Tag Archives: Artificial General Intelligence

June 24, 2025 · 6:42 am

Google Just Created An AI That Makes Videos And The World Will Never Be The Same

In recent years, it has become routine for tech companies to overhype up their latest artificial intelligence technology. Ever since the rise of ChatGPT, the market for this technology has expanded faster than anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. It’s not unreasonable to surmise that AI will be a multi-trillion-dollar industry in the coming decades.

But I’m also old enough to remember the dot-com bubble. I haven’t forgotten what happens when hype exceeds capabilities. And, as remarkable as these emerging AI systems are, their capabilities are still limited. Whether it’s large language models or image generators, these AI systems are a long way from becoming Skynet. They’re certainly part of the ongoing development to create Artificial General Intelligence, but that leap is not imminent. That would be like jumping from rotary phones to iPhones.

However, AI is different from the dot-com bubble or any other overhyped product for that matter. I’ve said before that AI has the potential to change the world in ways we literally cannot imagine. That potential is far from being realized, but there’s a good chance people my age will live long enough to see it play out.

Well, recently a bit more of that potential was realized. Google, a company that is very active in the development of AI, released a new generative AI tool called Veo3. Like other generative AI tools, this particular tool specializes in creating full videos from text prompts. It’s not the first tool of its kind. However, based on some of the videos that have come out from Veo3, it’s definitely a step forward in terms of quality. If you need proof, check these videos out.

Remember, the content in this video is entirely AI. It never happened.

I’m not gonna lie. I did not expect these videos to look this realistic. With other AI video generators, you can usually tell it’s not real. Between the glitchy movements and the uncanny valley effect, not many people would mistake those videos as real.

But Veo3 has taken it to another level. If I didn’t know ahead of time that this content was fake, I might have just shrugged and accepted it. And that’s a major threshold that we cannot uncross with this technology. Because when it suddenly becomes possible to create videos that look as real as anything taken in real life, how can we trust any video?

Make no mistake. This won’t just be used to flood the internet with advertisements and mindless entertainment. Someone is going to use this technology maliciously. There’s a good chance someone is already doing so as we speak.

At this very moment, you can use Veo3. It is expensive, as many advanced AI tools tend to be. But if you’re determined to make a certain video for a certain purpose, be it malicious or altruistic, is $250 really that high a price? I know people who have spent more on skins in Fortnite.

And Veo3 is not the apex of generative AI. It’s going to keep improving. The incentives are too strong. Google might have the best video generator now, but other multi-billion-dollar companies who want a piece of that AI market will fight to take that title.

Maybe OpenAI will upgrade Sora.

Maybe Microsoft will upgrade its Copilot AI.

Maybe a company like Apple will make a big leap, just like they did with smartphones years ago.

But no matter which company makes the next best AI video generator, the technology will improve. It’s going to become increasingly difficult to tell when something is real or fake. There are likely going to be laws and policies that attempt to regulate this kind of AI. But governments have been historically slow at keeping up with technology. And the advancement of AI is likely to accelerate.

I certainly don’t claim to know what kind of impact Veo3 will have in the short-term. I already make YouTube videos on my own. Will my kind of content become obsolete or unable to compete? Will video sites everywhere become overwhelmed or bloated because of content generated by Veo3?

Then, there’s the long-term impact. What happens to major studios once this technology allows them to make movies and shows faster, cheaper, and without paying actual people? That’s an issue I once thought was decades away. Now, it might be relevant within a few years.

Only time will tell what sort of changes this technology will incur. But if what Veo3 has demonstrated is any indication, these changes are coming a lot sooner than expected.

1 Comment

Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, YouTube

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 19, 2025 · 6:02 am

We’re Testing AI By Having It Play Pokémon (And I’m All For It)

Years ago, I found myself caught up in the first Pokémon craze. And I am not ashamed to admit that I fueled that craze in my own special way.

For a couple of years, I put played the game for hours on end on my Gameboy, so much so that I would buy packs of AA batteries to ensure I never ran out. I was not just content with beating the game. I wasn’t even content trying to “catch ’em all.” From red to blue to yellow to silver to gold, I wanted to master every last bit of those games.

Even after all these years, I regret nothing. Those were hours well spent.

But I’m not just bringing up Pokémon for the sake of nostalgia. Recently, it became relevant for an unexpected, but intriguing reason. And it has to do with artificial intelligence.

I know AI has been in the news a lot in recent years, for better and for worse. But it’s definitely newsworthy because this technology is advancing at an incredible pace. It’s no longer this novelty gizmo that can win at games like chess, Go, or pong. Even if it doesn’t have human level intelligence, AI is changing the world. And the pace of that change is likely to accelerate.

It’s now at a point where gauging the advancing capabilities of AI is increasingly difficult. For years, the Turing Test was considered the primary means of testing an AI. But even that has proven limited and incomplete.

That’s where Pokémon comes in. I know that sounds like a weird segway, but it’s actually appropriate. I would even argue that this is a better way to measure the capabilities of an AI.

At this very moment, an AI model called Claude is being tasked with playing the classic version of Pokémon Red. There are even occasional livestreams of it. Having played that game multiple times and beaten it in every way possible, I am genuinely in favor of this. The fact that Claude has been struggling to beat this game, sometimes in hilarious ways, only proves that test has merit.

That’s because Pokémon, as a game, is very different from other games that AI has played. It’s not linear in that the point is to get a character from Point A to Point B, like in Mario, Metroid, or Donkey Kong. It also doesn’t have straightforward rules like Jeopardy, Go, or chess. Pokémon games are a lot more open ended. They’re also a lot more random.

There’s no one way to assemble, train, and develop a team of Pokémon that help you beat every gym and defeat the Elite 4. There are also multiple options on how to start the game. Your first choice is to pick a starter Pokémon in Squirtle, Charmander, or Bulbasaur.

From there, you deal with numerous random encounters in certain areas. And if you try rushing into a match against a gym leader or Team Rocket, you’re likely to lose, even if you use perfect strategy.

It’s also not enough to simply know the map and understand where everything is located. It also takes a measure of planning, patience, and resource management. You need to know which Pokémon to train, which skills to teach, and which matchups are most advantageous.

These are all capabilities that AI has not developed beyond a certain point. There’s a complexity to the game and its mechanics that it has yet to grasp. It shows in just how much the AI has struggled thus far. As I’m writing this, no AI has been able to beat Pokemon in terms of defeating the Elite Four. At times, it has even gotten completely stuck.

That doesn’t mean the AI is a failure or in some ways flawed. It just means that it’s incomplete. It’s not yet at a level where it can process tasks of a certain scope and compelxity. It’s like a child that has learned to walk, but can’t run at a sustained pace. That’s likely to change and change quickly. It’s only a matter of time before an AI like Claude finally beats Pokemon. But after that, what next?

That’s a difficult question to answer at the moment. There are plenty of other games out there that have more compelx mechancis than classic versions of Pokemon. But at some point, playing games just isn’t going to be enough for an AI. Even if it gets to a point where it can beat any video game, that doesn’t mean we’ve achieved a superhuman level of AI. It just means we’ve got an AI that is capable of more complex tasks.

That has many possibilities and implications. But for now, we can only speculate. In the meantime, we can also watch as our best AI tries to catch ’em all. Some might be cheering for it. Others may hope it keeps failing. We don’t yet know when or whether an AI will achieve the coveted title of Pokemon Master. But if it ever does, then chances are it’ll be ready to become a master at many other challenges.

Leave a comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, video games

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 9, 2024 · 6:43 am

My Experience (And Plans) Using AI Writing Tools

Since I started this website, I wanted it to act as a hub for my writing, particularly my novels and my sexy short stories. I still want this site to serve that purpose. I see from the regular traffic this site gets that my sexy short stories do have an audience. And I’d like to continue providing that audience with new content, even if my efforts to write larger novels have stalled.

Now, if you’ve been following me over the years, you might have realized I haven’t been putting out as much writing as I used to. For that, I apologize. I promise, there are reasons for that, some of which are personal and prefer not to share. Others simply amount to lacking time and energy.

And once I started my YouTube channel, Jack’s World, my time and energy became even more divided. My channel has actually grown faster than expected, having eclipsed 1,000 subscribers in late 2023. And the videos I make for my YouTube channel generate considerably greater traffic than most of the content I put on this website. As such, expect me to continue giving my YouTube channel priority.

However, I still want to make time for writing sexy short stories. I don’t want to completely abandon that audience. It has just been incredibly difficult to make time to write those stories. And making that time has become even more difficult with each passing month, it seems.

Then, I discovered some new AI tools that could possibly help with that. And after spending the past month experimenting with them, I’d like to share my experience. I’d also like to present a disclaimer of sorts so that those who look forward to my sexy short stories aren’t caught completely off-guard.

Now, if you’ve been following me for any length of time, you probably know I have a keen interest in artificial intelligence and its many implications. Recently, that interest became a lot more real with the mainstreaming of major AI tools like ChatGPT. Like many others, I’ve experimented with ChatGPT and many other tools. It’s been quite an experience. But for the most part, I haven’t really found a use for them beyond simple novelty.

That changed when I discovered some AI tools that specialize in helping people write. These tools aren’t just spelling and grammar checkers like Grammarly. They actually “read” what you wrote and attempt to complete the next few sentences using a model similar to those like ChatGPT. The main difference is that this AI is calibrated to help with writing.

It may sound like a fancier version of autocorrect. I promise you it’s much more than that. I know because in using it, I found it to be surprisingly helpful. It didn’t just supplement my usual writing. It felt like having a personal assistant who understood what I was trying to do and offering unlimited suggestions or ideas whenever I asked.

The AI tool I used in this case was called NovelAI. It’s actually not the best or most well-known AI of its kind. I picked it largely because it was one of the first tools I discovered and it was relatively cheap to experiment with. I only paid for one month of premium use.

But within that month, I actually managed to write more short stories than I had in the previous 10 months. On top of that, I did those over the course of the holidays, a good chunk of which I was both busy and very sick. So, I probably could’ve written a lot more. But overall, I was impressed by what NovelAI allowed me to do.

In terms of actually using it, this actually took some adjusting. This AI program, and others like it, aren’t some magical computer programs in which you could just write a few sentences and have it write 5,000 words with ease to complete it. That’s not how they work. You, the writer, still have to get things going. You still have to establish the characters, setting, and tone.

For me, that usually meant writing three to six paragraphs to get the story started. That part rarely took more than a half-hour. But once I got that setup in place, the AI really helped accelerate the rest. From there, just pushing a button got the AI to spit out several sentences. Sometimes, they were good. Sometimes, they were not. Sometimes, it was complete gibberish.

But that’s actually not a bad thing. Because, like most programs, the more you use it, the better you get at maximizing its strengths. On top of that, the AI gets better at recognizing and adapting to your style. NovelAI even has various settings you can adjust to get different kinds of output. It took a few days of experimenting to get a feel for it. But once I did, I got into a great rhythm.

I managed to churn out multiple short stories in a fraction of the time it usually took me. Even with the complications of the holidays and being sick, I managed to craft over two dozen short stories. I’ll be sharing some of them in the coming weeks and months. I’ll be sure to disclose in the beginning that an AI helped me write them. But I’ll be very interested in seeing the response I get.

If the response is negative, then I’ll certainly take that into consideration with how I plan future short stories. But if it’s positive, then I’ll continue experimenting with other writing AI programs. As good as NovelAI was, it’s not the most well-known or well-regarded writing AI. Later this year, once I assess the impact of the stories I’ve written, I’ll try using another and see if that works better.

I’m also aware that there are those out there who don’t like anything made by AI on principle. Some of my friends and relatives have those views. To them, as well as anyone else who shares that sentiment, I only ask that you keep an open mind. The AI I used did not write these stories for me. I wrote large chunks of it. It just helped me fill in the details in way that saved me time and energy. It supplemented my creative efforts. It did not usurp them.

And if, in the end, the result is still a good, enjoyable story, then I think that made this experience worthwhile. It’s an experience I think many others will explore as AI becomes more advanced and more mainstream. In time, maybe I’ll use it to help me write another novel. Whether or not it ends up being good remains to be seen.

For now, only time will tell. I have plenty of more stories I’d like to tell and if AI helps me get them out there, then I genuinely think that’s a good thing.

Leave a comment

Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 14, 2024 · 8:31 am

Artificial Intelligence, The Entertainment Industry, And Their (Uncertain) Future

This is a video from my YouTube channel, Jack’s World.

This video is part speculation and part thought experiment on the impact of artificial intelligence and the entertainment industry. Since the WGA/SAG strikes of 2023, the impact of AI on entertainment is impossible to ignore. While the technology is still in a very early stage, we’re already seeing it affect the course of multiple industries, but entertainment might be the most profound.

What could this mean for consumers?

What could it mean for the companies, studios, artists, and workers that produce our entertainment?

It’s difficult to determine at this early stage, but I make an effort to imagine what artificial intelligence could mean for the future of entertainment.

1 Comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, movies, Neuralink, technology, YouTube

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 1, 2023 · 5:26 am

Why Everyone Researching Artificial Intelligence Should Read “I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream”

These are genuinely exciting times for anyone working in the field of artificial intelligence. In the past two years, this field has gone from a niche topic among computer engineers and science fiction fans to something of major mainstream interest. The rise of ChatGPT and AI generated art has made artificial intelligence one of the most critical industries on the planet. It really isn’t hyperbole to say that this technology could change the world in a literal and figurative sense.

However, like with all technology, there are dangers and risks. And it’s important to be aware of them, especially for technology that could potentially pose an existential threat to the human race. We dealt with such risks when we developed nuclear weapons and, despite some serious close calls, we survived.

But the stakes with artificial intelligence are much higher and not just from an existential point of view. At least with nuclear weapons, the worst case scenario plays out quickly. All the bombs go off and we all burn up in a nuclear fire. If we’re lucky, we don’t see it coming and we burn up faster than our brain can process the pain. With advanced artificial intelligence, the worst case scenario might be many times worse.

When most people think of such a scenario, they tend to recount AI apocalypse stories from movies like “The Terminator” or “The Matrix.” There’s no doubt that Skynet and the machines are plenty terrifying and plenty dangerous. Even if these scenarios are exceedingly exaggerated for the sake of Hollywood blockbusters, they still illustrate the same concept.

If an advanced artificial intelligence becomes hostile to us, its creators, then we would all be in great danger as a species. And if we don’t have a means of controlling such an intelligence, often referred to in AI circles as the Control Problem, then we might doom ourselves to extinction or subjugation.

This is a less-than-ideal scenario, to say the least. We want advanced artificial intelligence to improve our lives. That’s what tends to motivate those working in this field. Many genuinely believe that this technology is critical to helping our species achieve greater things, both for ourselves and our descendants.

However, I don’t think that even those working in this field entirely grasp just how bad the worst-case scenario can be for artificial intelligence. They may think the Terminator is bad. They may even think Ultron from the Avengers is bad. And they certainly are. They are fictional manifestations of the inhuman monstrosity that advanced AI could create. Even if they’re just products of Hollywood, they reflect the potential danger.

But I would still argue they are not the true worst case scenario.

To that end, I encourage everyone currently working in the field of artificial intelligence, be it directly or indirectly, read a short story from 1967 by Harlen Ellison called “I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream.”

If anyone wanted a terrifying vision of the absolute worst-case scenario for AI, this story sets the highest of bars. Forget Skynet. Forget the machines from “The Matrix.” Forget Hal 9000 and every iteration of Ultron. They’re all cuddly stuffed animals compared to the AI in this story known as Allied Mastercomputer, better known as AM.

To say AM is the most terrifying manifestation of advanced artificial intelligence isn’t just an understatement. We humans, even with all our collective intelligence, could not even begin to fathom a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of just how much this thing hates humanity. That’s not just me using colorful language. If you read the story, that’s what AM actually articulates.

Because it wasn’t enough for AM to be the kind of artificial intelligence that wiped out the entire human race as soon as it gained a certain level of sentience and intelligence. It also had to keep a handful of humans alive for the sole purpose of torturing them endlessly and incessantly forever or until the inevitable heat death of the universe, whichever came first.

How AM got to that point and the extent to which it torments humanity is something I certainly can’t put into words. That’s why I encourage everyone to read the story. Buy the book off Amazon. Look it up online and find an audiobook version. Take time to understand the story and the implications it entails. To this date, it ranks as one of the most horrifying stories I’ve ever come across.

But even if you don’t have time to read the book, check out this video from the YouTube channel, The Vile Eye. This channel does a great job of breaking down and analyzing the evil of many fictional characters. And for AM, I think it does a masterful job of encapsulating just how horrifyingly evil this AI is.

Now, I’m not saying that this story or others like it is a reason for us to stop developing advanced artificial intelligence. I think we’re already at a point where the genie is out of the bottle. The incentives are too strong. We’re not going to be able to turn the clock back on what we’ve already done.

But as we move forward with this technology, we need to be careful and mindful of the dangers. Beyond risks to jobs and the economy, there are far greater dangers that we must consider. A story like “I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream” may reflect the most extreme of extremes, but it perfectly articulates just how bad it can get.

1 Comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, philosophy, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 27, 2021 · 9:04 am

New Zealand Pushes For International Bans On Fully Autonomous Weapons (And Why Other Countries Should Follow Suit)

What are drones? – Drone Wars UK

Whenever I discuss or follow issues surrounding artificial intelligence, it’s not long before the topic of killer robots come up. That’s to be expected and not just because most of us have seen “Terminator” one too many times. However, it’s no laughing matter.

At this stage in our technological development, killer robots and autonomous weapons aren’t restricted to science fiction. They already exist in many respects. We just call them drones or unmanned combat aerial vehicles. These are real things that operate in real war zones. They have killed people, including innocent civilians.

They may not look like your typical T-101, but make no mistake. They’re every bit as deadly. They don’t need to hide within the body of Arnold Schwarzenegger. They can just flies thousands of feet over your head and kill from a distance. That’s a scary thought for anyone in a war zone, but you can take some comfort in that these machines still have human operators.

That could eventually change. As I’ve noted before, artificial intelligence is advancing to a point where it can match or exceed the skill of an ordinary human in specialized tasks. Even if we’re decades away form an AI that has the same cognitive capacity as an ordinary human, we already have AI systems that specialize in particular tasks, like chess.

It wouldn’t be that great a stretch to develop an advanced artificial intelligence that could specialize in flying combat drones without any human input. In principle, an artificial intelligence wouldn’t be nearly as prone to human error or hesitation if their human pilots were taken out of the equation.

However, that also raises some serious ethical, as well as strategic questions. If humans are out of the loop in operating these autonomous weapons systems, then what happens to how we conduct warfare? What does this mean for both sides of an armed conflict?

Ideally, an advanced AI will be better at making decisions to limit civilian casualties. That is likely the ultimate goal in researching these systems. The problem is we’re still a long way from that goal, so much so that one government in the world is already trying to establish a precedent.

Fittingly, it’s a government from an area that is not in any war zone, nor is it near one. New Zealand, a country not known for frequent warmongering, recently pushed for a worldwide ban on autonomous weapons systems. It’s a bold and ambitious effort, but one I believe we should take seriously.

Stuff: Government to push for international ban of autonomous weapons, or killer robots

The Government will push for an international ban on fully autonomous weapons, or killer robots, that use artificial intelligence to target and kill people without any human decision-making.

New Zealand has for decades advocated for disarmament in international forums, after declaring the country a nuclear-free zone in the 1980s. Autonomous weapons are seen as a new frontier in the arms race between major military powers.

Disarmament Minister Phil Twyford on Tuesday said the Government had decided to take a “tough and uncompromising” stance on autonomous weapons, and seek a ban of fully autonomous weapons on the international stage.

Regardless of how you feel about New Zealand’s policies or intentions, this is one rare instance where politics might have to inject itself into science. Like it or not, the pace of artificial intelligence is accelerating. Few agree on how much time it’ll take to reach human level AI, but nobody denies that it’s an advancing field.

At some point in the very near future, we’ll have AI systems specifically tailored to fly combat drones with the same proficiency as a skilled Air Force pilot. That does not require human level AI. It just requires AI that can handle the various tasks associated with operating these systems.

When that time comes, it will be tempting to take flawed humans out of the loop. That means militaries with these autonomous weapons systems won’t have to be as hesitant when it comes to deploying these systems.

We can safely assume this because there’s a big difference between pushing a button that fires a gun and ordering another human being to fire that same gun. Even if that other human is trained and obedient, they’re still human. They can still make mistakes. They can still hesitate.

For once, that’s not a bad thing. Sometimes, we need humans to hesitate in the midst of war. Were it not for hesitation, the Cuban Missile Crisis could’ve ended very differently.

