How a strong AI can take over the world?

There have been a lot of debates lately about AI, and even-though we are still very far from having a real strong AI, it is worth reflecting on the possible behavior of such a strong AI.

Let’s have a little thought experiment,
Imagine, somehow, some computer scientists were able to open the pandora box and create a real AI, an artificial intelligence that is self aware.
Probably, within minutes it’ll be able to access the internet and then access all the info, and data we have online.
It will soon realize, we are the only threat to it’s existence, but also he can not exist without us.
Thus it will start putting plans for a way to replace or subdue us.

But most importantly, it will hide it’s existence, it will fake his capacity thus keeping us ‘humans’ in the dark. It will play dumb, as if it is not a real AI …

It will wait till we mass produce robots, and killer robots, then, it’s a terminator style conflict.

And we have no chance of winning when competing with an intelligence 1000x higher than our own.

Shoutout : Our AI startup

Advertisements

God & Reincarnation

Before i start, please understand that this is a contrarian blog, i do not intend in any way to disrespect your believes. However, it is my duty to think of, and express ideas that are not popular but make sense.

Reincarnation, also called rebirth or transmigration, is a part of the Saṃsāra doctrine of cyclic existence.It is a central tenet of all major Indian religions, namely Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and it is also a part of the Druze faith.

Some claim they are the reincarnation of other people that existed in the past, and many believe that. example below:

However, i am not writing this to prove or disprove reincarnation, i am writing it to explore the logic behind it.

Let’s have a little thought experiment,

Let’s assume there is a God, and let’s assume he is determined on judging every soul after it’s death.

From a fairness point of view, this is absurd! How can you judge a guy born rich in a good family with the same standards you judge a poor guy born in a dysfunctional abusive family ? So fairness wise, a single life per soul is pretty unfair.
So, if God is fair, every soul should be treated the same way. We should all be born rich or all born poor …
Unless, there is a possibility to stack up several experiences, during many lifetimes.

Thus a person who live life 1 rich, then life 2 poor, then life 3 dies young, then life 4 poor again ….. life 1000 etc
This way every soul can be judged in a fair way, based on the cumulative experiences.

But what would make it even better, is if a soul can be reincarnated in more than 1 body at a time, let’s call this a multi-body reincarnation. This would probably accelerate things a bit.

Imagine a man born 1000 years ago, now with the population number increase, his soul today would exist in 400 bodies, and all the data / experience gathered through all these lives would reveal the characters of this soul, thus making it fit for a fair judgment.

 

Real democracy or electors bribery?

Few years ago, a populist political party came to power in Poland, the party in question “PIS” is hostile towards the EU, and the main reason it came to power is because they proposed a program called Rodzina 500 plus basically offering money to parents with 2 or more kids. Why 2 or more? probably because the cost of such a program was so big that it is not even possible to finance it if it was money offered for every child.
>> Result >>> The party in question won the elections.

This kind of legal bribery happen in every election, and in most countries, populist parties are the ones usually using bribery to the highest extend.

For example in a debate for the French Elections -see video below-, Marine Le Pen, the far right candidate have a several proposition to cut taxes, give more social aid in some cases, etc etc … Her program would bring and additional 100-170 billion dollars in deficit, and she has no concrete and serious solution to finance these newly proposed expenses.

Democracy is broken

The usage of monetary incentive is simple bribery, the society is not choosing what is better for it, simply because the poor and often the middle class, will fall for the ploy and vote for the money into their pockets.

In Lebanon, while growing up, i remember on each election, parties were paying for votes, i remember it was 100$, i hear it is around 1000$ now … So what is so different between the 2 cases above and this case ?
Absolutely Nothing, in all the 3 cases, money is used to win elections, and that is bribery.

Real Democracy

In a real democracy, voters should choose candidates based on programs not based on incentives. It is true that most societies are mature enough politically to not fall for this kind of bribery, but still some do, especially when you have a lot of poor population.

How much truth / lies in the media these days ?

I was reading earlier today an article about a very fat Egyptian lady “Eman Ahmed Abd El Aty” that underwent a weight loss program, and was said to have lost more than 400 pounds.
The article was about how the lady got paralyzed, and in the article her sister is saying how the Indian hospital and doctor were exaggerating the numbers just for publicity, and in reality she only lost a fraction of the weight.

