For AI to really work we would need a far better understanding of the human brain than we currently do.

In terms of sentience and awareness of self, I somewhat agree. In terms of thought and memory, i’m not so sure.

The human brain evolved without anybody understanding the brains of our early mammalian ancestors. It some ways it seems to be more about creating the conditions and massive and repeated trial and error. Maybe our current bots are the equivalent of simple microbes - which are a long way from our intelligent human life, but it is where our path to this started.

Nobody wholly ‘understands’ the algorithms that run so much of the internet and digital trading markets, just how well they do and don’t work subjectively.

A whole new set of ethics and legislation would be required, that’s for sure. At least we’ll have e-philosophers to help draft them. Or dictate them, depending on their outlook and the power balance.

And therin lies the problem, trying to use binary to beat evolution,

Computers etc. have their place, that is beyond doubt, but they will never replace flesh and bone (human or other species).

Are [iin silico[/i 1s and 0s that different in principle to [iin vivo[/i As, Ts, Cs and Gs?

Cars largely displaced horses in transport. Automation has been replacing humans in many jobs for decades and that seems set to accelerate.

Does it have to be about beating evolution? Could it be collaborative rather than competitive?

1 and 0 are far removed from the constituent parts of the double helix (give up trying to be clever, nobody is impressed), you want to believe in AI, whatever makes you happy. Facts remain that biology beats science, every time.

In what way? it is just coding.

As you don’t like me trying to be clever, I shan’t start waffling on about histones, DNA methylation and epigenetics. Oops, too late.

Given that biology is a science, I assume you mean biological life beats technological advancement every time. That seems to be patently untrue rather than a fact that remains.

I’m not sure I want to believe in future AIs or that it makes me happy. I just find it plausible and interesting.

So anyway, Boris Johnson. He’s been quite quiet, which is nice. Allowed us to have this little chat that has proved that it isn’t just politics, we don’t agree on much of anything.

What shall we argue about next?

That's more like it.


That Rovers will come bottom of the 2020 Super League?

Something else that I find plausible but doesn’t necessarily make me happy!

‘We’ are trying our best in a sensible enough way, it seems. That’s something, at least.

The thing is, we disagree, but not argue. I respect your opinion on things, even if we don't share them. One opinion I do share is that KR are doing their best, and I hope they stay up. kR offer a damn sight more than TWP, Leigh, Widnes, but that is a wholly different topic.

Why do we need commentators at the rugby on Sky?

Surely AI could do it now? We could just get voice clips of Ray French, Stevo and let the AI monitor the game and when it picks up certain patterns of play, use the relevant voice clip...

"Ooooo NOW THEN! Now! Has he scored? I think he has you know!"
"This 6 foot 4 inch former Blackbrook amateur, signed for FORTY-THOUSAND-POUND"

"That'll be T-R-Y for mine!"
"I'd try for the one pointer"
"Maybe its time for the chip over the top"

Strange.

Anyhow - I tend to fall into the camp that thinks (hopes?) that AI can develop to operate collaboratively with humans; and I'm not convinced that it relies entirely on a total understanding of human intelligence - since machine learning works entirely differently to how we learn.

The unfortunate thing with a discussion like this, when it lands in the public sphere, is that the phenomenon of bad science almost always infects the discussion; for newspaper editors who don't understand the science, and probably don't want to, AI is not interesting unless you can include a picture of The Terminator, and spout prophecies of doom about the rise of the machines. As is often the case in mainstream media, most conversations are framed within a black and white logical fallacy, wherein the ongoing advancement of AI is either wholly good or wholly bad - and we don't get a chance to hear experts talk around it in a nuanced way.

I can already see the Daily Express headline. Nostradamus made THIS prediction - AI is coming for YOUR JOBS