Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Daily Mail has claimed that the super intelligence of a new race of cybernetic enhanced humans will be able to solve wicked problems such as Climate Change.
‘Superintellingence’ of AI and humans working together could solve climate change and end wars, researchers claim
‘Wicked’ problems are difficult to solve due to many interacting systems
These types of problems include climate change and geopolitical conflict
Human computation merges human intelligence and AI to solve problems
In the fight against ‘wicked’ problems, computers may be humans’ best allies. Researchers from the Human Computation Institute and Cornell University say that the combination would create a superintelligence, and it could take on growing issues like climate change and geopolitical conflict.
New technologies use crowd-sourced input and interactive tools to produce collaborative results that go beyond traditional problem-solving, they claim.
Wicked problems are those which are difficult to solve because of the complexity of the underlying issues.
They involve many interacting systems which are always changing, and the solutions have unforeseen consequences, according to the Human Computation Institute.
By joining with computer intelligence, humans could expand upon their own abilities to create ‘multidimensional collaborative networks,’ the researchers say.
This could more effectively produce solutions.
In general I’m a fan of human augmentation; Cochlear implants to restore hearing to the profoundly deaf, and soon retinal implants to restore sight to the blind, what’s not to like. Even brain implants, say to give the recipient perfect recall of people’s names, or instant mastery of physical skills or a foreign language, or health implants which maintain balance and warn of problems – well we’ve already got heart pacemakers.
But the science has its dark side. Some of the early experiments into neural implants were ethically dubious, for example there were attempts to change the sexual orientation of homosexuals, and rather dodgy experiments to help people with severe depression, by giving them the ability to ping their own pleasure centres.
As society’s traumatic experience with addictive drugs has shown, it only takes a small push to tip a normal person into insanity. The people who had the pleasure implants mostly had to be physically restrained, when doctors took the buzz button away from them. A woman who had an experimental libido implant demanded it be removed.
As an IT expert who has taken a keen interest in artificial intelligence, I have no doubt artificial enhancements to intelligence will become possible, maybe even routine, within my lifetime. But lets just say I would be nervous about the consequences of abruptly giving a normal human volunteer superhuman intellectual abilities, without a lot of preliminary research, to establish what effect such brain modifications have on someone’s emotional stability.
The recognition that climate science is a problem and is complex, and knowledge of what “complex” means, is half the problem solved.
I don’t get it?
Why would the machine part, care?
For that matter, who has written any program that prevents ‘gullible’ or ‘foolish’?
“Climate Change” provides a trojan horse for a cybermen invasion. Where is Doctor Who when you need him?
Time to read, or re-read if you haven’t, C S Lewis’ “That Hideous Strength”
Indeed the “NICE” (National Institute of Coordinated Experiments) is what John Holdren would call the “planetary regime”.
Where is Merlin when you need him – maybe it’s Anthony 😀.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
There’s two ways of looking at this. One is that we already have it. Forgotten something? Search for it. Something personal? Local search on your own devices. Need to think a problem through? Read a dozen essays by others who have already thought it through, then you have a head start to progress by spotting their flaws instead of starting at the beginning. I.e. the internet is the augmented intelligence. It works. We have a good start on defeating this nonsense (eventually) whereas the previous lot of nonsense, the ozone hole, got through before the net really got started.
The other way is to say, no, we really want the augmented intelligence that only the machine can supply. Well guess what. It ain’t there. Name a program on any of your devices that is actually smarter, i.e. thoughtful, rather than contains more decision logic, than programs that existed in 1972. (I pick that year as it is when I first learned Fortran IV.) They don’t exist. All through the ’80s the ACM’s journal contained on its back cover a picture of an artificial head in the sky, with Japanese working together to reach it while US CS people fell all over the place. It referred to the “fifth generation” computer project that the Japanese claimed would deliver real thinking machines by 1992. Everyone believed it (present company excepted, of course). Just like the GW scam, all of the relevantly knowledgeable intellectual community believed it, organised conferences, set up projects to work frantically in competition with the Japanese, and so on.
Last I heard, the Japanese supercomputer was gathering cobwebs in a basement. No one ever said “Well we got that wrong!” They all just went silent, forgot it ever existed, and moved on to other things.
