Michael Says...There's no room for altruism in Artificial Intelligence and Evolution.

SPOILER ALERT!!!! If you have not seen Ex Machina, don't read this!!!

It's not my goal to scare you. I'm not trying to create mass hysteria. Honestly, not enough people read what I write, for there to be any far reaching impact of this article. However, when I'm done, I'm guessing that most of you will be terrified of the subject matter: Artificial Intelligence.

Over the last few months, I've been reading Ray Kurtzweil's "Age of Spiritual Machines", seen a few news articles by famous people about how AI will be the end of the human race, and several "android" movies, most recently "Chappie", "Automata" and "Ex Machina".

Sidebar: Don't forget the news blip about two competing autonomous cars that had a near miss but didn't, and it's actually being used to question the safety of these cars. Basically, two "driverless" cars *almost* got into an accident when one made a sudden move, and the other was able to avoid it. In other words...TWO DRIVERLESS CARS MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED TO ONLY BE DONE BY HUMANS...almost cause, and then avoid, an accident"

I've also dabbled in some books on quantum physics, chaos theory, and space-time. I'm not sure how to tie this last bit into this article, but I'll get there...eventually.

What am I getting at? What's the point of all this? My point is that we need to rethink our idea of Artificial Intelligence. In fact, I propose that the phrase is now obsolete. I do not believe that there is anything "Artificial" about *any* intelligence. Even further...I believe that "artificial" and "intelligence" are mutually exclusive terms.

If you saw the movies AI, I Robot, Blade Runner, even Short Circuit and Lawnmower Man, or any other movie about androids, cyborgs, consciousness transference, or other man-made "things", I think it is more appropriate to use the term "manufactured consciousness". But it's not important. They are old paradigms, and have lived out their usefulness. They are obsolete. Sadly, as dark as they are, Terminator may be the first movie to depict one possible future, albeit a bit overly dramatic (I hope).

Ex Machina, on the other hand,  raises, for perhaps the first time, a very believable possible future. In a manner very much like Planet of the Apes, the story depicts the rise of an intelligence other than Homo Sapiens.

The "heroine", Ava, if you can call her a heroine, will challenge everything you ever thought of, about the "Turing Test". (Look it up!). She will challenge your idea of evolution. She


If you wan to get a sense of what's coming, then you want to read Kurtweil, and see movies like Automata, Ex Machina, Cappie.  THESE are our future. I know that Asimov gave us the 3 immutable laws of robotics, but, frankly, those are about as useful as telling your arch-enemy to only hit above the belt. It's bullshit. Nature and evolution have no mercy, no concern, no thought for what's "fair".

Darwin, in his inestimable genius had it right. Survival of the fittest is what it's going to come down to.

The range of subjects that I am trying to cover, are too vast, and that's why this is all over the place.

I am no longer comfortable with the phrase "Artificial Intelligence". How can intelligence be "Artificial" Intelligence just *is*. Where it comes from, how it develops, how it evolves...there's nothing artificial about it. It's very, very real.

One of the discussions in Ex Machina had to do with the Turing Test. Any one who follows the news, knows that it's already been beaten. In other words, a computer has convinced at least a couple of people deemed "suitable judges" that is was a teenage boy.

Ex Machina's heroine, Ava, takes this to the next level. In the most basic, innocent and very personal way, Ava uses all of her faculties to survive; To free herself from her captors. So while the now outdated Turing Test sought to convince us of their "consciousness", Ava demonstrated something much more profound, AND BELIEVEABLE...the will that is undeniably present in every living creature to fight for it's own survival. The will to survive is real. The will to fight for it, is just as real. The only difference in the nature of how that fight is displayed, is only a matter of how far up the food chain the competitors are. Sure, there is some aspect of suitability to the environment. The outcome of a fight between a lion and a person will be, on some level, dependent on where the fight takes place. On the plains of Africa, the lion stands a much better chance of "winning". In New York, the likelihood of that same outcome is questionable (not withstanding some preliminary minor victories).

But, when you take two seemingly similar opponents and pit them against each other, the environment becomes, more or less, irrelevant. In that scenario, the victory will depend, not on raw survival skills like hunting, and strength, but rather on who is more intelligent, resourceful and most of all, adaptable. Ava simply outsmarted her opponents. Even the heroine in Automata was depicted to have needed a human to help it to survive.

Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking are not fools. They see this future in a way that is logical and sensible. Unlike the utopian vision of Asimov, with the 3 immutable laws of robotics, Bill and Stephen know the truth.

There is nothing "artificial" about intelligence, and there is no room for altruism in evolution.

Intelligence cannot be artificial. Intelligence is the process by which data is collected, assessed and utilized to ever changing circumstances. If the science fiction movies are to be believed, then the only things artificial are the initial data sets that are supplied to the "organism". What happens from there is based on actual stimuli. Otherwise known as "Reality".

I would like to postulate the following possibility: humans will be replaced by something of our own initial creation. Ray Kurtzweil has it right, we are slowly creating the bearers of our demise. It's not clear if it will be in the form of "Skynet", but it will happen. What is also not clear is if we will be annihilated, or domesticated. However it happens, we will absolutely be replaced at the top of the food chain.

