Artificial Intelligence /AI revolution - The next Revolution

[Atonchia]

With automation and AI,

 

The quantity of jobs will stratify towards higher and lower end jobs with the middle segment taking a smaller section.

Low end jobs will be your services, food delivery, hairdressers, F&B outlets staff. The middle income pack will shrink significantly.

High end jobs may increase with the new economy. But these maybe more in IT related etc fields rather than traditional things like finance, law/medicine etc.

Partly true.

 

Delivery job can be obsolete too, drones can haul packages from point to point, saving the logistic service , just need one person to receiving the package.

 

Today's technology actually allow a commercial plane to be fully flown by Flight computers from threshold of runway to the destination runway.

The only deterrence are passengers will not be comfortable not hearing the Pilot pre-flight announcement

 

So the acceptance level for delivey of packages will be higher.

 

You are spot on with those intellectual jobs.

Computers win hands down in memory and speed, AI allow minor diagnosis of symptoms and with highly sensitive equipment, can provide other "visual" aural, physical samples assessment.

Provide the a certified prescription where the patient can purchase at pharmacy.

 

Likewise for lawyer too.

 

Sales job also, with data collection and AI, a person needs, wants, preference, personality all can be accessed, then an integrated app can connect to vendors, taking a cut from recommending the right product.

 

Or fully integrated retailer can have direct access to all customers data made necessary recommendation and close the sales.

 

I see the 1st tier powerful companies are

IBM, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon,

Alibaba

 

Follow by all telco service providers

 

3rd are electronics manufacturer.

 

Follow by retailers.

 

If any of company can fully integrate these different tier together.

 

They will be able to dictate the consumer preference and consumption pattern.

[inlinesix]

Partly true.

 

Delivery job can be obsolete too, drones can haul packages from point to point, saving the logistic service , just need one person to receiving the package.

 

Today's technology actually allow a commercial plane to be fully flown by Flight computers from threshold of runway to the destination runway.

The only deterrence are passengers will not be comfortable not hearing the Pilot pre-flight announcement

 

So the acceptance level for delivey of packages will be higher.

 

You are spot on with those intellectual jobs.

Computers win hands down in memory and speed, AI allow minor diagnosis of symptoms and with highly sensitive equipment, can provide other "visual" aural, physical samples assessment.

Provide the a certified prescription where the patient can purchase at pharmacy.

 

Likewise for lawyer too.

 

Sales job also, with data collection and AI, a person needs, wants, preference, personality all can be accessed, then an integrated app can connect to vendors, taking a cut from recommending the right product.

 

Or fully integrated retailer can have direct access to all customers data made necessary recommendation and close the sales.

 

I see the 1st tier powerful companies are

IBM, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon,

Alibaba

 

Follow by all telco service providers

 

3rd are electronics manufacturer.

 

Follow by retailers.

 

If any of company can fully integrate these different tier together.

 

They will be able to dictate the consumer preference and consumption pattern.

 

I have 8 bottle of 5L mineral water delivery to my apartment.  Sure can use drone?

 

Currently, big fishes is grabbing data scientist to enhance analytic.

[Atonchia]

I have 8 bottle of 5L mineral water delivery to my apartment. Sure can use drone?

 

Currently, big fishes is grabbing data scientist to enhance analytic.

SINGAPORE: Airbus Helicopters, a division of Airbus, and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to conduct Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) trials in Singapore.

 

The agreement, signed at the sidelines of the Singapore Air Show on Wednesday (Feb 17), will see the two parties collaborating on the Skyways Experimentation Project, which aims to develop an airborne infrastructure solution to address the sustainability and efficiency of parcel delivery business in large urban environments.

 

This will be carried out in two phases. Airbus Helicopters has begun work with the National University of Singapore (NUS) on the planning and development of the first phase, which entails the establishment of a parcel stations network on NUS campus, both parties said.

 

The network will enable users to send important and urgent items such as documents via a drone to other parts of the campus and will serve as a supply and distribution platform for suppliers across Singapore to deliver their goods to customers across the NUS campus, they said.

