Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

With respect to the future state of economic inequality in the USA being caused by the Singularity, if you can relate to any of these synonyms for the word OUTRAGE , either as a noun or as a verb, then you are in the correct forum:

Indignation, Fury, Anger, Rage, Disapproval, Wrath, Resentment, Scandal, Offense, Insult, Injustice, Disgrace, Atrocity, Crime, Wrong, Barbarism, Enrage, Infuriate, Incense, Anger, Scandalize, Offend, Affront, Shock, Horrify, Disgust, Appall, Evil, Violation, and the list goes on...

Posted on: » Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:39 am #31

User avatar
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #11, Posted Feb 28, 2018
Shades Of Colossus: The Forbin Project.

Imagine that, an artificial neuron capable of operating 200 million times faster than a biological neuron. Now imagine an artificial neural network with an imagination as is presented in

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Jessica » Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:39 am

We homosapians have a great capacity for noticing changes around us and are aware of the ever increasing speed and quantity of technological developments. Likewise we notice that economic inequality is increasing due to these ever increasing technological changes. Although we may not necessarily be able to quantify these initial changes, there is a sense it is occurring. Both of these perceptions are indicative of a synergistic interaction between these two components foreshadowing an awakening new world.

For example, on the technological side, George Dvorsky in his 10-18-17 article in Gizmodo.com talks about this newly felt speed of change in his article "Stunning AI Breakthrough Takes Us One Step Closer to the Singularity."
https://gizmodo.com/stunning-ai-breakth ... 1819650084
Remember AlphaGo, the first artificial intelligence to defeat a grandmaster at Go? Well, the program just got a major upgrade, and it can now teach itself how to dominate the game without any human intervention. But get this: In a tournament that pitted AI against AI, this juiced-up version, called AlphaGo Zero, defeated the regular AlphaGo by a whopping 100 games to 0, signifying a major advance in the field. Hear that? It’s the technological singularity inching ever closer.

A new paper published in Nature today describes how the artificially intelligent system that defeated Go grandmaster Lee Sedol in 2016 got its digital XXX kicked by a new-and-improved version of itself. And it didn’t just lose by a little—it couldn’t even muster a single win after playing a hundred games. Incredibly, it took AlphaGo Zero (AGZ) just three days to train itself from scratch and acquire literally thousands of years of human Go knowledge simply by playing itself. The only input it had was what it does to the positions of the black and white pieces on the board. In addition to devising completely new strategies, the new system is also considerably leaner and meaner than the original AlphaGo.

Now, every once in a while the field of AI experiences a “holy XXXX” moment, and this would appear to be one of those moments.
Regarding economic inequality, author Pedro Nicolaci da Costa describes the increasing speed of change of its change in his article, "America's Humongous Wealth Gap Is Widening Further."
See Forbes.com, May 29th, 2019
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pedrodacos ... e1cdbe42ee
The Fed’s report shows, among other things, that the poorest 50% of Americans are literally getting crushed by the weight of rising inequalities.

"The top 10% of the wealth distribution—the purple and green areas together—hold a large and growing share of U.S. aggregate wealth, while the bottom half (the thin red area) hold a barely visible share," Fed economists write in a paper outlining the new data set on inequality, which is more timely than exisiting statistics.

The rich are still getting richer.

The chart show that "while the total net worth of U.S. households has more than quadrupled in nominal terms since 1989, this increase has clearly accrued more to the top of the distribution than the bottom."
The elite get rich off the technological advancements, not so the less fortunate. The increase in economic inequality ensures the wealthy will maintain their control of the technology and that revenue is distributed to the wealthy. The laws will ensure it happens this way. Taken together, increasing technological advancements and an increase in economic inequality create the perfect storm against the 99%. While the good fortune of the wealthy spirals upwards, hardship and misfortune plagues the rest of us.

Sterling's post #17 on this topic clearly encapsulates this view,
Taken all together, the conservatives who are currently in power will have the opportunity to abuse the legal system in their favor now and even more so in the future. With shortened time frames between technological events, and with massive quantities of events, by the time we as an underclass figure out what is going on with individual and corporate actions, we will be severely injured by the elite. In the blink of an eye, and without technology capable of keeping up in the law profession relative to other arenas, a significant amount of damage can be done. When seen through Mr. Chomsky's view that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history, and combined with their staunch allies like those corporations creating their own regulations through a process of, regulation capture, there is little wonder as to why we need to be fearful and take action now, not later.
Soon the technological advancements will arrive with an ever increasing frequency and at a rate our minds will not be able to comprehend. Shortly thereafter, we will be consumed.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:58 pm #32

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: Jessica, Post #31, Posted Jun 5, 2019
We homosapians have a great capacity for noticing changes around us and are aware of the ever increasing speed and quantity of technological developments. Likewise we notice that economic inequality is increasing due to these ever increasi...

