All scientific theories exclude “reality” except for the phenomena in question. We have to do that to see all the pieces working but, as with , chemists understgdn the limitations. When something goes wrong on the floor, is it a pH problem? Overlaoded? Known contaminants? Redeposit? It’s expensive to junk a 1,500 gallon vat but sometimes, that’s the best you can do.
Scientific theories are trying to depict reality. The simultaneous exclusion of it creates a lack of reevaluating the original premise which is necessary to find unknown unknowns.
The unpredictable nature you talk of shows how ineffective the current models are and they should not be the basis for understanding reality by building models off of models instead for first reevaluating every aspect of the model and integrating it into others. There are people who won’t even believe something in front of their eyes because there are not yet statistics regarding it… and they don’t understand the limitations even of statistics.
Usefulness is not the end all be all. Sure we need them. No where in this do I say we need to exclude the competitive impetus. The ability for an experiment to fit a theory doesn’t negate its need to integrate into other theories within chemistry and between various sciences.
But I doI say that we do neeed to at leat examine the competitive impulse because there really isn't much to win anymore other than games.
Invnetion, today, recombines so much "prior art" that the idea of an "invnetor" may even be obsolete.
Machines which can create novel or replicate without our supervision piques our ego because we rate ourselves on that but, and this is the Big Question, is that really what we ae?
Production units" or even Creative units?
If we are, then we're consumption units too.
How many people never create anything new? Are they worthless?
IDK!
And what will we do with all this time we'll have? I am not going to dig holes with a shovel if I can tell a robot to do it.
AI is scary. We should be suspiscious. But I think there is antoher side. If we use it, like we've used other advances, we will have thegood with the bad and be able to call out the bad.
And, we will have to re-examine this bougeosie production notion and maybe realize another aspect of our won worth.
What would that mean globally? It's happening globally. A world without corporate greed heads and their endless wars for endless profit? Becaus this "us vs them" idea has anew meanig. It will persist. The world is too big. It has too. But we might not be bombing Yemen, the poorest nation on Earth, nor wiping out Palestinisans becasue of some cracked Zionist idea. We'd just know better. Ask AI why the Israeli's are fighitng Palestinians. It can tell you both sides. (The GAB AI have been programmed to "not speculate" on controversial subjects, but you can pin it down on things like the Nakba. A real AI could just spiel the entire history like Wikipeida form the year Zero.)
Finally, all these theories do fit with one another. In Quantum Mechanics it's called the Correspondance Principole because some theories got so far out.
The theories slook at the same or different phenomena from another view but they all correllate. Some are more useful depending upon the circumsances.
There are in fact 3 acid-base theories that mesh into reuction-oxidation theory and peopl even refer to "an acidic hydrogen" as a leaving group inorganic chemsitry.
How many rock bands have we never heard of? How many one hit wonders? The Beatles or Led Zeppelin were likely no more talented than some but hit a popular vein and mined it. Couldn’t AI music do the same?
Many are called, but few are chosen?
Artificial intelligence has created the first new antibiotic in years. Drug discovery is tedious but AI coupled with computer quantum chemistry can rip through candidates quick.
This is really no more than the literature search by which in Fritz Haber’s WW1 “bureau” came up with new war gasses, calling out: ease of manufacture: heavier than air: toxic at low concentrations : thermal stability.
Adding a computer that can predict quantum properties of novel molecules is just the next step (in fact, nitrogen mustards were war gasses that became chemo-therapy agents)
You can download Argus Lab, a free, computer chemistry program and, I wouldn’t doubt, hook it up to a DIY primitive AI to search for some molecular properties you want.
Art?
The first to complain were porn stars. AI created models more erotic than the real thing. Ha! Well, what’s real about pornography to begin with? However, if it’s more erotic than anyone real, then it isn’t real. It’s fantasy. Any lack of that, already? If it does look real, and some does, then what’s new about it? You can find people who look just like that but, you don’t have to pay to photograph them. Bum-mer, if that’s your schtick, and a really over paid one, at that. Sorry! No sympathy.
In fact, isn’t this something that painters have been doing forever? Creative visuals? Realism? Romantic? Goth? Cubism? Impression?
