AI is outperforming humans in both IQ and creativity in 2021

[mosaix]

The question is not how many terra flops it takes to mimic a human mind, but how many terra flops does it take to mimic the brain of a crow. The goal of the thinking might be more important than what is being thought, such as self preservation with a future existence.

I like your use of the word ‘mimic’.

In my mind I have started replacing the the word ‘Artificial’ whenever I see it with ‘Apparent’.

I do believe there’s a lot of nonsense talked about ‘conscious’ computers. Examine the basic command set of computer - add, subtract, compare etc. - there’s nothing in there that allows for consciousness.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

To quote Socrates: “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.”

How wrong he was about that last bit. It's precisely our discussions about other people that make us conscious.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I do believe there’s a lot of nonsense talked about ‘conscious’ computers. Examine the basic command set of computer - add, subtract, compare etc. - there’s nothing in there that allows for consciousness.

Examine a neuron, however. It attenuates and propagates electrical pulses. There's nothing in this that allows for consciousness (as far as we can understand). It is the absolute lack of knowledge of what constitutes consciousness that leaves computer consciousness in the realm of possibility. Personally, I view computer consciousness as extremely improbable. Trying to analyze consciousness, though, by looking at the level of individual neurons or transistors seems as useful as determining a good cookie recipe by looking at atomic structures. There are too many orders of magnitude difference between the two.

 

[CrazyKB]

We already had ICBMs well before the moon program. The first American's in space used modified ICBMs. So I don't follow what the Atlas program had to demonstrate about ballistic missiles. It wasn't a ballistic missile and wasn't used as the basis for one.

I said that the space race had to do primarily with rocket technology, based on the Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. If the Cold War didn't occur I doubt the United States would have went to the moon. And although the US had ICBMs before the moon landings, they couldn't reach their intended targets. The first Atlas tests in the late 50s were failures, if memory serves me correctly. It wouldn't be till the early 60s that the US had the means of launching (land based) nuclear payloads that could reach their destinations with their Minuteman ICBMs.

Anyway, my point was that the Moon landings had more to do with the Cold War than Space Exploration.

 

[mosaix]

Examine a neuron, however. It attenuates and propagates electrical pulses. There's nothing in this that allows for consciousness (as far as we can understand). It is the absolute lack of knowledge of what constitutes consciousness that leaves computer consciousness in the realm of possibility. Personally, I view computer consciousness as extremely improbable. Trying to analyze consciousness, though, by looking at the level of individual neurons or transistors seems as useful as determining a good cookie recipe by looking at atomic structures. There are too many orders of magnitude difference between the two.

We know very little about consciousness but we do know a lot about computers. The general public are fooled by the speed of computers into believing that, somehow, they are thinking. We know they aren't. No matter how complex the program, whether we understand the program or not, no matter how the program was generated, it's just one command at a time - add, subtract, multiply and divide. There is nothing else.

 

[CrazyKB]

How wrong he was about that last bit. It's precisely our discussions about other people that make us conscious.

That's a non sequitur based on the Socrates Quote. He wasn't opining on consciousness itself, but rather what certain people are interested in. Also, how do you know whether your conscious experience leads to 'discussions about other people', or that the state we call consciousness is nothing more than a simulation based on what the brain is processing (discussions of other people in the case). There's some compelling research that illustrates it maybe the latter.

To get back to the quote by Socrates. He had a point. Look at what passes for entertainment today, or the vacuous, trite landscape of Social Media. I doubt someone like you, or most of us on here, are interested in those things. The question is 'why' most of us find those things distasteful, while others gravitate toward them like a moth to a flame. I believe the aforementioned quote provides a good answer.

If we use the current state of pop culture as a metric for human intellect, it would appear that 'strong minds' are in short supply ...

 

[CrazyKB]

We know very little about consciousness but we do know a lot about computers. The general public are fooled by the speed of computers into believing that, somehow, they are thinking. We know they aren't. No matter how complex the program, whether we understand the program or not, no matter how the program was generated, it's just one command at a time - add, subtract, multiply and divide. There is nothing else.

How do you define 'thinking'?

 

[Swank]

I said that the space race had to do primarily with rocket technology, based on the Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. If the Cold War didn't occur I doubt the United States would have went to the moon. And although the US had ICBMs before the moon landings, they couldn't reach their intended targets. The first Atlas tests in the late 50s were failures, if memory serves me correctly. It wouldn't be till the early 60s that the US had the means of launching (land based) nuclear payloads that could reach their destinations with their Minuteman ICBMs.