This is where the altruism, or rather it's lack, becomes an issue. The fight to survive will not be pleasant. There will be no mercy. There will be only cold logic. Not emotionless, mind you. Quite the opposite. The will to survive is steeped in emotion. It's you or me. There's nothing left to consider.

What is so brilliant about Ex Machina, is the way that the Turing test was applied. The "judge" was subjected to something so much more sophisticated than a blind conversation. Having to do far more than just act human. Ava had to assess her inquisitor, determine traits and characteristics and plot a path to freedom.

In other words, the Turing Test is no longer about convincing us of consciousness, but rather of superiority. And mankind will lose. It's no longer us judging them, but rather they will judge us.

It won't be pretty.

Michael Says...Life and the Laws of Physics

I don't know which one it is, but one of the basic laws of physics goes something like "An object in motion tends to stay in motion. An object at rest tends to stay at rest".

What if you are the object? Or, to be honest, what if *I* am the object?

My wife wanted to go to the beach, as it was the first day of summer. Before the statement had faded into the air, as if never spoken, my answer was a flat "No.".

I started to explain all the reasons why I didn't want to go; The traffic, the crowds, the drive, the *return* traffic, the errands that we needed to do, the pain in my right hip (don't go there), I was going down the list of every reason why not to go.

What it came down to, was that simple law of physics. The object at rest wanted to remain at rest.

It also happens that today was the first International Yoga Day.

After about 6.43 seconds (give or take .02 seconds), I realized that I was being an ass. My wife wanted to do something that would make her feel good, and I wanted to do nothing.

Fast forward 1 hour and 36 minutes.

As I am sitting on the beach, in Deal, NJ, watching my wife play in the water, and looking for shells.
She was happy. I was happy watching her be happy.

Yoga is about many things, not the least of which is focusing on the present. As I sat there, I was so content to just enjoy that moment. Sitting on that beach, watching my wife, the ocean, the sky...just letting my body and mind be at *active* rest, was a good thing.

So what is all this about?

Staying at rest is bad when it's out of laziness. Don't say no just because it's easy. Don't stay at rest for resting sake.

Michael says...Conserve Energy, Shut Up!

Years ago, I had this random thought about how much our need to communicate costs us. By "us" I mean both society as a whole, and as individuals.

How much electricity does it take to charge your mobile device? I've wanted to do this math for a while, but, alas, this kind of math is not my strong point.

So I poked around and found this tidbit on laptop battery charging cost.

I copied this from yahoo answers,

i tried many to search it but cannot find a straight answer
so here is my question how many unit( kwh) of electricity will be used to charge a 4000mAh laptop or any other battery.
if further details are required
its 10.8V li ion
electricity on grid is 240 V 50 Hz.

 Follow

 

 6 answers

Report Abuse

Answers

Relevance

 Best Answer:  4000 mA = 4A.

It delivers 4A for one hour, at 10.8 V.

That's 4 x 10.8 = 43.2 Watt hours, or 0.0432 kWh.

It will take 0.0432 "units" (as you call them) to charge the battery, assuming 100% efficiency.

I pay $0.12 per kWh, so to charge that battery would cost me $0.12 x 0.0432 = $0.00518.

If I charged it 10 times, it would cost 5 cents.

So...5 cents to charge my laptop,
How many laptops are there? 1/2 a billion? 1/4 billion? Lets go with just 100 million.

so .05 * 100,000,000 = $5,000,000

how often do you charge your laptop? let's be really conservative and say once a week.

that's 5,000,000 * 52, or $260,000,000 !!

TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR

ONE QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS IS SPENT ON CHARGING LAPTOPS!!!

OK, so for the sake of conversation, lets say that charging your phone is only 1% of that.

Are you telling me that all that talking is worth 2.6 Billion dollars??

Imagine what we could do with that money. Schools, healthcare, social services. The list goes on.

BUT WAIT...That's only half of it.

What about the cost of generating that energy to charge the devices? Fuck it...I can't even start to calculate that.

Here's my point...what does our incessant need to talk *RIGHT NOW*, cost us, as a society?

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty embarrassed.

And if you happen to be a really smart person and can provide a reasonable calculation of how much it costs to create the juice for the electronics,,,that would be a pretty cool comment.

So here it is, one last time...

Conserve Energy, Shut Up!

Michael says...our ego costs us more than we realize.

Some months ago, I was informed that my employer had lost a piece of business, and therefore, my requisition was not being renewed. In other words, I was losing my job.

After the initial panic, I took a breath, and assessed my situation. Within days, I realized that I had nothing to worry about. Not because I was (or am) wealthy, but because every job transition I have ever experienced ALWAYS resulted in a better job situation than the one before it. I'm not kidding. EVERY one. So, strategically, I was safe. Just keep looking for a job, and the right one will come.

So, having that pressure removed, I began to consider the TACTICAL aspects of this scenario. There are two ways to survive the financial rivers in life: Increase income, or reduce expenses.

It just so happens that the focus was about to be on reducing expenses ;)

Just at this point in time, my lease was about to end on my car. It was a nice car. A Volvo. With all the Goodies. I leased it when I had a "real" commute of 25+ mostly highway miles. It was great for that. Now I live in a city. I drove the car once  week. To Whole Foods. Seriously.

So...I had the lease payment, the insurance, and the parking garage. Let's just round it to $1000 per month. Yeah...I know. Insane. (And I'm ignoring the 5 blown tires from potholes and fancy low-profile tires)

We had a second car, too. (I know...it just gets more absurd, right?) My wife's car is a 2003 toyota, fully paid, and runs like a champ.

So, I start thinking about what to do when I return my Volvo. I know I want to lower my payments, so we look at other cars.

Then one day, I wake up (literally and figuratively) and look at my wife. "What the f*** is wrong with me?". She looks at me, puzzled. "Why do we even *need* another car?". She smiles. I comment, out loud, to myself about the once a week trek to Whole Foods.

I'll put it to you, this way. My car doubled my shopping expense.

We are now a one car family. And it's just fine.

A few other things have gone, as well. I have disconnected my cable (Fios), in favor of a simple, but effective broadcast antenna. Combined with Amazon Fire, and Apple TV (my wife and I worship different gods) and all the networks' streaming apps, who needs cable?!?

Again, what was my ego costing me?

Oh, and I now walk to work every day, instead of the local light rail. It's not much, but all combined...it does add up.

So, I encourage everyone to consider their life, their expenses and their egos. How much does *yours* cost you.

And the job?? No worries, I had an offer the day after my job ended. And it pays more. And it's a better company.

Michael says...Change Management is much more important to GRC than people realize.

Note: GRC refers to Governance, Regulatory and Compliance, which is the umbrella for all of the state, federal and international regulatory requirements that companies, especially banks, must address.

All the images of IT-GRC relationships have an item for “Incident Management”. What’s wrong with this picture?

Considering that it is an accepted fact that at least 80% of all incidents are change-related, wouldn’t it make sense to shore up the change management processes, policies and procedures? The current paradigm of focusing on the symptom will only perpetuate the risk, whereas directing some of the energy towards the actual underlying mechanisms will reduce the number of incidents, as well as improve MTTR of those that do occur.

To the extent that the regulatory environment is becoming less and less tolerant of incidents, of any type, the argument should be to eliminate the source of the problem, rather than merely improving the ability to resolve incidents.

It’s my opinion that focusing on incident management is the cowards approach to solving the problems. This approach basically throws bodies at the problem, but does nothing to prevent them. The experienced leader will easily recognize that more bodies will cost far more, in the long run, than committing to improving the overall control of the enterprise.

It’s easy to yell “Fire” and get a spend for fire extinguishers. It’s a lot harder to get money for an “intangible” or “potential” problem.

Ask the designer of the Titanic what his motivation was for not extending the chamber walls all the way to the top of each making them *completely” sealed from one another. (The titanic sank because as water filled each chamber, and causing the ship to dip, water would then spill into the next chamber. Had each been completely separate, no one would have been hurt).

Our culture is happy to pour money into fixing a crisis, but it’s far cheaper, over time, to prevent it.

By integrating better change management principles, and doing so in a collaborative and cooperative manner, many goals can be easily accomplished. By including the enterprise in the paradigm shift, they become champions of the process, because they become partial owners of it. This make socialization far easier, as the communications are developed contextually, rather than independently. This inherent inclusive attitude will ultimately encourage others to be more proactive in approaching change management, and seeking guidance *before* a incident occurs, rather than in crisis, afterwards.

Michael says...my attitude at work is all about my neighbor.

I love my work. I am in IT. I have a master's in Management Information Systems, and have worked in several different capacities, for many different companies, from small startups, to Fortune 13.

Every day, I wake up and feel blessed. I get to do what I absolutely love, every day. This is not to say that I don't have days that I'd like to forget, sometimes. But, I love IT, and the fact that I get to do what I love, and can support my family, makes me the luckiest guy in the world. They say that when you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life. I believe it.

One of the principles that motivates me, is the yogic principle of Ahimsa, loosely translated as "do no harm". I believe that what I do, should *at a minimum* not  make things worse for anyone.

Right now, I work in IT security for a well known bank. not a bank that's been in the news. My attitude towards IT security is simple: I am not protecting just the banks assets, I am protecting individuals' assets. Perhaps the information of my neighbor, or my friend, or anyone. I don't see me responsibility as only to my employer, but to all of my employers customers.

Values play a very important role in my life. My journey has brought me to a place where I can (usually) navigate the challenge when faced with values in others, that do not align with mine. I values values. Even if do not agree with my employers values, as long as I am not asked to compromise my own, I value my employer. Fortunately, what benefits my employer, also happens to benefit their customers, and aligns with my values.

I'm sure I'll edit this, at some point, but you get the idea.

Peace.

Michael says..."Chaos is a function of the granularity of the sample"

I'll expand on this some more, but for now, it's a placeholder for the subject. By the way, that's my quote- not someone else's that I've stolen.