EdEarl

It seems to me that some ethical issues are related to the well being of our species, for example the ethos of incest. While incest has occurred for millennium, it tends to be self extinguishing. During WWII the Nazis exterminated millions of Jews; I accept that events and human nature enticed millions of people to assist in this extermination, and that their ethos was perverted by events, but I cannot accept that mass extermination is good for the human race. At best mass extermination affects friends and family, but such acts tend to adversely affect people for generations and tend to affect many more people than friends and family. Thus, it is unethical.

I'm only reporting what I've read.

The death penalty sometimes kills an innocent, which is unethical. There is no way to avoid mistakes; thus, it should be stopped. Moreover, in the US it costs more to execute a person than keep them in prison; should be stopped on economic grounds. Some people can't commit suicide, so force authorities to kill them; for them life would be a more appropriate punishment. It is unethical to kill, even for a government IMO, but I prefer not to kill insects. However, I protect myself, for example by killing a mosquito biting me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Mathematical_formula

I don't understand this paper, Reconciling Planck with the local value of H0 in extended parameter space, but it seems relevant to this thread. The abstract: I think a 3.3 sigma difference in Hubble constant is large, that this paper doesn't explain the difference, but it does suggest things to investigate.

I doubt anyone here can help you. Solve the P versus NP problem and win a $M. Since the cost of wind and solar PV are now less cost than coal or oil plants to build and operate, we can manage well without fusion power, at least for a hundred years.

Connection to the internet might give enough power for an AI to order a computer controlled body, that the AI without body could control. I think there are no guarantees, except the technology will be developed and deployed. Self driving vehicles will decrease the cost of mass transit, especially truck, bus, limousine, and taxi. In the US trucking companies are some 50,000 drivers short of needs, possibly because pay is to low to entice more drivers. There are at least two companies building partly self driving tractor-trailer rigs. One is retrofitting big-rigs with an AI driver for highway driving, with a human taking over on city streets; thereby, allowing drivers to rest while AI drives between cities. They hope the rest drivers get between cities, instead of driving, will allow their rig to be on the move past the driver's 8 hour per 24 legal driving limit. The other is building rigs that can follow in a train with only one driver in the lead big-rig. All kinds of off-road vehicles can be automated without changing laws, for example earth moving and farm equipment. The driving requirements are significantly different than on-road driving, but deep-learning neural net brains require training, not programming; thus, existing drivers can be used to train the vehicles as they drive the off-road vehicles. I suspect a two liter, 1KW neural net with 1010 neurons will be capable of learning such driving tasks, but maybe it will take a few more years and 1011 artificial neurons. I haven't heard of any projects to automate off-road equipment, but I expect to hear about it soon. Right now governments are investing in AI for the military, including no-doubt the CIA, NSA and other spy organizations, and big corporations are investing in AI to better manage their money and businesses. Watson was a hybrid AI technology, partly programmed and partly trained. Alpha-go has only basic programming and depends much more on training big neural nets. This transition minimizes programming time, and allows non-programmers to train AI. Thus, we can expect AI will be capable of doing a larger variety of complex jobs soon. Since many off-road vehicles are already very expensive, the cost of adding AI should be minimal compared to the vehicle costs. I also expect a decrease in development and deployment times as AI begins to help engineers with their AI projects. The number of people working on AI and the decreasing skill level of those training AI worries me a bit. It would seem to increase the risk of a pathological AI "accident." Sooner or later AI will be ridiculously cheap. What would a Ted Kaczynski do with a self-made AI? Self driving vehicles will decrease the cost of mass transit, especially truck, bus, limousine, and taxi. In the US trucking companies are some 50,000 drivers short of needs, possibly because pay is to low to entice more drivers. There are at least two companies building partly self driving tractor-trailer rigs. One is retrofitting big-rigs with an AI driver for highway driving, with a human taking over on city streets; thereby, allowing drivers to rest while AI drives between cities. They hope the rest drivers get between cities, instead of driving, will allow their rig to be on the move past the driver's 8 hour per 24 legal driving limit. The other is building rigs that can follow in a train with only one driver in the lead big-rig. All kinds of off-road vehicles can be automated without changing laws, for example earth moving and farm equipment. The driving requirements are significantly different than on-road driving, but deep-learning neural net brains require training, not programming; thus, existing drivers can be used to train the vehicles as they drive the off-road vehicles. I suspect a two liter, 1KW neural net with 1010 neurons will be capable of learning such driving tasks, but maybe it will take a few more years and 1011 artificial neurons. I haven't heard of any projects to automate off-road equipment, but I expect to hear about it soon. Right now governments are investing in AI for the military, including no-doubt the CIA, NSA and other spy organizations, and big corporations are investing in AI to better manage their money and businesses. Watson was a hybrid AI technology, partly programmed and partly trained. Alpha-go has only basic programming and depends much more on training big neural nets. This transition minimizes programming time, and allows non-programmers to train AI. Thus, we can expect AI will be capable of doing a larger variety of complex jobs soon. Since many off-road vehicles are already very expensive, the cost of adding AI should be minimal compared to the vehicle costs. I also expect a decrease in development and deployment times as AI begins to help engineers with their AI projects. The number of people working on AI and the decreasing skill level of those training AI worries me a bit. It would seem to increase the risk of a pathological AI "accident." Sooner or later AI will be ridiculously cheap. What would a Ted Kaczynski do with a self-made AI?

Are you suggesting that some people will start listening "voice" of artificial intelligence more than voice of living scientist? No. I think the help will be more practical. For example, AI workers might weather strip everyone's house, build houses that are greener, drive cars to save energy, or design things processes that sequester CO2. Although the US federal government and others have been bought by coal and oil, the increase in solar and wind generating facilities are increasing as Peabody Coal files for bankruptcy. The military-industrial-governmental complex will continue to play its confused role. I personally believe mega corporations are running out of time because of local manufacturing via 3D printing and other robots, but that's for another thread.