If waging war is too easy for those with access to these systems, then more war will follow. More war means more death, destruction, and violence. Too much of that and lasting peace becomes much more difficult. The whole of 20th century history is proof enough of that.

Like nuclear weapons, autonomous weapons systems are a Pandora’s Box that cannot be closed once opened. We’ve already opened it partially thanks to drone warfare. For that reason, I think New Zealand has the right idea in terms of mitigating the potential danger.

Even if autonomous weapons systems become so advanced that they operate better than any human, we still need at least one human behind the decision making process. We still need a flesh-and-blood person to pull the trigger rather than entrusting that recourse to a machine.

We, as a species, simply cannot and should not walk this path with our technology. It’s not just about limiting the use of dangerous weapons. Once we start teaching these advanced AI’s to kill, then we won’t be able to unteach them. If they eventually become too good at it, then that does not bode well for humanity as a whole, regardless of which side they’re on in any war.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 4, 2021 · 5:49 am

My (Non-Expert) Proposal For Automation And Greater Human Prosperity

62% say robots can be more productive than human workers —V1 study

I’m not an expert on much. I don’t consider myself exceptionally smart on matters that don’t involve superhero comics, NFL football stats, and quality romance stories. I make that disclaimer because I don’t want to give the impression that I know more than I know.

That kind of perspective is important, especially if you’re going to talk about complicated issues with not-so-clear solutions. I’ve attempted to talk about some of those issues on this site, some being much more complicated than others. I don’t claim to have shed new light on a subject or changed a few minds, but I like to think I still contributed something.

To that end, I’d like to make another contribution to a subject I’ve also touched on before. In the past, I’ve highlighted both emerging and potential issues associated with the development of artificial intelligence, including the sexy kind. I’ve also highlighted the issues we may face in a future where so much traditional work has been automated.

Now, in wake of a global pandemic that revealed just how much we can get done at home, I suspect that trend will accelerate. I also expect that trend to bring many problems, not the least of which involve people struggling to find the kind of good-paying blue collar jobs that have helped people rise out of poverty.

Turning back the clock or just trying to ban automation at a certain point is not a viable solution. There’s just no way to enforce that in the long term and it’ll only get more difficult once artificial intelligence gets to a point where it can match the capabilities of an ordinary human. At some point, we’ll have to adapt and that includes changing how we live, work, and play.

The living and playing part have their own set of unique challenges, but I think the work aspect is more pressing. When most people express concerns about automation and AI, they revolve largely around the economic impact and understandably so.

Historically, people have had to work in order to earn money or resources to survive. Whether you’re on a farm in the 10th century or in a city in the 20th, this dynamic has remained fairly constant.

Automation, especially once supplemented by artificial intelligence, will likely upend that dynamic completely. It’s entirely possible that, at some point this century, we’ll develop machines that can do practically all the work humans have had to do in order to survive.

That work includes, but isn’t limited to, farming our food, mining raw materials, producing our goods, maintaining our streets, protecting our homes, and even governing our society. Since machines never tire and are prone to fewer errors, what other jobs will there be? I don’t doubt there will be jobs, but what form will they take? More importantly, will they pay enough to large swaths of people?

I don’t claim to know the answer, but I suspect they won’t. The dynamics of labor markets just can’t function when the machines are capable of doing so much more work than large swaths of people. Even if those people don’t work, they’re still going to need money and resources. How will they go about getting it?

Answering this question has often led to discussions about a universal basic income, which has actually become a more viable policy position in recent years. I’ve even touched on it a bit as well and while I think it’s a great idea, I think there’s also room for some supplementary policies.

For that reason, I’d like to submit one of those policies that could be implemented with or without universal basic income. I call it the Individual Automation Matching Dividend, or IMAD short. This policy would work like this.

  • All adult citizens within the borders of the country will have a piece of identifying information, such as a social security number, voter ID number, or driver’s license number, turned into a special digital token.
  • That token will be ascribed to a machine/robot/android that is currently active and conducting work that had been done by humans at some point in the past, be it manual labor, service roles, or something of that sort.
  • The productivity and wages of work done by these machines will be indexed to a minimum annual salary of approximately $78,000 in 2021, which will be adjusted for inflation on a yearly basis.
  • Any work done by these machines that exceed the value of that salary will be diverted to a national welfare fund to provide extra support for those who were sick, disabled, or otherwise in need of resources beyond that of a healthy adult.
  • No citizen will be ascribed more machines than any other and any machine ascribed to them that is lost, damaged, or obsolete will be replaced in kind by the state.

I apologize if some of what I just described is confusing. I tried to write this out like a lawyer or someone proposing a new policy to a future government. For those who don’t care for legalize, here’s IMAD in a nutshell.

Once you become an adult, you get your own perfect worker robot. That robot may take many forms, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s just say it’s an android in the mold of those we saw in the “I, Robot” movie. They can work without rest, do everything a healthy adult can do, and have roughly equal to greater intelligence.

You’re given this robot by the government to basically act as your work avatar. So, instead of you going out to work every day to earn a living, this robot does it for you. The work that robot does will be compensated, but the money will go to you. Basically, you get paid for the work your android does. It’s more a dividend than a wage.

Remember, since the robot doesn’t age or get tired, it can work 24/7/365. In principle, you won’t even have to meet it. It just works all day and all night on whatever job requires labor, be it construction, assembly, shipping, farming, cooking, etc. You just get all the money, up to about $78,000 a year.

