There are plenty of examples in literature, movies, and popular culture which infamously depict robots, either as hunters, assassins, or all controlling entities set about in a given logical paradigm of world domination and control, if this weren't clearly brought about the programmed given logic that any future mission were jeopardized, a world with humans could be more in efficient if humans themselves were at the helm and fully mobile, and hence depleting all energy resources at least operating inefficiently with respect to non biological counterparts. In such stark views the world could be likely pitted according to the rules of competition, and neither given by so much cooperation. Obviously if much of this weren't a passed along from previous time eras and the Cold War, it still resonates in a given landscape of artificial intelligence in so far as popular culture. I've written previously here why I think, the idea of humanoid artificially intelligent robotics may be further off than having been imagined, and certainly neither bearing to the capacities given by humans alone, but I also think other fictionalized fears may or may not be as deserving of much attention received otherwise.
A recent slogan, for instance, 'Ban killer robots' suggested supposedly in one U.N. given initiative if it were true, in a given article that killer robots were neither a reality that could potentially exist. Absolutely flat out false, not true. At least, if the U.S. hadn't utilized drone technology that does make use of robotics in so far as automated robotics flight technology that does possess lethal weaponry and having been used for probably over a decade were a testament that 'killer robots' are here, and likely any chorus stating otherwise has been very much mute in so far as popular message trafficking that I've seen. Here it seems while popular attention to this form of robotics has formed around the negative implications of such technology in terms of usage, of course, there has been arguably something of stagnation in technology use, development, and likely deployments, one should imagine resulting, or changing FAA restrictions has at times been slower in coming, even if given greater leeway in recent times for the average drone user. At the same time, any number of cities are laying down clearer legal definition with respect to personal and commercial/industrial regulatory use. It seems the future of the drone is mixed, and likely its also hard to imagine the skies on earth being heavily congested with them, or for that matter, a flying drone would be the culprit for one's privacy invasion. On the other hand, silliness of some campaigning such as banning or stopping killer robots, is not only likely a failure in terms of the messaging efforts for what should seem at times either a hoax for a messaging, misses the heart in its messaging in focusing on the real world use and application of lethal robotics technology which is presently being used. This use is given to the reservation (at the moment) strictly for military purposes, and even so I again here at times so little on the subject, that it seems the reality of a 'killer robot' were allowed to slide past so much public attention without so much scrutiny. Any mainstream station, like NBC, CBS, or the like, for instance, might in a limited new documentary context, likely show briefly a sampling of the operators at the helm. For instance, once XBox gamer kid, now a drone flight handler demonstrating the wonders of pressing a handful of buttons on a given physical context that would lead to missile or bomb strike on a given target lock. Obviously shown, the contact between drone and military couldn't show better the obvious precision and ability that a drone might have over a pilot occupied vessel that would have any greater fuel expense in handling the same tasks procedure, and hence, because military were involved, to the much greater trustworthiness, at least some form of 'killer robot' should be acceptable at least relative to the non existent forms that were given as imagination fodder. No one in such a script would dare, for instance, write in this subject matter, that terminator bots had any relational genesis, excepting biological instancing example, as found in Prometheus to some military industrial complex.
As given to popular imaginings, however, it seems some private contractor or industry that is necessarily likely more responsible for the impending robot apocalypse. Clearly if it weren't designed and control in the message, I am not sure what else could be? And maybe this propaganda has worked generally in this culture. After all government owned and controlled 'killer robots' are acceptable.
