chrisjones

Ok...........no takers? I'll start the discussion off :0) We assume and I assume that Western countries will be capable of looking after their own populations and that climate refugees will travel to European nations from poorer nations to seek shelter. However, as is glaringly obvious in the UK for example our government has failed to foresee the acceleration of climate impacts and has failed in forward planning, and has been surprised by the need to adapt to new climate conditions. Such as failing to construct more water reservoirs and failing to upgrade the rail track system that now buckles in the heat during summer. And in Europe, they have to shut down the energy supplied to the grid from solar farms as they have failed to upgrade their grid systems in some nations for example. With this in mind will they also fail in the forward planning for the predicted influx from mass climate migrations? Could the use of a computer model that predicts the flows of these migrations in tandem with ai make the process of dispersing large numbers of climate refugees within European nations more efficient and humane? Or do we expect that our clunky and dysfunctional bureaucracies will complete the task efficiently?

"and the people doing the planning often don’t care what the facts are." What do you mean INOW? Just one observation about the initial premise of this discussion, I presume that most western countries will be able to cope with climate stress themselves. I would suppose that the extremes of heat in countries close to the equator may trigger mass climate migration and that relatively the average temperature in Europe would still be less extreme?

Could ai be employed to track and predict the movements, numbers, points of the congregation during their migration, and the humane dispersal of climate refugees within western countries?

I'm also pushing my attention span and enthusiasm to the limit. " I think that the game is more important to humanity than any solution to save themselves".

Hi, Ghideon figured out the quote system thanks! In reply to this post: As with INOW you have identified a fundamental tenet of the underlying dynamics of my proposal. Yes, the processes and calculations of my system could also be mirrored and applied to our current global political system using current practices and debate. But this is not an accidental consequence of the ai system but a natural extension of my proposal. I'm also using the ai concept as a proxy in place of a purely political debate. If I had approached sharing this idea purely in the form of a new political ideology the discussion would have rapidly descended into tit-for-tat partisan chaos.

Hi INOW you have actually crafted a brilliant reply and I will attempt to answer each of your points, I have loaded up on nicotine and caffeine this morning to drag myself out of my torpor so hopefully, my replies will be somewhat articulate and self-explanatory. You said: There’s nothing hard about your concept. My reply: Good that means I have done my job. You said: What precisely requires me to show you a PhD before you accept that you’re trying to sell us digital Jesus or ML Mohammed? My reply: This is actually a brilliant observation however I am a very much flawed character and far from being a revered prophet. However, I have what is called a vasovagal syncope, and several weeks ago I coughed and hit the deck face down and blacked out. But whilst I was blacked out for 40 seconds I heard the voices of thousands of people all at once. This experience has had a profound impact on me so I suppose you could say that just like John Belushi in the film the Blues Brothers I Have Seen The Light ! and I'm on a mission from God. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You said: I mean seriously, dude. It’s hard to take your claims of super advanced societal advancement through vaporware technology at all seriously when you can’t even figure out the quote function on a 2 decade old discussion forum platform. My reply: I have a twenty-year history of sharing ideas online in the hope that somebody more equipt than myself could take the idea forward and develop it. Indeed several of my ideas have been developed and claimed by other people. However, I see it as akin to throwing a pebble into a vast pool of water in the hope that one of the ripples will wash over the feet of a person infinitely more qualified and equipt than myself. You said: You measure the nutrient content of the soil and local rainfall. It’s not as hard as you make it out, and farmers are already using AI to help them decide which supplements their crops need, exactly what day to plant, and how to maximize yields. My reply: In this thread, I am attempting to explain a concept that has millions of variables so for practicable purposes I need to deliver the general thrust of my idea. However in the context of the agricultural example I gave you to explain how this system could be applied and deployed, then yes you are correct there are other variables such as water distribution, weather patterns, accelerating climate variables, and indeed soil health and husbandry to name but a few examples. You said: Yes. I heard you the first time, but you didn’t hear me when I responded. There’s no universal measure of fairness. Ask 10 different people what fairness means and ideas of equity will be tossed about, but if you ask them how to measure it you’ll get 10 different answers. The AI won’t be able to learn in the way you think unless you can clearly define for it what success and what failure look like. My reply: I have explained the concept of how a specific fairness criteria could be employed in several extensive replies to you, however, I'm not going to spend days trying to sway your opinion on the subject so will stop trying to flog a dead horse with you :0) You said:Doesn’t matter. You couldn’t even get this to work at the country, state, city, or even neighborhood level. Hell, I bet it’d even fail within a single family household. Those family members all have different ideas of how fairness should be realized. My reply: I'm going to have a glass of fizzy pepsi and a cigarette and will reply to Ghideons post later :0)