At least the 5gen project was a simple farce. The CAGW project is an attempt at tyranny that is actually destroying lives and the quality of lives here and now. It must not be forgotten. The perpetrators must be brought to justice when the whole thing falls apart.
BTW, if anyone knows where I can find a copy of that CAGM back cover image online, please tell.
“Ron House
January 1, 2016 at 11:56 pm
Name a program on any of your devices that is actually smarter, i.e. thoughtful, rather than contains more decision logic than programs that existed in 1972.”
Was the year that IBM brought virtualistion to the world. And today, I hear everyone bleet about “virtual” operating systems and applications will change the world. With App-V, VMware and Hyper-V, I laugh. Been there, done that sonny!
Patrick MJD: Virtualisation, so true. All that is just technological development, nothing to do with AI. Example: 1970s, The Doctor and Eliza. Enter “How can I make Jane fall in love with me?” Reply (something like): “How do you think you can make Jane fall in love with you?” Simple grammatical rearrangement with no understanding. Now 2015: Someone called “Ron House” asks google for the past month’s listings for “Ron House” and it’s so much smarter than the 1970s: the first page contains no fewer than 6 entries for “Casa del Ron”! Wow, it has a translator, but not a bit more intelligence, it can’t fathom that someone called Ron House searching for Ron House (IN QUOTES, BTW!!) is looking for stuff about himself, not some foreign business with a different name on the other side of the planet. That’s obvious to a human, but not to a computer. Not in the 70s, not now, not ever, not with all the resources of one of the planet’s most advanced software research companies on their flagship product.
AI is a pipe dream. All computers can do is simulate intelligence. The more processing speed and memory, the better the simulation, maybe even good enough to fool some people. But not real thinking, not sentience or consciousness.
“Ron House
January 2, 2016 at 11:00 pm
The more processing speed and memory, the better the simulation,…”
Nah! Just crashes faster.
A computer can simulate a sunset on a computer screen. A computer will never make a real one across the sky.
Computers used to help better understand the real? Good.
Computers used to manufacture (think “climate models”) the real?
“Good” or “Bad” depends.
Do those looking at the screen acknowledge the difference between a simulation and reality?
Reality Check please !!!!!
A SuperComputer is still a fotball-field full with racks upon racks of servers connected in a cluster.
the leading supercomputers in the TOP500 list consits of several hundred racks.
And they are not selfaware intelligent in the slightest measure. its still just programable counting machines
responsibel for all the climate models that is so frequently dissmissed on this site.
the Positronic brain ( to lend a word from Asimov) is not possible with todays computer tech.
Not to mention that even if it were possible, there is still the huge problems of interfacing an analog brain with digital technology.
And a chemical brain at that too.
Both actually and technically …. said “interface” is impossible.
Current electronic computers (digital technology) utilize “physical memory addressing” architecture to store and retrieve the data/info. And the same data/info can be stored/retrieved from multiple locations in said physical memory (RAM, ROM or revolving memory).
Biological computers (human brain, etc.) utilize “data/info addressing” architecture to store and retrieve the data/info. And the data/info is only stored one (1) time in a biological memory (brain neuron). And said data/info can be accessed and/or retrieved via use of one (1) to ten thousand (10,000) plus different Synaptic links (connections) to other brain neurons of which there are billions of them.
A micro view of a few brain neurons and their Synaptic links
http://images.flatworldknowledge.com/stangor/stangor-fig03_003.jpg
Personally I can’t see these Luddites going for machines to solve the problem-
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4654486.ece
Whatever happened to their think globally act locally mantra?
“Human computation merges human intelligence and AI to solve problems”
Always amusing to see the childlike faith in non-existent technology demonstrated by the Ted Forths of the world whose ideas about computers seem to be based on Star Wars rather than reality. AI is human intelligence. No aspect of AI is not a product of human intelligence. AI cannot contribute anything that is outside the limits of human intelligence; it can do nothing that has not been directed by human intelligence. It is only programming. Very complex but only programming. Incorporating AI into our own organisms will not, if it were ever to be feasible, change the capabilities of either human or “artificial” intelligence.
The strengths of computer technology, whether directed to AI or not, are in the speed of computation and the speed of data retrieval, analysis and decisioning. Those are what extend human capability. And those we have already in our existing machines.
