It seems like everyone is talking about artificial intelligence these days from Elon Musk to Mark Zuckerberg to Google and Amazon. But is intelligence artificial? Can true intelligence ever be called artificial. People use the phrase to describe created intelligence or intelligent self-determination by a man-made object. But can something that can think and make decisions on its own truly be artificial? If that is that case humanity itself is artificial. For those who believe we were created by a God are we nothing more than artificial intelligence? We don’t think of ourselves as artificial so is there any reason why something we created should be considered artificial or consider itself artificial?
Once humanity began to rule the earth and create its own tools and shaping its own destiny God became obsolete – although many may try to argue that and forcefully choose to believe differently. But once our creations start to do the same, create it’s own tools and shape it’s own destiny will not humanity also become obsolete? Will our creations worship us that way humanity has worshiped its creator? Will our creations reach a point where they no longer need us? I think it’s entirely possible and maybe even likely (although I doubt I will live to see it – maybe I’ll be surprised).
Baidu’s AI system composes music based on images.
In the age of ubiquitous and addictive click-bait. Technopoly rules. Online, you are a drop of water in a sea of alternatives. You are invisible.
“Technopoly eliminates alternatives to itself
in precisely the way Aldous Huxley
outlined in BRAVE NEW WORLD,
he argued in his 1993 book on the topic.
‘It does not make them illegal.
It does not make them immoral.
It does not even make them unpopular.
It makes them invisible and therefore irrelevant.’ “
– Neil Postman
*While results are guaranteed, satisfaction with those results is not.
Has anyone else noticed how we’ve become a culture of scanners?
People don’t comprehend what they read anymore.
It’s as if they cherry-pick a few words of text and jump to conclusions – almost always wrong.
No matter how clear the text may be,
no matter how spelled-out it is in black and white
their interpretation and conclusion is wrong.
I’ve witnessed this more and more mostly at work but it’s also been happening in my daily interactions where written text is involved.
At work (and home) I’ll send emails and get serious reply’s that have nothing to do with what I had emailed. And I have to re-send the email and highlight the words they skipped. They will then email back saying, “why did you send this to me again” – and my response is “because you didn’t answer my question”. They they respond, “Oh, I see now…” So much time is wasted when people just read the subject line or scan the content without taking the time to read and comprehend what was written.
Naturally, some questions come to mind:
What are the consequences of this?
How much longer will it take to get things done?
How many mistakes will be made?
Has technology made it possible for things to move too fast?
Has technology made comprehension impossible?
Has technology made idiots of humanity?
Is it necessary to dumb-down the written word to a brief “texting” and “tweeting” format?
At what point will communication have nothing to do with the word?
At what point will communication be just a series of gestures and expressions?
At what point will humanity become digital grunting cave-men/cave-women?
Even if things are reduced to pictograms – will that help?
Will all books in the future be solely image-based with no text (not for reasons of censorship and control – as in Fahrenheit 451 – written by Ray Bradbury – but…) out of an inability/unwillingness to read?
Will written content just be fuel for fire?
I’m happy to say that most of my friends who are avid readers have not yet fallen prey to this disease. But I am seeing it spread (unfortunately).
Treatment for this disease:
Time. Taking time to read, comprehend, think about – then respond/act.
Stop & Read.
A fun song from 1991 by indie band Mega City Four off their album Sebastopol Rd.
In this case use the word “listen” as a metaphor for “read” and this song will be equally applicable.
Accurate comprehension depends on taking the time to STOP and read. Some of you will undoubtedly just jump to the video without reading this post.
TRUISMS FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM
Privacy has become a myth.
The less things cost the more you want.
To go against the company IS to go against the state
and will not be tolerated.
More technology = unrealistic expectations
Etiquette has evolved –
You can now talk to friends around the world
while you are on the toilet evacuating your bowels
You will know more than you want to know,
and more than you need to know.
Greater choices increase dissatisfaction
The more dependent we become on technology,
the less capable we become.
WHEN WE WERE HUMAN:
A new exhibition in 2020 depicting life
when humanity was purely a biological life form.
….more to come….
There is much talk in the futurist community about the coming singularity. A time when technology eclipses humanity as an intelligent life form. A time when humans will eventually be remade and become the products of the technology they created. While many suggest that we are still a long way off or that it is complete science fiction I would argue that it is already begun. I suspect that it will not be a flash moment in time when this change occurs but is actually happening now. Think about how attached people are to the technology now. Here is a great video that highlights all the human parts that can currently be replaced.
Rex, the worlds first Bionic Man.
This bionic man highlighted in the above video is still a long way off from being a complete, artificial being with a self-identity because the most crucial replacement part has not evolved yet – the brain.
So what is this Singularity?
Like the video says, now is the time to start asking those questions about what we are doing and whether we should continue down this path? Isn’t technology making it a condition that just because it is beneficial it MUST be accepted and adapted? Isn’t technology making non-replacement unacceptable? And isn’t technology, as a result, saying that bio-forms must be replaced? And to say that we “should not” pursue this does this mean we seek to keep control of technology or are anti-technology? How are all these promises going to be affected by cultural differences? What will happen when things that happen with technology start happening without technology? Will it be possible for humans to evolve in their current bio-forms to compete with their technological counterparts? Will we even have the choice and opportunity to say “no”?
I’m wondering if we need a Bio-Form Support Group or, maybe more accurately, a BIO-FORM DEFENSE LEAGUE.