Music? Classic? Baroque? Classic? Romantic?
Some works, most doesn’t? But, AI can do it faster.
Maybe, this means, that humanity isn’t defined by intellect or creativity anymore than strength or even sex.
Am I less human as I age, my intellect fades, and my response to most things is that I’ve heard it before? Some sexy girl smiling seductively at me on tube of silicone caulk that is supposed to, ,,to,,make me do what? Buy the thing? Well, that’s what I went to the hardware store for. The roof leaks.
I do not think of creativity in terms of appeal to the mob. You seem to think I’m talking about a divide between the arts and the sciences, which I am not. Creative genius is responsible for the broadening of scientific thought too. Weston Price understood that there was “factor x” ie vitamin K decades before the molecular proof of vitamin k. The insight always proceeds the discovery of something that eventually becomes the parameters that the rest is recursive too. Bach is a creative genius, Newton, Spengler etc. it’s not a democratic notion of how many people listen to a song. Most music is very recursive and consumptive driven, not at all original in the true sense.
Whether by "creativity" you mean something novel or manufacturing replicates in art, steel, words, music or any media, you are still talking about production.
Production is the flip side of consumption, the "Consumersim" we all complain about.
Why make anything if you are just going to throw it away?
Machines that create things have been around along time only getting sophisticated enough now that they can not only manufature without supervision but create novel things.
So what, if they can. Is that the measure of our worth?
It was, when times were harder. That Protestant work ethic is what got us here.
But, now, don't we have enough?
What was all this enlightenment and efficiency for?
I produce and consume to live but that isn't why I live.
I'll let machines do it whle I do,,,,I don't know what else!
A new spirituality is in the making, from the old, but something never before seen.
We also anthropomorphise. Literature is full of it. I suspect AI is even more enticing than talkng tea pots or horses.
AI can act very human but it isn't. Chat with with any open source AI. You can tell who it works for.
It will become more available like electronics today and turned against the Ellites like missile and eletronic tehcnology that Hamas or Houthis are using to great effect.
You can build an automated gun turret that aims itself from parts on Amazon!
AI will deploy and advance. The trick is keeping up with it and using it.
If you're talking about making babies, point understood.
That is a major difference between people and robots. Robots may have their own survival programmed into it but ours is of course a lot different.
We care about the next generation as an extention of ourselves.
I don't know why a machine would even if it says that it does.
Once again, I think we anthropomorphize too easily.
Arnold Schwarzeenegger's Terminator in the 2nd movie could have done all it did on the basis of John Conr's instruction to not kill anybody. At the end, that's how the Terminator knew it had to be destoryed also. It looked comepllingly like self-sacrifice, but it also said it finally understood why people cry and that it could never do that. It's a machine.
It could be programmed to be the good fathr JohnConor never had but it's still a machine.
It was a well done look at AI.
It could probaly be programmed to be a better statesman than any we have today.
Neutrality is best for a central power unless it candominate all its neighbors. But, eventhen, there is the "two ront war" that must be avoided or concluded quickly.
Apply that to the Donbas and there was Ukraine's answer all along.
Ukraine would have done better with AI than Zelesnky!
From another view : YouTube serach algorithms makes suggestions based upon previous viewing that often enough are novel and interesting. You canmodfy it by deleting unwaned seraches. Amazon does that too.
It's not a bad thing with so much to chose from.
Yes, AI canmake peopoe lazy but there never was a lack of that.
I guess, end of the day, it's just the old half empty or half full cup idea.
You see? All this, and I haven't said anything new either! Ha!
BTW: the definition of "create" is as I used it-it includes procreation as a special case, though.
An unintended consequence of democracy and industrialized warfare is that civilians have become legitimate targets, nasty as that may be: they manufacture munitions which is only a step in their deployment and may be the easiest to interdict.
The idea that civilians were sacrosanct was really never more than an illusion, useful in convincing mothers to send their sons to war.
Civilians must also be persuaded that they have lost the war as much as the army and are often easier to persuade since they have less personally invested hence “peace” movements.