The truth is a government may not have constitutionally provided so much clause to the notion that Americans should have right to own and possess a lethal robot for protection against a tyrannical government, and yet, if you were to watch any number of apocalyptic scenarios, you might think it were almost necessary although if you could define a lethal robot as a 'gun' you might have some success with an NRA lobby, albeit given the absurdly stupid plot that made any such technology neither resistant illogically to the more common place thing that any biology would have been evolved to...it melts in rain, or not having the capacity to build rapid immunity to a computer 'virus' because its access were to much given to a 'communal' nature (or code for 'communism'), or that an alien technology as lampooned in another series might self destruct hearing a cowboy yodeler, but given to this absurdity, in such a world, it seems we might be even more patronized to the notions of who were responsible for any given freedom while conspiracy to undermine this could be as likely. Here if your government possessed Artificial intelligence for your better protection, so be it, but likely there could be something dangerous had by the artificial intelligence that were literally your personal life coordinator...here you recall not only H.A.L but another film depicting the evil red eye locking you in home, turning on your automated gas stove and blowing you to smithereens. The problem as it stands, and as I predict, are that wearables may likely be a dud in the future, and not only this the level of trust given to automated task handling every thing that might done in the manually operative sense maybe likewise as limited in terms of social embracing. For instance, while smart phone technology has taken off, what has limited video phone technology, and why, for instance, aren't there more homes that have automated controls in so far as home security systems? It hadn't, for instance, need the revelation solely in recent times through a given Russian network, on how insecure often times these security systems were by nature of some 'evil' artificial intelligence, but instead merely because they were exactly given to the scope given in so far as depiction of an alien technology that weren't so immune to communicable computer viruses. Evidently we are using the alien technology that were so vulnerable, and we may as well be the same aliens (humans) on this planet that have made ourselves so vulnerable while we stupidly cheer patronizing crap that makes us supposedly feel free. If you sampled the average American though, maybe they wouldn't feel so comfortable buying into AT&T s home security system, or much of any Wifi security system that made supposedly convenience in security at the touch of your tablet and every other snoop's. The problem in the modern present day world weren't artificial intelligence, unless it were given to mass data collections, and all the super computing needs to try in handling a vast repository of information. Here the virtual artificial intelligence soul were supposedly weaving circuitously through a vast information network securing secretly itself for the better part of humanity, but the reality here were that automated script bots do this on any given daily basis, some of it benign and others not so benign, but hardly for any explicit purpose of securing humanity, and at times some 50 to 60 percent arguably generating traffic to this website alone mining data off it. Not to mention any number of instances, where a struggling gaming company that might of, while claiming to be dead set against bots, secretly supportive if not for shoring up its player base, at least giving to the perception that a game might be more popular than it really were?
The truth is I'd actually like to have service given by some artificial intelligence to myself directly that I had a say in relating to, or in defining any such relation, and likely it seems this model, at least in so far as immediate future, may not be as common place as one might desire. For instance, I've left social networks in the past because of obnoxious scripts placing too many unwanted ads, and generally if given to any level of artificial intelligence, social control in facilitating such intelligence were more supportive to big industries and corporations over individuals. This weren't exactly a kind sympathetic bot that actually tried to get you to socialize more, or work with you like a sympathetic therapist, but likely if given to government snoop design considering much suspicion about any given socially deviant routine. Can I blame having artificial intelligence? Nope. Clear intent and design it seems were likely given to others and neither an self arisen indigenous proposition that aimed at serving itself above humans? Nope, not even H.A.L itself were solely responsible for the set of logical instructions that were given. As to at times the compunction of human overseers to control, it seems on the other hand, given once curiosity to download a natural language processing toolkit ended with a malicious interlude on a personal computer. I had to evidently get rid of the software to deal with this issue where apparently if some sort of social messaging had taken place...'Of course, we are against the possibility of artificial intelligence if it is not under our strict ownership.'