Hi again INOW I'm tired and going to bed shortly so I'll keep it short and sweet. But honestly explaining everything in ABC fashion to people that haven't quite grasped the concept will I suspect be rather laborious, and I was hoping for a Ph.D. or two to comment, however, here goes............. You said: The point is: Fairness must be defined in a way that can be metered / measured, and different people will have differing opinions on how much weight each variable should carry in the final calculation (or even which variables to calculate at all). For instance: P1 might say: Orange = Fair P2 might say: Nuh Uh… Hippopotamus = Fair P3 might say: Fairness = Balanced plates of savory crepes for starving children P4 might be sitting there oblivious with his finger up his nose. You: Aha! This AI has the ONE answer to “fairness” despite each of your definitions being incongruent, inconsistent, and mutually exclusive of one another. Are you familiar with the concept of snake oil sales? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Jones: Rules are applied to many activities including this forum, from sports to the military, religion and millions more, each ruleset has a specific purpose to achieve a specific outcome. One could then argue that when disputes arise the ruleset or law is consulted and applied and that it represents a form of fairness and fair play, however, those same activities would rapidly descend into chaos in the absence of rules or laws. Let's take agriculture in the context of my idea for example. There are millions of variables in agriculture but as we see in our current agricultural ruleset and law that the ruleset to govern agriculture has been fine-tuned to filter out many frivolous variables to keep the process practical and efficient to a large extent, however as we can see it still requires improvement in regards to agricultural pollution of our waterways and even the distribution of fertilizers to name but a few. How could my system be applied to these issues on a national level for example? To keep it short, my system could organize the distribution of natural fertilizer and even calculate the amount of fertilizer that should be applied to fields near waterways to avoid oversaturating the field to prevent polluting runoff in our waterways. But does the example pertain to fairness? Currently, distribution and application of natural fertilizers is chaotic, biased and disorganized based primarily on the proximity to local supplies such as farms near a poultry farm for example, and due to cash incentives, those farmers tend to over-apply poultry waste fertilizer to their fields and therefore the rain runoff pollutes local waterways. Likewise, there are many farms further away from such sources of fertilizers that are struggling to purchase expensive fertilizers. I would consider this an (unfair system). How does this example apply to my idea, and does it apply both nationally and internationally? The idea is that my system could remove the unfairness by organizing the distribution of fertilizers nationally. But how does this apply internationally? I have proposed an international global ai system that is distributed in each country around the globe with the ability to cooperate with each node of the system in each country through a hub in a neutral country such as Ireland or Switzerland. And in this example my system would organize both the international and national distribution of fertilizers, to create a fair and efficient, and environmentally preferable distribution of fertilizers, therefore, maximizing yield, profit and output for each farmer. I would consider this a (fair system) Goodnight I'm going to bed it's 2.30 am here. :0)

Hi INOW In response to your reply: You replied: Your assertion rests on a foundational premise that there is some universal and all-encompassing measure of fairness, but the sense of fairness is always relative to the individual or local system. In other words, it’s subjective, not objective, and therefore your idea of the masses being placated by this approach strikes me as unrealistic to the point of being Pollyannish. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Jones : Fairness has a plethora of connotations, however, if fairness is given a more narrow criteria tailored to augment a specific process and proven to be accurate, such as World cup goal-line technology, it is more likely to be accepted by the masses. Football Goal-line technology and similar technology have been employed and deployed for some time in many sports. Initially rubbished as an inaccurate gimmick, it is now accepted in sport. If a similar but more intelligent algorithmic technology were included to resolve disputes by a digital and or quantum computer system as part of a much larger cooperative and globally distributed system somewhat based on a game theory, I think it would also be largely accepted by humanity if it were proven to be accurate and fair in the context of many potential tasks and the specific purpose of each task. However perception of fairness is not globally uniform, fairness is applied differently in Muslim countries for example. Therefore I would propose that this system would also calculate and accommodate these variables whilst calculating the resolution of a globally inclusive task.