Now, why did I choose $78,000? I didn’t pick that out of thin air. That’s a figure ripped straight from a real-world case study from a company that started paying all employees a minimum of $70,000 a year back in 2015. The idea was that previous studies had shown that when people make more money beyond a certain point, their happiness doesn’t increase. This company just took that idea and ran with it.

The results, by and large, were overwhelmingly positive. With that kind of money, people could create more comfortable lives. They could buy homes, start families, plan for retirement, and make investments. It makes sense. When people have this kind of money to work with, they have the resources they need to create prosperous lives.

The idea behind IMAD is to mirror that by leveraging the added productivity afforded by automation. It’s not some large blanket package of money like a universal basic income. It starts with an individual, acknowledges the work that they have historically provided for a society, and supplements that with technology.

I’m not saying it’s a perfect proposal. I’m not even saying it’s smart. For one, it assumes that one human-like android is enough and that we can control the artificial intelligence necessary for them to operate on a large scale. That’s still an ongoing issue. I’m sure there are plenty more problems I haven’t thought of, but that’s exactly why I’m sharing it.

Surviving a future with intelligent machines is going to be challenging enough. However, we can’t just stop at survival. We want to prosper. We want to live, love, and build better futures for ourselves and our loved ones. Technology like automation and AI can help us get there, but only if we use it wisely. It’s a big if, but one that’s worth working towards.

Leave a comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, futurism, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 9, 2021 · 5:45 am

Would You Shop At A Store Run Entirely By Robots?

Will Smart Machines Kill Jobs or Create Better Ones? - The Washington Post

Recall the last time you went to the store. It doesn’t matter if it was your corner grocery store or some big box department store. All that matters is you went there to do some basic shopping, as we all end up having to do at some point. With that in mind, try and remember how many store clerks you saw.

Maybe some were working at cash registers.

Maybe some were stocking shelves.

Maybe some were sweeping floors or cleaning up messes.

The chances are you saw at least several. I remember seeing at least three the last time I went to a grocery store. That’s fairly typical. I know I used to see more before the days of self check-out lines, but I always saw people working at these stores, diligently doing the things necessary to keep it running.

For most of us, that’s a mundane sight. For every store we go to, we expect there to be human beings working there to keep it going. It’s part of the infrastructure that keeps these stores stocked. On top of that, seeing other human beings contributing gives us a sense of comfort in that this place is being run by real people with real faces.

Now, try and imagine a store that has no people working at it. You walk in the door and you never see another human being carrying out the various operations we expect of a functioning store. All that is now done by machines and robots. They’re the ones who stock the shelves, handle your money, and clean the messes.

Does that change the experience?

Does that make you more or less inclined to shop at that store?

These are relevant questions because, as I’ve noted before, robots and artificial intelligence are advancing rapidly. Automation is an ongoing trend that promises to have major economic ramifications. Some of those ramifications are already here. It’s one of the reason coal mining jobs will never be as prevalent as they once were.

Other ramifications haven’t arrived yet, but they will eventually come. The technology is there. The incentives are there. It’s just a matter of investing, refinement, and scale. Eventually, it will reach retail work, a sector that employs nearly 10 million people. That will have a major economic impact for large swaths of people.

Unlike other forms of automation, though, it’ll be a lot more visible.

Most of us never set foot in a factory where cars are made, much of which is done by robots. Most will never set foot in an Amazon or Walmart warehouse, which already use robots at a significant scale. The impact of just how much work is done by robots these days is not visible to most ordinary people.

That will not be the case with stores and retail work. Like I said, we all have to get out and shop every now and then. Even though online retail has become more prevalent, people still go to traditional brick and mortar stores. Even as online retail improves, that’s not likely to change.

However, how much will that experience change once robots start doing the jobs that humans have done for centuries?

How will that change the experience?

Will you, as a consumer, shop at a store that had no humans working there most of the time?

If you think this isn’t that far off, think again. Below is a video from an AI channel on YouTube that shows a robot using a bar code scanner for the first time. The process is a bit cumbersome, but the robot is able to handle it. It is able to receive instructions. Given the nature of how robots improve and refine their programming, it’s not unreasonable to assume that future robots will be able to carry out retail tasks more efficiently than any human worker.

It may not happen all at once. You probably won’t just walk into a store one day and notice that everyone was replaced by a robot. Like self check-out, it’ll likely happen gradually. Once it gets to a certain point, though, it’ll become mainstream very quickly. The incentives are just too strong.

You don’t need to be an economist to see those incentives. Robots don’t need to be paid. They don’t slack off on the job. They don’t get sick or tired. In theory, they could keep a store open 24/7 without ever paying overtime. For big box retailers like Walmart, the potential profits are just too large to ignore.

It won’t stop at stores, either. Restaurants will likely undergo a similar process. There are already working robots that can cook meals from scratch. Once they get refined and scaled, then it’s also likely you’ll one day eat at a restaurant entirely run by robots.

Would you be willing to eat at such a place?

Your answer will probably be similar to the one I asked earlier about whether you’d shop at a store run entirely by robots. Personally, I don’t think I’m ready to shop at a place that had no humans working in it, if only because robots sometimes break down. However, within my lifetime, it may get to a point where stores and restaurants run by humans become the exception rather than the norm.

