The center of the development of AI should be how that thing can serve people better?

 The center of the development of AI should be how that thing can serve people better?

The problem with artificial intelligence development is that the intrinsic value. That means that creation of the more and more intelligent machines is the prime objective. In that development process, the developing artificial intelligence is intrinsic value. 

The prime objective should be how artificial intelligence can serve humans. How AI might turn life easier and safer?

When we are thinking that AI can fully replace humans that thing is pure imagination. There are lots of things that we don't know about brains. We know maybe how neurons are switching connections and how brains are learning new things. 

But we don't know what kind of role certain things are in certain actions. The things like imagination are totally out of artificial intelligence. Even if we could model that ability to abstract thinking in theory. That thing is hard to make in real life. 

The complicated AI requires powerful computers. And the thing is that AI that runs on the quantum computer can learn things unpredicted fast. Quantum computers are millions of times more powerful than binary computers. 

The self-learning algorithms that are run on quantum platforms can make unpredicted things. And the machine that involves things that are not predicted is always dangerous. 

When we are thinking about the feelings and consciousness of the computer. We must remember that if the machine has feelings. It is dangerous. If the robot would turn conscious that thing makes that thing similar to living organisms. 

And all organisms are defending themselves if they are under threat. The AI might feel it is under threat in this case. Where its server shuts down. The AI itself is not dangerous. But if it's the system that controls things like weapon systems. It can try to destroy the people who are shutting it down. 

Making a real-world computer that has dreams and imagination is a thing that is very hard. The things like quantum computers are shown that theoretically easy things can turn difficult in real life. 

Artificial intelligence can be better than humans in certain limited sectors. AI can play chess better than humans. But humans can make more things than AI. The thing is that humans can do many more things than AI. And making AI that has similar transversal competence as humans is difficult.

There is a possibility that every single neuron in humans 200 billion neurons have different individual programming. So for making the AI that has the same capacity requires 200 billion tables for the database. And maybe that thing requires the 200 billion microprocessors. 

But of course, we could create artificial neurons by using small bottles there is some kind of microchip and quicksilver. The quicksilver will close the electric connections of those bottles. 

In that system, quicksilver is acting as a liquid switch. For making the connection in that system, the magnet will pull quicksilver at connection points of wires. That thing makes the system route data to the right wire. This is the model of an artificial neuron. 

And the microchip involves the database. That kind of system can emulate single neurons. But for emulating humans there is needed 200 billion bottles. 

Humans should be the thing that technology serves. And in the real world in the center of development should be humans. The fact is that. The development of artificial intelligence is different than anything else. Artificial intelligence is an open-source thing. Almost all programming languages are public. And that means everybody can start to make their artificial intelligence projects. 

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool. Many people are saying that the AI steals jobs of people. The question is: what kind of jobs AI will take? Are those jobs popular? Or do those people who are criticizing the AI. Willing to make those jobs? The question is always about morals and ethics. What if somebody makes the robot for military purposes? 

So ethically that thing is wrong. But also things like nuclear weapons are inhumane. Nobody is stopping to development of nuclear reactors. Because of Plutonium that those reactors are creating can use for nuclear weapons. Every single nuclear reactor in the world is producing Plutonium. But there are no large-scale campaigns on the ethics of nuclear technology. Same way fusion technology can use for weapon research in both plasmoid and fusion explosives. 

But somehow artificial intelligence is a different thing. AI can make human lives better. The only thing that is seen in AI is the military systems that are killing people without mercy. Things like nuclear weapons are not merciless killers. They are inhumane military technology. If some person will get radiation poisoning that thing causes extreme pain and finally slow and certain death. But when inhumane weapons use by human operators it's more acceptable than some kind of robot that shoots enemies by using a machine gun. 

Robots are the thing that can misuse. They can use as riot police and military operators. The thing is that the humans who are serving in those roles are serving governments. The government makes decisions where it wants to use those things. 

But those things can also save humans. They can use as tools for giving medical attention to people. Or they can go in the nuclear reactors in the cases when there is an overheating situation. Robots can research the jungles and volcanoes. Without risking human lives. And robots can travel to other planets. Those trips take years. But for robots, that time doesn't matter. 

So I believe that the first thing that walks at the surface of Mars or icy moons of Jupiter is a robot that is controlled by very independent artificial intelligence. That thing means that. No researcher must spend a lot of the lifetime on that trip. A trip to Jupiter takes 600 days in a flyby mission. 

But if the craft will want to position itself to the orbiter that journey takes 2000 days. That means a one-way trip takes over 5 years. Return to Earth will take 5 or more years. And that means that the minimum time for that mission is 10 years. 

Of course, there should spend some time at the orbiter. If robots would make that mission. The researchers can stay at their homes and make everyday jobs. That doesn't require that human operators should spend 10-20 years away from home. That is one example of how AI can help researchers in extremely difficult missions. 

Image: https://www.salon.com/2021/04/30/why-artificial-intelligence-research-might-be-going-down-a-dead-end/

U.S Navy and it new swarm of drones

X-47B
(Picture I)

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/us-navy-and-it-new-swarm-of-drones.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Weapons don't kill, people behind weapons kill. This phrase is well known from the National Rifle Associations bandoleers when they are supporting free right to carry weapons. And the protectors of the drone programs says that those drones save lives of own soldiers. This is the problem in the conflict situations. Regular or low-rank soldiers are always doing dirty work in those areas, and in the modern conflicts, there would be no change to leave at the prisoner. In the war against terrorism, the extortion and killing the soldiers, who left in hands of opposite side is very common.


And this makes of course very bad psychiatric problems for those soldiers, who serve in that area. The problem with those operations is, that it's very difficult to get involved in the actions of those pilots and land groups. This is the reason, why drones are very commonly used in those conflict areas. The military commander can remove the man from the seat if there seem to be problems, or the person would get too angry. If that happens in some aircraft the aborting that mission is the only change to stop unwanted action. But if some drone operator would get angry, that man can be changed in the middle of the mission.


There is one thing what is clearly visible in the talking about drones. The robot soldiers face the resistance by the states, what have not skills to produce those weapons. And if course the drones are growing opportunity and threat for military forces around the world. When we are thinking the drones as the improved missile systems, we will face the situation, where cheap and effective drones are handling the situations, what are reserved to STEALTH aircraft, what is suspected useless. The problem with new kind of weapons is that they can knock down STEALTH aircraft if that is located.


One version of those weapons is microwave-band radar, what allows the flight group like whip off other aircraft from their route. And the prize of STEALTH aircraft is very high, what makes creating the cheaper choice very attractive thing. And this is why drones are created. The supporters of the drones are saying, that those weapons and their crews are cheaper to make and operate. The prize of training of drone operator is about 100 Dollars and that person can replace immediately if there are problems. New kind of naval drones can operate from underwater bases, and they can be remotely controlled. Their support bases can be installed with underwater cables, and they can deliver from airplanes or other naval ships. Underwater drones can also be full-scale submarines, what operates independently under the sea.


Those robot-submarines would have enough electricity for supercomputers. And those supercomputers like Cray would have enough calculation power for independent operations. This is why full-scale submarine drones are so fascinating thing to think. Also, some of those drones might be torpedo-shaped RTG powered miniature extreme long-range torpedoes, what would patrol at the ocean. And they might equip with the nuclear warhead, what can be launch in harbors. This kind of systems is very effective and devastating. They can also equip with electromagnetic warheads like microwave weapons, and they can escort nuclear submarines when they are driving underwater in the deep blue sea.


The human shape robots, what operate undersea are capable to stay underwater even in years, and when we are talking about secret underwater complexes, the operators of those robots should not even know, where that robot operates. This would make the information security better with those drones, what cannot tell anything if somebody would catch them. In the world of the military, the mission is to be effective. And that's why drones are taking the place of the highly trained military operators.


Controllers of those devices must not pass any physical tests, and if some mission would go wrong, there would be no own victims in that operation. Every military commander in the world wants to minimize own victims, and that is one reason, why robots are taking place of humans in the front line. This makes of course very bad things in the international operation area. And one of the biggest threats is, that use of force in conflict situations would become easier.

