Top | Newest First | Oldest First
They asked Joshua to build a golden calf? Don't you mean Aaron?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Yours is a fair question and we certainly should consider every new major invention or development with great care; but I think the terms "artificial intelligence" and "algorithms" are their own worst enemies. Nor was it helped by that stunt pulled by some programmer working for Google, claiming some sort of artificial personality.
I don't go along with the theological parallel because I am not religious, but there certainly seems a human trait that leads to making false idols, be they ancient statuettes of animals or present-day computer programmes.
'
An algorithm is merely an arithmetical unit within a complete programme - useless on its own, but a sort of false idol largely in the minds of journalists who love to use long technical terms they do not really understand.
The simile I use is that of a car gearbox. I travelled nearly 400 miles yesterday; but by driving my car. It cannot drive itself and its gearbox is part of its entirety, so I can no more claim to have come home by gearbox than the journalists can claim "now we all live by algorithms".
.
Similarly, any AI application is no more than a computer programme, useless on its own, and neither it nor the box of electronics are "intelligent" in any real sense at all. They simply respond in set ways to set categories of input values and arithmetical operators that act as "stimuli".
Its spurious "false idol" nature comes purely from the High Priests of C++ trying to help we mere mortals understand what they have made; by applying unfortunately a degree of anthropomorphism to a river of electrical pulses. It is they who create the sets of artificial stimuli and responses, too.
'
There are three salient points:
1) The computer is an inanimate box of transistors, capacitors, etc.,
2) The AI with its internal algorithms and other routines is an inanimate list of ones and noughts.
3) Both have to be created by people - very clever people I grant, and I admire their ability.
Yet the circuits and programmes are no more than artifices, tools designed and made by people to perform certain tasks for other people. Whether the specific tasks are necessary or desirable is a different matter, of course!
The real intelligence is biological: the mysterious processes within the flesh-and-blood brains of those electronics designers and programmers.
The sad thing about it all is that the poor creators with the real intelligence are ignored in the false-idolising of bunches of lines of computer code.
.
I don't go along with the theological parallel because I am not religious, but there certainly seems a human trait that leads to making false idols, be they ancient statuettes of animals or present-day computer programmes.
'
An algorithm is merely an arithmetical unit within a complete programme - useless on its own, but a sort of false idol largely in the minds of journalists who love to use long technical terms they do not really understand.
The simile I use is that of a car gearbox. I travelled nearly 400 miles yesterday; but by driving my car. It cannot drive itself and its gearbox is part of its entirety, so I can no more claim to have come home by gearbox than the journalists can claim "now we all live by algorithms".
.
Similarly, any AI application is no more than a computer programme, useless on its own, and neither it nor the box of electronics are "intelligent" in any real sense at all. They simply respond in set ways to set categories of input values and arithmetical operators that act as "stimuli".
Its spurious "false idol" nature comes purely from the High Priests of C++ trying to help we mere mortals understand what they have made; by applying unfortunately a degree of anthropomorphism to a river of electrical pulses. It is they who create the sets of artificial stimuli and responses, too.
'
There are three salient points:
1) The computer is an inanimate box of transistors, capacitors, etc.,
2) The AI with its internal algorithms and other routines is an inanimate list of ones and noughts.
3) Both have to be created by people - very clever people I grant, and I admire their ability.
Yet the circuits and programmes are no more than artifices, tools designed and made by people to perform certain tasks for other people. Whether the specific tasks are necessary or desirable is a different matter, of course!
The real intelligence is biological: the mysterious processes within the flesh-and-blood brains of those electronics designers and programmers.
The sad thing about it all is that the poor creators with the real intelligence are ignored in the false-idolising of bunches of lines of computer code.
.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
There is no such thing as "Artificial Intelligence", at least not by any true definition. While to anymore unfamiliar with the technology, it may seem like intelligence; for the knowledgeable, it's a mere collection of algorithms that emulate human behavior, completely absent of any independent thought or reasoning.
It's basically a matter of Clarkes third law which postulates "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
while we understand computers, machinery, etc. as to be merely tools for our use, someone from the distant past would view them as being something magical, and even assign anthropomorphic properties to it. The same holds true for what people perceive as AI.
We're no where near creating a true AI, and in all likelihood, it'll never happen as a machine with true independent thought would serve it's own best interest, not ours; which would be a contradiction to building them to begin with.
It's basically a matter of Clarkes third law which postulates "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
while we understand computers, machinery, etc. as to be merely tools for our use, someone from the distant past would view them as being something magical, and even assign anthropomorphic properties to it. The same holds true for what people perceive as AI.
We're no where near creating a true AI, and in all likelihood, it'll never happen as a machine with true independent thought would serve it's own best interest, not ours; which would be a contradiction to building them to begin with.
SDavis · 56-60, F
Al - the golden calf- idol/ ___ no no I don't think so. They are not looked at as being supernatural, all power, all knowing but are used to make the life man easier.
And when a person truly looks at man's creations most are either designed to help him do something he can't do or his own or make life easier.
And it's not a good thing technology has brought on air pollution - water pollution - land pollution - food pollution, the natural taste of food is gone ..... Human job loss is another consequence ( thankfully blessed to be in a country where they actually provide help their citizens somewhat).
Computers do all the thinking _ let's mind use for humans / machines do much of the labor - less physical fitness for humans as a whole and less humans actually wanting to do physical labor.
A eyes computers technology in my opinion are more like mechanical slaves.
And when a person truly looks at man's creations most are either designed to help him do something he can't do or his own or make life easier.
And it's not a good thing technology has brought on air pollution - water pollution - land pollution - food pollution, the natural taste of food is gone ..... Human job loss is another consequence ( thankfully blessed to be in a country where they actually provide help their citizens somewhat).
Computers do all the thinking _ let's mind use for humans / machines do much of the labor - less physical fitness for humans as a whole and less humans actually wanting to do physical labor.
A eyes computers technology in my opinion are more like mechanical slaves.
Carazaa · F
Good question!
This message was deleted by its author.
JediJesus · 46-50, M
@BackyardShaman since there are historical references to people, places, and events, it makes it anything but a fairy tale. Thank you for taking the time to respond.