So far, intelligent machines are just as dumb as we are.
Actually much dumber.
Computers are much quicker and precise at reaching an answer to an equations than Man. “AI”, theoretically, gives a computer the ability to adjust the equations on it’s own.
What “AI” will never be able to do is adjust based on ethics and values beyond the input of the programming or the individual to which it is linked. (I won’t even mention the “spiritual”.)
Who’s values would be given weight?
An “AI” also has limited degrees of freedom compared to a human counterpart. It is even more gullible than the average human being who will naively process a diverse spectrum of inputs with indoctrinated — or perhaps doctored — algorithms.
@ur momisugly Gunga Din
The nurtured brain/mind of an “idiot savant” is much quicker at responding with an answer to a question than any electronic computer can.
Wonder what would happen if IBM’s Watson was fed all the climate data and asked whether global warming is valid? Smart algorithms are already beating humans in detecting credit card fraud and diagnosing medical problems, and soon they will be driving our cars better than we can. Just imagine if it was a computer that declared CAGW a fraud:-) The warmistas would be pulling its plug out.
“The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy. But these are new. They look human. Sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait ’til he moved on you before I could zero him.”
With the people that always carry their iphones or whatever around, one wonders if eventually those devices will be wired/implanted in people? I think Futurama did an episode of that…..
They did! Forget the name of it, but on the show it was eyePhone
The only per se ”intelligence” that an electronic computing device possesses is the ability to per se answer “Yes” or ”No”. That is why they are oftentimes referred to as a “binary computer”. Their value at aiding or supplementing a human’s per se ”intelligence” is the fact that said computing device can …. answer “Yes” or ”No” a zillion times per second.
IMHO, any great improvement or advancement in “human intelligence” has to begin with a drastic change in the currently accepted beliefs and/or educational subject matter that is associated with or related to ….. “the functioning and nurturing of the brain/mind of humans”.
Excluding any inherited or biological defects, … the quantity, quality or extent of human “intelligence” is directly determined by the content/context of the “sensed” environmental stimuli (data, info, etc.) that the person’s “sense organs” are subjected to …. beginning on the day of their birth. What a person learns (nurtured) today is highly dependent upon what they learned yesterday, …… and all the yesterdays in succession back until the day they were birthed.
Regarding the nurturing of “intelligence”, the human brain/mind consists of two (2) separate entities, ….. the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. And what the overwhelming majority of individuals refuse to recognize, accept or believe is the fact that …… the functioning of the conscious mind is subservient to the functioning of the subconscious mind.
Cheers
A few thoughts on this post, and the potential use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to solve “wicked problems ” such as global warming and war:
First, one should be cautious about predicting what is possible in the future, such as the future capabilities of AI. History is littered with the failed predictions of famous people, which were utterly wrong.
Next, if one wants to evaluate someone’s predictive competence, first examine their predictive track record. For example, the IPCC has a negative predictive track record, since every one of their scary predictions (aka “projections”) has failed to materialize.
Eliminating war and conflict is difficult because the main problem is absence of Rule of Law. Of the over 200 countries in the world, only about 10% have some form of Rule of Law that is even partially fair and competent (and I am being generous with that 10%).
The remaining ~90% of the world’s countries are kleptocracies, ruled by scoundrels whose main objective is to plunder their public treasuries and remain in power to continue doing so, by whatever means works at that moment. The global warming scam provides an excellent vehicle for such kleptocracies – the rulers expropriate trillions of dollars from the public and give it to their best friends, who kick back a portion to the rulers for their private purses and their pubic re-election campaigns.
Most kleptocracies seek to plunder within their own borders, because that less likely to attract retaliation. They can pick on a minority and steal from them – victims include Jews in Europe over the centuries, and more recently Christians in the Moslem world.
When the conflict of a kleptocracy spills into a neighbouring country, it becomes a border skirmish, or an all-out war. The question then is whether it is a real war, or a phony war – the invention by the kleptocracy of an external enemy to unite the gullible populace under their rulers and to justify the crushing of internal dissent. To date, the Russian move into Ukraine fits this pattern. The German invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938 was of greater significance.
