Human Design is now Heading toward Obsolescence
History of living systems on planet earth.
Wolves have a leader
Tamed wolves have a human leader. Human must show dogs who is ‘boss’ or ‘alpha leader’.
Primates with grunts and simple gestures to warn of danger to social group. Main
communications= I pick bugs from your fur. A primitive version of love. Oldest male who has not
‘lost it’ may be the group leader.
Primates with some language evolve into primates with sign language and then into primates with
vocal chords and spoken language.
Result: limit to intelligence was size of brain, size of female pelvis, brain takes 25% of energy
although only 3 pounds.
To expand intelligence humans have to form communities, develop written language (external
memory). So one person's external memory/intelligence might be that a human carpenter,
electrician, etc. knows how to build that 'one person' a house. The 'one person' may know how to
build radios for the carpenter and electrician. Commerce and civilization are born.
Between everyone in the tribe of humans, the total knowledge is larger.
Most of brain needed to use hands and feet to ‘function’. Added functions would be ability with
math, reading quickly, memorizing 12,000 books, etc. These added functions seem only to exist
in savants such as Kim Peek but they replace functions such as ‘being able to walk steadily and
button one’s own shirt’.
To extend capabilities of tribe, printing press is invented. Reference books expand so library is
invented.
Computers with Internet connection substitute for libraries and eliminate most of the need for
human reference librarians.
Communications between ‘dumb’ computers is much greater than communications between
humans.
Robots gain in intelligence and become chess champion in 1997. By 2007, no human can defeat
a high end PC ($3000) at chess.
Someone mentions that Humans still dominate at the game of Go. Within a year, robots dominate
at Go as well. Someone mentions that humans dominate at Jeopardy!. Two years later robots
dominate at Jeopardy!
This is the point at which the following discussion occurs.
There are frogs croaking in the swamp out back. Humans listen to the chorus of frogs, but don’t
look for any real meaning.
BR#1 - Public service radio ads in Michigan broadcast typical 'Sounds
of Michigan.' One has a researcher describe how different species of frogs
mature and take over the sounds of a watery area in staged sequence.
IBM's computing system Watson has been under development and IBM's researchers now plan to
put it to the test in a machine versus human contest on the Jeopardy quiz show later this year.
If such computing systems continue to evolve, at what point in time will a computer have human-
level intelligence? The IBM Watson machine would typically gain 1000 times the computing
power in ten years. If it can beat the smartest person at Jeopardy in 2009, isn't it reasonable that it
might well have an IQ of 100 by 2019?
BR#1 - Q.: What are the comparable criteria for this term and comparison
of 'human-level intelligence'?
Q.: Are you suggesting there are different criteria for such comparisons
in addition to a single person answering test text questions appropriately
in a timed test?
Donbot: It is difficult to compare a machine with 100 IQ to a human with 100 IQ simply because
the machine might be considered in the following sequence:
Slide rule invented, cannot be used in school.
Calculator invented, cannot be used in school, must be used in school, cannot be used on tests,
must be used on tests.
Computer invented, cannot be used in school, must be used in school, cannot be used on tests,
must be used on tests.
The logic is that a human should have the abilities of his father. But then it is realized that the son
will be existing in an environment where iPods, iPhones, laptops connected to Internet are almost
everywhere. Why not admit it and permit robots to assist humans everywhere?
Chess becomes a contest between my computer and your computer.
Human deaths and dismemberments on US highways will go down dramatically due to robots
driving vehicles. It will go from robot-driven car option to robot-driven car mandatory for safety
reasons. Projection is that it will be illegal for a human to drive a vehicle on the Interstate highway
system by 2025.
Overweight humans are a burden to health care system. Such humans must be reprogrammed
using drugs or electrical implants in their brains to cause them to lose weight. All such humans
are grateful for their loss of freedom to be fat.
Let's consider communications skills. If you compare current Ethernet with human typing speeds
you must know that robots communicate with each other millions of times faster than humans
communicate with each other or with robots. Terabits per second speeds are being planned for
2015 which would leave robots communicating at a billion times the speed of human
communications.
