Re: designed by human

It's ok to keep our mind open to the future possibilities

I am sure very tood AI can design other AI, but that capability at the
moment is very notional
the AI we have now is nowhere near that -
but some of us may be working on improving current AI
the problem that human intelligence seems bugged
(but you are giving us ideas Milton)

[

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 10:22 AM ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program
<metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> All AI we know is designed by humans. I am not disputing this. But I am questioning whether the AI we design should only be for engaging other humans, and not other species on earth.
>
> And with the current development in space exploration AI and robots we design must be able to do other things than just engage humans and be able to self-modify.
>
> I do agree with the general consensus. I will however also try to show future paths for AI.
>
> It is not as far-fetched as you may think or science fiction.
>
> But to put everyone at ease my generalized viewpoint I do not want to impose as the guiding principle.
>
> I concur with AI designed by humans for this CG.
>
> Milton Ponson
> GSM: +297 747 8280
> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
> Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
>
>
> On Friday, December 21, 2018 11:44 PM, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Milton
>
> we must accept 'designed by human'
> unless you can please share info of AI not designed by human
> (other than some experimental neural networks that modify themselves
> )
> https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/7gl635/is_selfmodifying_code_the_best_option_for/
>
>
> (this may become the case in the future but not yet in the present afaik)
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 12:04 AM ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program
> <metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Excellent starting point. But again I object to the "Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to systems designed by humans that,  .....
> >
> > It stresses anthropocentric thinking. This may sound crazy. But if we model the Reasoning part based on humans we will run into problems.
> >
> > This I will elaborate upon in a proposition paper that defines categories of uses of AI and the types of entities that are interacting.
> >
> > Nevertheless a good starting point. Now let us find similar documents from UNESCO, UN and professional organizations and standard setting organizations as well.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Milton Ponson
> > GSM: +297 747 8280
> > PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
> > Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
> > Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
> >
> >
> > On Friday, December 21, 2018 7:05 AM, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > you may want to refer to the much more solid document (and the map therein) produced on the 18th of December 2018 by the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence: "A Definition of AI: Main Capabilities and Scientific Disciplines":
> > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/definition-artificial-intelligence-main-capabilities-and-scientific-disciplines
> >
> > cheers
> > --e.
> >
> > On 17 Dec 2018, at 08:29, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Enrico
> >
> > nice to hear from you-
> > thanks for reply
> >
> > Perhaps then, we could create a better version of this map
> > How to go about it?
> >
> > I started a concept map but have not yet finished the required reading
> > to complete it
> > this is why I am happy to see someone else mapping the domain, but
> > not quite sure its correct, comprehensive enough-
> >
> > What I like is the map and the summary of AI subdomains, which is what
> > we started here
> >
> > we can then publish something that could be useful, given that you say
> > the representation in the article is wrong
> > we should definitely try to point it out
> >
> > PDM
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 17 Dec 2018, at 02:04, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > if people think this is good enough
> >
> >
> > It is as bad as I can imagine.
> > The symbolic and sub-symbolic parts are filled with non-sense, and lack all the relevant parts.
> > What can we expect from a "tech investor and AI technologist" writing on Forbes?
> > I don't even believe that the proposed tri-partition is a useful one.
> > cheers
> > --e.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Received on Sunday, 23 December 2018 02:32:48 UTC