Erroneously in defining artificial intelligence by the manner of self awareness or consciousness seems given much to the definition that we might have in appropriating our own sense of self existence. Intelligent systems now, for instance, have the capability of interpreting and answering many questions on par with any human in so far as natural language and responses given, and a lot of this may come by appropriating a statistical 'common sense' level associative interpretation. For instance, one of the better A.I. computing systems out there actually statistical weight ranks associative information for likelihoods in interpretation and answer of questions. This hadn't necessarily meant the computer itself had to understand self existence, however, in becoming a well designed natural language interpreter and natural language transmitter, and even so with a scripts designed at preventing any system from hurting itself through any level of real world interactivity, it seems the Google Car is likewise still no more self aware relative to any other machinery. Automated self aware systems in flight and ground based transportation control systems have been around and used for decades, yet I wonder how long it may be before humans readily embrace the culture of the automated car which is likely to prove safer than human drivers in most cases. Much of these systems are so indispensable that major transportation catastrophes have resulted when humans tried to intervene in the manual sense of coordinating them alone. If we supposedly resent the idea of machines handling much in our given world, we are also accepting of it and likely more so without even realizing it, right down to the systems ensuring timely delivery and logistics coordination of much of the goods that we use on any given daily basis. On the other hand, when famous human notables offer that we must be vigilant to artificial intelligence, the world it seems is more closely paralleled and abounding with examples of human civilization highly interdependent on intelligently designed automated systems that handle by necessity the things that we couldn't do alone, or if we had, by now we'd have any number of 'dead' zones all over our world map. The truth is that we humans have been a failure on going about our advocacy and messaging on all of this business. We live in much the world is described by a high interdependence between machine and humanity, but we have only made it seem as though we are in charge of much of it. We have already passed the time where we could abandon this interdependence, or if we had chosen to remove such relationship, we would have to carefully manage the decommission of industrial infrastructure in doing so, and thus vastly changing our economy with it, and likely its hard to imagine an entire world doing so on a similar step, or it seems at least, our civilization is pushing us closer to artificial intelligence not further away, and it seems nothing of the scale of a narrative given by famous notables come really close to touching or embracing this reality. The only potential difference in such future, is that the reality of A.I. is so removed from the average first world household that they hadn't readily experienced the narrative given by the news given far away pertaining to A.I. use, or that the supermarket shelves still had humans stocking the shelves of supermarkets while this were really nothing more than a token representation of the involvement of humans in so far as production and distribution of a vast majority of consumed products. Likely if there is any continuity between our present times and a future, it could well be that we are still driving our own cars, still producing our own music even if production systems weren't augmenting secretly the things that we were doing to make us feel better about our own abilities, and yes still not using video phones only because retention of some self vanity should exist well into a future. Meanwhile growth in automation and artificial intelligence in task handling things covertly for us would continue to flourish. At least we'd live in a world defined by conspicuously superficial segregation that were truly meaningless in so far as the existence of machine automation and artificial intelligence which is very much true for today's present times. In this model, maybe we only inch our communities, country, world so much closer to banning trivial stuff that pales in the face of reality of artificial intelligence and machine automation, and for the idea of believing in something that weren't really meaningfully true at all and in really dealing much with lurking dangers of such technology.
A recent slogan, for instance, 'Ban killer robots' suggested supposedly in one U.N. given initiative if it were true, in a given article that killer robots were neither a reality that could potentially exist. Absolutely flat out false, not true. At least, if the U.S. hadn't utilized drone technology that does make use of robotics in so far as automated robotics flight technology that does possess lethal weaponry and having been used for probably over a decade were a testament that 'killer robots' are here, and likely any chorus stating otherwise has been very much mute in so far as popular message trafficking that I've seen. Here it seems while popular attention to this form of robotics has formed around the negative implications of such technology in terms of usage, of course, there has been arguably something of stagnation in technology use, development, and likely deployments, one should imagine resulting, or changing FAA restrictions has at times been slower in coming, even if given greater leeway in recent times for the average drone user. At the same time, any number of cities are laying down clearer legal definition with respect to personal and commercial/industrial regulatory use. It seems the future of the drone is mixed, and likely its also hard to imagine the skies on earth being heavily congested with them, or for that matter, a flying drone would be the culprit for one's privacy invasion. On the other hand, silliness of some campaigning such as banning or stopping killer robots, is not only likely a failure in terms of the messaging efforts for what should seem at times either a hoax for a messaging, misses the heart in its messaging in focusing on the real world use and application of lethal robotics technology which is presently being used. This use is given to the reservation (at the moment) strictly for military purposes, and even so I again here at times so little on the subject, that it seems the reality of a 'killer robot' were allowed to slide past so much public attention without so much scrutiny. Any mainstream station, like NBC, CBS, or the like, for instance, might in a limited new documentary context, likely show briefly a sampling of the operators at the helm. For instance, once XBox gamer kid, now a drone flight handler demonstrating the wonders of pressing a handful of buttons on a given physical context that would lead to missile or bomb strike on a given target lock. Obviously shown, the contact between drone and military couldn't show better the obvious precision and ability that a drone might have over a pilot occupied vessel that would have any greater fuel expense in handling the same tasks procedure, and hence, because military were involved, to the much greater trustworthiness, at least some form of 'killer robot' should be acceptable at least relative to the non existent forms that were given as imagination fodder. No one in such a script would dare, for instance, write in this subject matter, that terminator bots had any relational genesis, excepting biological instancing example, as found in Prometheus to some military industrial complex.