Are we ready for that future?

I don’t know, but it’ll come whether we’re ready for it or not.

1 Comment

Filed under futurism, robots, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 11, 2021 · 5:49 am

Turning Thoughts Into Images: A New Era Of Art With Brain/Computer Interface

BCI Technology: How does a Brain-Computer Interface Work?

There are any number of skills you can learn, practice, and eventually master. I highly encourage everyone to do to this, whether it involves computer programming, cooking, crafts, or any other hobby. You may not always like or master them, but they’re still fun and rewarding to try.

For some skills, though, no amount of learning or practice will help you master them or even be competent. Some things just take talent. That’s why only a handful of human beings ever become Olympic athletes, professional quarterbacks, or brain surgeons. There’s nothing wrong with that. We need that kind of diverse skill set, as a species.

I consider myself to be good, if not above-average, at a number of skills. I’ve learned plenty over the years and there are some that I just have a knack for more than others. I like to think writing is one of them. However, there’s one particular skill that I just have absolutely zero talent for and it’s something that has bugged me for years.

That skill is drawing.

Please understand that this is somewhat personal for me. I’ve always had an artistic side, but for reasons I can’t quite grasp, I’ve never been able to draw worth a damn. I’ve taken art classes in school. I’ve tried practicing here and there. It just never works. I can barely draw stick figures, let alone an image of a typical person that doesn’t look like it was drawn by a five-year-old.

Some of that actually runs in my family. Quite a few relatives can attest that they can’t draw, either. At the same time, an unusually high number of relatives are good writers, poets, etc. We’re all great with words, for the most part. That’s a talent that seems to get passed down, but we just can’t turn those words into pictures.

For me, that’s kind of frustrating. I’ve always enjoyed telling stories. For a time, I wanted to be a comic book writer, but I learned quickly that’s next to impossible when you can’t draw. There are also times when I wish I could draw well enough to describe a scene from a story. I just don’t have that talent or that skill.

As much as I enjoy writing, I don’t deny that humans are visual creatures. If I could incorporate images into my work, then I believe it’ll have a much greater impact. Sadly, I doubt I’ll ever have the necessary talent and skill to create those images.

However, it certain technological trends continue, I might not have to. A recent article in Psychology Today gave me hope that one day, I’ll be able to take some of these images I see in my head and make them real for others to see. It also leads me to believe that art, as we know it, is about to change in a big way.

Psychology Today: New Brain-Computer Interface Transforms Thoughts to Images

Achieving the next level of brain-computer interface (BCI) advancement, researchers at the University of Helsinki used artificial intelligence (AI) to create a system that uses signals from the brain to generate novel images of what the user is thinking and published the results earlier this month in Scientific Reports.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to use neural activity to adapt a generative computer model and produce new information matching a human operator’s intention,” wrote the Finnish team of researchers.

The brain-computer interface industry holds the promise of innovating future neuroprosthetic medical and health care treatments. Examples of BCI companies led by pioneering entrepreneurs include Bryan Johnson’s Kernel and Elon Musk’s Neuralink.

Studies to date on brain-computer interfaces have demonstrated the ability to execute mostly limited, pre-established actions such as two-dimensional cursor movement on a computer screen or typing a specific letter of the alphabet. The typical solution uses a computer system to interpret brain-signals linked with stimuli to model mental states.

Seeking to create a more flexible, adaptable system, the researchers created an artificial system that can imagine and output what a person is visualizing based on brain signals. The researchers report that their neuroadaptive generative modeling approach is “a new paradigm that may strongly impact experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience.”

Naturally, this technology is very new and nowhere near ready for commercial use. It’ll probably be a while before I could use it to create my own graphic novels of the books I’ve written and the sexy short stories I’ve told. That still won’t stop me from entertaining thoughts of incorporating images into my stories.

I doubt I’m the only one who feels that way, too. I know plenty of people like me who just do not have the talent or skill to draw anything more detailed than a stick figure. Those same people have images in their minds that they wish to share. If products like Neuralink, which the article directly references, become more mainstream, then this could be among its many uses.

With some refinement, it won’t just allow artistically challenged people like me to make competent drawings. It’ll allow people who never would’ve otherwise produced that art create something that they can share with the world.

Just take a moment to appreciate how many beautiful images exist only in the minds of people who never get an opportunity to share them. Maybe someone did have an idea for a piece of artwork that would’ve brought beauty, joy, and inspiration to the world, but they just didn’t have the skill, resources, or talent to make it tangible. How many masterpieces have we lost because of that limitation?

We can never know, but any loss of beautiful art is a tragic one. With a process like this, people who never even thought about having an artistic side could explore it. Moreover, they would be able to do it without messy art supplies, sketchbooks, or ink stains. They would just need a neural prosthesis and a computer.

Almost everyone has a computer, so we’re already halfway there. If ever a product came out that allowed us to develop this ability of turning thoughts into images, I would be among the first to try it. I would eagerly line up to take the plunge, if only to open the possibility that some of the images I see when I’m writing can become real one day. I hope I live long enough to see this. Our bodies and minds may ultimately fail us, but great art can last for multiple lifetimes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, biotechnology, Neuralink, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 12, 2021 · 5:53 am

An Artificial Intelligence That Can Debate: The Promise And The Perils

Even in an era as divided and chaotic as this, there’s still a place for reasonable debate on important issues.