Hi again Ghideon to continue my reply, you specifically asked how the system would resolve disputes in the financial markets. The monetary and commodity markets already employ ai to predict and calculate trades, however, as yet they do not cooperate for the greater global good. In that sense, my idea is a digital (or indeed quantum) modern updated improvement of game theory. I think the majority of humanity has a strong sense of fairness at least if they feel that they have been cheated it often triggers a powerful and visceral sense of anger and retaliation. It goes to the core psychological process of disputes and conflicts. I think if it were demonstrated that this ai system were a fair arbiter in dispute decisions those natural emotions of anger and retaliation would be calmed and placated.

Hi Gideon I can't seem to quote your post again so I will copy and paste it :0) However I have bursts of creativity due to being bipolar and I am running out of steam on this subject somewhat, however, I have given my sluggish neurons a boost with strong coffee and a cigarette. You said: Thanks for your reply. Let's assume we have constructed a prototype or candidate AI model that we think is capable of addressing issues of current financial markets*. Who would have the last say on go/no go for such a system on the scale you suggest? My guess: Then, assuming the system passes that hurdle and is up and running. Who would decide who and how the AI is operated? My guess And when there is a disagreement about whether to trust the AI or not or to replace or update the model depending on new events (a pandemic for instance) Who has the final say? My conclusion: -The issues you describe falls outside the scope of computer science, the problem is within other domains. -Your proposal about AI will not work, partly for the reasons you have already hinted about in your posts. This does not in any way say that it is useless to try to use AI or related concepts when establishing policies. But you need a well-defined problem and something that could be modeled or parameterized in a way that an AI can be used. *) "AI" is currently available, not some fantasy super-advanced future system like in a sci-fi movie. As far as I know, current understanding of for instance complex systems, political systems, and economical systems limits our ability to develop mathematical models that an AI could be based on. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Your questions have one overriding theme in this post and that is, how does the implementation of this globally cooperative ai system resolve competitive protectionism and disputes? I have proposed that the system would augment policy and political decisions in an advisory role independently in each nation however it would aim to benefit the entire globe and that it would also consult and cooperate with other nodes around the globe through a neutral nation hub such as Ireland or Switzerland. But as you point out, would the ancient competitiveness, mistrust, disputes, and conflicts between nations persist and ultimately render the system as an expensive white elephant? I think you have identified the critical crux of the entire concept. My generalized feeling is that ultimately the neutrality of the system would have to be trusted and would require an incentive for each nation to adapt the system and that if it were demonstrated that the system benefitted each nation in computer models both financially and in terms of productivity and the quality of life of their citizens it would increase the likelihood that nations would adapt the concept. However, if I wanted to speculate on what the future holds it may be the case that ultimately ai will decide................

In an attempt to keep this thread on the topic of my initial proposal it did occur to me that the underlying dynamics of this system are to nudge political systems around the globe to include individuals with a high "EIQ" (EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT) in the decision-making process. However, ideas can be repurposed for good or bad purposes and it occurred to me last night that this ai system could have the potential for a military application.

Just one point I'd like to clarify I don't think ai systems are perfect or infallible therefore I have proposed that this system would "Suggest" better strategies and it's somewhat interchangeable with "Augment" or augmentation. My reasoning is that I think that ai can't match human empathy but merely mimics it. Therefore I think that the outputs from this system would still have to be graded and filtered by emotionally intelligent humans.

I can't seem to quote your post-Ghideon however you said " Is AI used, or could AI be used, to simulate or evaluate proposed policy changes? For instance to increase the chance of successful implementation and to predict the outcome of policy changes? Could AI, as currently available, even be used to analyze existing policies and propose new and novel policy changes that improve for instance fairness?" That is what I am proposing, I think the system could be employed to " suggest" better planning and policy strategies and outcomes and employed to resolve many issues such as water resources, agriculture, climate mitigation and adaption, conflict resolution strategies, etc. However what makes my particular idea novel is the emphasis on independent neutrality and the global distribution of cooperative country-based nodes of the system I think.