All war, therefore, has become “terrorism”, the nuclear bomb being the most indiscriminate of terror weapons, holding entire continents hostage. Color revolution” and covert regime change operations were a way around Mutually Assured Destruction but have since become standard campaign strategy, at least, for Democrats, and has rendered government itself a clown show that does not represent or even understand those it governs hence, our predicament in America today: war mongering air heads who can’t quite make up their minds which flag we are to fight for, to the death!
Flip side: Hamas, Hezbollah or Houthis have a Liberation cause while the current electronic and missile technology favors them over the expensive WW2 heavy industry type weapons which have become largely very expensive targets for things like Hamas RPG 7 or Houthis anti-ship missile, a thing that’s been around since the 1980s French Exocet. You can build a kamizee drone, submarine or speedboat in your garage. Hamas builds sugar-nitrate fuel rockets.
Of what use war has become, is the question IMO. It isn’t the same as it was because the means has dramatically changed and so has the will to conquer other people and incur all the problems of governing them, manifested in the dying days of the European empires and “containment” wars of the Cold War which didn’t really seek conquest in a traditional sense so much as “send a message”:
“One more step South, China, and we’ll destroy more South Viet Nam fishing villages!”
RAND Corp. explained it with dominoes but we still lost.
Losing Viet Nam was the best thing for both sides, however, other than not having started it to begin with.
Prior to 911, the only Afghans who hated us were the Taliban. 20 years and $1 trillion later, they all do.
Israel cannot exist as the “Martha’s Vineyard” of the ME and most Israelis are too arrogant to assimilate so there will be another “holocaust” for which they’ll blame everybody but themselves. Some things never change.
All scientific theories exclude “reality” except for the phenomena in question. We have to do that to see all the pieces working but, as with , chemists understgdn the limitations. When something goes wrong on the floor, is it a pH problem? Overlaoded? Known contaminants? Redeposit? It’s expensive to junk a 1,500 gallon vat but sometimes, that’s the best you can do.
Scientific theories are trying to depict reality. The simultaneous exclusion of it creates a lack of reevaluating the original premise which is necessary to find unknown unknowns.
The unpredictable nature you talk of shows how ineffective the current models are and they should not be the basis for understanding reality by building models off of models instead for first reevaluating every aspect of the model and integrating it into others. There are people who won’t even believe something in front of their eyes because there are not yet statistics regarding it… and they don’t understand the limitations even of statistics.
Not at all!
Scientific theories deliberately exclude reality because it is too messy.
We add a known amount of NaOH to HCl in pure water and get a preditable amount of NaCl at neutral pH which proves our acid-base theory.
If the water isn't pure, we have not proved anything.
In reality, water usually is not pure.
But our theory is still usefull because it will usually get us pretty close or looking for other theories whenwe're way off.
As for statisitics, they don't prove cause and effeft but correlation does give us a place to start and like most theories,it's useful.
But they both have their limitations whendealing with reality.
You are better off with them than without them sol ling as you don't take yourself too seriously.
Usefulness is not the end all be all. Sure we need them. No where in this do I say we need to exclude the competitive impetus. The ability for an experiment to fit a theory doesn’t negate its need to integrate into other theories within chemistry and between various sciences.
I am not saying "usefulness" is the "end all".
But I doI say that we do neeed to at leat examine the competitive impulse because there really isn't much to win anymore other than games.
Invnetion, today, recombines so much "prior art" that the idea of an "invnetor" may even be obsolete.
Machines which can create novel or replicate without our supervision piques our ego because we rate ourselves on that but, and this is the Big Question, is that really what we ae?
Production units" or even Creative units?
If we are, then we're consumption units too.
How many people never create anything new? Are they worthless?
IDK!
And what will we do with all this time we'll have? I am not going to dig holes with a shovel if I can tell a robot to do it.
AI is scary. We should be suspiscious. But I think there is antoher side. If we use it, like we've used other advances, we will have thegood with the bad and be able to call out the bad.
And, we will have to re-examine this bougeosie production notion and maybe realize another aspect of our won worth.
