"What OpenAI Will Do
OpenAI's researchers will be encouraged to publish their work, and any patents awarded will be shared with everyone. They will collaborate freely with both institutions and corporate entities.
Today's AI systems are outstanding when it comes to pattern recognition problems, but they're limited to those. OpenAI plans to work to remove those constraints until computers eventually can reach human performance on virtually every intellectual task, Brockman and Sutskever wrote.
Doing so correctly could be of huge benefit -- or it could cause incalculable harm. OpenAI's investors consider it important to have a leading research institution that "can prioritize a good outcome for all over its own self-interest," they said. "
" Rick Falkvinge on December 21, 2015
C: 114
Opinion
Yes, really. There's a whole lot of confusion in the dangerous and wrong cliché that "authors must be paid" for every copy that's made. We live in a market economy for good reasons."
"One of the great aspects of open source is that there's always something new to learn. Many of us like to jump right in with new software or technology and learn by trial and error. Sometimes, however, we can use a guiding hand. That hand comes in the form of a good how-to or manual."
| Eric McNulty at Cultivate OSCON |
One of the most powerful tools you have as a leader is to be present." Eric McNulty opened up the first day of Cultivate this year, the annual pre-conference event before OSCON, with this quote.
First, he asked the audience to think about the whys."
| Eric McNulty at Cultivate OSCON |
One of the most powerful tools you have as a leader is to be present." Eric McNulty opened up the first day of Cultivate this year, the annual pre-conference event before OSCON, with this quote.
First, he asked the audience to think about the whys."
"VIKTORIA DENDRINOU, The Wall Street Journal
BRUSELAS (EFE Dow Jones)--La decisión de Reino Unido de abandonar la Unión Europea ha arrojado más dudas sobre el futuro de un tratado comercial de gran alcance entre la UE y Estados Unidos.
Los dos mayores bloques económicos del mundo han estado negociando la Asociación Transatlántica para el Comercio y la Inversión --o TTIP por sus siglas en inglés-- desde 2013, y todavía dicen que esperan finalizar las negociaciones antes de que finalice el mandato de la Administración Obama en enero."
"Writing documentation can have a way of getting into your blood, so that you think about it quite a bit, play with some ideas, start various new ideas that may not come to much, and it seems that what you're looking for as much as anything is a task that takes hold of you and develops its own energy to keep you going until you finish."
"Writing documentation can have a way of getting into your blood, so that you think about it quite a bit, play with some ideas, start various new ideas that may not come to much, and it seems that what you're looking for as much as anything is a task that takes hold of you and develops its own energy to keep you going until you finish."
"When does the wisdom of crowds give way to the meanness of mobs?
In the 1990s, Jaron Lanier was one of the digital pioneers hailing the wonderful possibilities that would be realized once the Internet allowed musicians, artists, scientists and engineers around the world to instantly share their work. Now, like a lot of us, he is having second thoughts.
Mr. Lanier, a musician and avant-garde computer scientist - he popularized the term "virtual reality" - wonders if the Web's structure and ideology are fostering nasty group dynamics and mediocre collaborations. His new book, "You Are Not a Gadget," is a manifesto against "hive thinking" and "digital Maoism," by which he means the glorification of open-source software, free information and collective work at the expense of individual creativity."
This paragraph - "To save those endangered species, Mr. Lanier proposes rethinking the Web's ideology, revising its software structure and introducing innovations like a universal system of micropayments. (To debate reforms, go to Tierney Lab at nytimes.com/tierneylab." from this article is exactly how I imagine moving our project forward. But, who knows how to do it?
"The impact of technological change on culture, learning, and morality has long been the subject of intense debate, and every technological revolution brings out a fresh crop of both pessimists and pollyannas. Indeed, a familiar cycle has repeat itself throughout history whenever new modes of production (from mechanized agriculture to assembly-line production), means of transportation (water, rail, road, or air), energy production processes (steam, electric, nuclear), medical breakthroughs (vaccination, surgery, cloning), or communications techniques (telegraph, telephone, radio, television) have appeared on the scene.
The cycle goes something like this. A new technology appears. Those who fear the sweeping changes brought about by this technology see a sky that is about to fall. These "techno-pessimists" predict the death of the old order (which, ironically, is often a previous generation's hotly-debated technology that others wanted slowed or stopped). Embracing this new technology, they fear, will result in the overthrow of traditions, beliefs, values, institutions, business models, and much else they hold sacred.
The pollyannas, by contrast, look out at the unfolding landscape and see mostly rainbows in the air. Theirs is a rose-colored world in which the technological revolution du jour is seen as improving the general lot of mankind and bringing about a better order. If something has to give, then the old ways be damned! For such "techno-optimists," progress means some norms and institutions must adapt-perhaps even disappear-for society to continue its march forward.
Our current Information Revolution is no different. It too has its share of techno-pessimists and techno-optimists. Indeed, before most of us had even heard of the Internet, people were already fighting about it-or at least debating what the rise of the Information Age meant for our culture, society, and economy."
I think I fall into his category of 'pragmatic optimism--
"...The sensible middle ground position is "pragmatic optimism": We should embrace the amazing technological changes at work in today's Information Age but do so with a healthy dose of humility and appreciation for the disruptive impact pace and impact of that change.'"
