How To Become A Centaur

Essay Competition Winner | The old story of AI is about human brains working against silicon brains. The new story of IA will be about human brains working with silicon brains. As it turns out most of the world is the opposite of a chess game: Non-zero-sum—both players can win.


Become a Chiron, Not a Centaur
Denis Hurley
I agree that humans need to work with AI and robotics. They assist us, they don’t replace us. Last summer, I wrote a similar piece, but I think it’s better to strive to be like Chiron, specifically. Centaurs were unruly beasts. Chiron was an educator. He managed to use the best traits in humans and wild animals.
Kaveh Alagheband
It is interesting that in this article conventional algorithms are considered to be AIs. I am not even sure that “You can now download a chess-playing AI better than Deep Blue on your laptop” is factually true for conventional users because it runs on 2nd-generation TPUs. The chess playing AI- Alphazero- is not even mentioned in the whole article. This new, and fundamentally different process, played the top conventional chess engine and the result was 28 wins to 0. Alphazero, however, does not give out traditional numerical evaluations and so the human operator, like the centaur idea, is not quite the same today. I am not saying that the main idea of the article is unattainable, but in the environment of “resisting reduction” the way chess is used here is quite reductive.
Kaveh Alagheband
KA might be interesting to see how chess AI went through the history of chess in 4 hours, playing against itself (no human interaction), and its development of the openings is strikingly similar to human history of chess.
rahime edibali
Since Frankenstein was written by Mary Shelley, the fear of artificial intelligence (AI) is told on various platforms. For the people who don’t have any contribution of AI it is needless to be afraid of AI. Because keeping the pace of anxiety could only give harm but nothing more. Otherwise they will suffer twice if bad things that they had expected happen. Here some are mostly mentioned anxieties related with the economic effects of including of robots to business life. Since Industrialisation Had Started The Same AnxietyKarl Marx, writing during the age of steam, described the automation of the proletariat as a necessary feature of capitalism.[1] Yet it doesn’t have to be just for the sake of capitalism. If we look at health sector, we can understand how urgent those improvements must be made. Humans can choose to redistribute that capital in order to replace income lost to robots.[2] Today, researchers are primarily interested in designing one-way systems, which can read brain signals and then send them to devices such as prosthetic limbs and cars.[3] Robotic technologies that collect and interpret unprecedented amounts of data about human behaviour actually threaten both access to information and freedom of choice.[4] Implementations In the sectorsAnd current discussions of economic policy focus on how to improve workers’ job and wage prospects. That makes sense, since robots and artificial intelligence are not on the brink of learning how to do every job.[5]MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory recently developed system that allowed groups of robots to assemble IKEA Furniture.[6] The economist Carl Benedikt Frey and the machine learning expert Michael Osborne, both of Oxford University, have concluded that 47 percent of U.S. jobs are at high risk from automation. In the nineteenth century, they argue, machines replaced artisans and benefited unskilled labor. In the twentieth century, computers replaced middle-income jobs, creating a polarized labor market. Over the next decades, they write, “most workers in transportation and logistics occupations, together with the bulk of office and administrative support workers, and labour in production occupations, are likely to be substituted by computer capital.”[7] And also in agriculture, which was the dominant employer of humanity between the dawn of the agricultural revolution and the nineteenth century.[8]Besides robots could have not only negative effects but also positive effects too. Today, more than 65 million people are confined to wheelchairs, contending with many more obstacles than their walking peers and sitting in a world designed for standing. But thanks to robotics, the next two decades will likely see the end of the wheelchair.[9]Furthermore there are abundant gains via using robots instead of human workforce. Even thinking yourself as doing some kinds of jobs is hard to bare. What about doing these jobs till the arranged day of your retirement? Those kinds of degrading jobs can be made by robots. For example canalizations’ controls and maintenance are so difficult to do interms of both mental and physical performance. And also some dangerous works like controlling the damages tribunes, explorations under the deep waters of oceans or volcanos etc... Robots could be used so that human honour couldn’t be degraded and could be kept from risking their lives in vain.  Lagal Burdens Waiting For Being TerminatedAnd of course intervention of robots to our daily lives could also challenge our ability of making legislations. There is legal gap between the answers of these questions? Who is to blame for a fault of a robot? Who is to be punished? Owner of the robot?  The code writer of the robot? Or the robot itself. As law is defined as a normative science, it is used to make legislations after the bad things are occurred. However those mentioned bad things could be imminent as we enhance using robots.  Recently we have witnessed a sample of vandalism against a robot called HitchBOT which had encountered to take a journey around the world.[10] It can be accepted as an odd. Nonetheless perhaps vandalism against robots should be punished. Because of the fact that if any one attempts to spread aggression among society without any sensible, legal reasons, then those behaviours could also be an example for the other humans who seek the ways of evil. ConclusionIn the twenty-first century, stable, long-term employment with a single employer will no longer be the norm, and unemployment or underemployment will no longer be a rare and exceptional situation. Intermittence will increasingly prevail, with individuals serving as wage earners, freelancers, entrepreneurs, and jobless at different stages of their working lives.[11] As Brynjolfsson and McAfee offer the second machine age has already began. Knowing that your mental advantages might be even greater than your physical ones, the only thing that you could do is just to be prepared, and awaken for jeopardises and also have full enjoyment of the benefits of this age. [1] Erik Bryniofsson and Andrew McAfee, Will Humans Go The Way of Horses?, Foreign Affairs july-August 2015, p. 8 [2] Erik Bryniofsson and Andrew MacFee, Will Humans Go The Way of Horses?, Foreign Affairs july-august 2015, p. 12 [3] Illah Reza Nourbakhsh, The Coming Robot Dystopia, Foreign Affairs, July-august 2015, p. 25-26 [4] Illah Reza Nourbakhsh, The Coming Robot Dystopia, Foreign Affairs, July-august 2015, p.26 [5] Erik Bryniofsson and Andrew MacFee, Foreign Affairs, July-August 2015, p. 14 [6] Daniela Rus, The Robots Are Coming, Foreign Affairs, July-August 2015, p. 6 [7] Martin Wolf, Same As It Ever Was, Foreign Affairs, July-August 2015, p. 20 [8] Martin Wolf, Same As It Ever Was, Foreign Affairs, July-August 2015, p. 21 [9] Illah Reza Nourbakhsh, The Coming Robot Dystopia, Foreign Affairs, July-August 2015, p. 24 [10] 14 August 2015 Al Jazeree [11] Nicolas Colin and Bruno Palier, The Next Safety Net, Foreign Affairs, July-August 2015, p. 31 `k,��6?�}�&�"
Six Types of Symbiosis.
Paula Lang
There are six types of symbiosis. The type you are referring to is mutualistic symbiosis. As in, mutually beneficial. Another type, commensalistic symbiosis is where one organism benefits while the other is neither harmed nor helped. This presents a psychological slipper slope which leads humans to slide from mutualism to commensalism with a shrug. What’s the harm? The next slippery slope presents itself with the next lower category, parasitic symbiosis. I gain, you lose. If my gain is exponential and your loss is minuscule then I am tempted to go for it. With two individuals the benefit/harm calculation is easy. Add new variables (ie society) and suddenly we find ourselves (through AIA) encouraging “The Giving Tree” behaviors. ¡Con quidado!