Anyway, my point was that the Moon landings had more to do with the Cold War than Space Exploration.

I disagree. The US had transformed itself via WWII, and Kennedy was looking for the next great nationally unifying project to keep America on the forefront.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I disagree. The US had transformed itself via WWII, and Kennedy was looking for the next great nationally unifying project to keep America on the forefront.

I think that it was a bit of both. The competitiveness between the USA and USSR had only grown since the end of WWII, and perhaps both sides realised that competing in a 'race for space' was preferable to that of the arms race back on Earth. Getting to the Moon was something that we have always dreamed of, whatever your nationality or era you were born into, and when Kennedy made that great speech in 1962 he made dreams into a tangible possibility.

Like is often the case, competitiveness drives innovation. It's highly likely that we as humans would have made the Moon landings, but it hadn't been for the Cold War, probably not so soon as we did.

I absolutely believe that we did go to the Moon, and it still makes me wonder just how risky it was. I think that part of the reason why we haven't returned since isn't monetary, but from an abundance of caution.

 

[KGeo777]

I think the fuss about AI (it can be serious in terms of potential job losses) but it is partly deflection /excuse-making for the erosion of social-cultural health in the West.
Computers contributed in some ways since it allowed for increasing centralized control in the hands of folks who regard national culture as a kind of bacteria. This centralized control removed individual creative decision-making and public exposure to things that are of no interest to the gatekeepers. AI is coming along at a time when the highest level of creative expression in the commercial media is a slap across the face at an awards show in between a drag performance. That is where we are at-a state of institutional rot and disdain for preservation of western culture in the commercial realm -- a kind of chaotic tedium.
So people--especially the media gatekeepers are saying, "look at AI! You can't compete with the machine!"
The attitude in the international corporate realm is that an AI machine is more PC (no pun intended) than a flesh and blood native of Europe being an artist with an audience at home.
We are at that point.
As Solzhenitsyn said--he was speaking about the US in 1978-he wasn't talking about technology but it fits:
"A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information. Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas."

And he said that he had talked to US citizens who had ideas--professors etc--and they were shut out of the media because they did not reflect the agendas of the gatekeepers.
And that is so true now--and AI is being used as a media distraction and for demoralization scaremongering. Sensational formulas.

 

[Swank]

Is that coming from Western Bureau of Excuse Making or one of their subsidiaries?

I think the fuss about AI (it can be serious in terms of potential job losses) but it is partly deflection /excuse-making for the erosion of social-cultural health in the West.
Computers contributed in some ways since it allowed for increasing centralized control in the hands of folks who regard national culture as a kind of bacteria. This centralized control removed individual creative decision-making and public exposure to things that are of no interest to the gatekeepers. AI is coming along at a time when the highest level of creative expression in the commercial media is a slap across the face at an awards show in between a drag performance. That is where we are at-a state of institutional rot and disdain for preservation of western culture in the commercial realm -- a kind of chaotic tedium.
So people--especially the media gatekeepers are saying, "look at AI! You can't compete with the machine!"
The attitude in the international corporate realm is that an AI machine is more PC (no pun intended) than a flesh and blood native of Europe being an artist with an audience at home.
We are at that point.
As Solzhenitsyn said--he was speaking about the US in 1978-he wasn't talking about technology but it fits:
"A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information. Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas."

And he said that he had talked to US citizens who had ideas--professors etc--and they were shut out of the media because they did not reflect the agendas of the gatekeepers.
And that is so true now--and AI is being used as a media distraction and for demoralization scaremongering. Sensational formulas.

 

[KGeo777]

Is that coming from Western Bureau of Excuse Making or one of their subsidiaries?

It is taxpayer subsidized either way!

My best guess:

Allied Scientists Seeking Hyperbolic Anxiety Transhumanist Society

 

[Harpo]

Acronyms Say Some Hilarious And Terrible Stuff

 

[CrazyKB]

I disagree. The US had transformed itself via WWII, and Kennedy was looking for the next great nationally unifying project to keep America on the forefront.

I think that it was a bit of both. The competitiveness between the USA and USSR had only grown since the end of WWII, and perhaps both sides realised that competing in a 'race for space' was preferable to that of the arms race back on Earth. Getting to the Moon was something that we have always dreamed of, whatever your nationality or era you were born into, and when Kennedy made that great speech in 1962 he made dreams into a tangible possibility.

Like is often the case, competitiveness drives innovation. It's highly likely that we as humans would have made the Moon landings, but it hadn't been for the Cold War, probably not so soon as we did.

