result for images of c s lewis

When you take over God’s job, you have no end of problems.

Take that business about being the Creator. It’s maddening. All you’ve got to work with is stuff God already created. Even the minds of secular humanists were created by God. We do not know why He didn’t make them better at using them.

God created man, so humanists want to create something better. Their creation, their Homo sapiens 2.0, will be new, improved, far superior to the current version. It will be able to solve all the world’s problems that have licked us so far–war, poverty, hate, and getting blackberry seeds stuck between your teeth.

This is the humanist messiah. Artificial Intelligence. Flawed, sinful, mortal man will, with his own intelligence that has given us movies like Gigli and foreign policies that look like they were dreamed up by Punch and Judy, create intelligent beings that’ll be much smarter and much better behaved than their creators.

Yes, there are a few scientists who’ve been trying to warn us that the A.I. enterprise is bound to turn out like Windows 8–not quite as nice as you expected. But because there is no one as anti-human as a humanist, the God wannabes seem eager to scrap H. sapiens 1.0 altogether, just plain get rid of us, with all our stupid problems, and replace us with their own creation. “It’ll be sooo much better! You’ll see!” Although how we’ll actually be able to see it from the boneyard, they don’t say.

C.S. Lewis already told us all about this, way back in 1945, in That Hideous Strength.

We already have a God, a Creator and a Savior, and He has equipped us with enough common sense to see that something perfect cannot and will not be created by imperfect beings. But it was Satan who told us that it can–way back in the beginning (see Genesis 3).

And it is Satan who’s the god of humanism.

 

 

‘Robots as Persons’–Is This for Real?

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

Image result for i, robot by isaac asimov

The European Parliament has approved a draft proposal to grant “legal rights” to robots as “electronic persons” ( https://www.rt.com/viral/373450-robot-kill-switches-status/ ). It will also include “obligations” for robots to “make good any damage they may cause”–an obligation, by the way, which does not seem to apply to “asylum seekers” in Germany and France who have done a lot of damage which is not made good. But I digress.

Are they jiving us? I’m having a hard time believing this story. Take this quote, for instance:

“AI [Artificial Intelligence] developers will have to ensure their creations follow a set of rules that prohibit them from harming or allowing a human to come to harm through their inaction. AI can protect their own existence under the rules, if this does not harm any humans.” And just in case, it is proposed that a “kill switch” be added so that “any rogue robots can be turned off easily.”

Hold on a minute, there! Isn’t this “Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics”? In his 1942 short story, “Runaround,” science fiction great Isaac Asimov proposed “three laws,” which he applied to his stories about robots from then on and which were adopted by many other science fiction writers. I grew up reading those stories and novels, and I know those “laws” by heart.

One) A robot must not, by any action or inaction, cause or permit any human being to come to harm.

Two) A robot must obey all commands given to it by any human being, unless that would conflict with the First Law.

Three) A robot may do whatever it needs to do to protect its own existence, except when that would conflict with either the First or Second Law.

The robots in Asimov’s novels, like I, Robot, were almost indistinguishable from real human beings. The EU seems to be concerned that people may wind up confusing a robot’s simulation of human drives and emotions with the real thing. That could get kind of sticky.

And so the secular humanist God-playing project goes on and on, from one folly to the next. It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture–that’s what the Bible says (Psalm 100:3), and the secular whoopee crowd has a real problem with it.

As for me, I don’t see how people who don’t have all that much intelligence themselves can be so confident in their ability to create artificial intelligence in electronic persons.

Artificial Stupidity–yeah, I think they can manage that.

These people are very seriously deluded.

Man-Made Blob Engulfs City Block

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

Okay, The Blob was worse…

Oops.

Before we turn over everything to robots and computers, are we quite, quite sure they’re ready?

In Santa Clara, California, this week, “an alarm malfunction”–that is, a computer hiccup–activated a fire suppression system in a hanger at San Jose International Airport, spewing out a mass of foam ten feet high (!) and big enough to cover a whole city block ( http://abc7news.com/news/mysterious-foam-floods-martin-avenue-in-santa-clara/1614495/ ). Check out the pictures!

We have not yet created true artificial intelligence. But we’re well on our way to artificial stupidity.

Humanism’s stuff: if it works, it’s a miracle.

Let’s Make Robots That ‘Evolve’!

Posted By: leeduigon(patty)Posted On:

[Thanks to Linda for this news tip.]

We’re so busy studying computer models and simulations that we create ourselves, these days, that it seems a lot of scientists can’t be bothered to study nature anymore. By “nature” I mean “reality,” as God created it.

Science wallahs in Amsterdam are excitedly working to create robots that can “meet,” then “mate” (if they’re compatible), then “reproduce,” and hopefully “evolve” into new kinds of robots ( https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/06/02/robot-baby-project-mimics-sexual-reproduction-let-robots-evolve/ ). Doubtless these are very clever individuals.

But the thing is, from beginning to end, it’s all simulation. Not real. Although I can’t help but relish the irony of a bunch of smart people who vehemently reject the whole notion of Intelligent Design, by God, pursuing what can only be called their own vision of Intelligent Design. They are not clever enough to see a contradiction here.

If they can make some simulation of “evolution” work under carefully controlled conditions–conditions designed and controlled by themselves–are they going to tell us, “See? See! This is what has happened all throughout earth history, only with nobody–nobody, mind you!–designing and controlling it! Only random chance!” Is that really what they’re going to tell us?

Yeah. Probably.