What the future holds...
Levels of AI:
Narrow AI refers to AI which is able to handle just one particular task.
Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the intelligence of a machine that could successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can.
The step between narrow AI and general AI is known as broad AI.
"Broad AI recognizes that you have to bring learning and reasoning together, so you can learn from less examples and across more tasks in a domain," Gil said. It has to be scalable, driven by automated programming and specialized AI hardware, he added. It's also not just about accuracy, but about making a trusted AI, meaning it must be explainable, fair, and secure.
We need a treaty/agreement like 'The Third Geneva Convention' to regulate AI. It is essential to have global regulations as soon as possible.
China is already using AI to shadow and in schools (Squirrel AI) and total surveillance to enhanced with robots to help the police spy on ppl; while using all the big data to predict every next step of ppl; and alert on unexpected/suspicious behaviour.
USA: Sentient; NSA; Black Sky...
Aside from the Governments these are the next giant tech-companies that are monopolies in their field/service what they provide:
-Google monopoly in search engine (search censorship/ads); their market share (according statcounter.com) is claimed to be 92.19%, comapred to bing:2.61%; Yahoo!:1.85%; Baidu:1.21%... for the past year.
-Social Media platforms that can be considered monopolies for their type of distinguished services: Facebook/Youtube/Twitter/Reddit/Instagram/Pinterest/LinkedIn/Quora/Thumblr/Yelp.
-Amazon king of online retail business; and focus on Machine Learning & AWS platform.
-Apple with it's hardware products and brand that represents quality & trend.
-IBM could be considered probably the most neutral of all; because of Quantum computing being mostly open source (qiskit); however the impressive achievements such as Watson at Jeopardy and IBM Debater could be threatening in wrong hands or if executed poorly; despite that some argue that it does not have true understanding #Chinese room paradox.
Maybe we do not have to worry about these tech companies directly as we have to about the governments; because many of them are partners with OpenAI that was founded @11.December.2015
(amazon; Apple; facebook; Google; IBM; Microsoft; Samsung)
...However it is already bad enough in my opinion that we are constantly targeted with personalized advertising that is many times based on not explicitly agreed to share meta data.
If you have for example the default facebook app on your phone and gave permission to your mic once (as you wanted to call somebody via fb..) it doesn't just do that. It will keep on listening to you. Don't even have to mention things via any other channel. (mail/instant message/post/whatever..) It will pick up the info offline as well while you are speaking IRL. Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri might be doing the same; and this is again just one region/aspect of spying. Many apps also share your geo location where you are usually located and will share to local markets in your area (for a nice fee of course), without you ever knowing it..
With so much data it doesn't have to be 2030 till one of these giants builds the last thing humankind needs to invent - General AI aka AGI - then the race is over as the advancement is exponential. Being just one month ahead of the other in this 'race' is an infinite gap in power. (To highlight how great exponential advancement that is is [f(x)=2^x]; it scales like this:
-for example if you had a plant that grows exponentially every day and would be "e" (Euler's number) high on day 1 - that is 2.7mm; on day 5 it would be 148mm high already; day10 = 22m; day15 = 3,3km; day20 = 485km!...)
Three Laws of Robotics - by Asimov:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws
Who should the bot serve(?): The company or the client?
In general, where or not a bot is customer-facing, an ethical organization should always put the needs of the customer before the needs of the business.
This means providing the product best suited to those customers, rather than the one with the best profit margin or the speediest implementation.
An option for users to provide feedback on the service will help detect issues, improve customer satisfaction and maintain ethical behavior.
Kurzweil - How to Create Mind: (page46)
"The neocortex is, therefore, predicting what it expects to encounter. Envisaging the future is one of the primary reasons we have a neocortex. At the highest conceptual level, we are continually making predictions-who is going to walk through the door next, what someone is likely to say next, what we expect to see when we turn the corner, the likely results of our own actions, and so on. These predictions are constantly occurring at every level of the neocortex hierarchy. We often misrecognize people and things and words because our threshold for confirming an expected pattern is too low."
