Thank you for your intelligent conversations. It really opens our minds, and keeps us growing. I really appreciate it. Your show is really decent. Nothing at all like I would think a tek show would be about. You cover real life world topics. It is one of the best shows that exist!
3 Likes
Hey @wendell I believe we already have the 360 tire movements. Can't we use an advance version of these tire ?
1 Like
You're probably right. But in the context of manipulating genes, social inequality is not that interesting. Also , it's not a particularly new topic.
Based on that, we are already doing this, but in a less interesting way. And the result is more than questionable. In fact, this is one of the things that is starting to destroy the western societies and is undermining democracies. So please don't.
That seems like a good idea. For parking they can rotate and for higher speeds they get locked into place... That would be interesting.
1 Like
For creating super intelligence from legacy humans through genetic modification, the issues are theoretical. I doubt that the data exists to make claims about the outcome.
Genetics obviously plays a part concerning quality of the tissues and cooperation of the limbic system and frontal lobes. Keeping in mind that we are a naturally evolved species, there is a lot of evolutionary baggage not only because we're suited to niche' existence on a savanna as opposed to a natural science position in a laboratory; but also evolution doesn't tend to refine models. With evolution, good enough tends to be good enough. This makes the prospect of huge gains seem feasible with refinement however, There are physical constraints to consider as well.
The computation occurring in the brain has need for energy and isn't entirely reversible. This would require either more efficient synaptic connections or energy usage or both. Re-uptake is probably one of the reasons that humans sleep. The brain becomes polluted with neurotransmitters as the day goes by and so some down time is needed for re-uptake to catch up. There are animal species that don't require sleep that might provide a conceptual model for addressing the issue but none near as complex as higher mammals... much less humans.
One of the more concerning issues there is might be the fact that we don't understand what intelligence is. It seems to be correlated strongly with the environment. This is where humans, modified or not are likely to loose in competition with strong AI. I doubt very seriously that genetic modification could achieve the gains that cyborgism could. It's a comparison of a biological organism that is somewhat pliable vs a technological organism that is essentially designed from the ground up to suit a specific environment. For this reason I doubt that legacy or even modified humans will be type twos. That was bad news for me as a Trekie. :-(
Scientists classify lifeforms by type 0 - 3. Considering what competitive advantages there might be for an advancing society from type 1 to type two has me thinking that genetic modification, though a good candidate for a novel offshoot isn't likely as advantageous as technological augmentation. It may be that both would have an even greater effect in conjunction with each other though.
Either way it seems that technological advancement is proving to be much more competitive than evolution. This is a really weird time to be alive.
The whole idea of super intelligence isn't well understood at the moment. General intelligence is the goal of the cutting edge as of yet. It seems that super intelligence might be the ability to produce novelty in a wide variety of environments as opposed to being suited for a particular niche'. This is the capacity that we are working with now. It doesn't seem to be confined to the neurology either. Sensory organs, mobility and economy of neurological resources through epistemology and theoretical axioms play a role as well as other factors. Most of the advancements that humans have made in recent times are due to mediation with technology. We're much more intelligent than an IQ test can appreciate in practice because an IQ test removes the technology that we use on a daily basis from the equation. This creates noise when trying to predict the potential of a society as it excludes one of the more influential factors.
In discussions like this, I always suggest looking up David Chalmers "Natural Born Cyborgs". The difference between a legacy human with a super computer in their pocket and a cyborg is something as meaningless as the technology breaks the skin of a cyborg. Of course being the interface has it's advantages.
I think the question as to whether or not we should modify ourselves is moot. We will. The competitive advantage is just too strong to deny. Defeaters seem to be extinction or existential risk. Ironically, these risks already exist and may influence decisions to modify.