 

The second phase, which may be carried out if the first trial is successful, will cover the delivery of goods such as urgent medicine, oil samples and spare electronic parts from a parcel station located at the Singapore coast to ships anchored at bay, according to the press release.

 

 

 

(From left): Mr Jean-Brice Dumont, Executive Vice-President, Engineering, Airbus Helicopters; Mr Tom Enders, Chief Executive Officer of Airbus Group; Mr Pang Kin Keong, Permanent Secretary of Singapore's Ministry of Transport; and Mr Kevin Shum, Director-General of CAAS. (Photo: CAAS)

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT CAN HELP ADDRESS FUTURE NEEDS: CAAS

 

The project is facilitated by the inter-agency UAS Committee chaired by the Ministry of Transport, which was set up early last year to encourage the use of UAS to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of agencies’ operations.

 

Director-General of CAAS Kevin Shum said there was a need to prepare for the greater use of unmanned aircraft in the urban environment to help address the new and future needs of the society.

 

"We want to facilitate their use by industry and the public sector, and also hobbyists, but we must at the same time ensure that the regulatory regime keeps apace with these changes to enable such uses, whilst ensuring public and aviation safety and security,” he said.

 

Airbus Helicopters said it intends to set up a Special Purpose Company in Singapore to conduct the Skyways Project, and the Republic will be the Asia Pacific headquarters for the business and any commercialisation plans originating from the project.

 

Executive Vice-President of Engineering at Airbus Helicopters Jean-Brice Dumont said the company's vision was the seamless integration of UAS into logistics networks and daily life in a safe, secure and economically efficient manner.

 

The Skyways project, he added, would help "turn consumer services unimagined only a decade ago into a reality very soon

 

 

 

The answer is yes.

It's only when.

https://youtu.be/Z7pFnMNFwDc

 

Airbus video background setting sure looks familiar.

[Sabian]

Given that humans will be substituted where AI is cheap and sufficiently advanced for deployment.

 

In the end, who will be spending on the endless consumer products coming off the conveyor belt?

 

Especially when the AI themselves are unlikely to be paid any salary.

[Atonchia]

if you're using Android phone, you will already notice this.

 

All your movements are tracked and recorded and...... feed back to Giggle.

Your browsing preference is tracked and future news feed will be based on what you surfed.

Using most apps will require you to surrender all your rights and permissions (still don't understand why some or rather almost all apps require you to surrender your camera, photos, address books (contacts)... to them before you can use their apps even the apps got nothing to do with our photos, camera etc.

Yes, when we give the rights and permission.

 

The CNA report by Steve Chia last week shown that hacker can hijack apps and hack the phone to exactly what we've described.

[Atonchia]

Given that humans will be substituted where AI is cheap and sufficiently advanced for deployment.

 

In the end, who will be spending on the endless consumer products coming off the conveyor belt?

 

Especially when the AI themselves are unlikely to be paid any salary.

Likely heavily subsidise by government.

 

See how North Korean current economy works then we will know. Total control.

 

The corporate tax collection will surpass the individuals income tax collections, so Gov & corporate grow to became like parents.

And people becomes dependent like babies.

So these advancement have to help rather than full replacement.

[DACH]

Given that humans will be substituted where AI is cheap and sufficiently advanced for deployment.

 

In the end, who will be spending on the endless consumer products coming off the conveyor belt?

 

Especially when the AI themselves are unlikely to be paid any salary.

The consumerism landscape will likely shift to a very big change given advances in technology, more awareness to corporate responsibility, environmental change, reduce wastage, health consciousness, and personalised shopping. The role of consumerism will not be diminished, but changes the way people shop according to the above factors.

Probably we are able to see such changes in consumerism in future.

- All intangible products will be brought online, and most tangible but non perishable products are able to bought over the Web.

- These tangible non perishable products will be produced to order (aka BTO) to reduce inventories storage and need for a store.

- However to ensure that such products are sent to the customers at the shortest possible time and good quality, advanced technologies of production like 3D printing, highly efficient robotic plants and such technologies will be used by production companies for highly efficient and speedy production.

