It's hard to imagine that there are other technologies in the next 50 years that have a greater impact on the human world than artificial intelligence. At present, machine learning technology is helping our computers learn a variety of skills, so various breakthroughs are just around the corner, whether it is medical diagnosis or driverless cars. At the same time, people have also become more and more worried.
Who will control technology?
Will technology steal our work?
Is artificial intelligence dangerous?
US President Barack Obama is willing to answer these questions. Recently, Obama and Director of the Media Lab of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Ito, accepted an interview with Wired magazine in the White House. They talked about the hopes, enthusiasm and concerns about artificial intelligence.
Obama: Very busy and very constructive. You know, there have been international crises in many places.
"Connect": I hope that dialogue can surround artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is transforming science fiction into reality, changing our lives. When did you know that the real era of artificial intelligence has come?
Obama: My observation is that artificial intelligence is permeating people's lives in various ways, but we have not yet noticed it. Part of the reason is that popular culture is biased towards the depiction of artificial intelligence. Readers of Wired may already know that there is a difference between general artificial intelligence and dedicated artificial intelligence. In science fiction, what you see is general artificial intelligence. Computers are smarter than humans, and the conclusion is that humans are becoming less and less useful. Then, artificial intelligence instills "drugs" into us, making us obese in happiness, or we will fall into the world of "The Matrix."
According to the dialogue between senior scientific consultants and me, we are still far from this reality. Thinking about such a scene is valuable, which makes our imagination divergent, prompting us to think about choices and free will, and ultimately brings important applications around dedicated artificial intelligence. We have seen specialized artificial intelligence in various areas of life, such as medicine, transportation, and power transmission. This creates a more efficient economy. If properly applied, dedicated artificial intelligence can bring prosperity and opportunity. However, from the perspective of reducing employment opportunities, special artificial intelligence also has disadvantages, and we need to study this. This can lead to inequality and affect wage levels.
Ito Yuichi: This also disappoints our MIT students. One of the problems I am worried about, however, is that this area will be dominated by young children, especially white children. They will develop core computing technologies around artificial intelligence. Talking to people and talking to the computer makes them more comfortable. Many of them believe that if we can develop general artificial intelligence like science fiction, we will not have to worry about many complicated issues such as politics and society. They believe that the machine will show us everything.
Obama: Yes.
Ito Yuichi: However, they underestimated the difficulties. I think that this year artificial intelligence will no longer be just a computer problem. It is important that everyone understands how artificial intelligence behaves. In the media lab, we use the term to extend intelligence (expanding intelligence means enhancing human intelligence through machine learning techniques). Because the question is, how do we bring social value to artificial intelligence?
Obama: In the course of our lunch, Ito I used the driverless car as an example. Technology is already here. Our machines can make many quick decisions, dramatically reduce traffic accidents, improve the efficiency of the traffic network, and help solve problems such as carbon emissions that cause global warming. However, Ito Ichio put forward a very important point, what value can we add to the car? You can make a lot of choices, and the most typical problem is that when driving unmanned, the vehicle can turn to avoid hitting pedestrians, but the car will hit the wall and cause your own casualties. This is a moral question, and who can make these rules?
Ito Iichi: When we studied this “riding problemâ€, we found that many people are more inclined to sacrifice drivers and passengers to ensure more people's safety. However, they also said that they will not buy driverless cars.
Wired: What role does the government play when we explore the ethical issues of artificial intelligence?Obama: My view is that in the early stages of artificial intelligence development, the regulatory framework should support a hundred flowers. The government should impose relatively little regulation and invest more in research to ensure the transition between basic research and applied research. With the rise and maturity of technology, we will then consider how to incorporate it into the existing regulatory framework. This is a more difficult problem, and the government needs more participation. We don't always want new technologies to adapt to existing regulatory frameworks, but to ensure that regulations are more value-for-money. Otherwise we may find that some people will be disadvantaged.
Ito Yuichi: I don't know if you have heard of the neurological diversity movement. Colorado State University professor Temple Grandin believes that if Mozart, Einstein, and Tesla are still alive, they are considered to be autistic.
Obama: They may belong to the autism spectrum.
Ito Ichi: Yes. If we eliminate autism and keep everyone's spirits normal, I can bet that many of MIT's children will not be. Whether we're talking about autism or broader diversification, one of the questions is when do we allow the market to make a decision. Even if you may not want your child to be Einstein, simply saying "I want an ordinary child" does not create maximum social value.
Obama: This is a bigger problem we face when dealing with artificial intelligence. One of the great characteristics of mankind is that there will be whimsy. Sometimes, some mutations or abnormalities can create art and new inventions. We must assume that if the system is perfect, it is static. However, an important part of ensuring human development to the present state and ensuring human survival is that we are dynamic and we often do unexpected things. One of the challenges we need to think about is when and where is it appropriate to make things exactly as expected?
"Connecting": Regarding the use of extended intelligence in government, private industry and academia, where is the research center, or is there such a center?Ito Yuichi: I think MIT may say that it should be at MIT. (Laughs) In the past, this was usually a group of academics and was assisted by the government. At the moment, however, most laboratories with investments of $1 billion are owned by businesses.
Obama: We know people who invest in artificial intelligence. If you touch Larry Page or other people, their general attitude is, "In the process of seeking a unicorn, the last thing we want to see is a series of bureaucracy that slows down the progress." Such an idea can be understood.
However, part of the problem we are seeing is that society’s investment in basic research is decreasing. Our confidence in acting together is disappearing, in part because of our thoughts and speech.