What would that mean globally? It's happening globally. A world without corporate greed heads and their endless wars for endless profit? Becaus this "us vs them" idea has anew meanig. It will persist. The world is too big. It has too. But we might not be bombing Yemen, the poorest nation on Earth, nor wiping out Palestinisans becasue of some cracked Zionist idea. We'd just know better. Ask AI why the Israeli's are fighitng Palestinians. It can tell you both sides. (The GAB AI have been programmed to "not speculate" on controversial subjects, but you can pin it down on things like the Nakba. A real AI could just spiel the entire history like Wikipeida form the year Zero.)
Finally, all these theories do fit with one another. In Quantum Mechanics it's called the Correspondance Principole because some theories got so far out.
The theories slook at the same or different phenomena from another view but they all correllate. Some are more useful depending upon the circumsances.
There are in fact 3 acid-base theories that mesh into reuction-oxidation theory and peopl even refer to "an acidic hydrogen" as a leaving group inorganic chemsitry.
We think of creativity in terms of the masters.
How many rock bands have we never heard of? How many one hit wonders? The Beatles or Led Zeppelin were likely no more talented than some but hit a popular vein and mined it. Couldn’t AI music do the same?
Many are called, but few are chosen?
Artificial intelligence has created the first new antibiotic in years. Drug discovery is tedious but AI coupled with computer quantum chemistry can rip through candidates quick.
This is really no more than the literature search by which in Fritz Haber’s WW1 “bureau” came up with new war gasses, calling out: ease of manufacture: heavier than air: toxic at low concentrations : thermal stability.
Adding a computer that can predict quantum properties of novel molecules is just the next step (in fact, nitrogen mustards were war gasses that became chemo-therapy agents)
You can download Argus Lab, a free, computer chemistry program and, I wouldn’t doubt, hook it up to a DIY primitive AI to search for some molecular properties you want.
Art?
The first to complain were porn stars. AI created models more erotic than the real thing. Ha! Well, what’s real about pornography to begin with? However, if it’s more erotic than anyone real, then it isn’t real. It’s fantasy. Any lack of that, already? If it does look real, and some does, then what’s new about it? You can find people who look just like that but, you don’t have to pay to photograph them. Bum-mer, if that’s your schtick, and a really over paid one, at that. Sorry! No sympathy.
In fact, isn’t this something that painters have been doing forever? Creative visuals? Realism? Romantic? Goth? Cubism? Impression?
Music? Classic? Baroque? Classic? Romantic?
Some works, most doesn’t? But, AI can do it faster.
Maybe, this means, that humanity isn’t defined by intellect or creativity anymore than strength or even sex.
Am I less human as I age, my intellect fades, and my response to most things is that I’ve heard it before? Some sexy girl smiling seductively at me on tube of silicone caulk that is supposed to, ,,to,,make me do what? Buy the thing? Well, that’s what I went to the hardware store for. The roof leaks.
Is there any way out of here? AI can navigate,,,,
I do not think of creativity in terms of appeal to the mob. You seem to think I’m talking about a divide between the arts and the sciences, which I am not. Creative genius is responsible for the broadening of scientific thought too. Weston Price understood that there was “factor x” ie vitamin K decades before the molecular proof of vitamin k. The insight always proceeds the discovery of something that eventually becomes the parameters that the rest is recursive too. Bach is a creative genius, Newton, Spengler etc. it’s not a democratic notion of how many people listen to a song. Most music is very recursive and consumptive driven, not at all original in the true sense.
Not at all.
Whether by "creativity" you mean something novel or manufacturing replicates in art, steel, words, music or any media, you are still talking about production.
Production is the flip side of consumption, the "Consumersim" we all complain about.
Why make anything if you are just going to throw it away?
Machines that create things have been around along time only getting sophisticated enough now that they can not only manufature without supervision but create novel things.
So what, if they can. Is that the measure of our worth?
It was, when times were harder. That Protestant work ethic is what got us here.
But, now, don't we have enough?
What was all this enlightenment and efficiency for?
I produce and consume to live but that isn't why I live.
I'll let machines do it whle I do,,,,I don't know what else!
A new spirituality is in the making, from the old, but something never before seen.
We also anthropomorphise. Literature is full of it. I suspect AI is even more enticing than talkng tea pots or horses.