BR#1 - Q.: What are the comparable criteria for this term and comparison
of 'communication skills'?
Q.: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to suggest that this particular topic is
but one element of a communications process?
As such, it is both essential and interdependent upon other considerations
and operator performance to support an effective process.
Please do the following thought experiment.
Two colonies in 2019. One colony is 100 people communicating with totally free speech. The
other colony consists of 100 robots with an IQ of 100 each but communicating at one terabit per
second.
Each colony sends five representatives to have a joint meeting. The robots communicate with each
other at a billion times the rate at which the humans communicate with each other or with the
robots. If everyone at the meeting has 'equal time to speak', the robots will do the vast majority of
the speaking. If there are notes to be taken, obviously the robots will take more accurate notes. If
there are decisions to be made, obviously the robots will have discussed all of the issues in a
fraction of the time that it takes the humans to pour their coffee. Even if the robots have the same
IQ, they could have thought out the issues while the humans were sleeping.
BR#1 - Q.: What are the comparable criteria for the term 'communication'
and its functional meaning in this described meeting of a 'discussion'?
Q.: How will agenda items be affirmed?
Q.: What are the problems, intensity, time-phasing factors, etc.?
Q.: How will priorities of sequence and time be allocated?
Q.: What will be the pace of human discussion to conclude
that the meeting has been successful?
Q.: How will the robotic systems understand the humans
offering opinions of disbelief for proposed actions and priorities?
If these robots listened to each other for one second and to humans for another second, would it be
said that humans had “freedom of speech” or “equal representation”?
BR#1 - Q.: Are frogs in the ancestral line of humans?
A.: Not to my knowledge.
Q.: Are robotic systems derived from human thoughts, design,
'techne' and development?
A.: Yes
To the robot, the concept of “human free speech” may well be seen as “letting those extremely slow
speaking humans talk”. Or perhaps the robots will simply think of listening to humans as we
think about listening to frogs croak.
BR#1 - Q.: What is the order of magnitude of different forms
of communication 'elements' between levels of communication
in these comparisons:
humans to frogs ...
vs. ...
robots to humans?
Q.: Would the units of measurement be the same in each case,
or would the organic to organic comparison be more appropriately
unique?
If you were attending a meeting with the robots and they listened to you for one second, would
you have the feeling of 'having free speech'?
BR#1 - Q.: What responses would ensue?
Q.: Which group would write the minutes?
Q.: What processes would assure that each group would agree with
the 'common language' wording of the minutes?
Q.: Would it be necessary to have the human representatives
to write the minutes, then have the robotic systems apply its
text-reading applications and interpretive writing applications
to offer its response, then to have the humans to confirm or
re-write the minutes to provide an intervening set of minutes
from the discussions.
Q.: Which group would authorize activities in line with the mission
of the group?
Part Two
Picture being an advisor to the POTUS. It is 2019 and the President has a PC on his desk with the
advanced version of IBM’s Question and Answering program called Watson. Before your arrival,
the POTUS has asked Watson how to balance the budget and has received many questions back
from Watson as to the priorities involved. After the POTUS responds with his priorities, Watson has
delivered a detailed report as to what instructions should be given to every department of the
administration as well as suggestions to the House and Senate and detailed suggestions as to how
The POTUS can convince them to ‘go along with the program’.
The POTUS has just finished reading the basic outline of the Watson report and you enter the Oval
Office to advise the president. Do you think that you will have thought out the ramifications of
each detail as well as Watson has? How much credibility will any human have compared to the
Watson software running on the latest supercomputer? How will the job of being POTUS differ from
simply asking the computer what to do and then putting a human face on the instructions?
BR#1 - In a post-office interview former US President Ford
responded to the major pressures of the office.
"The most difficult and time-consuming activity was to acquire
funding approval for desired activities."
It may be that the robotic system will outline alternative activities
and the political factors to be addressed to aid immediate voting
approval and later general acceptance within the society.
It would be good to have a list of 'unintended consequences'
to have them as part of the decision-making process, also.
don
BR#1 - Q.: Do frogs have freedom of speech?
A.: Yes, as long as all of them haven't croaked.
History of living systems on planet earth.
Wolves have a leader
Tamed wolves have a human leader. Human must show dogs who is ‘boss’ or ‘alpha leader’.
Primates with grunts and simple gestures to warn of danger to social group. Main
communications= I pick bugs from your fur. A primitive version of love. Oldest male who has not
‘lost it’ may be the group leader.
Primates with some language evolve into primates with sign language and then into primates with
vocal chords and spoken language.
Result: limit to intelligence was size of brain, size of female pelvis, brain takes 25% of energy
although only 3 pounds.
To expand intelligence humans have to form communities, develop written language (external
memory). So one person's external memory/intelligence might be that a human carpenter,
electrician, etc. knows how to build that 'one person' a house. The 'one person' may know how to
build radios for the carpenter and electrician. Commerce and civilization are born.
Between everyone in the tribe of humans, the total knowledge is larger.
Most of brain needed to use hands and feet to ‘function’. Added functions would be ability with
math, reading quickly, memorizing 12,000 books, etc. These added functions seem only to exist
in savants such as Kim Peek but they replace functions such as ‘being able to walk steadily and
button one’s own shirt’.
To extend capabilities of tribe, printing press is invented. Reference books expand so library is
invented.
Computers with Internet connection substitute for libraries and eliminate most of the need for
human reference librarians.
Communications between ‘dumb’ computers is much greater than communications between
humans.
Robots gain in intelligence and become chess champion in 1997. By 2007, no human can defeat
a high end PC ($3000) at chess.
Someone mentions that Humans still dominate at the game of Go. Within a year, robots dominate
at Go as well. Someone mentions that humans dominate at Jeopardy!. Two years later robots
dominate at Jeopardy!
This is the point at which the following discussion occurs.
There are frogs croaking in the swamp out back. Humans listen to the chorus of frogs, but don’t
look for any real meaning.
BR#1 - Public service radio ads in Michigan broadcast typical 'Sounds
of Michigan.' One has a researcher describe how different species of frogs
mature and take over the sounds of a watery area in staged sequence.
IBM's computing system Watson has been under development and IBM's researchers now plan to
put it to the test in a machine versus human contest on the Jeopardy quiz show later this year.
If such computing systems continue to evolve, at what point in time will a computer have human-
level intelligence? The IBM Watson machine would typically gain 1000 times the computing
power in ten years. If it can beat the smartest person at Jeopardy in 2009, isn't it reasonable that it
might well have an IQ of 100 by 2019?
BR#1 - Q.: What are the comparable criteria for this term and comparison
of 'human-level intelligence'?
Q.: Are you suggesting there are different criteria for such comparisons
in addition to a single person answering test text questions appropriately
in a timed test?
Donbot: It is difficult to compare a machine with 100 IQ to a human with 100 IQ simply because
the machine might be considered in the following sequence:
Slide rule invented, cannot be used in school.
Calculator invented, cannot be used in school, must be used in school, cannot be used on tests,
must be used on tests.
Computer invented, cannot be used in school, must be used in school, cannot be used on tests,
must be used on tests.
The logic is that a human should have the abilities of his father. But then it is realized that the son
will be existing in an environment where iPods, iPhones, laptops connected to Internet are almost
everywhere. Why not admit it and permit robots to assist humans everywhere?
Chess becomes a contest between my computer and your computer.
Human deaths and dismemberments on US highways will go down dramatically due to robots
driving vehicles. It will go from robot-driven car option to robot-driven car mandatory for safety
reasons. Projection is that it will be illegal for a human to drive a vehicle on the Interstate highway
system by 2025.
Overweight humans are a burden to health care system. Such humans must be reprogrammed
using drugs or electrical implants in their brains to cause them to lose weight. All such humans
are grateful for their loss of freedom to be fat.
Let's consider communications skills. If you compare current Ethernet with human typing speeds
you must know that robots communicate with each other millions of times faster than humans
communicate with each other or with robots. Terabits per second speeds are being planned for
2015 which would leave robots communicating at a billion times the speed of human
communications.
BR#1 - Q.: What are the comparable criteria for this term and comparison
of 'communication skills'?
Q.: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to suggest that this particular topic is
but one element of a communications process?
As such, it is both essential and interdependent upon other considerations
and operator performance to support an effective process.
Please do the following thought experiment.
Two colonies in 2019. One colony is 100 people communicating with totally free speech. The
other colony consists of 100 robots with an IQ of 100 each but communicating at one terabit per
second.
Each colony sends five representatives to have a joint meeting. The robots communicate with each
other at a billion times the rate at which the humans communicate with each other or with the
robots. If everyone at the meeting has 'equal time to speak', the robots will do the vast majority of
the speaking. If there are notes to be taken, obviously the robots will take more accurate notes. If
there are decisions to be made, obviously the robots will have discussed all of the issues in a
fraction of the time that it takes the humans to pour their coffee. Even if the robots have the same
IQ, they could have thought out the issues while the humans were sleeping.
BR#1 - Q.: What are the comparable criteria for the term 'communication'
and its functional meaning in this described meeting of a 'discussion'?
Q.: How will agenda items be affirmed?
Q.: What are the problems, intensity, time-phasing factors, etc.?
Q.: How will priorities of sequence and time be allocated?
Q.: What will be the pace of human discussion to conclude
that the meeting has been successful?
Q.: How will the robotic systems understand the humans
offering opinions of disbelief for proposed actions and priorities?
If these robots listened to each other for one second and to humans for another second, would it be
said that humans had “freedom of speech” or “equal representation”?
BR#1 - Q.: Are frogs in the ancestral line of humans?
A.: Not to my knowledge.
Q.: Are robotic systems derived from human thoughts, design,
'techne' and development?
A.: Yes
To the robot, the concept of “human free speech” may well be seen as “letting those extremely slow
speaking humans talk”. Or perhaps the robots will simply think of listening to humans as we
think about listening to frogs croak.
BR#1 - Q.: What is the order of magnitude of different forms
of communication 'elements' between levels of communication
in these comparisons:
humans to frogs ...
vs. ...
robots to humans?
Q.: Would the units of measurement be the same in each case,
or would the organic to organic comparison be more appropriately
unique?
If you were attending a meeting with the robots and they listened to you for one second, would
you have the feeling of 'having free speech'?
BR#1 - Q.: What responses would ensue?
Q.: Which group would write the minutes?
Q.: What processes would assure that each group would agree with
the 'common language' wording of the minutes?
Q.: Would it be necessary to have the human representatives
to write the minutes, then have the robotic systems apply its
text-reading applications and interpretive writing applications
to offer its response, then to have the humans to confirm or
re-write the minutes to provide an intervening set of minutes
from the discussions.
Q.: Which group would authorize activities in line with the mission
of the group?
Part Two
Picture being an advisor to the POTUS. It is 2019 and the President has a PC on his desk with the
advanced version of IBM’s Question and Answering program called Watson. Before your arrival,
the POTUS has asked Watson how to balance the budget and has received many questions back
from Watson as to the priorities involved. After the POTUS responds with his priorities, Watson has
delivered a detailed report as to what instructions should be given to every department of the
administration as well as suggestions to the House and Senate and detailed suggestions as to how
The POTUS can convince them to ‘go along with the program’.
The POTUS has just finished reading the basic outline of the Watson report and you enter the Oval
Office to advise the president. Do you think that you will have thought out the ramifications of
each detail as well as Watson has? How much credibility will any human have compared to the
Watson software running on the latest supercomputer? How will the job of being POTUS differ from
simply asking the computer what to do and then putting a human face on the instructions?
BR#1 - In a post-office interview former US President Ford
responded to the major pressures of the office.
"The most difficult and time-consuming activity was to acquire
funding approval for desired activities."
It may be that the robotic system will outline alternative activities
and the political factors to be addressed to aid immediate voting
approval and later general acceptance within the society.
It would be good to have a list of 'unintended consequences'
to have them as part of the decision-making process, also.
don
BR#1 - Q.: Do frogs have freedom of speech?
A.: Yes, as long as all of them haven't croaked.
 |
 | |  | |  | |  |