There's enough cool new stuff out there to warrant concepting a bright future, but that has to be tempered with the knowledge that nothing is perfect, and humans have a tendency to make good things bad all the time. I always refer back to the shining happy images that were concocted back in the 40's and 50's that predicted a wondrous new future with cars, and highways, and air travel, yet failed to foresee congestion, pollution, and urban sprawl.
Yin and Yang in everything, right?
I don't believe in dichotomies, thus I am both at the same time. I prepare for both digital nirvana and the end of civilization and collapse of techology at the same time. I am here discussing the future of work with all of you, but I have a disaster kit in the basement and a plan with friends and family where to meet at a fertile plot of land with lots of water (I call it Kurtopia). I would recommend all of you do the same. Of course you must also carry on based on the status quo (don't quit work and cash the retirement funds and buy gold coins), as well as react to any variation in between. Crystal balls are a waste of attention. Consider all scenarios, make plans, then throw them away and react to circumstances as they are presented. Understand that plans are merely insurance policies and come with a cost to attention on the present. They are robust but not optimized.
Considering the spectrum from optimistic to pessimistic, if we assume a bell curve distribution of probability (with the stops across the bottom being discrete and independent), I would say these days, for me the bell is flattening, it is less and less likely that the status quo will survive. I would go so far as to say perhaps the bell is inverted. This could be interpreted as a polarization - one of the pessimists positions - except that I don't believe that the person experiencing the optimistic paradigm will necessarily be a different person than the one experiencing the negative, thus don't subscribe to the position that technology will result in a new classism.
What, then, determines how smart a group of collaborating individuals is? The researchers find three individual-level features that correlate in a statistically significant way to collective intelligence.
First, the greater the social sensitivity of group members, the smarter the group. Second, the more turn-taking within the group, the better the group performs. And third, the more women in the group, the higher the group IQ.
groups with more women are smarter because women tend to be more socially sensitive than men.
increasing the information-sharing abilities of group members using “electronic collaborative tools” might enhance the intelligence of the group itself (without necessarily increasing the intelligence of individual group members).
increasing the raw intelligence of individual group members cannot guarantee a smarter group. A group of cognitively enhanced individuals with extremely high IQs (because of their enhancement) thus might fail to outperform a group of “normals” if those “normals” prove to be more socially sensitive than their enhanced rivals.
the central component of the extended mind thesis is called the Parity Principle. It states that “if, as we confront some task, a part of the world functions as a process which, were it to go on in the head, we would have no hesitation in accepting as part of the cognitive process, then that part of the world is (for that time) part of the cognitive process.”
Thus, according to the Parity Principle, inanimate objects like a pad of paper, a calculator, a computer, Wikipedia, an iPhone, and so on, can all, under just the right conditions, constitute a literal component of one’s cognitive system – of one’s mind.
another mind can indeed become a feature of one’s own cognitive system (on the condition that the Parity Principle is true
Our minds are made in such a way that trauma, and negative experience is slowly buried up, or forgotten. Our minds do seem designed with self preservation measures to try and protect our psyche. Now with a memory that is always accurate, and that is always accessible, what will that do to our minds? My concern is what our limitations add to our selves. I am unsure of what the world would be like if I didn't forget things. There are somethings we choose to forget, or ignore, or believe despite the evidence. Our emotions do seem somewhat disconnected from our experiences, especially as time goes on. Stockholm Syndrome is a wonderful example, despite the worst possible conditions a loyalty and an affection grows between a captor and their captive.
With the ability to share memories, or worse, to forcibly access others memories, this wonderful world enhancement will help us build, may be utterly devoid of privacy. A world where nothing is sacred, except knowledge, and that you may no longer own your own life. Simply, everyone's life, everyone's knowledge and everyone's experiences, may simply become public domain.
Hmmm... I enjoyed this article. My experience of the extended mind is that it is not enclosed in a groups collective intelligence but part of the morphogenic field. Our global brain. We can access any time.
There is one piece he mentions about:
But there's also the more speculative possibility, not mentioned by Woolley et al, of enhancing the social sensitivity of group members. What would happen if group members took, for instance, a pharmaceutical of some sort that enabled them to be more socially sensitive towards each other? What if some sophisticated technology were available that augmented the individual's ability to better listen to the ideas of others - to let others have time to speak and to be intellectually open to opposing views?
I began to test this in group settings with a good amount of success. It is difficult to measure though. I have tested with flower essences. http://www.laviedelarose.com one particular called shasta daisy which supports individuals and groups to achieve an ever deepening sense of community and experience of Oneness.
My seminars are mostly about mind (topics like socialmedia, collective intelligence, new economy) yet I try to make them integral and include other body/mind, spirit. We do meditate. In the seminars where I don´t use the flowers there is a different feeling to it. Its very difficult to describe. Its a sense of a field.
"The design of everyday things is an important cultural movement. Of that, most of us have no doubt. We want our tools to work flawlessly and naturally. And open source projects are catching up on this too."
"Open data and going digital are subjects high on the international agenda for global development, particularly when it comes to financing improved services and infrastructure for the poorest people in the world. "
"... The principles that drive the open source movement are principles that concern everything from the right to share, to a coherent view on privacy; from the right of access to explore and modify work under the hood, to a belief in the power of openness and collaboration; and principles such as a belief in commons, in altruism, and in free access to education and information. ..."
"Open source won and, over the past five years or so, we have been seeing the acceleration of a new wave of open source projects that got their starts in corporations. This comes with a set of new challenges, "