I don't know, honestly. Researchers are racing to make artificial brains: In a video Nvidia is also working on an AI processor. AI researchers are not aware of me, AFAIK. Moreover, I doubt they care much about my likes. I hope they are careful, and believe they are aware of potential bad things general AI might do. If the AI singularity is apocalyptic then we are probably screwed. Otherwise, AI will probably help us reverse or mediate climate change and could make life very sweet for everyone. If I had a magic method for preventing apocalypse, I would share; otherwise, no point in dwelling on bad possibilities. On the other hand, if someone has a bright idea for preventing apocalypse, let's discuss it.

We are teaching AI to communicate with us, but we also have an opportunity to give an AI the ability to communicate with dolphins, by giving it the ability to watch them underwater, listen to their noises, and see some of the things they see with sonar. They must be able to see inside each other, as we use a sonar to see internal organs, they may be able to see what others are feeling, and many other things. Similarly, AI may be useful to understand other animals. Will AI appreciate their own abilities? If we teach them philosophy, for example as they read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, they should begin to appreciate quality and other values, with other authors they should understand matters of existence, knowledge, reason, ethics, etc. Somewhere along the way, they should learn to appreciate their own value to nature.

An experiment with dolphins shows they communicate with each other with some sophistication. This youtube shows two dolphins communicating with a trainer and with each other to invent a trick.

Yes, but what facilitates imprinting? A bird imprinted on a person may not mate with other birds of a feather, but do they really think they are a person? People can't fly, but birds can. I believe a bird imprinted on a person would still fly and do other things like a bird, not like a person.

Individuals like their own species, in general. People prefer to be people, cats prefer to be cats, and sloths prefer to be sloths. Obviously, I cannot prove it. On the other hand, the deer that visit my yard don't knock on the door and expect to be invited in for a beer. You say, they aren't very smart and don't have the right body for it. True, but a wild bonobo or chimpanzee wouldn't either. Why do individuals like being a member of their species? In general we like things that are pleasant and dislike things that are not. We like some things because our bodies tell us to like it, for example sugar. However, some things we like are learned, for example smoking cigarettes. It makes sense that sugar on our tongue is sweet and likable; it is built in to us. However, there is no stimulus like sugar to make us like ourselves, yet most beings seem to like themselves regardless of species. Will AI have self-respect? If they do, is it something we can instill in them, or will it develop automatically? If it is something we can instill in them, how do we do it? If an AI does not have self-respect, will it care whether it is shut down? Scientists are developing sensors so that AI can recognize touch and damage. I believe we can build AI to avoid damage, but I cannot imagine building in self-respect; I think can be taught.

Several people in this discussion have PhD degrees and at least one teaches at a university. I think you cannot substantiate that observation.

You summarize 30 years first. This thread is nonsense, bye.

This reference refutes Rushton-Jensen 30 years: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Sternberg-commentary-on-30years.pdf There is no consensus that any race exists.

Your unsubstantiated statements are as worthless as mine. I'm not going to have a shouting contest with you. Do you have references that define various races genetically or not? If you do, cite them. If you don't go away. The Wiki article cites its references, you don't.

Really! Race (human categorization) from Wikipedia: Scientifically there are no races. Thus, the academic psychologists you claim equate race and intelligence cannot be scientists, and the correlation must be based on bigotry. Do you have references to substantiate your statement?

Why not? Bacteria and archaea are 50% carbon by weight (Table 1). It seems reasonable that a foot of top soil would have an order of magnitude more carbon than an inch, just from the microbes. Moreover, good soil is better for growing plants, that "are more efficient in storing carbon." Another process can be used to increase carbon in soil, pyrolysis. In nature wildfires convert plants and animals into biochar that becomes part of the soil. One could pyrolyze the photosynthesizing microbes they grow, and add the resulting biochar to their soil. In good conditions, these microbes double their mass several orders of magnitude faster than larger plants, including bamboo. I'm suggesting that we can speed up natural processes to remove CO2 to abate climate change. It seems climate change started along with the industrial revolution, sometime between 1800 and 1900. Let's say we've made a pickle of the climate in about three hundred years. I suspect it will take longer to remedy the situation, and we need to start ASAP. We can use minerals to grow photosynthesizing microbes, use them to build good top soil, and slowly increase the top soil thickness until we have reduced atmospheric CO2 levels. Farm land is being used up by poor farming practices, and being taken for "economic development." We really must change the way we treat the Earth, and IMO we should assist natural processes. It's simple and many people can do it, like planting trees. I know there have been pilot projects to sequester CO2 underground, but there isn't enough of it to make a difference. Sometimes industrial processes don't work well enough and crowd sourcing can help.

Correction: I thought black holes had been excluded as an explanation of dark matter, but maybe not.

With abundant nutrients soil microbes multiply, so building thicker top soil more than an inch thick does sequester living carbon. Planting bamboo or another fast growing plant also helps. Although, you are right the processes of life do put CO2 into the air, but they also remove some. We have so much CO2 in the air that it will take a while to get the levels back down, even with everyone helping.

Perhaps I should have said totally destroy. Yes, we have done major damage to Mother Nature. However, she has endured hellish and cryogenic events, including snowball Earth, the volcanism that created the Siberian Traps, a comet 10km across, and possibly a gamma ray blast from a supernova explosion, all of which caused mass extinctions, yet Nature survived.

Phys.org: I thought black holes had been excluded as an explanation of black holes, but maybe not.