Neuralink: rw permissions to brain; ADs while REM(?!)
AI should enhance/augment humans & NOT replace.
Who Will Pay for the Future if Not the Robots?
"Tax Robots - when 37% of the workforce isn't working anymore."
Passive income on the behalf of Machines work & other solutions(?)
Possible problems with that when all are equal:
#System; Pollution; Food distribution(waste); Dependence on external factors; Education...
Social Media Bubble
Fake 'happy world' reflected by Facebook:
On Facebook people usually only share the good things in their life, some even not appreciate the other's good, but start to envy them, and might feel less confident about themselves.
Worst thing is when they start to believe in this fake World.
If you see "red" being represented as "blue" 9/10 of the time, you start to question yourself what is wrong with me(?); and after a while you give in, finally believing that red=blue.. or whatever thing that was so evidently not that way. It is becoming harder to raise independent, purposeful and responsible adults nowadays. The trend is to question everything, but believe in the first thing the internet has to offer - sheepishly without thinking about it.
The earlier generations (pre-millennials), could play outside freely. Worst thing that could happen was usually physical injury; but now.. you leave your kid with internet connection on; or even if its you, it may be someone else's parent whom your child is in contact with (nursery/school/neighbor...) and they will be impacted mentally sooner than you'd think.
Many try to protect their child by not speaking about the taboo topics, but there is nothing worse than that!
Parents are the load/impact balancer's for their kids; if they don't get the knowledge from you, they will seek it elsewhere, and it will not be so polite/easily processed for them for sure!
Just think about the "Sleeping Beauty". Or Black Mirror Serials..
What's at risk if we don't slow this narcissism epidemic?
We're in danger of becoming a nation of people who are just focused on themselves and don't care if they harm other people in the process of their own success.
What's the cure? To promote self-hatred?
People ask us that sometimes. Parents will say, "Oh, do you mean we should start insulting kids?" No.
But it's really common for parents to tell children, "You're special." That [promotes] narcissism. That's not [building] self-esteem because being special is being unique and better than other people, and it connotes things like special treatment. I think what parents mean is, "You're special to me." You don't need to tell your kid that they're the best ever, but you can say, "I love you." It's probably what you mean anyway, and it also promotes connection rather than difference and standing out.
In general with kids, place more focus on empathy. While most parents do try to teach their kids to be nice, the overall cultural push is to teach them to succeed and to believe in themselves, instead of teaching empathy for others.
We really need to shift that. Ironically, empathy for others will actually help you succeed more than believing in yourself.
#Self-esteem = positive emotion (i.e. extraversion) minus negative emotion (neuroticism).
Relationships / FAMILY
Why the technology, system and cultural mindset we are progressing towards is going to eliminate the traditional family model (monogamy) as we know it today.
- Destigmatization ("It is my body, I do what ever I want." = Girls with high 'body count' is socially becoming accepted)
- Online Dating ( = male partner is easily replaceable; when it 'doesn't work out' woman in most cases change partner instead changing the common denominator - themselves...)
- The most common 'type' of relationships is shallow hookups (lust); and the highest valued trait is looks (pride/envy) nowadays (both genders!)
- Birth control is anonymous and easier then ever = hedonism without consequences --> which leads to:
- "Party phase", many women do not want to settle as they get a lot of attention which is flattering for them and the fear of missing out is tempting to go and get as much experience and joy as possible while it lasts...