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Doctor A » Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:58 pm

Obviously today's rate of technological advancements are mirrored by the phenomenal sums of money flowing into these projects.

From the above referencing post we have a clear idea of how the wealthy will maintain their control of the coming singularity.
The elite get rich off the technological advancements, not so the less fortunate. The increase in economic inequality ensures the wealthy will maintain their control of the technology and that revenue is distributed to the wealthy. The laws will ensure it happens this way. Taken together, increasing technological advancements and an increase in economic inequality create the perfect storm against the 99%. While the good fortune of the wealthy spirals upwards, hardship and misfortune plagues the rest of us.
Here are two recent examples of the huge amounts of cash fanning the flames of these technological advancements:

1) CNN Business
SoftBank wants its second massive tech fund to raise $108 billion
Sherisse Pham, July 26, 2019
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/25/tech ... index.html
SoftBank is launching another mega tech fund.
The Japanese tech company said Friday that it expects to raise $108 billion for the new Vision Fund 2
Vision Fund 2 will plow money into tech startups driven by artificial intelligence. Billionaire SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son has repeatedly said that he wants to have a stake in companies leading the AI revolution.
2) Financial Times
The billion-dollar bet to reach human-level AI
By Richard Waters, August 3, 2019
https://www.ft.com/content/c96e43be-b4d ... 9a3a8cf37b

The San Francisco-based AI research group, OpenAI, set up four years ago by tech industry luminaries including Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman, has just thrown down a challenge to the rest of the AI world.

Late last month, it raised $1bn from Microsoft to speed its pursuit of the Holy Grail of AI: a computer capable of so-called artificial general intelligence, a level of cognition that would match its makers, and which is seen as the final step before the advent of computers with superhuman intelligence.

According to Mr Brockman, that money — a huge amount for a research organisation — will be spent “within five years, and possibly much faster”, with the aim of building a system that can run “a human brain-sized [AI] model”.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:08 am #33

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #12, Posted Mar 14, 2018
The question is, "Who will control the slaughterbots?"

As the race to the singularity quickens, the wealthy will use every means possible to control the non-elite masses.

There are those who think about the future and thi...

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Doctor A » Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:08 am

An initial grass root bottom up social revolution is needed to counter the coming technological revolution.

Sterling in his post #12 is very much in tune with the fact we need to be rescued from the elite as he describes below,
Our capability to use pitchforks and torches to challenge these technologies with laws in our favor are quickly diminishing. We best wrest control of these new technologies from the hands of those who will want to manipulate and harm us while we still have the chance. Frankly we are the cavalry that needs to come to our own rescue.
The use of pitchforks and torches is traditionally viewed as an angry crowd from days of yore violently attacking the elite to remove unjust inequalities. But this tactic of bygone days will yield little results in the modern era. Rather, a more subtle non-violent approach is needed to come to our own rescue. With the coming technological singularity, there are plenty of injustices to fight against. For example, there is the possibility of starting World War III.

Alibaba’s Jack Ma warns evolving technology could cause World War III
Josie Cox, June 22nd, 2018
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 02051.html
Chinese business magnate Jack Ma said that evolving technologies are likely to pose a threat to more than just the job market and could in fact trigger a Third World War.

In an interview with CNBC, the billionaire chairman of Alibaba said that world leaders have a duty to educate people to prevent the pain caused by a rapid rise in automation and artificial intelligence.

"The first technology revolution caused World War I," he said. "The second technology revolution caused World War II. This is the third technology revolution."
Another injustice as a reaction to new technology is the possibility of infecting political systems with fascism.

Technological Revolutions Bring About Fascism. Who Will Save Us This Time?
Nicolas Colin, Oct 19, 2018
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolascol ... 36aaa834dc
Over the short term, however, countries responded to the technological revolution in very different ways. The UK embraced an incremental approach to institution building, from David Lloyd George’s National Insurance Act of 1911 to his successor Clement Attlee’s founding of the National Health Service in 1948. Other countries simply couldn’t stand the shock of the paradigm shift and fell victim to a dissolution of their political system. In Germany as well as Italy, conservative business leaders and members of the old aristocratic guard grew so afraid of the labor movement that they set about countering it using far-right, anti-union organizations as their proxy: Mussolini’s Fascists and Hitler’s NSDAP. Sadly, we all know how that ended.
The US was the first country that showed how a nation could be saved from fascism during a paradigm shift: with a new Safety Net designed for the paradigm of the day.