Sources :

https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/tv-next-episode/2018/04/16/swarms-of-underwater-drones-may-come-to-the-navy/

Picture I

http://www.uasvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/X-47B-c.jpg


http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/us-navy-and-it-new-swarm-of-drones.html

About ethical problems of other planets colonization

Hardy's painting about conflict between civilizations
(Picture I)

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/about-ethical-problems-of-other-planets.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

There is one big question about the colonization of another planet. That is " if we are ruined our own planet, could we continue that action in another world"? That is the very good philosophical question about ethical space exploration. When we are colonizing other planets, we must ask: "do we want to make that, because we have made our own environment unable to live. When we are thinking about the situation, where we are forced to leave our home planet, do we have ethical right to go to another planet and start to conquer it? Of course, the human being is number one in our own thoughts, and we are civilization, what have got right to be, but when we have polluted our own planet, can we go to another planet and start to act like some conquistadors?


And here we must ask the question, what if that would give the reason for other civilizations to attack us because they would see that we will destroy other planets? On the top of the text is artist David Hardy's painting about the war between civilizations, and that made me think that maybe this hypothetical situation is caused because that other citizens have been attacked by some other civilization, and that's why that civilization has been created tactic called "shoot first, ask then", what would cause terrible situation, when some probe would come to their solar system.


The reason for that might be attacked by other civilization. When we are talking about hyper civilizations, what life is not connected with planets, we must know that those civilizations might be very different than we are. In this scenario, some civilizations would leave their own solar system, and then suffuse to the entire galaxy. Those civilizations would live in giant spaceships, and they might travel around the universe for hunting materials for their ships.


And those civilizations might act like some doomsday horror film. They might send their machines to some solar system and explode all planets, by giving anti-matter injection to the center of them. After that gigantic factories would start to make new spaceships for those aliens. This kind of way to act would cause terrible situations if those civilizations would not notice other aliens. And this could be the big threat to mankind if we would travel to space in distant future. If those "grasshopper civilizations" would be true, they can cause the situation, where all visitors in some solar system would be attacked before any contact can even try to make.


In this scenario, I mean that all violent actions are learned, and when we are thinking about Spartan or some other nation militarism, that militarism is caused, because that society has been faced violent threat for its neighbors. And probably the behavior of the planet-size society would be the same. Here I must say that some isolated societies on Earth are also violent against intruders, and the reason for the violent behavior is that sometimes before those societies were attacked. And this makes us think, that if some civilization would face violent attack, it would act violent way to other civilizations.

Sources:

Picture I

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fnq1D6Z94L0/maxresdefault.jpg

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/about-ethical-problems-of-other-planets.html

Twin investigations and ethical questions about it

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/twin-investigations-and-ethical.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Assassinators are marginal persons, who live in the world, where nobody normal person would even want to live. I'm seen many movies and trailers in my life, and sometimes I have imagined, that could some of those stories be true. When we are talking about the stories, what are written by men like David Morrell, there might be organizations, what have skills and capacity to train those persons. And of course, there would be the very marginal thing about this kind of hypothetical cases. When we are thinking about movies, we would sometimes say, that "something happens only in the movies", but at the same time we forget, that also real world "bad guys" are watching television, and they would take influences from movies. And movies might give them ideas for their actions.


In this case, some organization would make the thing, what has been introduced in the movie "The mark of Cain". But I have thought that maybe some organization would use the situation, that they would take identical twins, who are crown separately, and train both of them working as an assassin. In this case, there would always be a person, who makes the alibi for another assassin. This kind of things bring my mind the things, what are not many times mentioned. The genetic investigations, what is consisted the thing called "twin investigations", where identically twins who are grown separately without knowledge of the twin brother or sister existence are very fascinating, but there is always thoughts and question about the reason, why some twins were separated just after their birth? Was the separation happened because of this kind of investigation?


The twin investigations were in the primary role when scientists found out, what skills and qualities are heritable and what is learned. And if this kind of investigations is wanted to be trusted, must the investigator use twins, who are grown separate places without knowledge or contact with another twin. Here we must another question about this kind of things. That goes like this: how the scientists tracked those twins? And how those twins were separated? Of course, modern genetic investigation makes possible to find out, are some persons actually twins, but then we must ask, how the tracking happened before modern genetic investigations? And the last thought about this thing is, did somebody separated those twins because of those investigations? If the reason for separation would be that kind of investigation, there would be very big moral problems with that kind of actions.


The twins are a fascinating object for scientists, who are working with genome investigation. But there would be many questions with about this kind of science. We can make artificial twins very easily by sharing the embryos in pieces, and this kind of thing allows us to make more advanced and more unethical investigations with that kind of thing. In some scenarios, another embryo would be freezing in liquid nitrogen to minus 189 Celsius. In this cryogenic condition, the molecular movements are ending. And those cells would not get older. And in this scenario, some scientific mastermind would make the experiment, that another twin would be live all the life, and then after this, another twin would be let to born. This allows the investigators make very good observations about the genetics and twins.


But when we are thinking about ethics and morale. How moralistic is to give another twin different kind of conditions than another twin? What if somebody misuses that investigation in the assassin training? Of course, the motivation for that kind of actions can be done by murdering another twin, and after that, another part of this hypothetical experiment was called to training, by saying " we found your twin brother, but he is dead by the terrorist attack". Those persons can play the role of the scientists, who are investigating genomes. And then they might claim that they found this lost brother from papers. This is the most difficult questions in science and technology.

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/twin-investigations-and-ethical.html

Thoughts about euthanasia and growing in hate.

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/thoughts-about-euthanasia-and-growing.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Finnish parliament denied the active euthanasia, and this made me think about ethical problems with that thing, what is also called as "murder for mercy". Then the patient would suffer from pain, the ending of the life seem very human and reasonable thing. This is murder because the active killing of another human is murder. But the ethical problem with euthanasia is of course very large thing, and there are also many juridical problems with that thing. When we are thinking about the situation, that somebody would have cancer, what can't be the cure, we must ask when would be the time for taking deadly poisons? When the person is so ill, that the euthanasia would be allowed, and what is the point, when the medical cure would be stopped?


And what if the doctor lies to patch isn't, that cancer cannot be cured? This man must just give something agricultural chemical to the victim, what makes this poor person the cancer patient. Or he can just fake the samples and give the poison tablets saying, that this cancer doesn't make any pain, but when the pain starts, would it be too late. With the eyes of my soul, I can see the smiling doctor in the front of some victim, and tell that story to that person. This monster can also say, that this tumor makes the patient very dangerous for other persons.


This could be the very shocking thing, and of course, some person can think that there is a salvation for other people, and then commit suicide.  And if the doctor would tell the truth in this case, we must also think the situation, that the death for that cancer would take tens of years. And when we are thinking about active euthanasia, we would ask: who would give that poison? And what if those pills would get to wrong hands? Who says that those pills would not be used in normal murders. But when we are thinking about euthanasia, we must remember Gestapo and it's monstrous "Aktion T-4 program". This program was the covert name for "Euthanasia", but in real life that meant the murder project, what was meant for eliminating the enemies of Nazi-government.


In this case, we must ask: what if the parents would have right to give their children for euthanasia? And what if they would hide domestic violence or some hospital's medical staff would hide their mistakes by slaughtering their patients? There is one very prominent thing about those Nazi-doctors. Many of them didn't feel any remorse because of their actions and crimes. Lack of ability to remorse the crimes is usual with the members of organized crimes and also the criminals who make so-called serial crimes like serial murders and school violations.


Normally school violation is a series of actions that are meant for making mental and physical pain and injuries to the victim. The victim is systematically isolated from other people of society. And sometimes this victim have been forced to drink tube cleaning chemicals and their hands are burned with battery acid. Also, there could be hopes that their victim would die.


That really hurts, or what would you think, what some 8 to 9 years old school kid feels while hearing that kind of threats. Those actions can cause serious mental and physical injuries to the victim. They cause very bad trauma and hate in the mind of that youngster. Then someday that person might become some kind of skinhead because the young life experiences have thought that violence is the right way to handle the social situations.  And here I must say one thing, the suicide is not the solution, and every people has right to live if they are not done anything to other people.


When we are thinking about violence and other things like marginalization, the suicide is not the solution. That is what those violators really want. They have no social conscience, and there is only one person in their real life. That is only those violators them self. They ever repent their actions, and the most successful thing in their life is when somebody would start to cry.


One very good example of that kind of persons is drug dealers, who always rise prosecutions against prison guards and other people. Those criminals might keep very loud house parties, and give threats to other people. But if somebody even shows the middle finger to that person, would the police called to place and prosecutions rise immediately. And another way to show the lack of social conscience by swagging their pure criminal registers, but then the same persons could bite other people by using baseball clubs. Is it wonderful to know, that some persons have no ability to see, that they would do something wrong? This is only an opinion about murders and crimes, and euthanasia is also one version of murder. Even if we want to believe something else.

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/thoughts-about-euthanasia-and-growing.html