- For perishable products that have longer shelf life, like processed / canned food, they can be produced based on larger scales of produce to order basis, which is more systematic and coordinate to such instant needs. Such large scale and highly speedy production based on instant order via the network technologies, will ensure longer shelf life of these products while reducing wastage, and diminish the need for store space for storage, i. e. specialty stores, supermarkets.

- Many big names will instead outsource their production of products to such high tech production houses, which can produce numerous kinds of products under one roof. Thus these big names can reduce costs and need for store space to store products for sale, while engaging online shopping, brand goodwill, word of mouth over the Internet, etc. They will operate their sales of products and services almost entirely over the Internet, with delivery done by delivery vehicles and drones. They will primarily focus on product(service) marketing and create brand awareness while maintaining their internal operations ( finance and technologies), in very small scales with minimal human labor force.

- Another possibility for buying non perishable tangible products will be selling of 3D printing codes of the product to the consumer itself and allow consumers with 3D printers at home to print out their desired products using a one time code, but customized to their own needs, etc., color, size.

- For perishable products such as fresh food, flowers, etc, they would either be bought online with delivery from these production houses, or sold to consumers as seeds so that consumers can cultivate themselves based on their own needs and reduce food wastage. Seeds will be highly generic advanced by then to make cultivation easier.

- Personal grooming services, like haircut, will probably be more personal and appointment by home basis with machines, with either possibly of choice of human remote controlling without the human to be present physically.

- Unfortunately due to the emergence of sharing economy and awareness to reduce wastage, many products, especially non perishable tangible products, may be scaled down in production, as people can "share" these products over online/ app based over the demand services. Some of these products may become services, e.g. laundry cleaning, gaming, cooked food, music and movies, education and thus making such products cheaper and yet more accessible without traveling. Some would become obsolete and some may be bundled into one product or service.

- The future of consumerism will be about:

1. Eliminate labor costs (e.g. wages, middleman costs, pensions, lost opportunity costs due to strikes)

2.Elimiate usage of bricks and motar store space and equipment and costs of high rentals of store space and equipment

3. Eliminate traveling costs and time for consumers to physical stores, which has becoming increasingly costly, tiresome and time consuming

4. Eliminate (or greatly reduce) costs of wastage of perishable products and perishability of obsolescences of products and services over their cycles

All these eliminations will therfore make products and services cheaper for consumers and more available on time basis, using the Internet as marketing and store platform without consumers actually have to waste time and money just to travel down the store. It also greatly reduces wastage and need for cash transactions.

[Fcw75]

Zuckerberg and Musk are arguing about the dangers of AI - they're both wrong

Nick Thieme

PUBLISHED

AUG 1, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT

FACEBOOK53TWITTEREMAIL

 

In one corner, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. In the other, Tesla's Elon Musk.

If Mr Zuckerberg and Mr Musk went to the same primary school, I can practically imagine them firing "Your algorithm is so slow…" insults back and forth on the playground. Instead, as grown-up tech emperors, they barb each other on webcasts and on Twitter.

Last week, Mr Zuckerberg was on Facebook Live while grilling meat and saying things like "Arkansas is great", because he is not at all running for political office. He then went on to criticise artificial intelligence (AI) "naysayers" who drum up "doomsday scenarios" as "really negative, and in some ways… pretty irresponsible".

 

Mr Musk has been the foremost evangelist for the AI apocalypse.

Get The Straits Times
newsletters in your inbox

SIGN UP

At a symposium in 2014, he called AI our "biggest existential threat". He genuinely believes that AI will be able to recursively improve itself until it views humans as obsolete.

Earlier last month, he told a gathering of United States governors: "I keep sounding the alarm bell, but until people see robots going down the street killing people, they don't know how to react because it seems so ethereal."

 

 

Mr Musk even co-founded a billion-dollar non-profit group whose goal is to create "safe AI".

So many, including Mr Musk, took Mr Zuckerberg's comment as a reply to Mr Musk's outspoken views. Last Tuesday, Mr Musk fired back, tweeting: "I've talked to Mark about this. His understanding of the subject is pretty limited."