The solution to this problem is to replace the kleptocrats with honest rulers, and that is very difficult. When you think you have gotten rid of one kleptocrat, you often find you have replaced him with someone no better, or even worse. That was the sad but predictable outcome of “Arab Spring”, where marginal governments were too often replaced by worse ones.
Time for coffee! No doubt some clear solutions to this global conundrum will become apparent over a good cup of java.
Regards to all, Allan 🙂
Replacement for paragraph 5 above:
Most kleptocracies seek to plunder within their own borders, because that less likely to attract retaliation. They steal from their own people by misappropriating public money. They seek bribes and other compensation from those who want to conduct business. They sometimes collaborate with criminals such as drug traffickers. They can also pick on a minority and steal from them – victims include Jews in Europe over the centuries, and more recently Christians and others in the Moslem world.
True AI will figure, very quickly, who is lying and supporting junk science and who has a real read on the world. If it has open access to the Internet and stumbles upon Physics, the global warming by man will be quickly dismissed.
A fully developed AI, programmed with the protocols of the scientific method, would quickly reject many ‘peer-reviewed’ papers in climatology.
Set to analyze the body of literature in retrospect, the AI would conclude that to gain the greatest global benefit from most previous research it should be summarily converted to CO2 for the sake of the plants.
Super intelligence will end war?
No matter how smart man becomes, he will still be man. Which means that some men will want to dominate other men. Some men will want to take what other men have.
As long as this remains the case, there will still be fighting and wars.
What is it about liberals and their belief that great (read intelligent) men, will solve all of our problems?
“What is it about liberals and their belief that…”?
Conceit, aggravated by arrogance and insensitivity. They are those of whom Heinlein remarked “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”, and about whom Mencken remarked “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
Hybrids of humans and machines (properly termed ‘cyborgs’) are a LONG way from merging human and artificial intelligence. We still have no functional definition of ‘consciousness’. At present our best shot is the Turing Test, which only asks if we can tell the two apart.
‘Wicked problems’ like climate change and war are more likely than not mis-defined problems.
As a student I learned through my Logic class (in the ‘philosophy’ department) that philosophers fret furiously over 3 kinds of problems: those with no answer, those with an infinitude of answers, and those with a trivial answer that the philosopher finds unacceptable.
Problems with no answer include the classic ‘trisection of an angle’ and ‘squaring of the circle’, which have been mathematically proven to be impossible; or “Why is there air?” – a question which erroneously presumes the existence of something – such as a reason for the existence of something which is not the result of the creative act of a reasoning being.
Problems with an infinitude of answers include problems like the nature of our personal existence (“What am I?”), or like weather (and climate) forecasts – only one of which can be shown to have been correct – but only after the fact.
Problems with an unacceptable answer include problems such as the existence of God and the failures of Utopias. God exists only if you THINK so – if you personally believe your own concept of God represents something that exists. Utopias fail because the ideal environment for any human being is one which constantly challenges the individual to adapt and develop – competition and strife – which leads eventually to war.
Intelligent humans based on computer models? You’re kidding me.. right?
Ah! Of course. They fail to realize the limits to computers, our measurements, and the mathematics behind the climate to be able to predict it. A super-intelligence can perhaps increase someone’s understanding of Mathematics, but you’re still left with measurement errors and computer programming as errors. Again, Climate exhibits the same sensitive dependence to initial conditions (Chaos) that weather does. If you can’t measure it out to the actual bit length of the whole measurement, you will never be able to predict as far out as you want. The predictions will be alright, for a short time, and then differences will become apparent, eventually not even looking remotely similar. This linear abstraction scientists love to live in (you have 1 answer, and you get a lot of answers free!) is the exception in Nature.
As others have said above, just a lack of understanding as a whole and a blatant attempt to suck up grant money for climate research that will go no where and burn holes in tax payers pockets. Furthermore, the implications of modifying ourselves is bound to be bad, for anything beyond repair of a system (Like vision, hearing, walking, etc etc). We would need a huge shift in our behavior to begin to even mature to where we wouldn’t have as many repercussions, but that isn’t bound to happen anytime soon. Love how it harkens me back to Jurassic Park when Ian Malcolm talks about Scientists are only concerned with whether they can do something that they didn’t stop to think if they should, the consequences!!!!!
Eric