AI can act very human but it isn't. Chat with with any open source AI. You can tell who it works for.
It will become more available like electronics today and turned against the Ellites like missile and eletronic tehcnology that Hamas or Houthis are using to great effect.
You can build an automated gun turret that aims itself from parts on Amazon!
AI will deploy and advance. The trick is keeping up with it and using it.
No, that is your definition of creativity. Procreation is part of the creative impetus. I’m not talking normative uses or novelty.
AI will accelerate the behavioral sink we already see. For it to be used, it has to be controlled outside of the realm of the human sphere.
If you're talking about making babies, point understood.
That is a major difference between people and robots. Robots may have their own survival programmed into it but ours is of course a lot different.
We care about the next generation as an extention of ourselves.
I don't know why a machine would even if it says that it does.
Once again, I think we anthropomorphize too easily.
Arnold Schwarzeenegger's Terminator in the 2nd movie could have done all it did on the basis of John Conr's instruction to not kill anybody. At the end, that's how the Terminator knew it had to be destoryed also. It looked comepllingly like self-sacrifice, but it also said it finally understood why people cry and that it could never do that. It's a machine.
It could be programmed to be the good fathr JohnConor never had but it's still a machine.
It was a well done look at AI.
It could probaly be programmed to be a better statesman than any we have today.
Neutrality is best for a central power unless it candominate all its neighbors. But, eventhen, there is the "two ront war" that must be avoided or concluded quickly.
Apply that to the Donbas and there was Ukraine's answer all along.
Ukraine would have done better with AI than Zelesnky!
From another view : YouTube serach algorithms makes suggestions based upon previous viewing that often enough are novel and interesting. You canmodfy it by deleting unwaned seraches. Amazon does that too.
It's not a bad thing with so much to chose from.
Yes, AI canmake peopoe lazy but there never was a lack of that.
I guess, end of the day, it's just the old half empty or half full cup idea.
You see? All this, and I haven't said anything new either! Ha!
BTW: the definition of "create" is as I used it-it includes procreation as a special case, though.
Maybe that sums it up better.
An unintended consequence of democracy and industrialized warfare is that civilians have become legitimate targets, nasty as that may be: they manufacture munitions which is only a step in their deployment and may be the easiest to interdict.
The idea that civilians were sacrosanct was really never more than an illusion, useful in convincing mothers to send their sons to war.
Civilians must also be persuaded that they have lost the war as much as the army and are often easier to persuade since they have less personally invested hence “peace” movements.
All war, therefore, has become “terrorism”, the nuclear bomb being the most indiscriminate of terror weapons, holding entire continents hostage. Color revolution” and covert regime change operations were a way around Mutually Assured Destruction but have since become standard campaign strategy, at least, for Democrats, and has rendered government itself a clown show that does not represent or even understand those it governs hence, our predicament in America today: war mongering air heads who can’t quite make up their minds which flag we are to fight for, to the death!
Flip side: Hamas, Hezbollah or Houthis have a Liberation cause while the current electronic and missile technology favors them over the expensive WW2 heavy industry type weapons which have become largely very expensive targets for things like Hamas RPG 7 or Houthis anti-ship missile, a thing that’s been around since the 1980s French Exocet. You can build a kamizee drone, submarine or speedboat in your garage. Hamas builds sugar-nitrate fuel rockets.
Of what use war has become, is the question IMO. It isn’t the same as it was because the means has dramatically changed and so has the will to conquer other people and incur all the problems of governing them, manifested in the dying days of the European empires and “containment” wars of the Cold War which didn’t really seek conquest in a traditional sense so much as “send a message”:
“One more step South, China, and we’ll destroy more South Viet Nam fishing villages!”
RAND Corp. explained it with dominoes but we still lost.
Losing Viet Nam was the best thing for both sides, however, other than not having started it to begin with.
Prior to 911, the only Afghans who hated us were the Taliban. 20 years and $1 trillion later, they all do.
Israel cannot exist as the “Martha’s Vineyard” of the ME and most Israelis are too arrogant to assimilate so there will be another “holocaust” for which they’ll blame everybody but themselves. Some things never change.
This entire comment had no relevance to this article series.
who'd have thought,,