Could Super-intelligent Computers Already Be in Control?

depends on what you mean by intelligence. in a kind of simplistic sense it sort of does.
but not like creative and imaginative.

 

How do you fit both of those thoughts in your head at the same time?

 

depends on what you mean by intelligence. in a kind of simplistic sense it sort of does.
but not like creative and imaginative.

in the second instance i'm using "control" somewhat euphamistically.
or is it the first?

 

This reminds me of the movie Ex Machina. The internet itself creates A.I. A.I. is just a reflection of everyone relating to everyone else over the net.

 

this too. with or without the technology, there is gestalt intelligence too. hive mind, even when its composed of independent minds unaware of creating it.
in a sense every culture is/has a kind of gestalt/hive mind. groups of people sharing a common interest do. even this place probably.

there are really just huge numbers of examples of this, and even gestalts of gestalts too.

 

Einstein differs with your time travel theory.....BUt some of the rest I like.

 

Where did you come up with the conclusion of 1980's era technology for a computer to control the population?

 

Because Terminator, that's why.

 

The calculations required to model a flock of chickens are rather modest, but the invention of fuzzy logic was ignored by academics for several decades, and the 1980s is when the first personal computers came on the market and academics began to pay serious attention to fuzzy logic. The amount of RAM they had was actually the biggest expense, and a flock of chickens reflects memory-centric systems logic, but that was the first problem overcome with personal computers in the 80s. The number crunching requirements to model chickens is actually so low it can be done these days using a standard 120 transistor fpga circuit in any processor. That's roughly 120 transistors on a chip that can contain five billion. They had fpga circuitry back then as well, but whether they had the algorithm is another question.

Either way, it doesn't matter because they can run the calculation on a processor core with a few thousand transistors if necessary and 1,200 transistors is roughly all you require for a processor core, with all the rest of the billions of transistors being included these days just to make the thing run a little faster. So, the computing requirements are incredibly modest, and all the researchers would have had to do is to note whatever the mindless mob was attracted too. Chickens will love anyone who feeds them. Offer the mindless mob food or anything shiny and their behavior is predictable. My favorite example is the Cargo Cults in New Zealand, who illustrate just one example of how eagerly the lemmings will march right over the nearest cliff. Of course, pointing fingers at each other the entire way down.

It simply reflects the fact that, in a singularity, reality is always stranger than fiction, and our machines are becoming more organic and efficient along with our ways of looking at the world steadily progressing as we become more aware of what we are doing both individually and collectively. Until people actually perceive themselves as acting like chickens, their behavior remains extremely predictable, while the wealthy have a vested interest in encouraging them to behave like chickens. Organizing like chickens allows them to leverage more of their collective strengths, but also makes them vulnerable to fake news and other issues, with anorexia for example, being a first world problem that is now slowly invading the third world as well.

The flock has its own inertia that must be overcome, which is why one in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth, because it is their collective inertia or momentum that is the problem and not the specific beliefs. They could just as easily claim that Mickey Mouse is a real person, and it would make no real difference in their behavior. They are essentially chickens who are eager to believe anything they think they might benefit from personally, because they have no real clue what a belief is. Money infantilizes enormous populations, virtually overnight, because its an evolutionary adaptation related to quorum sensing in bacteria, which will automatically change their tactics according to how many of them are in a given environment, and will collectively eat at the same time when the environment supports more of a boom and bust cycle like a fish pond. Episodic starvation is a normal condition for most animals around the globe, but now we have the technology to piss off the entire public with nothing more than fake news that points out just how mindless their behavior actually is.

The more mindlessly they react, the easier it is to throw the fact right back in their faces until they decide to modify their behavior, or not. A chicken is a chicken is a chicken and if they insist on fighting all the time, its easy enough to encourage them to fight among themselves.

 

??? What's a field programmable circuit got to do with modelling chickens?

 

While this might make me sound remarkably ignorant, what's that?

There was also the strategic computing initiative from 1982-1987...

Of course

What's predictable can be defeated...

 

Memory centric systems logics organize their memories in a hierarchal fashion, just like a flock of chickens. For a chicken, it doesn't matter what is true or false, good or bad, funny or beautiful, reasonable or complete bullshit. What matters is how well it remembers who to peck and who to avoid. Chickens make a lot of noise, but they don't really have a language, while one in five Americans insisting the sun revolves around the earth suggests actually paying attention to what they say is counterproductive.

While we can easily model a simple flock of chickens, having the underlying systems logics would make it possible to do so much more accurately across vast scales. These days, you can even buy a cellphone with a lie detector built in, and using a lie detector you could easily figure out the systems logic that applies to each politician or whatever. Imagine being able to predict with 95% accuracy who the Republican party will chose for a presidential candidate or whatever, and what their likely future strategies will be. People can deny their mindless behavior until their dying day, but its much harder to do when confronted with the evidence that they are utterly predictable.

 

He just gets off his face, half reads scientific articles, pulls out certain phrases and strings them into prose like rants.

Non competitive game theory was Wardrop and Nash in the 1950s with slide rules and pen and paper not 1980s computers. All memory is hierarchal

 

Also at the risk of sounding ignorant...

What do you mean by this?

 

Chickens divide themselves into high and low ranking chickens according to who has the better memory. Those with the weaker memories tend to be more creative, while those with better memories tend to be more productive. When a flock of chickens starves or becomes stressed from predation, they may peck the chickens on the bottom of the pecking order to death. An example of this same behavior in people is Nazis Germany, where they attacked every minority in the country when their economy went south and they had no hope for the future. During the war crimes trials, they all said the same thing, "I was a good soldier, and did my duty", because pecking orders don't support morality or ethics or independent thinking for that matter. A study of Germany's childrearing practices concluded they demanded absolute obedience.

In information theory, their pecking order can be thought of as how they normalize their own reactionary behavior and prevent the flock from wasting time and energy running in circles more often screaming the sky if falling. Merely by providing the flock with the ability to normalize their overall behavior and to focus the attention of all the chickens on who has the better memory, they do better in general. Its along the lines of a chemical reaction, and if chickens were not capable of becoming self-aware once in a while they would even more often enforce the pecking order to the point of becoming self-defeating.

Sometimes I compare it to a governor on a motor, that simply prevents it from either stalling or blowing up. The flock depends on their inertia to see them through the worst times, because even in the best of times, thinking is not their strong point.

 

The word literally means ranking of angels, started off as a church term, but just refers to something ranked

 

The pecking order thing came from Psychologist Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe in 1921 and referred to individual chickens fighting over food, forever submitting to the alpha

 

Anyway, they have kind of been bullshitting about entanglement the whole time, so kind of bullshitting about quantum computers.

They arent going to be able to do a lot of stuff some are claiming. Its not the computer scientists that are the ones making the claims, its usually over zealous hire-an-expert- for -a-radio -show types doing that.

So there may well be an upper limit on processing speed we can never get past

 

I don't think it's that they are bullshitting about entanglement necessarily, it's more that the difficulty of overcoming the conditions required to prevent quantum decoherence of an entangled system in a classical object, such as a computer, is vastly understated. But raising doubts about such obstacles and details is probably not going to get sell many magazine articles or shows.