Who are the Roosevelts of our time? Obama raised such expectations when he was first elected in 2008, but he arguably fell short: you’ve hardly succeeded with a new New Deal if you’re succeeded by Donald Trump. Does Emmanuel Macron represent a European version of that kind of political entrepreneurship? It’s too early to tell, but he needs to hurry up. Or is the modern equivalent of Roosevelt outside the realm of politics? It’s a distinct possibility!

Meanwhile, fascism, the backward-looking, violent reaction to a technological revolution, is rising again, from Hungary to Italy to Brazil and even to the US itself. We’re in a global emergency similar to that of 1935. And it’s up to all of us to avert the danger, just as our great-grandparents did last time.
To address this article's question, "Or is the modern equivalent of Roosevelt outside the realm of politics? It’s a distinct possibility!" I am of the mind it is more than a distinct possibility our salvation will not be dependent initially upon a single individual from a single political party. The answer lies more in a grass roots bottom up social revolution to counter the technological revolution. This will not necessarily be dependent upon the spotlighting of a single individual but eventually could put pressure upon the political process to select such an individual as a champion of the cause.

From the original FRC website, under the topic of The Community Business Venture, then under Aspects of the BASIC CONCEPTS, then The Community Business Venture (A GENERAL OVERVIEW DISCUSSION), post #3 , I presented my views on revolutions and will reiterate the post here once again,
From: wiki How to Start a Revolution

To create a revolution, you need to unite people around a shared purpose. It’s possible to start a revolution, although it can take a lot of patience, organization, and passion. It will be more likely to succeed if you don’t wing it. A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turnaround") is a significant change that usually occurs in a short period of time.

But I think one critical element is missing from the WikiHow process and that is having the necessary financial capacity in place in many instances before starting. The FRC business venture can supply this necessary financial capacity for our use. Also, from what I have seen, the more people are on the line, meaning they have "skin in the game",the more they are willing to participate. Economic inequality puts at least 99% of the people in the world in just such a position. Just here in the USA, that puts approximately 317 million individuals into play. The idea is to take these individuals and focus them around a cause; the cause is their own survival. No doubt, regardless of an individual's knowledge level about economic inequality, there is an instinctual fear that something is wrong. If nothing else, fear will get a person motivated as a shared purpose.

I have had the good fortune to speak with Dr. Heetun on numerous occasions regarding her goal relative to FirstRateCrowd's Fight Inequality. Needless to say, she is passionate about stopping economic inequality. Moreover she rails against any form of inequality be it racial, religious, or sexual. However, her main focus remains on economic inequality. Her clarity of thought regarding this issue stems from the fact that much of the world's suffering stems from this one dominant issue. This includes the creation and exacerbation of those inequalities mentioned above.

Revolutions, as in the colloquial sense of overthrowing a government or economic system, are many times rapid, explosive, bloody, and with unpredictable results. Yet I hear many people calling for revolution in this manner without really thinking about the real consequences. For example, the Civil War here the USA caused approximately 750,000 deaths. This accounted for about 2.5% of the population at that time being lost. In today's terms, with a USA population of nearly 320 million people, this percentage is equivalent to the loss of 8.13 million people. To put this into perspective, nearly all of our largest city, New York City with its 8.5 million people, would be annihilated. It would mean a massive amount of suffering and this does not even account for the associated morbidity.

From our discussions, Dr. Heetun has expressed to me her desire not to invoke this type of radical revolution. Rather it would be the nature of the non-violent type of revolution. This involves creating change more in line with the philosophy of Gandhi's non-violent resistance. Bye the way, this resonates well with my own philosophy of how change should take place. What's more, Dr. Heetun and me are similarly minded in that we do not wish to change from Capitalism to another system. Surely we see Capitalism as being broke and needing repair. It's history in just the past seventy years has created a Great Depression and a Great Recession. Talk about suffering! The process seemingly goes off track whenever there is not a sizeable enough moderating element to counter the power of the wealthy elite. Dr. Heetun's aim is for FirstRateCrowd's Fight Inequality to become this moderating element. When established on a permanent basis, and with sufficient force, it will continually counter the power of the 1%.