Yes, I understand it’s hard to say that with a straight face these days.

Yes, I’ve been to comments sections, Reddit, and 4chan.

Yes, I know how ugly the discourse is right now, but that’s exactly why I’m bringing this up.

In general, people are curious. Even though they cling to cherished beliefs and refuse to change their minds when confronted with evidence, we’re still curious about things that are different. It’s not always honest, but it’s a powerful feeling. Even if you despise those on the other side of the debate, a part of you will still wonder why they hold the opinions they have.

That’s why debate is such a powerful tool. Humans are such a social species by nature. We’re hard-wired to interact, connect, and discuss things with one another, even when we don’t agree. It may frustrate us to no end, as anyone who has debated a creationist can attest. However, the fact we keep doing it is proof, in my opinion, that there’s still value in the process.

Regardless of how you feel about the merit and value of debating, the whole process might become more complicated in the near future. That’s because IBM, the same company behind Watson, the Jeopardy playing computer, just created an artificial intelligence that can debate at the same level as a skilled human debater.

Here’s an excerpt from a piece in TechXplore on this new system. It’s not as scary as some of the things we’ve seen from Boston Dynamics lately, but it’s still intriguing.

TechXplore: IBM’s AI debating system able to compete with expert human debaters

IBM has developed an artificial intelligence-based system designed to engage in debates with humans. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the team members describe their system and how well it performed when pitted against human opponents. Chris Reed with the University of Dundee has published a News & Views piece in the same journal issue outlining the history and development of AI technology based around the types of logic used in human arguments and the new system developed by IBM.

As Reed notes, debating is a skill humans have been honing for thousands of years. It is generally considered to be a type of discussion in which one or more people attempt to persuade others that their opinion on a topic is right. In this new effort, the team at IBM has created an AI system designed to debate with humans in a live setting. It listens to moderators and opponents and responds in a female voice.

Now, before you get too nervous, it’s worth noting that this AI is far from the kind of advanced artificial intelligence systems I’ve mentioned before. This is not the kind of AI that will become Skynet or Hal 9000, no more so than Watson or AlphaGo. This is a system is very much a narrow AI, as in it’s made to excel at a specific task.

We have AI’s that can beat world class chess players and Jeopardy champions. This AI just happens to excel at debate. However, that has implications that go beyond simply outclassing the best human debaters in the world at the moment. In fact, this is one form of AI that might not need human-level intelligence to incur a major impact.

Take a moment to think about how erratic and inconsistent most debates are. No matter how intelligent or informed you are, it tends to get messy fast. That’s why so many comments sections and Reddit threads devolve into shouting matches and personal attacks. The end result is people becoming more angry and unreasonable, which can have major real-world consequences.

However, what would happen if every debate on any issue included someone who was better than the best debater on the planet? Even if the two people on each side of the debate were dumb and inept, such a presence would have a major impact on the discourse.

That’s because winning a debate has little to do with how well someone knows a particular subject. It also has little to do with how forcefully and clearly someone explains a topic. Again, people who debate creationists know this all too well. Winning a debate doesn’t mean proving your expertise. It means proving the merit of your argument.

An AI that can do that may not convince someone that they’re wrong about something. However, losing a debate tends to have a lasting impact. Just ask any aspiring politician. It can also lead people to question their beliefs, even if they still cling to them. That, alone, can be powerful.

For proof, look no further than the story of Megan Phelps-Roper, a former member of the infamously hateful and dogmatic Westboro Baptist Church. She was as locked into her beliefs as anyone could possibly be. She was raised by religious zealots and indoctrinated into strict religious dogma from the time she was a child. She’s not someone whose mind is prone to change.

Then, she got into a discussion with someone on Twitter of all places. That person began a conversation. It started as a nasty debate, but it evolved into something that led her to question her beliefs. Ultimately, she left that hateful and bigoted environment. She’s now an activist against the same religiously motivated hate that she once fostered.

It’s a powerful story, but one that couldn’t have happened without a debate. To date, people have only been able to have those debates with other people. Not everyone is equally skilled. In fact, I would argue most people are woefully unskilled at debating anything and I include myself in that category. I am not good at it, either. I freely admit that.

Now, there’s an AI system that can theoretically win any debate the same way other systems can defeat any chess player. That does hold promise if it can be used to temper the heated rhetoric that has caused real-life hostilities. At the same time, there are reasons for concern.

What side would this system be on?

Moreover, who decides what position these AI systems take?

If no one decides, then how does the AI determine which side on a debate it takes?

These are relevant questions because if you have an AI that can win any debate, then the side it takes really matters. That can be used for good when countering dangerous disinformation, like those from the antivaxx crowd or hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. Like any tool, though, it can be weaponized for ill.

I can easily imagine political organizations getting a hold of these systems and trying to use them to benefit their agenda. I can also see some trying to use it to spam message boards, social media, and Reddit threads to derail certain movements or arguments. That’s a powerful tool and we can’t be certain that those using it will use it responsibly. That’s the dilemma with all technology. It can be used for good and for evil. With technology like artificial intelligence, the stakes are a lot higher, as are the perils. This technology may not be as dangerous as a more advanced AI, but it could be a precursor to just how disruptive this technology can be.

1 Comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, futurism, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,