The center of the development of AI should be how that thing can serve people better?

 

 The center of the development of AI should be how that thing can serve people better?

The problem with artificial intelligence development is that the intrinsic value. That means that creation of the more and more intelligent machines is the prime objective. In that development process, the developing artificial intelligence is intrinsic value. 

The prime objective should be how artificial intelligence can serve humans. How AI might turn life easier and safer?

When we are thinking that AI can fully replace humans that thing is pure imagination. There are lots of things that we don't know about brains. We know maybe how neurons are switching connections and how brains are learning new things. 

But we don't know what kind of role certain things are in certain actions. The things like imagination are totally out of artificial intelligence. Even if we could model that ability to abstract thinking in theory. That thing is hard to make in real life. 

The complicated AI requires powerful computers. And the thing is that AI that runs on the quantum computer can learn things unpredicted fast. Quantum computers are millions of times more powerful than binary computers. 

The self-learning algorithms that are run on quantum platforms can make unpredicted things. And the machine that involves things that are not predicted is always dangerous. 

When we are thinking about the feelings and consciousness of the computer. We must remember that if the machine has feelings. It is dangerous. If the robot would turn conscious that thing makes that thing similar to living organisms. 

And all organisms are defending themselves if they are under threat. The AI might feel it is under threat in this case. Where its server shuts down. The AI itself is not dangerous. But if it's the system that controls things like weapon systems. It can try to destroy the people who are shutting it down. 

Making a real-world computer that has dreams and imagination is a thing that is very hard. The things like quantum computers are shown that theoretically easy things can turn difficult in real life. 

Artificial intelligence can be better than humans in certain limited sectors. AI can play chess better than humans. But humans can make more things than AI. The thing is that humans can do many more things than AI. And making AI that has similar transversal competence as humans is difficult.

There is a possibility that every single neuron in humans 200 billion neurons have different individual programming. So for making the AI that has the same capacity requires 200 billion tables for the database. And maybe that thing requires the 200 billion microprocessors. 

But of course, we could create artificial neurons by using small bottles there is some kind of microchip and quicksilver. The quicksilver will close the electric connections of those bottles. 

In that system, quicksilver is acting as a liquid switch. For making the connection in that system, the magnet will pull quicksilver at connection points of wires. That thing makes the system route data to the right wire. This is the model of an artificial neuron. 

And the microchip involves the database. That kind of system can emulate single neurons. But for emulating humans there is needed 200 billion bottles. 

Humans should be the thing that technology serves. And in the real world in the center of development should be humans. The fact is that. The development of artificial intelligence is different than anything else. Artificial intelligence is an open-source thing. Almost all programming languages are public. And that means everybody can start to make their artificial intelligence projects. 

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool. Many people are saying that the AI steals jobs of people. The question is: what kind of jobs AI will take? Are those jobs popular? Or do those people who are criticizing the AI. Willing to make those jobs? The question is always about morals and ethics. What if somebody makes the robot for military purposes? 

So ethically that thing is wrong. But also things like nuclear weapons are inhumane. Nobody is stopping to development of nuclear reactors. Because of Plutonium that those reactors are creating can use for nuclear weapons. Every single nuclear reactor in the world is producing Plutonium. But there are no large-scale campaigns on the ethics of nuclear technology. Same way fusion technology can use for weapon research in both plasmoid and fusion explosives. 

But somehow artificial intelligence is a different thing. AI can make human lives better. The only thing that is seen in AI is the military systems that are killing people without mercy. Things like nuclear weapons are not merciless killers. They are inhumane military technology. If some person will get radiation poisoning that thing causes extreme pain and finally slow and certain death. But when inhumane weapons use by human operators it's more acceptable than some kind of robot that shoots enemies by using a machine gun. 

Robots are the thing that can misuse. They can use as riot police and military operators. The thing is that the humans who are serving in those roles are serving governments. The government makes decisions where it wants to use those things. 

But those things can also save humans. They can use as tools for giving medical attention to people. Or they can go in the nuclear reactors in the cases when there is an overheating situation. Robots can research the jungles and volcanoes. Without risking human lives. And robots can travel to other planets. Those trips take years. But for robots, that time doesn't matter. 

So I believe that the first thing that walks at the surface of Mars or icy moons of Jupiter is a robot that is controlled by very independent artificial intelligence. That thing means that. No researcher must spend a lot of the lifetime on that trip. A trip to Jupiter takes 600 days in a flyby mission. 

But if the craft will want to position itself to the orbiter that journey takes 2000 days. That means a one-way trip takes over 5 years. Return to Earth will take 5 or more years. And that means that the minimum time for that mission is 10 years. 

Of course, there should spend some time at the orbiter. If robots would make that mission. The researchers can stay at their homes and make everyday jobs. That doesn't require that human operators should spend 10-20 years away from home. That is one example of how AI can help researchers in extremely difficult missions. 

Image: https://www.salon.com/2021/04/30/why-artificial-intelligence-research-might-be-going-down-a-dead-end/

https://likeinterstellartravelingandfuturism.blogspot.com/

About ethical problems of other planets colonization

Hardy's painting about conflict between civilizations
(Picture I)

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/about-ethical-problems-of-other-planets.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

There is one big question about the colonization of another planet. That is " if we are ruined our own planet, could we continue that action in another world"? That is the very good philosophical question about ethical space exploration. When we are colonizing other planets, we must ask: "do we want to make that, because we have made our own environment unable to live. When we are thinking about the situation, where we are forced to leave our home planet, do we have ethical right to go to another planet and start to conquer it? Of course, the human being is number one in our own thoughts, and we are civilization, what have got right to be, but when we have polluted our own planet, can we go to another planet and start to act like some conquistadors?


And here we must ask the question, what if that would give the reason for other civilizations to attack us because they would see that we will destroy other planets? On the top of the text is artist David Hardy's painting about the war between civilizations, and that made me think that maybe this hypothetical situation is caused because that other citizens have been attacked by some other civilization, and that's why that civilization has been created tactic called "shoot first, ask then", what would cause terrible situation, when some probe would come to their solar system.


The reason for that might be attacked by other civilization. When we are talking about hyper civilizations, what life is not connected with planets, we must know that those civilizations might be very different than we are. In this scenario, some civilizations would leave their own solar system, and then suffuse to the entire galaxy. Those civilizations would live in giant spaceships, and they might travel around the universe for hunting materials for their ships.


And those civilizations might act like some doomsday horror film. They might send their machines to some solar system and explode all planets, by giving anti-matter injection to the center of them. After that gigantic factories would start to make new spaceships for those aliens. This kind of way to act would cause terrible situations if those civilizations would not notice other aliens. And this could be the big threat to mankind if we would travel to space in distant future. If those "grasshopper civilizations" would be true, they can cause the situation, where all visitors in some solar system would be attacked before any contact can even try to make.


In this scenario, I mean that all violent actions are learned, and when we are thinking about Spartan or some other nation militarism, that militarism is caused, because that society has been faced violent threat for its neighbors. And probably the behavior of the planet-size society would be the same. Here I must say that some isolated societies on Earth are also violent against intruders, and the reason for the violent behavior is that sometimes before those societies were attacked. And this makes us think, that if some civilization would face violent attack, it would act violent way to other civilizations.

Sources:

Picture I

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fnq1D6Z94L0/maxresdefault.jpg

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/about-ethical-problems-of-other-planets.html

Twin investigations and ethical questions about it

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/twin-investigations-and-ethical.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Assassinators are marginal persons, who live in the world, where nobody normal person would even want to live. I'm seen many movies and trailers in my life, and sometimes I have imagined, that could some of those stories be true. When we are talking about the stories, what are written by men like David Morrell, there might be organizations, what have skills and capacity to train those persons. And of course, there would be the very marginal thing about this kind of hypothetical cases. When we are thinking about movies, we would sometimes say, that "something happens only in the movies", but at the same time we forget, that also real world "bad guys" are watching television, and they would take influences from movies. And movies might give them ideas for their actions.


In this case, some organization would make the thing, what has been introduced in the movie "The mark of Cain". But I have thought that maybe some organization would use the situation, that they would take identical twins, who are crown separately, and train both of them working as an assassin. In this case, there would always be a person, who makes the alibi for another assassin. This kind of things bring my mind the things, what are not many times mentioned. The genetic investigations, what is consisted the thing called "twin investigations", where identically twins who are grown separately without knowledge of the twin brother or sister existence are very fascinating, but there is always thoughts and question about the reason, why some twins were separated just after their birth? Was the separation happened because of this kind of investigation?


The twin investigations were in the primary role when scientists found out, what skills and qualities are heritable and what is learned. And if this kind of investigations is wanted to be trusted, must the investigator use twins, who are grown separate places without knowledge or contact with another twin. Here we must another question about this kind of things. That goes like this: how the scientists tracked those twins? And how those twins were separated? Of course, modern genetic investigation makes possible to find out, are some persons actually twins, but then we must ask, how the tracking happened before modern genetic investigations? And the last thought about this thing is, did somebody separated those twins because of those investigations? If the reason for separation would be that kind of investigation, there would be very big moral problems with that kind of actions.


The twins are a fascinating object for scientists, who are working with genome investigation. But there would be many questions with about this kind of science. We can make artificial twins very easily by sharing the embryos in pieces, and this kind of thing allows us to make more advanced and more unethical investigations with that kind of thing. In some scenarios, another embryo would be freezing in liquid nitrogen to minus 189 Celsius. In this cryogenic condition, the molecular movements are ending. And those cells would not get older. And in this scenario, some scientific mastermind would make the experiment, that another twin would be live all the life, and then after this, another twin would be let to born. This allows the investigators make very good observations about the genetics and twins.


But when we are thinking about ethics and morale. How moralistic is to give another twin different kind of conditions than another twin? What if somebody misuses that investigation in the assassin training? Of course, the motivation for that kind of actions can be done by murdering another twin, and after that, another part of this hypothetical experiment was called to training, by saying " we found your twin brother, but he is dead by the terrorist attack". Those persons can play the role of the scientists, who are investigating genomes. And then they might claim that they found this lost brother from papers. This is the most difficult questions in science and technology.

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/twin-investigations-and-ethical.html

The risks of the microwave weapons

Microwave attack
Picture 1

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The thing what differences the good from the bad might be very small. If we are thinking about the situation, where the human head will be targetted the microwaves, what causes the changes of pressure in the skull, we are playing with dangerous things. The microwave can kill the target, but it can also cause the resonance inside that person's head. And the effect will be like noise inside target skull.

Don't ever test this in any place, because the rise of the pressure can break the victim's skull, or cause the horrifying injuries. This kind of things are not toys, and in some stories or thoughts, some kind of criminals have this kind of weapons in their hands. The use of microwaves in the humiliating the people or even destroying the targets is not the new idea. In 1970's CIA and DARPA tested the microwave-bazooka for elimination missions and the auxiliary weapon for the army.

The idea of the portable microwave-weapon was simple. The modified micro-wave own will pointed to the target, and that thing causes heat in the steel of the tanks. In the eyes of the engineers was the vision, that when microwaves raise the temperature of the tanks, it will make the armor softer, and other ammunition will get more efficient when they hit the target.

Also, microwave systems might want to use to make some "no-go zones" near army firebases. Microwave-weapons can also use against flying targets because they will cause EMP-effect in the drones and airplanes. If the microwave is enough to power, that can melt the target aircraft. The microwave wall has been investigated in the Russia.


The idea of this system is very simple. The target-like city or military base will surround the line of the high power microwave transmitters, what can make the wall, what can damage or destroy any target, what will fly thru it. The problem with the microwave systems is that almost anybody can get them. The law enforcement officials have investigated the possibility to use the microwave systems in the hostage situations because those systems can attack thru the wall and the operator can tune the power of the weapon between shock and deadly. Also, those weapons can be used as the torture of the victims in the closed cells. The prison guards might not even know that the prisoners will be tortured in the closed cells by targeting them with microwaves, what are shot thru the wall. (Picture 1)


And this kind of equipment is extremely dangerous in wrong hands. The modification of microwave oven is not very difficult, and that's why somebody can use it for terrorizing the neighbors or target it to the airplanes. And this will be very serious action, what will bring very long time to the jail if the person will catch for this kind of actions.

http://www.powerlabs.org/uwavexp.htm

Picture 1 https://targetedindividualscanada.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/08.jpg