- Male thirst - extreme portion of men simply do not get a chance to be in a relationship with women, as the circles have broadened to global levels. While in the past we had to compete with the other guys from the local area, now in the age of internet we are much more interconnected, thus women have more possibilities which leads to being able to be pickier ultimately resulting in so called 'Chad chasing' ("I deserve the best"), which leaves other males with no match, so they lower their standards which leads to unbalanced expectations whereas men needs to be handsome (and tall), have a high income, charming personality, ...while on the other hand women's only criteria is basically just one: *exists*. This creates a sense of entitlement - and entitlement has a toxic effect on relationships; which gets us back to the point mentioned above, instead changing how they behave they change partners. This creates a vicious circle, resulting in Chad's having polygamy (Pareto principle) and no intention of setting down; while guys that are not so high on the alpha male list and/or/but would like to settle - have a wife and kids are mostly left with older women with extreme amount of partner count and no useful skills... (statistically speaking).
- Other competing 'sources' change the aspect and perspective of what we consider normal.
Also the availability of these adult materials on the internet in contrast of how much effort or how hard it is for average looking male to find a partner (especially quality partner for long-term relationship) isn't helping to preserve the current family model either.
"Overwhelming selfishness of modern life is that marriage isn't for the people who are married it's for the children obviously, and like if you can't handle that grow the hell up. Zero, at now I mean seriously seriously once you have kids it is not about you period!"
Dogmas of the 21th century
"I'm deeply concerned that AI is not going to empower the people, but instead that the government will use AI to further suppress its citizens, especially in combination with surveillance, big data and machine learning," #Lokman Tsui
D-I-E must DIE - Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
"So, this whole notion that the diversity is to be found in the aggregating of people because of their, what would you call it, well I don't even know what to call them, racial, sexual, ethnic identities that that's where the true diversity is. That is wrong. Wrong. It's contradicted by the facts, and that's an important thing to know. If you want diversity, you might go for diversity of temperament. That would work, if you want that, and sometimes you do. Like, if you're going to set up a business optimally, I would say you definitely want conscientious people because they make good managers and administrators, but you also want open people, creative types because the conscientious people are really good at going down a pathway if the pathway is established, and that's really good if it's the right pathway, but they're also really good at going down a pathway if it's the wrong pathway, and not very good at all at finding new pathways, whereas the open people who are the entrepreneurial, artistic, creative types, they're good at lateral thinking." #Jordan Peterson
"...we should strive for the former (equality of opportunities) & not trying to enforce equity of outcome,
why should a lazy person be as rich as a hardworking?!
Our decisions and actions should reflect valid/fair consequences." #Jordan Peterson
[More info @SLACK channel] - see #CONTACT tab
Traffic & IoT (Internet of Things)
Future (clean) Energy
ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) - TOKAMAK
-[Solar Power]: Tesla, Housing, Space...
-[Anti-matter]: possible fuel for SpaceCrafts
- The difference between capitalism and every other system is one of opportunity.
- Capitalism is the only system where you can choose your place. It's the only system where, through ones actions, someone born into wealth can become poor, or someone born into poverty can be come wealthy.
- It's as foolish to blame the rich for your poverty as it would be to blame the poor for your wealth. The beauty of capitalism is that how much someone else has in the bank doesn't affect your ability to generate wealth of your own. It's not like there are a finite amount of dollars out there, and it's impossible to get any of them because they're all trapped in the bank accounts of the wealthy. We have fiat currency - that means our money supply is in a constant state of growth. The dollars are available for the taking, and your ability to generate wealth isn't limited by how much someone else already has.
- Your only limitation is you - your ability, your time, your knowledge.
- There are billionaires in my industry. I'm not one of them. My ability to become one of them isn't limited by them, it's limited by me. I will never be a billionaire, if for no other reason than the fact that I'll be quitting the race long before I ever get there. But the thing is, if I wanted to make the effort and did the right things, it would be possible. Capitalism is the only system where it's possible.
- Since I'm not going to make the choices they made, it isn't reasonable to assume I should be entitled to the same level of wealth that they have. And that mindset scales across all levels - if you aren't willing (or able) to do the things someone else did, then you aren't going to have the outcome they had. They are wealthy because of the choices they made. You are not because of the choices you made.
