Hannes Rydén

Gothenburg, Sweden

Someone is shy

Hannes hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Hannes Rydén
Posted over 2 years ago
Can technology replace human intelligence?
I agree, mimicking human intelligence would be cool, but maybe not that useful. We already see computers and AI:s doing things that humans cannot, and this is the field that likely has the most value to us, but which is often overshadowed by the fascination of a potential human-like AI. However, I guess there will always be a fascination for creating something self-going, or plant seeds that evolve into something unknown. We love life so I'm not surprised we're trying to create it.
Noface
Hannes Rydén
Posted over 2 years ago
Can technology replace human intelligence?
Human intelligence is hard to replicate because of a number of things: * It evolves from a complex system of reinforcement learning/motivation that we know very little about. Without needs (emotions) we would have no reason to act, to learn and to develop. Likewise, an AI needs human-like internal motivation in order to act like a human at all. * The human brain does not evolve from scratch. We are born with many inherent abilities such as memory and sensory skills that have evolved through decades of evolution. This likely requires complex designs and evolutionary simulations before even an artificial infant can be brought to “life”. * Human intelligence depends on human physical abilities and flaws. It would not be possible to replicate human behavior without human senses and a human-like body to act with, because an AI could never learn to discuss how things look, feel or taste without the ability to experience this itself. Likewise, it must have a limited energy intake, limited brain capacity, limited senses and so on, or its intelligence would be too different from ours to be considered human. Ultimately, we must ask ourselves: What do we want to design? Do we want a human-like AI? Then we must give it human motivation, abilities and flaws. Do we want a super-human? Then we give it human motivation but greater processing power and additional senses and limbs. Do we want it to do something completely different? Then we could give it other needs. But we must be careful. It is impossible to foresee the future, and if we give an AI too much power, such as access to weapons, powerful body parts or access to important data systems, there is always the risk that things don’t go as we expect. Motivational systems might take twists or turns that we could never imagine, giving birth to new goals within the AI that could threaten the entire humanity. Artificial motivation and power is a dangerous combination, and today, this is not sci fi but a real potential threat.
Noface
Hannes Rydén
Posted over 2 years ago
What if we measure our progress with Gross National Smiling instead of GDP?
... A Gross National Smiling index will likely also be difficult to compare across countries because of cultural differences in smiling. A certain level of smiling might mean one thing in one culture and something else in another. Yet again, the same goes for GDP. Different cultures and socities might prefer different levels of output; some people simply prefer more free time over more income, which is likely reflected in their culture as well. The main problem with GDP is that it uses money as a measurement, and money is a flawed measure of value, which many are not aware about. Unfortunately, we have the same problem with other measurements as well, so one cannot easily replace the other. But I really think we should introduce alternative measurements into our politics, because the more measures we have the better, as long as we’re aware of their flaws.
Noface
Hannes Rydén
Posted over 2 years ago
What if we measure our progress with Gross National Smiling instead of GDP?
GDP measures all economic transactions that are recorded in a society, i.e. all things that are bought for money. A correct measure of smiles would be a wonderful tool (and goal) for politicians. But how do we measure it? I guess we have to constantly monitor the population in order to keep track of their smiles, which will cost our privacy. Or we would have to send people questionnaires, which would likely be very inaccurate as the most genuine smilling happens unconsciously. Just like we cannot count all economic transactions into GDP, such as those occurring in the black market, we won't be able to measure all smiles into Gross National Smiling. Probably very few of them to be honest. Also, like Gisela said, how do we separate a fake smile from a real one? Smiles can be of different quality depending on how genuine and strong the feeling of happiness is. Again, the same goes for GDP. Monetary transactions can be of different qualities, depending on how genuine and informed the trade participants are. A rushed buying decision based on a persuasive seller's arguments likely produces less value for a consumer than a planned buying decision with advice from experts. But unfortunately, this isn’t captured by GDP. Lies can make us happy temporarily, until we discover the truths. Will this mean politicians will have incentives to lie to make us smile in the short-term? This problem is actually very significant when using GDP as well. Most economic transactions carry additional costs on third-parties not accounted for, so called externalities, such as pollution, resource depletion or abuse of laborers in third-world countries that lack protection from laws and societies. Many times, economic transactions only account for direct and short-term values, and miss out on important indirect and long-term values, which was what likely caused the financial crisis. This is directly reflected in GDP as well. ...