Every revolution has a spark, a defining moment for change. I believe FirstRateCrowd's Fight Inequality can be the spark for this type of benevolent revolution here and now. The gravity of our situation warrants your immediate attention and action. We all need to join together to solve this problem. Not doing so would be a grave disservice to us all.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:13 pm #34

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #10, Posted Feb 8, 2018

Talk about new technology driving the future, check this out from the Kurzweil news letter. Just the idea of this kind of mind speed is blowing out the cobwebs of my synaptic conn...

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:13 pm

We do not need to reach General Artificial Intelligence (AGI), a state whereby computers reach and then transcend the capacities of the adult human brain, for massive disruptions within our society to occur. As is colloquially said, like horseshoes and hand grenades, almost is close enough. Given the exponential nature of nearing AGI, our ability for society not to be annihilated is questionable due to the linear processing of the human brain. This dichotomy of processing capabilities between the wet brain and synthetic analog will put a massive stress upon humanity. The Doomsday Clock is already perilously close to an apocalyptic event and an "almost" state of AGI is something we should not wish to entertain without guard rails to protect us. A synthetic neuron firing 200 million times faster than our neurons can fire is a harbinger of our future reality.
What time is it on the nuclear clock?
Doomsday Clock: According to the group, the clock “conveys how close we are to destroying our civilization with dangerous technologies of our own making.” It's still 2 minutes to midnight because of nuclear weapons and climate change. According to the Doomsday Clock, it's two minutes to midnight. That's the same time as last year and remains the closest it's been since 1953 at the height of the Cold War. Jan 24, 2019
Ray Kurzweil offers his insight into linear versus exponential thinking.

Ray Kurzweil on Using Exponential Thinking to Predict the Future
Adam Ludwig, Nov 9, 2012 https://www.forbes.com/sites/techonomy/ ... 93e45c546b
Next week's Techonomy conference in Tucson, Ariz., will feature Ray Kurzweil, a leading thinker, inventor, and futurist known for his track record of accurate predictions. On November 13 Kurzweil is releasing a new book, How to Create a Mind, which applies neuroscience research to the possibilities of super-intelligence. In this video, recorded in Kurzweil's office near Boston, he talks to Techonomy founder David Kirkpatrick about how his exponential perspective of the future is different than the typical linear perspective. Thinking exponentially, Kurzweil says, has allowed him to predict the future of information technology.

Kurzweil: The biggest difference between myself and either pessimists or critics is the linear versus exponential perspective.

Kirkpatrick: Exponential was a word in my next question to you.

Kurzweil: Because if I looked at the current situation, and then applied a linear expectation to it, and that is our intuition. That is what’s hired into our brains; that is what generally speaking my critics looks at. They don’t even express that point of view. It’s so obvious it doesn’t even need to be said, according to these critics. They look at the current situation—like my prediction that we would have a world wide web with hundreds of millions of people, that that would emerge in the late 1990s. I made that in the early 80s, and people said, “That’s ridiculous. Look, it takes the entire defense budget to tie 2,000 scientists together. There’s no way you’re going to do that.” If a linear perspective was correct, they’d be right. But a linear perspective is not correct when it comes to information technology, and information technology is not only influencing, but encompassing, one area after another. And now most recently health and medicine, which didn’t used to be an information technology. So that’s the principal difference between my perspective and a common person’s perspective, because it’s actually hardwired in our brain to have a linear perspective.

Thirty steps linearly, that’s our intuition, gets us to 30. Thirty steps exponentially—2, 4, 8, 16—gets us to a billion. And it’s not an idle speculation about the future. I mean this [pulls out smartphone] is several billion times more powerful per unit currency, standard, unit currency, that the computer I used when I was a student at MIT. And it’s also a thousand times smaller. And if you were to say that something thousands of times more powerful than the one computer that thousands of us shared at MIT would fit in your pocket, people would think you were crazy.
I fancy myself as having a fair amount of intellectual capacity. After all, I did graduate from college in the upper half of the lowest one percent and I know with certainty I am neither the sharpest knife in the chandelier nor the brightest bulb in the drawer (Ha Ha). However, exponential thought, say something reaching or even exceeding speeds of 200 million times faster than what my neurons can process is beyond my reach. Perhaps Kurzweil can get glimpses of this, but I cannot.

The best I can do is to be aware this state of computer mental processing will exist in the future. Here is an automated visual graphic I found to be helpful for me to understand the rate at which this will occur. It illustrates exponential growth. Although I had to view it multiple times and keep in mind the dates, it gives me a reference point for thinking about a future process I really cannot understand. Follow the link below to the end of the article and try it for yourself. It is called, How Long Until Computers Have The Same Power As The Human Brain?

AI Multiple
373 experts opinion: AGI / singularity by 2060 [2019 update]
May 27, 2019 https://blog.aimultiple.com/artificial- ... ty-timing/

So buckle up folks! The trip to the future will be a fast and bumpy ride with a flash ending. Unless we put in reasonable controls to protect ourselves now, it will also be frightening and most likely deadly.

Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:04 pm #35

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: Jessica, Post #29, Posted Apr 4, 2019
We will need AI safety measures first before the technological singularity consumes us but this is in direct conflict with the profit motive of the wealthy. Knowingly, the wealthy will fight tooth and nail to maintain their profits while je...

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Doctor A » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:04 pm

The preceding post #29 makes clear we will need new rules and regulations to deal with the threat of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Yet we do not have a government in place capable of carrying out these directives in an effective manner. Government in this area will need to be as quick and responsive as the technology itself. Any talk of legal and ethical policies dealing with AI cannot fall back into the arcane and slow dysfunction of "modern day" government. Instead the jurisdiction within any part of government related to AI will need to be separated out not only to create the new laws but also to enforce them. Any weak link regarding speed and breadth of response will not work to protect us.

Post #29
Ahead of us will be an ever increasing number of exponentially expanding algorithmic damage events that we will have to deal with in ever shortening time frames. Contending with this more rapid exponential reality as it barrels down the road towards us means we will not have the luxury of time to solve the problems at hand let alone the ever increasing sets of new problems caused by not solving the last set of older problems. We will be overwhelmed and consumed by these problems unless we apply the breaks before the inevitable crash occurs. The implementation of rules and regulations to control Artificial Intelligence is needed now, not later. An unfettered de-regulatory laissez faire approach promoted by the wealthy profit motive is not sufficient to protect us and guarantees a dystopian apocalyptic future due to our own cleverness. Let us be smart, not clever, and guide the emerging field of Artificial Intelligence with safety measures first before it devours us.
Jan 4, 2019
Artificial Intelligence And The End Of Government
Daniel Araya
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielaray ... d3009d719b
But what about government? What will the impact of AI be on the nature of government?

Waking Government to AI

Not surprisingly much of the public sector has already begun experimenting with AI-driven technologies. At the federal level, many agencies are beginning to deploy AI-powered interfaces for customer service, alongside an expanding use of software to update legacy-systems and automate simple tasks. Growing investments in infrastructure planning, legal adjudication, fraud detection and citizen response systems represent the first phase in the ongoing digitization of government.

Notwithstanding these investments, however, government remains far behind the private sector in deploying and integrating AI.
Governments need to embrace AI for the good of the people
by Bennat Berger
https://thenextweb.com/contributors/201 ... he-people/
AI has already taken the private sphere by storm, with massive corporations, dynamic startups, and even our own living rooms playing host to intelligent machine learning software. It’s no big surprise, then, that the world of government is starting to turn to AI to improve its effectiveness in serving populations large and small.

The staid, often congested nature of government bureaucracy is a deeply ingrained image in the national consciousness. The reason this image exists is simple: it’s mostly accurate.

For a number of reasons, public sector work is frequently marred by slowdowns and redundant processes, with nearly every potential step forward wrapped in layers of red tape. Not only that, justified accusations of unfairness in the justice system are a constant blemish on the reputation of those in power. From top to bottom, there are innumerable ways that the government could be made better.
World Economic Forum
16 Aug 2019
Julian Torres Santeli and Sabine Gerdon
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/ ... ic-sector/
What's slowing the progress of widespread adoption of AI by government?
Widespread adoption of AI has been slower in government than in the private sector. Given the magnitude of the impact that AI could have on public entities, it is important to understand the roadblocks that stand in the way of systemic government adoption of AI.
All organizations face challenges in adopting new technologies. However, public entities tend to be less agile than their private sector counterparts, owing in part to their established practices and processes. In parts of the private sector a strong culture for experimentation encourages employees to innovate, and positive performance is rewarded. In government there can be less encouragement for employees to take risks.
How the government responds to AI will to a large part be money driven. With vast sums flowing into the private sector at an unprecedented rate, how we fund government will be critical for them to keep up with the private sector.

We cannot afford a weak and feeble future governance in the face this existential threat. Having government not being able to effectively create new policies and regulations in a timely and effective manner will not work. Additionally, enforcing those new laws sufficiently to adress the problem is a must do proposition. The speed and power of the private sector will need to be matched by a future government. Any future discussions about regulating AI will need to keep this in mind. Let us not have government be a rate limiting step because it maybe the misstep that kills us all.
Times Referenced: 0

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest