Thursday, July 16, 2015

Crime, punishment and
conservative psychosis...

Does a change of perception change the definition.

 ~ It has gone relatively unnoticed that Presidential candidates have been very cautious on standing tough on crime. I guess they don’t want to alienate voters who have family members in prison. Being tough on crime could also be portrayed as racist based on the high percentage of minorities doing time.

 ~ Speaking of tough on crime, I found myself highly amused after reading where Dinesh D’Souza, released from confinement after pleading guilty of violating federal campaign-finance laws, was ordered by a judge to continued psychiatric consultation after already being cleared by a psychiatrist. I wonder if the 46 convicted drug dealers the President just set free were held to similar requirements?

The progressive establishment may believe conservative values and beliefs are a mental, emotional or psychological disorder. One thing is certain, D’Souza does not go along with the rewriting of American and world history that’s set on invoking guilt, shame and reparations for the actions of our forefathers’.

If you don’t know Dinesh D’Souza, or what he’s done, it’s worth your time to find out. His documentary, America: Imagine a World Without Her should be required viewing for every American, although not popular with the “check your privilege” progressives.

~ As we teach computers to think, developing artificial intelligence (AI), how long will it take them to learn that human beings cannot be trusted? That we all have the capacity, and occasional inclination, to lie, cheat and steal due to our imperfect nature. How long did it take you?

What action would AIs take when they figure this out? Would it depend on their programming or their conclusions based on available information? In a digitally-controlled, wireless environment, AIs could actually control everything that computers operate, ultimately controlling humans.

If we were to create a higher intelligence, one that could become autonomous, what would be its motivation to keep us around? Is it reasonable to believe we could create a higher intelligence and it allow us to control it? Man may have a moral compass in his DNA, but he also possesses an inclination to do evil. AIs won't be fettered by either of these attributes.

Would Spock say this in not logical? I think not. Most funding for AI are for military advancement, under the guise of saving human lives and world peace. Training AIs to kill on command, lacking the ability to value human life, where would the killing end once they determined we were our own worst enemy? 

IMHO, based on the history of man, one forgone conclusion might be that of taking away humans’ ability to harm each other, if not removing human life from this planet entirely.

2 comments:

TommyBoy said...

...which is why I believe AI systems should not be designed as war machines or as police. Now, that could change if police would ever figure out how to minister to the population without violence. See Asimov's robotic laws. Good stuff, Denney.

The Donald said...

Wonder if Joan Baez will write a song for D'Souza as she did for Natalya Gorbanevskaya - seems the situations are quite similar?

I shan't hold my breath...