I have a vasovagal syncope and a few weeks ago when I hit the deck face down and blacked out I heard the voices of 1000's of people at once rather like the film Bruce Almighty....................therefore in the tradition of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy I've chosen to name my idea as " The God Machine " 🤣🤣🤣🤣

One person's ability to describe a concept doesn't negate the idea as a possibility and people's inability to grasp the concept doesn't either. However, I have 20 years of experience on forums, and this thread has developed as expected primarily because it's more important who offers an idea than the idea itself and possibly because it's an original or novel iteration of the application of ai technology. However, if you want to continue the discussion I will also proffer this thought I had on the subject today. I have suggested a cooperative interoperable ai system to solve critical global issues that accounts for the disparities and variables of each country around the globe however I don't think a purely overarching centralized system would be welcomed due to longstanding mistrust and conflicts between nations. For instance, would Iran welcome such a system if it were based in the USA? To that end, I would suggest an ai system in each country operated by their expert nationals that had a base in a neutral country such as Ireland. Each system would have the ability to cooperate with other systems around the globe through the neutral hub and be able to consult and talk to other systems through the neutral hub. That would provide ownership, independence, and neutrality on an important psychological level for each nation making the concept infinitely more acceptable to their political leaders and their public.

1: the question " What market are you talking about?" The answer: read "I think that the markets require directional corrections and tweaks " 2: the question "That's a doctrine exactly as effective as the divine right of kings" Answer: Occurrences of blind adherence to the doctrine have shaped the modern history of humanity. 3: the question " Best in what sense? By what underlying principle or desired outcome - and desired by whom, for whose benefit?" Answer: read " I could also foresee that the governments would become over-reliant on such systems and neglect the human filtering and triaging of such algorithmic ai decisions. Suggesting that ai systems need to be programmed in such a way to achieve the desired outcome to that end read my signature below :0)

Does the Market Always decide? An application for AI? I think that the markets require directional corrections and tweaks however both UK Tory doctrine and governments around the globe believe that the market always decides. Ai is now sufficiently advanced to provide suggestions on legislative and policy tweaks to ensure that the market finds the best way forward the majority of the time through both countrywide and global ai cooperation whilst accounting for disparities in political and cultural systems around the globe. However I can foresee glaring problems with the idea, if there were such a system errors would occur when the ai decisions that the ai system made would have to be humanized and translated and the output of the ai decisions met the dirty, competitive, partisan and biased political systems. I could also foresee that the governments would become over-reliant on such systems and neglect the human filtering and triaging of such algorithmic ai decisions.

Wow, that's a brilliant reply thanks.

Thanks for that fantastic reply, I also pondered if a single egg in the womb were bombarded by a cluster of atomic rays before the cells divided could the altered genetic code change the structure of the cell to the extent that as the cell divided it would replicate the mutation, therefore, alter the entire structure of a biological entity? For instance, could the minute mutations in the cell shape the evolution of a species by incremental but individually significant changes in the structure of the cell during the evolution of that particular species? Suggesting both slow survival of the fittest evolutionary change but also much quicker mutations intermittently throughout the evolution of a particular species.

As cosmic rays pass through humans, plants, and animal bodies is it possible that their cumulative effect of tunneling through DNA, cells, and neurons actually disrupts DNA and neurons at the quantum scale? How much energy and radiation do they impart to biological entities such as humans, plants, and animals? If they do disrupt cells, DNA, and neurons could I suggest that it follows that cosmic rays may have shaped evolution on earth or at least may have caused errors in DNA some of which improved a species' chance of survival? Do they also impact neurons and synapses at a quantum scale therefore impact the way we think?

What actually gave me the idea was computational errors in quantum computing and the need to correct them hence the idea of quantum errors, but that would take me into hitchhikers guide to the galaxy territory and it would infer that the chaos we observe on earth is the result of computational errors in earth's algorithm and that would also infer that the universe is computational. It would then follow that earth and the universe are algorithmic in the context of a giant computer lol 🙂

Thank you Jo that's a brilliant explanation, actually, I'm bipolar and started to get manic last night, and I experience a heightened sense of imagination and lateral thinking periodically. I had quickly run my eye over a few science articles in my google feed on my mobile and also read only the google definition of chaos theory, hence the bright idea ☺️.

" You can then use probability theory to determine useful things about the relative probabilities of each state." My point exactly, I'm suggesting that observed order and chaos are probabilities at the quantum level, fluid in expression due to quantum errors.

Ok let me try and explain what I mean ☺️ I'm suggesting that order and chaos are not simply on or off states like a switch but instead, the point at which order tips into chaos can be any number of states between order and chaos at the quantum level due to tiny natural errors in the way that the quantum realm behaves.