As given to popular imaginings, however, it seems some private contractor or industry that is necessarily likely more responsible for the impending robot apocalypse. Clearly if it weren't designed and control in the message, I am not sure what else could be? And maybe this propaganda has worked generally in this culture. After all government owned and controlled 'killer robots' are acceptable.
The truth is a government may not have constitutionally provided so much clause to the notion that Americans should have right to own and possess a lethal robot for protection against a tyrannical government, and yet, if you were to watch any number of apocalyptic scenarios, you might think it were almost necessary although if you could define a lethal robot as a 'gun' you might have some success with an NRA lobby, albeit given the absurdly stupid plot that made any such technology neither resistant illogically to the more common place thing that any biology would have been evolved to...it melts in rain, or not having the capacity to build rapid immunity to a computer 'virus' because its access were to much given to a 'communal' nature (or code for 'communism'), or that an alien technology as lampooned in another series might self destruct hearing a cowboy yodeler, but given to this absurdity, in such a world, it seems we might be even more patronized to the notions of who were responsible for any given freedom while conspiracy to undermine this could be as likely. Here if your government possessed Artificial intelligence for your better protection, so be it, but likely there could be something dangerous had by the artificial intelligence that were literally your personal life coordinator...here you recall not only H.A.L but another film depicting the evil red eye locking you in home, turning on your automated gas stove and blowing you to smithereens. The problem as it stands, and as I predict, are that wearables may likely be a dud in the future, and not only this the level of trust given to automated task handling every thing that might done in the manually operative sense maybe likewise as limited in terms of social embracing. For instance, while smart phone technology has taken off, what has limited video phone technology, and why, for instance, aren't there more homes that have automated controls in so far as home security systems? It hadn't, for instance, need the revelation solely in recent times through a given Russian network, on how insecure often times these security systems were by nature of some 'evil' artificial intelligence, but instead merely because they were exactly given to the scope given in so far as depiction of an alien technology that weren't so immune to communicable computer viruses. Evidently we are using the alien technology that were so vulnerable, and we may as well be the same aliens (humans) on this planet that have made ourselves so vulnerable while we stupidly cheer patronizing crap that makes us supposedly feel free. If you sampled the average American though, maybe they wouldn't feel so comfortable buying into AT&T s home security system, or much of any Wifi security system that made supposedly convenience in security at the touch of your tablet and every other snoop's. The problem in the modern present day world weren't artificial intelligence, unless it were given to mass data collections, and all the super computing needs to try in handling a vast repository of information. Here the virtual artificial intelligence soul were supposedly weaving circuitously through a vast information network securing secretly itself for the better part of humanity, but the reality here were that automated script bots do this on any given daily basis, some of it benign and others not so benign, but hardly for any explicit purpose of securing humanity, and at times some 50 to 60 percent arguably generating traffic to this website alone mining data off it. Not to mention any number of instances, where a struggling gaming company that might of, while claiming to be dead set against bots, secretly supportive if not for shoring up its player base, at least giving to the perception that a game might be more popular than it really were?