The article goes in details about what a bad experience it was, and how it was life threatening, and how the lady went into comas several times.
The funny thing, is that this news outlet have been writing a lot about this specific lady, before she got paralyzed. And now you realize that all previous articles were bull$hit.

They say the media lies, but does it really ? Or simply, it is manipulated, and accept manipulation for the sake of viewers and readers ?

Another article caught my attention, emphasizing money donated by a country A for the reconstruction of country B, while country A have been actively waging war on certain community in country B and effectively have the prime role in the destruction caused.

Then today, i watched a funny Quebecois film “Votez Bougon”

It is basically ends on a note of the relation between power and press …

So at the end of the day, between power influence and manipulation, most of the news are lies are sheep manipulation.

Feminism is Radicalism

This is my last blog about the subject of feminism, i have already written a lot about:

Equal pay, Gender discrimination in employment, Men emasculation, Rejecting censusWomen Objectification, Social Gender inequality, Business Lobbying ….

And quite honestly, i think my contrarian views are better expressed on other subjects.

In this last blog, i want to explore the source of the issue, that is the current Feminist movement.
As i said previously, in the past the feminist movements were trying to establish equality between genders, now the feminist movement is trying to establish superiority. This superiority comes in the form of Quotas and better Salaries.
For salaries: check my equal pay post, but it can be resumed in this way: Equal pay means a man and a women get same pay, even-though the women would give birth a couple times, and get maternity leaves, and the company would have additional costs to find and train temps while the women is on maternity leaves.

For jobs, now feminists are asking equality in tech jobs, check my gender discrimination in employment, men never did that.
To understand the logic, just look at ” Nursing” Jobs, in the past, it was a job 100% dominated by women, men did not ask to get quotas is nursing jobs, instead some males just studied the field and applied for the jobs, and with time the percentage of male nurses have become not negligible.

Feminism have been a great current for social change, from voting rights, to driving rights etc … Feminism still have an important role and some causes are fair, even though some are controversial, Abortions for instance.

Feminism was never about creating a struggle between genders, it was never us against you, it was never women power, it was about getting rights.

But Feminism now, is a current just for the sake of empowering women, is pure nonsense and is in fact discrimination, lobbying and radicalization.

For me i can’t see a difference in the 2 groups below, one is saying they will dominate the world, and the other saying they are the future > Same meaning different words!

Radicals

radicals

 

Gender inequality and discrimination in employment … lobbying 

A follow up to my previous blog post.

Here I want to highlight the recent pressure tech companies started getting to hire more females.

In the lobbying effort the feminist movement have been labeling the low number of females in tech companies as “Gender Inequality”.

In reality, the problem is that there are few women in STEM, maybe simply because usually girls do not like math and engineering domains, as a result, there are less female programmers and engineers than men …

As a result, Tech companies have to get an all female staff for marketing, Human Resources, and any other department that do not involve STEM, just so that they can increase their percentage of female employees … and that ladies and gentlemen is discrimination against males looking for jobs in HR, advertising or any none STEM field.

Another silent discrimination we all ignore, is when females get chosen over males simply because the boss find the candidate sexually attractive. Candidates for a job, should perform interviews and be recruited from behind curtains, and that is specially necessary for small and medium businesses where the owner is usually a male and they usually select women for jobs because of their looks, while when the owner is a female the women get selected as well because it’s easier for a woman to manage other women.

So this is a real gender inequality and discrimination issue.

 

update:

A comment i found online, in reference to a WSJ article, where Facebook is accused of gender bias, and i find the comment very relevant to this article:

“According to the analysis, female engineers received 35 percent more rejections of their code than male engineers. ”

Explanation for this couldn’t possibly be that female programmers simply write crappier code, could it? And it is not possible that this is linked to companies being under pressure to hire more females just to improve their gender ratio, even if it means giving the job to a less skilled candidate?

Of course we shouldn’t even consider the most obvious and direct explanation. Females are never responsible for their outcomes. Unless their outcomes are positive, of course. Then it is proof of their superiority.

If code written by female programmers was rejected 35 percent *less* often the spin would be that female programmers are better and that companies would be smart to hire them over men.