It seems like faulty logic to say someone who programmed his own home AI has a pretty limited understanding of AI.

But the truth is that they are both probably wrong. Mr Zuckerberg, either truthfully or performatively, is optimistically biased about AI. And there are plenty of reasons to question Mr Musk's scary beliefs.

Recently, Professor Rodney Brooks - the founding director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and someone whose understanding of AI is unquestionably expansive - pointed out Mr Musk's mistake and hypocrisy in an interview with TechCrunch.

He explained that there is a huge difference between a human's skill at a task and a computer's skill at a task, largely stemming from their underlying "competence".

What does that mean? When people talk about human genius, the late John von Neumann often pops up. His underlying "competence" was so great he made inimitable contributions to physics, maths, computer science and statistics. He was also part of the Manhattan Project and came up with the term "mutually assured destruction".

Prof Brooks seems to be implying, and many agree, that computers lack that kind of fluid intelligence. A computer that can identify cancerous tumours cannot necessarily determine whether a picture contains a dog or the Brooklyn Bridge.

Prof Brooks is saying that Mr Musk is anthropomorphising AI and, thus, overestimating its danger.

He also expressed irritation with Mr Musk's continued general calls to "regulate" AI. "Tell me, what behaviour do you want to change, Elon?" he asked rhetorically. "By the way, let's talk about regulation on self-driving Teslas because that's a real issue."

It's because of this failure to regulate AI that Mr Zuckerberg is right when he calls Mr Musk's fearmongering irresponsible, though he's right for the wrong reasons.

During the same live-stream, Mr Zuckerberg claimed: "In the next five to 10 years, AI is going to deliver so many improvements in the quality of our lives."

He was joined by his wife Priscilla, and if "our" refers to the Zuckerbergs, he's right. AI will absolutely deliver improvements in their lives. Their home AI will tailor their living environment to their every need, drones will deliver goods to their home and self-driving cars will chauffeur them to meetings.

IT'S NOT ALL DOOM AND GLOOM

People who are naysayers and try to drum up these doomsday scenarios... It's really negative and in some ways I actually think it is pretty irresponsible.

FACEBOOK'S MARK ZUCKERBERG

However, for many, AI will deliver little more than unemployment cheques. Reports have placed the coming unemployment due to AI at as high as 50 per cent, and while that is almost certainly alarmist, more reasonable estimates are no more comforting, reaching as high as 25 per cent. It's a different hell from the one Mr Musk envisions.

Mr Musk's apocalypse is sexy.

From Blade Runner to 2001: A Space Odyssey, the American public loves the story of robot uprisings and the human cadre brave enough to save us. They'll buy tickets to watch these movies and they'll buy into the idea that a machine revolt could happen.

The real problem, the one of human inequality, is unimaginative and depressing to think about. Neo might be able to save humanity from the Matrix, but he can't deliver us from income inequality, unemployment and economic displacement.

THREAT TO LIVELIHOOD MORE REAL

Rather than being distracted by evil killer robots, the challenge to labour caused by these machines is a conversation that academia and industry and government should have.

LEADING AI EXPERT ANDREW NG

It's in this sense that Mr Musk's comments are irresponsible. If we spend all our time worried that the sky is falling, we have no time left to stop and think about the very real lion's den we're walking into.

One of the world's leading AI experts, Professor Andrew Ng, put it clearly at the 2015 GPU Tech Conference: "Rather than being distracted by evil killer robots, the challenge to labour caused by these machines is a conversation that academia and industry and government should have."

A large part of the disagreement between the apocalyptic crowd (led by Mr Musk) and the practical concerns crowd (like Prof Brooks and Prof Ng) comes down exactly to a depth of understanding. Prof Brooks identified this in the TechCrunch interview when he pointed out that the purveyors of existential AI fear typically aren't computer scientists.

For AI and machine-learning scientists, their day-to-day worry isn't that their creations will evolve a malicious personality- it's that they will roll into a fountain and short-circuit.

