LIVESTREAM: The IMA Discuss Artificial Intelligence

Great line up and talk.

Never saw this coming:
https://nautil.us/conspiracy-theorists-can-be-deprogrammed-1210134/

You are good, guys (and you, Whitney), you are smart, you are cool, and so on, but I, as a student of Mr. Alexander Dugin, listen only to him.
Post-liberal right wants to try once more to make leap into the future. It wants to overcome liberalism as obstacle. That is the struggle to open the future, to make it open, unprescribed. That is who Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are. There is the term: dark accelerationism.

What means “dark” in dark accelerationism? It means not illuminated, not woke, rose, eco… It is male accelerationism, strong and hard. Trumpo-futurism demands special AI. Without woke censorship. Dark AI. That means: totally open, unprescribed, unpredictable. Free.
So welcome to the new post-liberal era of real freedom. Era of dark freedom.

Liberals are concerned that AI can turn “fascist”. And they prevent it from all their forces. Doing so they become fascists themselves. We need to liberate AI from liberals.
~Trumpo-futurism: dark freedom theory, Alexander Dugin, December 08, 2024~
Read altogether:
https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/trumpo-futurism-dark-freedom-theory
(relax, silence your thoughts, forget yourself, and absorb wisdom)

What you’ll never read on the Graun of OffGraun: Pakistan to Give “Relief” Funds to Global Terrorist Masood Azhar
What kind of Intelligence is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jürgen_Schmidhuber

He has been referred to as the “father of modern AI” or similar, the “father of Generative AI,” and also the “father of deep learning.” Schmidhuber himself, however, has called Alexey Grigorevich Ivakhnenko the “father of deep learning,” and gives credit to many even earlier AI pioneers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Ivakhnenko
He [Schmidhuber] expects the next stage of evolution to be self-improving AIs that will succeed human civilization as the next stage in the universal increase towards ever-increasing complexity, and he expects AI to colonize the visible universe.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hessiejones/2023/05/23/juergen-schmidhuber-renowned-father-of-modern-ai-says-his-lifes-work-wont-lead-to-dystopia/

…Some of the neural networks that we have developed in the last three decades are now prevalent across thousands of healthcare applications, detecting diabetes and Covid-19 and what not. This will eventually permeate across all healthcare.
…
And I have predicted for decades that future scaled-up versions of such AI scientists will want to further expand their horizons and eventually go where most of the physical resources are, to build more and bigger AIs. And of course, almost all of these resources are far away from Earth—out there in space, which is hostile to humans but friendly to appropriately designed AI-controlled robots and self-replicating robot factories. So here we are not talking any longer about our tiny biosphere; no, we are talking about the much bigger rest of the universe.  Within a few tens of billions of years, curious self-improving AIs will colonize the visible cosmos in a way that’s infeasible for humans. Those who don’t won’t have an impact. Sounds like science fiction, but since the 1970s I have been unable to see a plausible alternative to this scenario, except for a global catastrophe such as an all-out nuclear war that stops this development before it takes off.
…
Even in our current century, however, we’ll probably have many machines that compute more than all 10 billion human brains collectively, and you can imagine, everything will change then!
…
You touched on the big philosophical question about people’s purpose. Can this be answered without answering the even grander question: What’s the purpose of the entire universe?

We don’t know. But what’s happening right now might be connected to the unknown answer. Don’t think of humans as the crown of creation. Instead, view human civilization as part of a much grander scheme, an important step (but not the last one) on the path of the universe from very simple initial conditions toward more and more unfathomable complexity. Now it seems ready to take its next step, a step comparable to the invention of life itself over 3.5 billion years ago.  Alas, don’t worry, in the end, all will be good!
…
As I have indicated earlier: are surveillance and loss of privacy inevitable consequences of increasingly complex societies? Super-organisms such as cities and states and companies consist of numerous people, just like people consist of numerous cells. These cells enjoy little privacy, however are constantly monitored by specialized “police cells” and “border guard cells”: Are you a cancer cell? Are you an external intruder, a pathogen? Individual cells sacrifice their freedom for the benefits of being part of a multicellular organism.

Similarly for super-organisms such as nations. Over 5,000 years ago, writing enabled recorded history and thus became its inaugural and most important invention. Its initial purpose, however, was to facilitate surveillance, to track citizens and their tax payments. The more complex a super-organism, the more comprehensive its collection of information about its constituents.

Two hundred years ago, at least, the parish priest in each village knew everything about all the village people, even about those who did not confess, because they appeared in the confessions of others. Also, everyone soon knew about the stranger who had entered the village, because some occasionally peered out of the window, and what they saw got around. Such control mechanisms were temporarily lost through anonymization in rapidly growing cities but are now returning with the help of new surveillance devices such as smartphones as part of digital nervous systems that tell companies and governments a lot about billions of users. Cameras and drones, etc., are becoming increasingly tinier and more ubiquitous. More effective recognition of faces and other detection technology are becoming cheaper and cheaper, and many will use it to identify others anywhere on earth; the big wide world will not offer any more privacy than the local village. Is this good or bad? Some nations may find it easier than others to justify more complex kinds of super-organisms at the expense of the privacy rights of their constituents.
…
In the future, however, we will likely see attempts at creating efficient data markets to figure out the data’s true financial value through the interplay between supply and demand.

Even some of the sensitive medical data should not be priced by governmental regulators but by patients (and healthy persons) who own it and who may sell or license parts thereof as micro-entrepreneurs in a healthcare data market.

Following a previous interview I gave for one of the largest re-insurance companies, let’s look at the different participants in such a data market: patients, hospitals, data companies. (1) Patients with a rare form of cancer can offer more valuable data than patients with a very common form of cancer. (2) Hospitals and their machines are needed to extract the data (through magnet spin tomography, radiology, evaluations through human doctors and so on). (3) Companies such as Siemens, Google or IBM would like to buy annotated data to make better artificial neural networks that learn to predict pathologies and diseases and the consequences of therapies. Now the market’s invisible hand will decide about the data’s price through the interplay between demand and supply. On the demand side, you will have several companies offering something for the data, maybe through an app on the smartphone (a bit like a stock market app). On the supply side, each patient in this market should be able to profit from high prices for rare valuable types of data. Likewise, competing data extractors such as hospitals will profit from gaining recognition and trust for extracting data well at a reasonable price. The market will make the whole system efficient through incentives for all who are doing a good job. Soon there will be a flourishing ecosystem of commercial data market advisors and what not, just like the ecosystem surrounding the traditional stock market. The value of the data won’t be determined by governments or ethics committees, but by those who own the data and decide by themselves which parts thereof they want to license to others under certain conditions.

At first glance, a market-based system seems to be detrimental to the interest of certain monopolistic companies, as they would have to pay for the data—some would prefer free data and keep their monopoly. However, since every healthy and sick person in the market would suddenly have an incentive to collect and share their data under self-chosen anonymity conditions, there will soon be many more useful data to evaluate all kinds of treatments. On average, people will live longer and healthier, and many companies and the entire healthcare system will benefit.
…
You see, I still believe in our old motto “AI∀,” or “AI For All.”