- Here's a statistic that might surprise you: 80% of millionaires are first generation. That means they weren't born wealthy - they got there through the choices they made.
- You think capitalism is unfair for those who aren't born into privilege? It's the opposite of that. Capitalism is the only system where someone who wasn't born into privilege can become wealthy. That's why it's the most fair system.
Democracy ...is mostly an illusion - giving voters the impression that they are in charge.
In reality, voters choose between powerful factions, none of which likes to recognize (let alone discuss) the way money is created, for it is the fountainhead of power.
What is money?
- Euro banknotes and coins are money but so is the balance on a bank account. What actually is money? How is it created and what is the ECB's role? The changing essence of money The nature of money has evolved over time. Early money was usually commodity money-an object made of something that had a market value, such as a gold coin. Later on, representative money consisted of banknotes that could be swapped against a certain amount of gold or silver. Modern economies, including the Euro area, are based on fiat money. This is money that is declared legal tender and issued by a central bank but, unlike representative money, cannot be converted into, for example, a fixed weight of gold. It has no intrinsic value-the paper used for banknotes is in principle worthless-yet is still accepted in exchange for goods and services because people trust the central bank to keep.
- ~ is money that does not have intrinsic value and does not represent an asset in a vault somewhere. Its value comes from being declared 'legal tender'-an acceptable form of payment-by the government of the issuing country.
- Double spending problem: "a potential flaw in a digital cash scheme in which the same single digital token can be spent more than once. This is possible because a digital token consists of a digital file that can be duplicated or falsified."
Reason why BigBanks cut of small ones that operate with bitcoins:
- The concern here is that JPMorgan might transfer money for another bank, and that other bank might transfer money for a Bitcoin exchange, and that Bitcoin exchange might transfer money for a drug dealer. Which, in the eyes of the law, means that JPMorgan might as well be dealing drugs itself. I sometimes think about the analogy between banks and airlines: If a drug dealer uses a bank to move money, that bank is held responsible, but if he just gets on a plane with a bag of money, no one thinks to hold the airline responsible. But this is much further removed. This is like, a taxi driver flies on United Airlines from New York to Miami, and in Miami he picks up a guy who owns a boat and drives him to the marina, and then the guy with boat transports bags of cash for a drug dealer, and you hold United responsible. Vast swathes of legitimate financial transactions will be cut off if you punish banks for dealing with people who deal with people who deal with people who commit crimes.
[Trivia] Money and Politics in the Land of Oz
As announced on March 15, 2020:
the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions.
Bless or Curse?
...every transaction traced & doomed to death when no electricity or network failure.
Elon Musk announced SpaceX plans for a lunar base and a Mars mission by 2022.
Travelling to these candidate worlds isn't possible perhaps with today's technology, but by using our imagination we can make interstellar travel a longterm aim-in the next 200 to 500 years. The speed at which we can send a rocket is governed by two things, the speed of the exhaust and the fraction of its mass that the rocket loses as it accelerates. The exhaust speed of chemical rockets, like the ones we have used so far, is about three kilometres per second. By jettisoning 30 per cent of their mass, they can achieve a speed of about half a kilometre per second and then slow down again. According to NASA, it would take as little as 260 days to reach Mars, give or take ten days, with some NASA scientists predicting as little as 130 days. But it would take three million years to get to the nearest star system. To go faster would require a much higher exhaust speed than chemical rockets can provide, that of light itself. A powerful beam of light from the rear could drive the spaceship forward. Nuclear fusion could provide 1 per cent of the spaceship's mass energy, which would accelerate it to a tenth of the speed of light. Beyond that, we would need either matter-antimatter annihilation or some completely new form of energy. In fact, the distance to Alpha Centauri is so great that to reach it in a human lifetime a spacecraft would have to carry fuel with roughly the mass of all the stars in the galaxy. In other words, with current technology interstellar travel is utterly impractical. Alpha Centauri can never become a holiday destination.