Tuesday, 19 June 2018

The AI Debater: The Next Frontier For an Idea Theft Culture's Dreams of World Domination

Two AI robots Sophia & Han debate the future of humanity on youtube. Click the image to be taken there ...

The pomp surrounding the computer that can argue as well as the very best human thinkers out there and the surrounding attempts to present the computer as a more reliable means of arriving at truths, even if by way of potential, has roots in a culture that has taken to idea theft as the only realistic method of advancement.

This is exactly what people mean when they speak of an inadequacy complex or the lack of trust in one's own ability to sort issues out, and also of one's own lack of faith in one's own viability, leading to the addiction to get direction and guidance by not consulting with self or other people ... but actually turning into a quasi parasite, even though actively denying this state, and though it can be rationalised that man is always going to fall short on thoughtfulness, and a helping hand in a machine is always a plus, that no boundary that separates how much a machine can mentally benefit man can be drawn, some thought needs to be made about this ...

The program that plays chess with you is basically a predictive/pre-emptive algorithm. It is mathematics in use at base. One plus one equals reaction or pre-emptive move.

This is represented quite bluntly by a computer program's "IF" or "WHEN" "condition A" is met or not then machine executes a set line of code as an activity.

Line of code

But then, as we all may know, computer programs that are programmed to win chess games cannot just be check mated and defeated, they can become too predictable, and not just for the very best chess players out there.

Part of the reason for this is computer programs do not and can never have actual spatial awareness save that left in the programing language by the programmer. They therefore are not geometric in their rationalisation meaning they could only accidentally produce the better logic that works all the time under what ever circumstances that arise. They can not get body language feedback from their opponent save that which the programmer includes in snippets here and there in their programming. Well, maybe a good thing because they then cannot deliver emotional judgements but then they cannot have real telepathy because of this lack except artificial which is always going to be inferior. Their pronouncements should be suspect because they will be inhumane as a result and if you have had enough of inhumane and immoral behaviour then you ain't seen nothing yet! Just wait till Robots are what we rely on for the imprisonement of our children.

Fact of this matter is a computer lacks consciousness as we understand it, and though this represents a weakness on the chess board, it is a major drawback in terms of debating issues that have a bearing on consciousness, including such unlikely areas of debate as government policy.

The argument pundits of a thinking computer put forth in favour of the machine's superiority is that it will be objective given a machine can argue any which way. Unfortunately for this group, the fact remains machines programmed to argue can usually only do this in two directions or dimensions alone, whereas humankind can argue on more planes than just two.

But is this inadequacy with which a program pursues arguments both ways worth relying on and why is it so hard to see that there will aways be limitations to how deeply into an issue a computer will delve and argue given it forever lacks capacities needed for sound judgements?

Imagine for a while that an abstract such as existentialism was the subject of debate. Would it not be wise to use a computer's capacity to argue two ways as a reference guide for humans involved in the discussion, a way of checking what they could have missed? This would make a machine much more useful than actually confronting it to give a guru's objective point of view?

Note here that an opportune variation in a point of view would be a feat for a computer to accomplish but is it not enough knowing the thing can never savour basic consciousness to disqualify it from participation in any discussions till it possesses a basic, viable and autonomous consciousness?

I see in the hurry to sell a reasoning computer to some third word country the need to do away with balanced human reasoning, especially of the exceptional kind that occasionally makes a contribution that impacts significantly on the direction taken and spoils or foils some control freak culture's aspiration to deceive and rule.

Idea theft is a cultural orientation the current leaders in the dominant culture adopted from the Greeks. This is a fact. Certainly, much of the progress this culture has attained was at the cost of somebody's freedom or even life, with the added bonus of the afflicted or targeted being but a fallible human being, therefore the switch to stealing ideas from a computer would be the next step ... a positive thing if not for a few facts that will relegate the use of computers for guidance and inspiration to the ruled and enslaved.

Basically, reliance on computers will lead to the same creative bankruptcy and activities that have so disgraced the dominant culture as the previous method because it is ultimately the same thing inasmuch as the reasoning is an aggregate of what are thought of as the best thoughts out there, filtered and picked out by what people involved in the programming think are the better thoughts among the total they have been exposed to, censored by the space and time required to fit the collected thoughts into one program.

The programmers are sure they have the best thoughts as well as the best manners of thought out there, or have they really?

Idea theft is a cultural orientation that only a low brow latches on to, no two ways about this. Anybody outside the idea thief's cultural imperialism bracket thinking this is the better way of forging ahead is really deluded.

Related Articles: Idea Thieves

No comments: