Perspective. I hope this is wrong, but I’m not sure I could prove it wrong.
https://venturebeat.com/ai/snoop-dogg-sentient-ai-and-the-arrival-mind-paradox/
Snoop Dogg, sentient AI and the ‘Arrival Mind Paradox’
… Sure, there’s far more conversation these days about the “existential risks” of AI than in years past, but the discussion often jumps directly to movie plots like Wargames (1983), in which an AI almost causes a nuclear war by accidentally misinterpreting human objectives, or Terminator (1984), in which an autonomous weapons system evolves into a sentient AI that turns against us with an army of red-eyed robots. Both are great movies, but do we really think these are the likely risks of a superintelligence?
Of course, an accidental nuclear launch or autonomous weapons gone rogue are real threats, but they happen to be dangers that governments already take seriously. On the other hand, I am confident that a sentient superintelligence would be able to easily subdue humanity without resorting to nukes or killer robots. In fact, it wouldn’t need to use any form of traditional violence. Instead, a superintelligence will simply manipulate humanity to meet its own interests.
Very surprised to hear that digitization is not the default. I thought the idea behind museums was to spread knowledge, not keep it locked away.
British Museum Will Digitize Entire Collection at a Cost of $12.1 M. in Response to Thefts
British Museum has announced plans to digitize its entire collection in order to increase security and public access, as well as ward off calls for the repatriation of items.
The project will require 2.4 million records to upload or upgrade and is estimated to take five years to complete. The museum’s announcement on October 18 came after the news 2,000 items had been stolen from the institution by a former staff member, identified in news reports as former curator Peter Higgs. About 350 have been recovered so far, and last month the museum launched a public appeal for assistance.
Maybe words are easier to digitize?
https://www.bespacific.com/public-case-access/
Public Case Access
“This new Public Case Access site was created as a result of a collaboration between the Harvard Law School Library and Ravel Law. The company supported the library in its work to digitize 40,000 printed volumes of cases, comprised of over forty million pages of court decisions, including original materials from cases that predate the U.S. Constitution. Members of the public now have access to one of the largest collections of published caselaw available online. The site offers robust search and filter functionality [Note – these documents contain redactions. Filters include: Court, Author, Judge, Attorney, Jurisdiction, Reporter, and Timeline]. as well as links to PDF images that resulted from the scanning project. In addition to searching the Public Case Access site, users can also access these material through an API available on this site. Case Collection Disclosure – The Public Case Access contains all US court cases published in official reporters from 1658 to 2018. The collection includes over eight million cases from state courts, federal courts, and territorial courts for American Samoa, Dakota Territory, Guam, Native American Courts, Navajo Nation, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Please note that the Public Case Access collection does not include:
Cases not designated as officially published
Non-published trial documents such as party filings, orders, and exhibits
Parallel versions of cases from regional reporters, unless those cases were designated by a court as official
Cases officially published in digital form
Copyrighted material such as headnotes, for cases still under copyright..”
This will likely get worse. We don’t teach cursive writing, now we have computers even smartphones that will read for us.
Skimming, scanning, scrolling – the age of deep reading is over
Financial Times (read free ): “…Digital reading appears to be destroying habits of “deep reading”. Stunning numbers of people with years of schooling are effectively illiterate. Admittedly, nostalgics have been whining about new media since 1492, but today’s whines have an evidential basis. To quote this month’s Ljubljana Reading Manifesto, signed by publishers’ and library associations, scholars, PEN International and others: “The digital realm may foster more reading than ever in history, but it also offers many temptations to read in a superficial and scattered manner — or even not to read at all. This increasingly endangers higher-level reading.” That’s ominous, because “higher-level reading” has been essential to civilisation. It enabled the Enlightenment, democracy and an international rise in empathy for people who aren’t like us. How will we cope without it?”
No comments:
Post a Comment