I would be more worried about the implementation of altering the intelligence of humans rather than the concept of it, itself. I'd hate to live in a world where only the top 1% could afford to have genetically altered babies with increased intelligence, only widening the gap of wealth and power, not only that, but potentially JUSTIFYING that gap, now that's something scary. Also intelligence does not equal ethical understanding or experience. Let's not forget that some of the most intelligent people in the world today are also some of the most inept, corrupt, manipulative, sociopaths, underhanded criminals who rig industries and markets to take advantage of lesser fortunate masses. It goes back to the whole nature vs nurture debate. If we're going to invest science into altering the NATURE of intelligence in humans, then we need to invest science into how to properly adjust how we NURTURE that intelligence. How do you raise a child with an IQ of 1,000? Imagine raising an 11-year-old child who can psychologically outsmart you and emotionally manipulate you in ways so complex there is virtually no defense against it. The only way I see around some of these issues is if artificial womb technology is developed first and if there are some very stringent laws in place about how producing new human units is streamlined and highly regulated.
2 Likes
That robot fake skin material would be perfect for vampire robots.
I am from Iowa, one of our biggest ISP's is Mediacom. I have seen this dark fiber in allot of places.
The only instance I can think of in the history of civilization where technology and information was hoarded and not made more accessible was when the Roman Catholics took revenge on the Pegans, took the marble from Rome to build Vatican City, scooped up all of the ancient texts, burned the library of Alexandria etc. This was after more than 400 years of horrible persecution though. Even though it lead to the ignorance of Medieval times, it still didn't prevent the Enlightenment that was probably the catalyst for accelerated advancement.
I hear that argument made frequently but there really is no precedent for it to be a likely concern. Technology has produced a general rise in the standard of living.
RE: Rant 30: encryption
I don't think 'we' need a video on this, but it might be a good idea to do a Rant 30 aimed at the average citizen to inform them of what the situation is. We, as the Tek Syndicate community, don't need it, but a sharable video that we can show to friends and family would be in order I think.
1 Like
I get frustrated with entanglement, they don't even seem to be describing a computational(?) effect, seems like it would all make more sense if they dropped the idea of particles.
Even if your hiding stuff outside observable universe, isn't that just security by obscurity?
i think we should start
with making "intelligent" humans first.
b4 jumping the gun with the "super" prefix....
1 Like
As to super humans. The USA can chat all they want about it but China is running full steam ahead sequencing anything that moves.
It is (theoretically) impossible for environment, or social factors to play a part in IQ test results after birth, since the point of a correctly devised IQ test is that a person will score exactly the same regardless of experience or education. Actually, a well rested brain will score better, and if your environment doesn't lend it's self to putting your brain in the right frame of mind... Don't take an IQ test in the middle of a busy highway intersection. XD If only we were born with full communication skills we should score the same on the day we are born as we do the day before senile debenture starts. The "communication skills" thing is actually a flaw in IQ tests which we haven't managed to get around, yet.
The reasoning behind this is that "Intelligence" is supposed to be measured independently of "knowledge" or "wisdom", so IQ specifically tests ability to solve problems which no amount of training can (should) possibly prepare you. Specifically, and with absolute certainty, you can't "study" or "revise" for an IQ test. (not a real, accredited one) We are aware that giving someone training in critical thinking can allow them to solve such problems faster, and bypass many failed attempts they may otherwise make. The ability to solve problems faster also reduces people giving up out of frustration, but that shouldn't play a part in IQ test questions. If it does, then they were poorly devised.
That phrase "poorly devised" keeps coming up because it is a well documented, and internationally recognised phenomenon that most contemporary, and historic IQ tests are obviously "poorly devised". The fact that we can evidence people in different parts of the world scoring better or worse on IQ tests is proof of such poor conception in it's self, unless that comes down to genetic distribution of peoples and intelligence. (those of us who aren't massive racialists assume it isn't, but then we haven't proven that black people aren't genetically better disposed to athletic pursuits than white people either... We just assume that that's probably more related to social factors and people being racist [people like to do things they can be recognised for being good at, and society is, sadly, more prepared to acknowledge black people for being good at athletics than they are to acknowledge them for being good at, f.e. business, or politics... because people suck])
The more worrying thing about the idea of manipulating humans genetically to score better at IQ tests is that the undisputed winners of any IQ test intake are those with severe learning disabilities, particularly in terms of Dyslexic tendencies and severe Autism. (again this may be connected to the fact that IQ tests test the places these people are not disadvantaged in comparison to their peers... so, bear that in mind with relation to my earlier comments about black athletes... it's as easy to accidentally discriminate in favour of a normally disadvantaged group as against one in such "unknown" territory, and there is some evidence that "book knowledge" can be an active disadvantage in IQ tests, because you start to assume the answers you were taught to be usually the right one, when these tests are specifically trying to discount those answers) The indications are that good social skills and strong abilities in teamwork are a severe natural handicap to "intelligence" as tested in IQ. Einstein and Tesla being the some of the best known high IQ scorers, both of whom are posthumously diagnosed as probably scoring high on the autistic spectrum, if it had existed during their lifetimes... Though Allan Turing, Leonardo DaVincci et el would probably also score highly on both. XD If you did a census of people on these forums, compared to people who spend a lot of time on Facebook, you would probably find a similarly disproportionate number of high IQ, low interpersonal skill scores here compared to the alternative. Though, clearly not as much as the historic examples.
Ultimately, the natural distribution of highly intelligent people with massively poor interpersonal skills is probably about right. These people tend to make a couple of close connections with people who can pass their genius on to other people who would never think of such things, but can then apply them to the wider society in ways their inventors / discoverers could not.
Point being, "it takes all sorts." More importantly, it probably takes just the right balance of each different "sort" of person to make a well balanced society. If anything, we should be trying to work out exactly what those ideal proportions are before we start trying to make everyone (or anyone) fit in any specific box.
I agree completely with this. Every IQ test I have done had a lot of general knowledge questions in it that I found pointless. Asking me the capital of some country seems pointless to me.
Im sure Albert Einstein was not genetically super. He has a passion for math and physics and applied himself to it and worked hard. Im sure he had a creative streak as well.
Most brilliant people work very hard in their field to get where they are. They dont just grow up knowing everything.
1 Like
And Google. Actually, I've found that gaming on an Android / iOS device hooked up to a big screen already compares favourably with a console. Cast the display and pair a bluetooth controller up... Some games detect and use the controller better than others, and some like to fill your 40" HD TV (or 4K monitor) with on screen touch controls you aren't using in the same way a PC game with severe consolitus fills your HD monitor with big ass UI elements you don't need or really use. But that's all down to the game targeting the majority of users, rather than the really clued up users.
f.e. If you play the Telltale games on Android, via Chromecast on your PC monitor with a bluetooth (or USB, via OTG cable and hub) keyboard and mouse, it's quite easy to forget you're not on your PC. Sadly, you have to Jailbreak iOS to get mouse style HID drivers to work. :(
The fact that iOS doesn't support a "developer mode" the way Windows and Android do, to install apps outside of the recognised "walled garden" without Jailbreak (rooting) is the greatest limiting factor in that platform. We (as the pioneers of these emerging markets) need to ensure that doesn't prove to be a winning strategy for them. ;)
just saying, i dig your username. EW ftw.
Also, i enjoyed this tek episode, but then again, i always make time to stock up on beer, sit down and watch my tek.
1 Like
Actually, Albert Einstien was notoriously bad at mathematics and failed most of his attempts at studying that subject. His "one interpersonal connection" was his saving grace in that matter, and it's generally accepted today that his wife, a mathematics professor, was the one who worked all his theories into those famous formulae we print on T-Shirts. ;)
Again, she had the ability to communicate the theories he had, which she would not have, in a way that the rest of the scientific community could understand and work with. Something he couldn't do on his own.
Yes, the IQ tests in newspapers and magazines are complete trash, and would never get Mensa accredited. The very last thing the actually test is "intelligence". XD
There's a "Mensa workout" on the link provided above, which has a massive disclaimer regarding how "unfair" even that is, but it should be closer to a real IQ test.
Well you made me Wiki him :). If that is true then Mileva Marić got a raw deal. I guess that how it went for women in 1905.
Yes PLEASE Wendell. I am very much interested in a Rant 30 on encryption.