(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

https://theconversation.com/to-stop-a-t ... rts-128235
To stop a tech apocalypse we need ethics and the arts

If recent television shows are anything to go by, we’re a little concerned about the consequences of technological development. Dystopian narratives abound.

Black Mirror projects the negative consequences of social media, while artificial intelligence turns rogue in The 100 and Better Than Us. The potential extinction of the human race is up for grabs in Travellers, and Altered Carbon frets over the separation of human consciousness from the body. And Humans and Westworld see trouble ahead for human-android relations.

Narratives like these have a long lineage. Science fiction has been articulating our hopes and fears about technological disruption at least since Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818).

However, as the likes of driverless cars and robot therapists emerge, some previously fictional concerns are no longer imaginative speculation. Instead, they represent real and urgent problems.

Further reading :
Artificial Intelligence should benefit society, not create threats
http://theconversation.com/artificial-i ... eats-36240

labbe5 wrote: To stop a tech apocalypse we need ethics and the arts

There is a bigger danger that follows a path more like seen in Asimov Foundation Trilogy. He foresaw a future where civilization crashed because nobody knew how to do anything any more. The fact that mankind appears no longer able to make a manual can opener that actually works is just a first small step down the path. With cars that take over the task on not crashing into the people in front of you, drivers are losing the ability to not hit people. Several recent incidents with aircraft have pointed out that the "pilots" no longer know how to actually fly a plane. In this forum it has been pointed out that nobody has any real idea what the guts of systemd are really doing. Win10 is obviously not understood by its own creators. AI and the machines may well replace us but it won't require them destroying us to do it. Mankind will have failed from its own actions.

Sobering thoughts, Moose. Thanks.

The fact that mankind appears no longer able to make a manual can opener that actually works is just a first small step down the path.

Ay caramba! It is the end times and even the preppers will starve ...

I have another view ... The world is always reorganising.
The rise of the Greta Good of Thunberg,
Terror ... oops terra forming planet 0
... heading for Greenland and the stars

Killing gods ... fun times ahead ...

We really are the Borg/Dorje
Resistance is Fatal

To be honest one where i don't have to hear Greta - every day.....

Unless it is Greta Garbo....

Basically, humans have lost the plot. Governments do not govern - they are part of destruction:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50629100

Sand... for concrete... from rivers...

I suppose it is one of the effects of population growth - much more than just global warming (believe in it or not): everything is getting out of control now and humans burying their greedy heads in the sand (or running round and round like headless chickens).

What darry19662018 said!

Merry Christmas!

Oops! Double entry...

Oh, and a Happy New Year!

wiak wrote: [... snip ...]
and humans burying their greedy heads in the sand (or running round and round like headless chickens).

Are you suggesting we are on a runaway train into uncharted waters?
https://youtu.be/8vVuVn1Yb8A

In technology, we are often seeing the word "obsolete" abused. Manufactures quit making a product because it doesn't make them enough money and not because there is a better product but they call the old part "obsolete".

Not that many years ago, there were programmable logic parts that ran on 5V and drew basically zero power. They were extremely handy for making things that needed to run for a very long time on a battery. Today, you have to use a big lithium battery. in stuff because everything draws more current. BTW: Check into the horrors of Cobalt mining some time.

The next time you come to a 4 way stop notice how people seem to not know what to do. This leads to the demand for greater electronic control on the flow of traffic. Cars have already taken the task of not running people over away from the drivers. I imagine that stopping for red lights will follow.

The education in schools no longer teaches logic meaning that people now will actually believe the earth is flat even though cats haven't pushed everything that is not nailed down off the edge. People can't even seem to grasp that a space craft can indeed go to the moon by pointing the flamy bit away from the moon for just a brief time. The rocket need not run constantly.. In space, nobody can hear you scream "Newton was correct you morons". (Most people leave the end off that quote).

What kind of futture do we want?

Guess Earth's population in 1000 years.
After all its been about 40,000 years since cave painting.

Regards
8Geee

Who wants a future, anyway?!
Thinking about the future creates a lot of anxiety for little result.

My personal favorite and most probable apocalyptic Future Scenario .

Stupefaction of Humanity through artificial Intelligence.

Moose,

.. Cars have already taken the task of not running people over away from the drivers...

But they don't seem to be doing too well, do they ?

CM

wiak,

..I suppose it is one of the effects of population growth - much more than just global warming (believe in it or not)..


AI may indeed have the answer to this one. But it is one that we already know, and will not accept.

CM

(I don't know how the forum views this topic, so I am being a bit wary at the moment)

Moose On The Loose wrote:People can't even seem to grasp that a space craft can indeed go to the moon by pointing the flamy bit away from the moon for just a brief time. The rocket need not run constantly..

I have a feeling that this is not true.

Or if true - only true if you run the rocket long enough to force the spacecraft to accelerate only to the speed that will allow the moon to complete EXACTLY one full orbit in the time it takes your spacecraft to reach it. Otherwise you will go straight past and NOT go to the moon.

In other words - I would say that the flaming bit should probably NEVER be pointing directly away from the moon at the time of firing the rocket.

Don't just aim the pointy end at the moon and give the rocket a squirt. Nope, I think it must be more complex than that.

coldmonday wrote:Moose,

.. Cars have already taken the task of not running people over away from the drivers...

But they don't seem to be doing too well, do they ?

CM

They may be doing better than humans. A person run over by a human driver doesn't make the news. Someone killed by a robot does. This same sort of effect may even be showing up in the statistics of how many people use Linux. All those Linux based things people have a use every day go unnoticed because they work with no drama.

I would disagree.

The number of auto-cars on the road is a very small percentage of overall cars compared with the number of normal cars with human drivers.

As the number of fully automatic cars increases I predict we will see the number of accidents due to them increase dramatically.

I understand that in the case of the car which hit a woman who was pushing her bike, the car was not programmed to recognise jay walkers. This would seem a fundamental requirement for any driver. If every single action that humans take for granted has to be programmed, along with all the possible parameters involved, then automatic cars will never be a success.

CM

wiak wrote:I suppose it is one of the effects of population growth

Have just read the most hopeful book I've seen in 5 decades Empty Planet. They predict world population will peak in 30 years at 9 billion and then plummet. They are worried that there won't be enough young workers to support the old foggies, but hey, nobody gets out of here alive anyway. And I find it difficult to believe that at some point in population decline humans won't have enough spirit to start over again. Hopefully having learned what not to do.

Check out the fertility rate chart: Chinese birth rate. It takes 2.1 children per woman to maintain current population.

An important point is that, in our ever more technological world, we will not need anywhere near the current population to provide everything we use.
More people simply needs more food, water, housing etc. So if the trend is for less occupations to keep people busy (and we all know what bored people tend to do) then why should we worry about the population decreasing at all ?

Surely the aim is not to breed us all into Armageddon because of the problems caused by having too many people ?...or is it ?

CM