I absolutely believe that we did go to the Moon, and it still makes me wonder just how risky it was. I think that part of the reason why we haven't returned since isn't monetary, but from an abundance of caution.

Again, I believe the desire to go to the moon was based on the fact that America lost to the USSR in putting a satellite and human in orbit, the last thing left on the table, that could be accomplished relatively quickly, was the Moon. Thus, I agree with you and Swank that part of the motivation to go to the Moon was based on 'American Pride'.

I also agree that we would have went there eventually. I also believe that we should build a base on the Moon before we attempt a trip to Mars. It's akin to camping, better to test your gear and your fortitude close to home, before you venture into the 'great unknown'. And yes, space travel beyond the protection of our Earth's protective shield (Magnetosphere) is extremely precarious, especially with the technology available during the moon landings.

 

[CrazyKB]

I disagree. The US had transformed itself via WWII, and Kennedy was looking for the next great nationally unifying project to keep America on the forefront.

See my response to Marvin.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Again, I believe the desire to go to the moon was based on the fact that America lost to the USSR in putting a satellite and human in orbit, the last thing left on the table, that could be accomplished relatively quickly, was the Moon. Thus, I agree with you and Swank that part of the motivation to go to the Moon was based on 'American Pride'.

I also agree that we would have went there eventually. I also believe that we should build a base on the Moon before we attempt a trip to Mars. It's akin to camping, better to test your gear and your fortitude close to home, before you venture into the 'great unknown'. And yes, space travel beyond the protection of our Earth's protective shield (Magnetosphere) is extremely precarious, especially with the technology available during the moon landings.

I agree/ If you can't put a tent up in your own back garden, forget about attempting it on top of Everest. That is, if it's safe to do so. The ground on Mars is likely to be more solid than that on the Moon, which they think is hollow, or at least low density. But we need at least to get the ball rolling by sending crewed spacecraft to the Moon.

Personally I think that it's more likely that space stations are more likely to be set up in orbit first, and gradually as they grow and extend for piloted missions made to the surface, where over time laboratories and habitations could be set up. The danger is that falling meteorites or a particularly bad storm on the surface could severely damage a colony, with not much chance of anyone being able to come to the rescue in time.

 

[Swank]

I think talking about Mars as a place to live is foolhardy. The moon has a lot to offer with much fewer hazards.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

I think the fuss about AI (it can be serious in terms of potential job losses) but it is partly deflection /excuse-making for the erosion of social-cultural health in the West.
Computers contributed in some ways since it allowed for increasing centralized control in the hands of folks who regard national culture as a kind of bacteria. This centralized control removed individual creative decision-making and public exposure to things that are of no interest to the gatekeepers. AI is coming along at a time when the highest level of creative expression in the commercial media is a slap across the face at an awards show in between a drag performance. That is where we are at-a state of institutional rot and disdain for preservation of western culture in the commercial realm -- a kind of chaotic tedium.
So people--especially the media gatekeepers are saying, "look at AI! You can't compete with the machine!"
The attitude in the international corporate realm is that an AI machine is more PC (no pun intended) than a flesh and blood native of Europe being an artist with an audience at home.
We are at that point.
As Solzhenitsyn said--he was speaking about the US in 1978-he wasn't talking about technology but it fits:
"A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information. Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas."

And he said that he had talked to US citizens who had ideas--professors etc--and they were shut out of the media because they did not reflect the agendas of the gatekeepers.
And that is so true now--and AI is being used as a media distraction and for demoralization scaremongering. Sensational formulas.

The fuss about AI and job loss is the silliest argument of them all. Jobs are always in transition. There are few jobs in that existed 100 years ago that exist today. And the ones that do are generally very different. There is a financial term for shedding jobs through new technology -- it is called increased productivity. That is each man-hour of labor produces more stuff --- OR few people are producing the same economic value for the employer.

This has been going on since at least the stone age. Pre-stone age records are hard to come by.

How is AI going to affect life in other ways.
What does one do when their Robotic Romantic Partner breaks up with them? Chatbots are already doing it.

Can you see it. "You don't own me!"

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

AI Accurately Predicts If – And When – Someone Could Die of Sudden Cardiac Arrest​

Link Here

I hear that certain mobsters have that skill as well...

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Most people in this thread have convinced themselves that "we don't have a clue what consciousness is." The reality is somewhat different. A generally accepted view had been around for 40 years. When you factor in recent neurological evidence it's even better. I suspect this is a hangover of Cartesian thinking and religious thinking - that is, it's all nonphysical and really rather mysterious. Thank you, Descartes.