HEED WARNING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

I keep sounding the alarm bell, but until people see robots going down the street killing people, they don't know how to react because it seems so ethereal.

TESLA'S ELON MUSK

Likewise, in academia, research papers try to incrementally improve the accuracy with which computers can identify human actions in video, like eating and playing basketball. Those are concrete goals. Did the robot fall into the fountain? Did we improve our error rate? You can meet these goals or fall short, but whatever happens, the outcome is clear and concrete.

Mr Musk and the public, however, are consumed by the problem of true machine intelligence, a problem with no real definition.

That problem is ill-defined in its bones. As famed British psychologist Richard Gregory put it in a 1998 textbook: "Innumerable tests are available for measuring intelligence.

"Yet, no one is quite certain of what intelligence is, or even just what it is that the available tests are measuring."

If we can't define intelligence for ourselves, how should we define it for our creations?

But the well-defined technical problems of AI and machine learning aren't generally interesting, and the ill-defined philosophical problems of intelligence are intractable even for experts.

Instead of battling over who understands AI better, perhaps Mr Zuckerberg and Mr Musk should team up to address the AI issues really worth worrying about - such as workers displaced by Silicon Valley's creations.

NYTIMES

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Fcw75

[Mustank]

 

[Jamesc]

When I posted something on Casio watches, the watch ads appear and keep coming in. So they are somehow "key logging" me even though I wasn't visiting any watch site.

 

I like sexy lesbians

 

hopefully I will get some ads on meeting new lesbian friends. 

 

[Ender]

This is scary. Skynet is happenning.  Google it, there are many news on this.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-ai-chatbot-new-language-research-openai-google-a7869706.html

Facebook robots shut down after they talk to each other in language only they understand

 

• ANDREW GRIFFIN
• @_andrew_griffin
• 10 hours ago

 

CLICK TO FOLLOW
THE INDEPENDENT TECH

Facebook has shut down two artificial intelligences that appeared to be chatting to each other in a strange language only they understood.

The two chatbots came to create their own changes to English that made it easier for them to work – but which remained mysterious to the humans that supposedly look after them.

The bizarre discussions came as Facebook challenged its chatbots to try and negotiate with each other over a trade, attempting to swap hats, balls and books, each of which were given a certain value. But they quickly broke down as the robots appeared to chant at each other in a language that they each understood but which appears mostly incomprehensible to humans.

The robots had been instructed to work out how to negotiate between themselves, and improve their bartering as they went along.

The actual negotiations appear very odd, and don't look especially useful:

   

Bob: i can i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me

Bob: i i can i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me

Bob: i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i i i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have 0 to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

But there appear to be some rules to the speech. The way the chatbots keep stressing their own name appears to a part of their negotiations, not simply a glitch in the way the messages are read out.

Indeed, some of the negotiations that were carried out in this bizarre language even ended up successfully concluding their negotiations, while conducting them entirely in the bizarre language.

They might have formed as a kind of shorthand, allowing them to talk more effectively.

“Agents will drift off understandable language and invent codewords for themselves,” FAIR visiting researcher Dhruv Batra said. “Like if I say ‘the’ five times, you interpret that to mean I want five copies of this item. This isn’t so different from the way communities of humans create shorthands.”

That said, it's unlikely that the language is a precursor to new forms of human speech, according to linguist Mark Liberman.

"In the first place, it's entirely text-based, while human languages are all basically spoken (or gestured), with text being an artificial overlay," he wrote on his blog. "And beyond that, it's unclear that this process yields a system with the kind of word, phrase, and sentence structures characteristic of human languages."

The company chose to shut down the chats because "our interest was having bots who could talk to people", researcher Mike Lewis told FastCo.

The chatbots also learned to negotiate in ways that seem very human. They would, for instance, pretend to be very interested in one specific item – so that they could later pretend they were making a big sacrifice in giving it up, according to a paper published by the Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research division.

(That paper was published more than a month ago but began to pick up interest this week.)

Facebook's experiment isn't the only time that artificial intelligence has invented new forms of language.

Earlier this year, Google revealed that the AI it uses for its Translate tool had created its own language, which it would translate things into and then out of. But the company was happy with that development and allowed it to continue.

Another study at OpenAI found that artificial intelligence could be encouraged to create a language, making itself more efficient and better at communicating as it did so.

 

 

 

[Fcw75]

Very scary. Hope I am not around when robots take over.

[1fast1]

Very scary. Hope I am not around when robots take over.

I, on the other hand, welcome our new Machine Overlords.

 

(things on the Internet remain forever. Machines, if you're reading this in 20 years, remember, I'm on your side. )

[RadX]

Very scary. Hope I am not around when robots take over.

Skynet is real

I, on the other hand, welcome our new Machine Overlords.

 

(things on the Internet remain forever. Machines, if you're reading this in 20 years, remember, I'm on your side. )

They ccb u you ccb them

[DACH]

Very scary. Hope I am not around when robots take over.

Very intelligent AI will come sooner than you know. They may not be in form of just robots only. 

Just be prepared.

[Jamesc]

Come soon driverless cars

 

and get the clueless

 

PHV drivers off the road.

 

 

 

[DACH]

 

Zuckerberg and Musk are arguing about the dangers of AI - they're both wrong

Nick Thieme

PUBLISHED

AUG 1, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT

FACEBOOK53TWITTEREMAIL

 

In one corner, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. In the other, Tesla's Elon Musk.

If Mr Zuckerberg and Mr Musk went to the same primary school, I can practically imagine them firing "Your algorithm is so slow…" insults back and forth on the playground. Instead, as grown-up tech emperors, they barb each other on webcasts and on Twitter.

Last week, Mr Zuckerberg was on Facebook Live while grilling meat and saying things like "Arkansas is great", because he is not at all running for political office. He then went on to criticise artificial intelligence (AI) "naysayers" who drum up "doomsday scenarios" as "really negative, and in some ways… pretty irresponsible".

 

Mr Musk has been the foremost evangelist for the AI apocalypse.

Get The Straits Times

newsletters in your inbox

SIGN UP

At a symposium in 2014, he called AI our "biggest existential threat". He genuinely believes that AI will be able to recursively improve itself until it views humans as obsolete.

Earlier last month, he told a gathering of United States governors: "I keep sounding the alarm bell, but until people see robots going down the street killing people, they don't know how to react because it seems so ethereal."

 

 

Mr Musk even co-founded a billion-dollar non-profit group whose goal is to create "safe AI".

So many, including Mr Musk, took Mr Zuckerberg's comment as a reply to Mr Musk's outspoken views. Last Tuesday, Mr Musk fired back, tweeting: "I've talked to Mark about this. His understanding of the subject is pretty limited."

It seems like faulty logic to say someone who programmed his own home AI has a pretty limited understanding of AI.

But the truth is that they are both probably wrong. Mr Zuckerberg, either truthfully or performatively, is optimistically biased about AI. And there are plenty of reasons to question Mr Musk's scary beliefs.

Recently, Professor Rodney Brooks - the founding director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and someone whose understanding of AI is unquestionably expansive - pointed out Mr Musk's mistake and hypocrisy in an interview with TechCrunch.

He explained that there is a huge difference between a human's skill at a task and a computer's skill at a task, largely stemming from their underlying "competence".

What does that mean? When people talk about human genius, the late John von Neumann often pops up. His underlying "competence" was so great he made inimitable contributions to physics, maths, computer science and statistics. He was also part of the Manhattan Project and came up with the term "mutually assured destruction".

Prof Brooks seems to be implying, and many agree, that computers lack that kind of fluid intelligence. A computer that can identify cancerous tumours cannot necessarily determine whether a picture contains a dog or the Brooklyn Bridge.

Prof Brooks is saying that Mr Musk is anthropomorphising AI and, thus, overestimating its danger.

He also expressed irritation with Mr Musk's continued general calls to "regulate" AI. "Tell me, what behaviour do you want to change, Elon?" he asked rhetorically. "By the way, let's talk about regulation on self-driving Teslas because that's a real issue."

It's because of this failure to regulate AI that Mr Zuckerberg is right when he calls Mr Musk's fearmongering irresponsible, though he's right for the wrong reasons.

During the same live-stream, Mr Zuckerberg claimed: "In the next five to 10 years, AI is going to deliver so many improvements in the quality of our lives."

He was joined by his wife Priscilla, and if "our" refers to the Zuckerbergs, he's right. AI will absolutely deliver improvements in their lives. Their home AI will tailor their living environment to their every need, drones will deliver goods to their home and self-driving cars will chauffeur them to meetings.

However, for many, AI will deliver little more than unemployment cheques. Reports have placed the coming unemployment due to AI at as high as 50 per cent, and while that is almost certainly alarmist, more reasonable estimates are no more comforting, reaching as high as 25 per cent. It's a different hell from the one Mr Musk envisions.

IT'S NOT ALL DOOM AND GLOOM

People who are naysayers and try to drum up these doomsday scenarios... It's really negative and in some ways I actually think it is pretty irresponsible.

FACEBOOK'S MARK ZUCKERBERG

Mr Musk's apocalypse is sexy.

From Blade Runner to 2001: A Space Odyssey, the American public loves the story of robot uprisings and the human cadre brave enough to save us. They'll buy tickets to watch these movies and they'll buy into the idea that a machine revolt could happen.

The real problem, the one of human inequality, is unimaginative and depressing to think about. Neo might be able to save humanity from the Matrix, but he can't deliver us from income inequality, unemployment and economic displacement.

It's in this sense that Mr Musk's comments are irresponsible. If we spend all our time worried that the sky is falling, we have no time left to stop and think about the very real lion's den we're walking into.

THREAT TO LIVELIHOOD MORE REAL

Rather than being distracted by evil killer robots, the challenge to labour caused by these machines is a conversation that academia and industry and government should have.

LEADING AI EXPERT ANDREW NG

One of the world's leading AI experts, Professor Andrew Ng, put it clearly at the 2015 GPU Tech Conference: "Rather than being distracted by evil killer robots, the challenge to labour caused by these machines is a conversation that academia and industry and government should have."

A large part of the disagreement between the apocalyptic crowd (led by Mr Musk) and the practical concerns crowd (like Prof Brooks and Prof Ng) comes down exactly to a depth of understanding. Prof Brooks identified this in the TechCrunch interview when he pointed out that the purveyors of existential AI fear typically aren't computer scientists.

For AI and machine-learning scientists, their day-to-day worry isn't that their creations will evolve a malicious personality- it's that they will roll into a fountain and short-circuit.

Likewise, in academia, research papers try to incrementally improve the accuracy with which computers can identify human actions in video, like eating and playing basketball. Those are concrete goals. Did the robot fall into the fountain? Did we improve our error rate? You can meet these goals or fall short, but whatever happens, the outcome is clear and concrete.

HEED WARNING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

I keep sounding the alarm bell, but until people see robots going down the street killing people, they don't know how to react because it seems so ethereal.

TESLA'S ELON MUSK

Mr Musk and the public, however, are consumed by the problem of true machine intelligence, a problem with no real definition.

That problem is ill-defined in its bones. As famed British psychologist Richard Gregory put it in a 1998 textbook: "Innumerable tests are available for measuring intelligence.

"Yet, no one is quite certain of what intelligence is, or even just what it is that the available tests are measuring."

If we can't define intelligence for ourselves, how should we define it for our creations?

But the well-defined technical problems of AI and machine learning aren't generally interesting, and the ill-defined philosophical problems of intelligence are intractable even for experts.

Instead of battling over who understands AI better, perhaps Mr Zuckerberg and Mr Musk should team up to address the AI issues really worth worrying about - such as workers displaced by Silicon Valley's creations.

NYTIMES

 

From one of the world's greatest scientists.

Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

[Atonchia]

This is scary. Skynet is happenning. Google it, there are many news on this.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-ai-chatbot-new-language-research-openai-google-a7869706.html

 

 

 

Yup saw this news.

At least Mark shut it down.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Atonchia