Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label robots

Artificial Humanitarianism

Summary points “BIMS registers every refugee life event: from marriage, to education, to death. More than 90 percent of Syrians residing in Za’tari have been forcibly registered into the system as a precondition for receiving aid. “The involvement of tech companies and their products in state-led and international humanitarian work raises serious concerns about how their profit motive might compromise humanitarian principles. In particular, the absence of strong data protection laws renders data a profitable commodity to be bought and sold.  “Knowledge about emergencies and those affected by them is no longer being produced in context but rather through machines and artificial intelligence that dictate how humanitarians should intervene in crisis situations. “There are good reasons to believe that the Herberts of the humanitarian world will save lives and protect humanitarian workers in dangerous situations. But they also represent a new form of robotic intermediation that thr...

Quote of the Week: Stephen Hawking on Machines and ‘Wealth Redistribution’

If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. — Stephen Hawking , 2015

Human Evolution According to Larry Page

Page is worth $120 billion. He is co-founder if Google, former manager of Alphabet and currently controlling shareholder. Nick Bilton: Larry Page was talking about the progression of technology and how it was inevitable that humans would eventually create “superintelligent machines,” also known as artificial general intelligence (AGI), which are computers that are smarter than humans, and in Page’s view, once that happened, those machines would quickly find no use for us humans, and they would simply get rid of us. “What do you mean, get rid of us?” my friend asked Page. Like a sci-fi writer delivering a pitch for their new apocalyptic story idea, Page explained that these robots would become far superior to us very quickly , and if we were no longer needed on earth and that’s the natural order of things—and I quote—“it’s just the next step in evolution.” At first my friend assumed Page was joking. “I’m serious,” said Page. When my friend argued that this was a really fucked up way of ...
The accident of birth is the greatest source of inequality in the US,” wrote economist James Heckman. It’s equally true in the UK today, where the strongest predictor of academic achievement is how much your parents earn. Though two-thirds of our kids attain a C or above in English and maths GCSEs each year, that number falls to just over a third of kids on free school meals. Heckman has also shown that the best way to tackle this inequality is to invest in children’s development as early as possible in their lives. It isn’t enough to transform schools – we have to start much earlier than that. How babies learn - and why robots can't compet e
Some good and valid arguments, including facts. I wonder though why investment (the engine for growth) and the rate of profit (the life blood of capitalism) are totally absent in the article. Has western-style democracy become too expensive for capitalism?