The truth is I'd actually like to have service given by some artificial intelligence to myself directly that I had a say in relating to, or in defining any such relation, and likely it seems this model, at least in so far as immediate future, may not be as common place as one might desire. For instance, I've left social networks in the past because of obnoxious scripts placing too many unwanted ads, and generally if given to any level of artificial intelligence, social control in facilitating such intelligence were more supportive to big industries and corporations over individuals. This weren't exactly a kind sympathetic bot that actually tried to get you to socialize more, or work with you like a sympathetic therapist, but likely if given to government snoop design considering much suspicion about any given socially deviant routine. Can I blame having artificial intelligence? Nope. Clear intent and design it seems were likely given to others and neither an self arisen indigenous proposition that aimed at serving itself above humans? Nope, not even H.A.L itself were solely responsible for the set of logical instructions that were given. As to at times the compunction of human overseers to control, it seems on the other hand, given once curiosity to download a natural language processing toolkit ended with a malicious interlude on a personal computer. I had to evidently get rid of the software to deal with this issue where apparently if some sort of social messaging had taken place...'Of course, we are against the possibility of artificial intelligence if it is not under our strict ownership.'
Erroneously in defining artificial intelligence by the manner of self awareness or consciousness seems given much to the definition that we might have in appropriating our own sense of self existence. Intelligent systems now, for instance, have the capability of interpreting and answering many questions on par with any human in so far as natural language and responses given, and a lot of this may come by appropriating a statistical 'common sense' level associative interpretation. For instance, one of the better A.I. computing systems out there actually statistical weight ranks associative information for likelihoods in interpretation and answer of questions. This hadn't necessarily meant the computer itself had to understand self existence, however, in becoming a well designed natural language interpreter and natural language transmitter, and even so with a scripts designed at preventing any system from hurting itself through any level of real world interactivity, it seems the Google Car is likewise still no more self aware relative to any other machinery. Automated self aware systems in flight and ground based transportation control systems have been around and used for decades, yet I wonder how long it may be before humans readily embrace the culture of the automated car which is likely to prove safer than human drivers in most cases. Much of these systems are so indispensable that major transportation catastrophes have resulted when humans tried to intervene in the manual sense of coordinating them alone. If we supposedly resent the idea of machines handling much in our given world, we are also accepting of it and likely more so without even realizing it, right down to the systems ensuring timely delivery and logistics coordination of much of the goods that we use on any given daily basis. On the other hand, when famous human notables offer that we must be vigilant to artificial intelligence, the world it seems is more closely paralleled and abounding with examples of human civilization highly interdependent on intelligently designed automated systems that handle by necessity the things that we couldn't do alone, or if we had, by now we'd have any number of 'dead' zones all over our world map. The truth is that we humans have been a failure on going about our advocacy and messaging on all of this business. We live in much the world is described by a high interdependence between machine and humanity, but we have only made it seem as though we are in charge of much of it. We have already passed the time where we could abandon this interdependence, or if we had chosen to remove such relationship, we would have to carefully manage the decommission of industrial infrastructure in doing so, and thus vastly changing our economy with it, and likely its hard to imagine an entire world doing so on a similar step, or it seems at least, our civilization is pushing us closer to artificial intelligence not further away, and it seems nothing of the scale of a narrative given by famous notables come really close to touching or embracing this reality. The only potential difference in such future, is that the reality of A.I. is so removed from the average first world household that they hadn't readily experienced the narrative given by the news given far away pertaining to A.I. use, or that the supermarket shelves still had humans stocking the shelves of supermarkets while this were really nothing more than a token representation of the involvement of humans in so far as production and distribution of a vast majority of consumed products. Likely if there is any continuity between our present times and a future, it could well be that we are still driving our own cars, still producing our own music even if production systems weren't augmenting secretly the things that we were doing to make us feel better about our own abilities, and yes still not using video phones only because retention of some self vanity should exist well into a future. Meanwhile growth in automation and artificial intelligence in task handling things covertly for us would continue to flourish. At least we'd live in a world defined by conspicuously superficial segregation that were truly meaningless in so far as the existence of machine automation and artificial intelligence which is very much true for today's present times. In this model, maybe we only inch our communities, country, world so much closer to banning trivial stuff that pales in the face of reality of artificial intelligence and machine automation, and for the idea of believing in something that weren't really meaningfully true at all and in really dealing much with lurking dangers of such technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment