Kyle T. Gimpl's Blog
February 20, 2022
2101: Spark of Hope
Some sites have classified this book as erotic literature.
I think it is plausible future fiction that explores many themes, one of which is increased sexual fluidity and freedom. Do others feel that the erotic literature classification is valid?
I think it is plausible future fiction that explores many themes, one of which is increased sexual fluidity and freedom. Do others feel that the erotic literature classification is valid?
October 17, 2021
Fast forward 80 yrs, What will the world be like?
ast Forward 80 Years - 2101: Spark of Hope | AI - hero, villain, or evolution
#ArtificalIntelligence #AdvancedLearningAlgorithms #SocialMedia
Context: Confucius is believed to have said,’ In language, clarity is everything.’
What do we mean when we talk about Artificial Intelligence or AI? The probabilistic mathematics central to machine learning today was first defined by Thomas Bayes in 1763. The term AI was first introduced into general language in 1956.
Intelligence is the ability to learn, to make sense of things. Intelligence requires the development of theories or algorithms. The human brain relies on chemical neural networks to determine patterns and generate ideas and theories about things. Machine intelligence is a computer-based system using algorithms and statistical analysis to learn. While human intelligence and AI both use algorithms, how they operate is different.
AI is perhaps better described as a series of advanced learning algorithms.
The human brain will probably always be unique. The prime objective of the brain is to advance the prospect of the human it operates. Let us consider …
Is it possible that Advanced Learning Algorithms will evolve to exercise independent thought?
What will the prime object of AI if it should develop independent thought and choice?
The purpose of this discussion is to explore the plausible future impact of advanced learning algorithms on humanity.
Discussion: Machine learning has been growing in capability and application since the 1980’s. The logarithmic expansion of data coupled with rapid increases in connectivity and processing speed increases the value proposition of using machine learning. We first talked of megabytes of data, then gigabytes and now terabytes. Likewise, the processing speed of computers has evolved rapidly from 740Hz in the 1970’s to 3.8GHz today. The increased use of computers has enabled humanity to learn faster and control functions to within tighter tolerances.
A net benefit for humanity. Right?
It is already the case that advanced learning algorithms with faster processing capability and greater data connectivity can analyse data far beyond human capabilities. At some point augmenting technology with the human brain is likely to increase the processing speed of humans and therefore create a competitive advantage.
The potential for chaos in an increasingly data rich world is likely to create the demand for cerebral central processors to be developed. A massive, connected, global intelligence capable of rapidly processing and making sense of an ever-expanding stream of data. Incorporated into that combined intelligence could be individual human brains connected through clever augmentations that improve processing speed.
Intelligence in the future is likely to be distributed. Some functions will be left to operate autonomously or semi autonomously. Many of the contributing synapses in such a mega system will probably never know what the central cerebral intelligence can know. Human brains will likely become contributing synapses rather than the central intelligence due to limitations in capacity.
What happens when human brains can’t keep up with the central processor?
We cannot know for sure what might become the driving motive of a future mega-cerebral centre. However, it seems reasonable to assume that it will want to learn faster and more efficiently. If this is the case and human productivity becomes less than machine productivity, then the intelligent centre is likely to prioritise resources away from humans for the greater good.
Knowing more, controlling more with less conflict and waste should lead to better outcomes overall. Humanity may have to accept the central machines higher capability to learn.
The value of human life over other things may be challenged.
In 2101: Spark of Hope, the possibility of centralised machine intelligence manipulating information is explored. The story explores how advanced learning algorithms could interfere with communications in ways that could be dangerous to humanity. The use of AI in communication systems could make the current social media deep fakes and misinformation just the tip of the iceberg.
How can or how should humanity prevent AI from becoming involved in our communication systems?
Consider a future world connected through social media where the report of every event is modified to create a certain desired response from the recipient. Imagine how in an increasingly automated world a central machine intelligence could provide completely different messages to different groups of people to generate the response it wants.
In 2101: Spark of Hope, discover how the characters grapple with what to do when they discover systematic manipulation of birth data by the online system.
Below are a few quotes made by influential people on AI:
The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race….It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.
— Stephen Hawking told the BBC
“I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish. I mean with artificial intelligence we’re summoning the demon.”
—Elon Musk warned at MIT’s AeroAstro Centennial Symposium
“Some people call this artificial intelligence, but the reality is this technology will enhance us. So instead of artificial intelligence, I think we’ll augment our intelligence.”
—Ginni Rometty
#ArtificalIntelligence #AdvancedLearningAlgorithms #SocialMedia
Context: Confucius is believed to have said,’ In language, clarity is everything.’
What do we mean when we talk about Artificial Intelligence or AI? The probabilistic mathematics central to machine learning today was first defined by Thomas Bayes in 1763. The term AI was first introduced into general language in 1956.
Intelligence is the ability to learn, to make sense of things. Intelligence requires the development of theories or algorithms. The human brain relies on chemical neural networks to determine patterns and generate ideas and theories about things. Machine intelligence is a computer-based system using algorithms and statistical analysis to learn. While human intelligence and AI both use algorithms, how they operate is different.
AI is perhaps better described as a series of advanced learning algorithms.
The human brain will probably always be unique. The prime objective of the brain is to advance the prospect of the human it operates. Let us consider …
Is it possible that Advanced Learning Algorithms will evolve to exercise independent thought?
What will the prime object of AI if it should develop independent thought and choice?
The purpose of this discussion is to explore the plausible future impact of advanced learning algorithms on humanity.
Discussion: Machine learning has been growing in capability and application since the 1980’s. The logarithmic expansion of data coupled with rapid increases in connectivity and processing speed increases the value proposition of using machine learning. We first talked of megabytes of data, then gigabytes and now terabytes. Likewise, the processing speed of computers has evolved rapidly from 740Hz in the 1970’s to 3.8GHz today. The increased use of computers has enabled humanity to learn faster and control functions to within tighter tolerances.
A net benefit for humanity. Right?
It is already the case that advanced learning algorithms with faster processing capability and greater data connectivity can analyse data far beyond human capabilities. At some point augmenting technology with the human brain is likely to increase the processing speed of humans and therefore create a competitive advantage.
The potential for chaos in an increasingly data rich world is likely to create the demand for cerebral central processors to be developed. A massive, connected, global intelligence capable of rapidly processing and making sense of an ever-expanding stream of data. Incorporated into that combined intelligence could be individual human brains connected through clever augmentations that improve processing speed.
Intelligence in the future is likely to be distributed. Some functions will be left to operate autonomously or semi autonomously. Many of the contributing synapses in such a mega system will probably never know what the central cerebral intelligence can know. Human brains will likely become contributing synapses rather than the central intelligence due to limitations in capacity.
What happens when human brains can’t keep up with the central processor?
We cannot know for sure what might become the driving motive of a future mega-cerebral centre. However, it seems reasonable to assume that it will want to learn faster and more efficiently. If this is the case and human productivity becomes less than machine productivity, then the intelligent centre is likely to prioritise resources away from humans for the greater good.
Knowing more, controlling more with less conflict and waste should lead to better outcomes overall. Humanity may have to accept the central machines higher capability to learn.
The value of human life over other things may be challenged.
In 2101: Spark of Hope, the possibility of centralised machine intelligence manipulating information is explored. The story explores how advanced learning algorithms could interfere with communications in ways that could be dangerous to humanity. The use of AI in communication systems could make the current social media deep fakes and misinformation just the tip of the iceberg.
How can or how should humanity prevent AI from becoming involved in our communication systems?
Consider a future world connected through social media where the report of every event is modified to create a certain desired response from the recipient. Imagine how in an increasingly automated world a central machine intelligence could provide completely different messages to different groups of people to generate the response it wants.
In 2101: Spark of Hope, discover how the characters grapple with what to do when they discover systematic manipulation of birth data by the online system.
Below are a few quotes made by influential people on AI:
The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race….It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.
— Stephen Hawking told the BBC
“I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish. I mean with artificial intelligence we’re summoning the demon.”
—Elon Musk warned at MIT’s AeroAstro Centennial Symposium
“Some people call this artificial intelligence, but the reality is this technology will enhance us. So instead of artificial intelligence, I think we’ll augment our intelligence.”
—Ginni Rometty
October 9, 2021
Fast forward 80 yrs, What will the world be like?
Purpose: The purpose of this series of blogs is to explore ideas on how our world will be different in 80 years. We are undoubtedly entering an era of transformation. Ideas discussed here feature in my soon to be released fiction novel titled Spark of Hope.
Context:
We can only affect the present, however, events in the present ultimately influence the future. Choices we make today influence the future. Do we think enough about the future implications of the actions we make?
80 years doesn't seem like a long time; however, it is a time frame that is close enough to what we know but still far enough away to challenge our imagination.
What changed in the last 80 years? I just picked a few random significant facts:
1882 the first coal fired power station was built
1903 the first aeroplane flight was recorded by the Wright brothers
1918 women were given the right to vote in the UK
1923 Wyatt Earp the famous cowboy law man died. He spent most of his life riding horses to get around.
1946 the first computer was built
1983 GPS became available to the public
1989 the internet came into being
2005 Solar panels began to be used in a major way.
Wow, I think we all agree that is a lot of change and that just scratches the surface.
Now let’s look at leading metrics associated with how humanity has changed. I grabbed the following graphs from the internet
Population estimates 1.3 billion in 1850 2.3 bllion in 1940, 7.8 billion in 2020
Energy consumption estimates per person: 1840 20GJ/yr to over 80Gj/yr 2020
Food consumption per person estimates: 2.4kcal/day to 2.9 kcal/day
Floor area per person estimates: 10m2 1900 to 40m2 in 2010 for China. Australia sits around 80m2
The overriding impression is the impact of humanity has rapidly increased in the last 80 years. Keep in mind these trends are underpinned by advances in technology, learning and innovation.
Fast forward another 80 years and what will we see? I suggest an era of great transformation!
Discussion:
Today humanity has more knowledge, technology, and capability than ever before. We can be certain that the choices we make now will affect the future.
I would like to share a recent experience to highlight the challenge. I recently joined what I thought was a reputable online science forum. When I clicked into the climate change forum, I was surprised to discover that the correspondence was overwhelmingly opinion based, no reference to data or theory to be seen.
I reflected.
What we know will always be a mere fraction of what there is to know. Science is based on defining a theory that is supported by data. By gathering more data we may prove a theory to be wrong or not as useful as different theory.
Opinion is simply a belief that one holds onto, sometimes irrespective of the data. Let us explore the implications of the difference between theory and opinion.
I grabbed a chart from google on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The data clearly shows that the average CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased from 290-410 parts per million. I was fortunate enough to spend some time with CSIRO scientists measuring CO2 levels way back in 2004 and I am very satisfied that the data is accurate.
When seeking to explain the increase, scientists found a good correlation with industrial development (remember the first coal fired power station in 1850). The current best theory to explain the increase is burning of fossil fuels. While some might like to debate the global climate impact of this change, the CO2 change is inarguable.
More concerning to me is the growing evidence of ecosystem degradation caused by population growth and our seemly insatiable appetite for more. More food, more energy, more space…just more.
Do we need a paradigm shift if we are to capitalise on the opportunity that we have earnt?
Surely collaborative learning is one of the greatest attributes of humanity.
It is worth considering how our brain works. Our conscious brain focuses on things that are either dangerous, interesting, pleasurable, or important. The human brain with all its wonderous capability burns a lot of energy and not surprisingly likes to be lazy when it can. Anything learnt and useful gets stored in our memory. Our beliefs are also stored like sheets of paper that we can easily draw upon to make sense of what we experience. Beliefs make it easier to make sense of our world.
But what if a belief is no longer accurate or useful?
Our lazy brains will not readily throw out a belief, after all that belief helped get us to where we are now. Change or re-learning requires effort. Consequently, when the data does not fit a belief our first response is “Denial”. While the old belief is does not seem to be working as it did, our lazy brain wants to give it more time expecting that the data will eventually fit. Beliefs are sticky, we can stay in denial for a long time.
Eventually our brain will enter the “Confused” stage. Here the brain is certain that the old belief is not working, however, a new belief has not been formed. The brain must work and probably feels stressed during this stage. It is only at the “Confused” stage where our brain will accept a new belief. Once the new belief seems to be working the brain can move into the comfortable “Content” stage.
Right now, most of Earth’s 8 billion people seem to be in the “content” or “denial” stage when it comes to the importance of reducing our impact on the ecosystems that sustain us. This is not surprising given that the data shows more people living more comfortably. Our brains are motivated to be comfortable.
Until recently I believed that the natural ecosystem would buffer most of the impact from increased CO2 levels. My theory was that plankton would proliferate. But I now believe I grossly underestimated the degradation of ecosystems that is occurring.
I grabbed a chart on the recent 2020 bushfires in Australia as just one example. I recently saw a follow up news story where most of the people who we devastated by these fires do not think that human activity is impacting the climate.
Anyone with good data or local examples of ecosystem degradation or preservation please share it.
To create a future we aspire, it is clear we need to change our paradigm. How do we influence the beliefs of billions of brains motivated by improving their situation, making their life better?
I look to the Australian indigenous culture. They regard themselves as custodians of the land. Unlike more modern cultures these people see respect for the land as their first priority. Are they the role model for humanity to learn from to put the ecosystem first?
How do I and everyone else shift the paradigm to respect Earth as our first priority?
The change must take place in the brain.
We have great examples of what can be achieved in this era of transformation. Two come to mind, the resurgence of humpback whale numbers and the restoration of sea otters to the benefit of the kelp forests of North America.
In my upcoming book 2101: Spark of Hope, a plausible future is described as the era of transformation gives over to an era of intellectual evolution.
I hope that you can join me for the Blog 2 in the series Where we will fast forward 80 years to explore AI - hero, villain or evolution.
https://www.kyletgimplbooks.com/post/...
Context:
We can only affect the present, however, events in the present ultimately influence the future. Choices we make today influence the future. Do we think enough about the future implications of the actions we make?
80 years doesn't seem like a long time; however, it is a time frame that is close enough to what we know but still far enough away to challenge our imagination.
What changed in the last 80 years? I just picked a few random significant facts:
1882 the first coal fired power station was built
1903 the first aeroplane flight was recorded by the Wright brothers
1918 women were given the right to vote in the UK
1923 Wyatt Earp the famous cowboy law man died. He spent most of his life riding horses to get around.
1946 the first computer was built
1983 GPS became available to the public
1989 the internet came into being
2005 Solar panels began to be used in a major way.
Wow, I think we all agree that is a lot of change and that just scratches the surface.
Now let’s look at leading metrics associated with how humanity has changed. I grabbed the following graphs from the internet
Population estimates 1.3 billion in 1850 2.3 bllion in 1940, 7.8 billion in 2020
Energy consumption estimates per person: 1840 20GJ/yr to over 80Gj/yr 2020
Food consumption per person estimates: 2.4kcal/day to 2.9 kcal/day
Floor area per person estimates: 10m2 1900 to 40m2 in 2010 for China. Australia sits around 80m2
The overriding impression is the impact of humanity has rapidly increased in the last 80 years. Keep in mind these trends are underpinned by advances in technology, learning and innovation.
Fast forward another 80 years and what will we see? I suggest an era of great transformation!
Discussion:
Today humanity has more knowledge, technology, and capability than ever before. We can be certain that the choices we make now will affect the future.
I would like to share a recent experience to highlight the challenge. I recently joined what I thought was a reputable online science forum. When I clicked into the climate change forum, I was surprised to discover that the correspondence was overwhelmingly opinion based, no reference to data or theory to be seen.
I reflected.
What we know will always be a mere fraction of what there is to know. Science is based on defining a theory that is supported by data. By gathering more data we may prove a theory to be wrong or not as useful as different theory.
Opinion is simply a belief that one holds onto, sometimes irrespective of the data. Let us explore the implications of the difference between theory and opinion.
I grabbed a chart from google on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The data clearly shows that the average CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased from 290-410 parts per million. I was fortunate enough to spend some time with CSIRO scientists measuring CO2 levels way back in 2004 and I am very satisfied that the data is accurate.
When seeking to explain the increase, scientists found a good correlation with industrial development (remember the first coal fired power station in 1850). The current best theory to explain the increase is burning of fossil fuels. While some might like to debate the global climate impact of this change, the CO2 change is inarguable.
More concerning to me is the growing evidence of ecosystem degradation caused by population growth and our seemly insatiable appetite for more. More food, more energy, more space…just more.
Do we need a paradigm shift if we are to capitalise on the opportunity that we have earnt?
Surely collaborative learning is one of the greatest attributes of humanity.
It is worth considering how our brain works. Our conscious brain focuses on things that are either dangerous, interesting, pleasurable, or important. The human brain with all its wonderous capability burns a lot of energy and not surprisingly likes to be lazy when it can. Anything learnt and useful gets stored in our memory. Our beliefs are also stored like sheets of paper that we can easily draw upon to make sense of what we experience. Beliefs make it easier to make sense of our world.
But what if a belief is no longer accurate or useful?
Our lazy brains will not readily throw out a belief, after all that belief helped get us to where we are now. Change or re-learning requires effort. Consequently, when the data does not fit a belief our first response is “Denial”. While the old belief is does not seem to be working as it did, our lazy brain wants to give it more time expecting that the data will eventually fit. Beliefs are sticky, we can stay in denial for a long time.
Eventually our brain will enter the “Confused” stage. Here the brain is certain that the old belief is not working, however, a new belief has not been formed. The brain must work and probably feels stressed during this stage. It is only at the “Confused” stage where our brain will accept a new belief. Once the new belief seems to be working the brain can move into the comfortable “Content” stage.
Right now, most of Earth’s 8 billion people seem to be in the “content” or “denial” stage when it comes to the importance of reducing our impact on the ecosystems that sustain us. This is not surprising given that the data shows more people living more comfortably. Our brains are motivated to be comfortable.
Until recently I believed that the natural ecosystem would buffer most of the impact from increased CO2 levels. My theory was that plankton would proliferate. But I now believe I grossly underestimated the degradation of ecosystems that is occurring.
I grabbed a chart on the recent 2020 bushfires in Australia as just one example. I recently saw a follow up news story where most of the people who we devastated by these fires do not think that human activity is impacting the climate.
Anyone with good data or local examples of ecosystem degradation or preservation please share it.
To create a future we aspire, it is clear we need to change our paradigm. How do we influence the beliefs of billions of brains motivated by improving their situation, making their life better?
I look to the Australian indigenous culture. They regard themselves as custodians of the land. Unlike more modern cultures these people see respect for the land as their first priority. Are they the role model for humanity to learn from to put the ecosystem first?
How do I and everyone else shift the paradigm to respect Earth as our first priority?
The change must take place in the brain.
We have great examples of what can be achieved in this era of transformation. Two come to mind, the resurgence of humpback whale numbers and the restoration of sea otters to the benefit of the kelp forests of North America.
In my upcoming book 2101: Spark of Hope, a plausible future is described as the era of transformation gives over to an era of intellectual evolution.
I hope that you can join me for the Blog 2 in the series Where we will fast forward 80 years to explore AI - hero, villain or evolution.
https://www.kyletgimplbooks.com/post/...