With regard to great technological breakthroughs, the analogy we are still using is to land on the moon, even though the moon has passed 50 years. Someone reminded me that the cost of the moon landing project has reached 0.5% of GDP. This doesn't sound like anything, but according to today's situation it is equivalent to spending $80 billion a year. In fact, we currently invest less than $1 billion a year in artificial intelligence. This number will undoubtedly rise, but what we need to understand is that if you want these breakthrough technologies to represent the value of a diverse group, then government investment must be part of it. If the government does not participate in the investment, then the issue of technical value proposed by Ito will not be answered or even discussed.
Wired: You mentioned an interesting tension, and Ito I once wrote: Edge innovation and the differences that occur in innovations such as space projects. How do we ensure that all these ideas are spread?Obama: I want to emphasize that government funding and collecting data does not mean that we will hide it, or that the military needs it. A concrete example: in a precision medical project, part of the job is to collect enough data sets about human genes through enough Americans. Our approach is not to provide funding to Stanford University or Harvard University to allow them to access these sample data, but to provide a genetic database accessible to all. We provide public data values, a common architecture, to ensure that research can be shared, not just for a group to make a profit.
Wired: There is no doubt that there are some risks. We heard from Elon Musk and Nick Bostrom that the development of artificial intelligence is likely to exceed our understanding. As we progress, how do we view their remarks? We not only try to protect ourselves, but we also try to protect the entire human race.Obama: Let's first talk about the most pressing concerns. In the field of dedicated artificial intelligence, this is a problem that can be solved. We need to be vigilant. If your computer can play Go, a complex board game with many changes, then developing an algorithm that maximizes your profits on the New York Stock Exchange is not out of reach. If someone or an organization does this first, they can quickly destroy the stock market or cause us to doubt the integrity of the financial market.
Then, there may be an algorithm that says: “Infiltrate the nuclear code and study how to launch the missile.†If this is all the work of the software, if the software can learn by itself and at the same time be a very effective algorithm, then you will have trouble. . My command to the national security team is that there is no need to worry too much about the machine in charge of the world. If you are worried about non-governmental organizations, or hostile activists to infiltrate these systems, then in theory, this is not much different from the information security work we are currently doing. It just means that we need to do better because the people who might deploy these systems are getting better.
Ito Yuichi: Generally agree with this statement. The only caveat is that some people believe that there is a high probability that generic artificial intelligence will be born in the next 10 years. However, in my opinion, if we want to develop general artificial intelligence, then we need more than ten or even more than 20 breakthroughs. You can see what time these breakthroughs will occur.
Obama: You can make people sit next to the power. (laughs) If you find that generic artificial intelligence is born, you can let him pull the power out immediately.
Ito Iichi: It is important to find people who are willing to use artificial intelligence for good intentions, including communities and leaders, and then study how to help them.
Obama: Traditionally, when we think about security and how to protect ourselves, we think of armor and walls. However, I am now thinking more and more about drugs, viruses and antibodies. Information security issues remain difficult, in part because threats are not like a fleet of tanks rushing toward you, but the entire system is vulnerable to worms. This means that for security issues we need to think differently and make different investments. Such an investment may not be sexy, but it is as important as anything else.
Many times I worry about problems like infectious diseases. You can't build a wall that blocks the deadly flu that spreads through the air outside our land. The ability we need is to build a system that develops public health systems everywhere in the world, and activates switches to notify us when we find anomalies, ensuring that we have swiftly enforced protocols and systems to make vaccines smarter. So, through the public health model, you can imagine how we deal with information security issues and how to think about artificial intelligence threats in a constructive way.
Ito Aichi: The interesting aspect is how we look at microbes. There is a lot of evidence that using good bacteria to attack bad bacteria instead of full sterilization is a strategy.
Obama: That's it. I won't allow the dogs Sunny and Bo5 to pick me up, because when I walk the dog on the roadside lawn, I find that they will bite on the ground. I don't want these. (laugh)
Ito Yuichi: We need to think about what a clean definition is. Information security and national security are similar. I think it would be very difficult if your idea was to make strict orders or to eliminate all possible pathogens.
Wired: Is this likely to bring the risk of a new arms race?Obama: There is no doubt that the development of international standards, protocols and certification mechanisms around information security and artificial intelligence is still in its infancy. The reason this question is interesting is partly because the line between attack and defense is blurring. This is especially difficult when people lose trust in the government. Many countries around the world believe that the United States is the information hegemon, so it is time for us to say, "We are willing to limit ourselves, as long as you are willing to limit yourself." The challenge lies in the most complex government actors, such as Russia and Iran, who often have different values ​​and guidelines from us. However, we need to position these as international issues and deal with them effectively.
Ito Ichi: I think we are in the golden age when people are willing to communicate with each other. If we have the ability to guarantee that money and energy can be shared openly, there will be many benefits. You can't do it well out of thin air. It is still a problem for the international community.
Obama: I think Ito’s statement is completely correct. We have a series of meetings with everyone interested in this. We don't talk much, and one thing I want to look back is that we need to think about the economic aspects. Most people don't spend a lot of time worrying about "singularity," but worry about "whether my job will be replaced by a machine."
I tend to be optimistic. In the past, we have also received new technologies. People will see new jobs being created, and they will move with them, and our standard of living will generally rise. I believe that due to the universal applicability of artificial intelligence and other technologies, we are currently in a slightly different period. Under such a system, highly skilled personnel do a good job. They can use their talents to expand coverage, increase sales, and expand products and services through the machine interface.
Low-pay, weak-skilled people will become more and more redundant, and their jobs may not be replaced, but wages will continue to be under pressure. If we want to manage such a transition successfully, then we need to engage in a dialogue about society as a whole. If we do more production, but more and more of them are only acquired by a few people, how do we ensure that the economy is inclusive? How do we ensure that people have a living income? What does this mean from the perspective of supporting artistic and cultural development, or ensuring that veterans are properly cared for? Social contracts need to accommodate these new technologies, and our economic model also needs to accommodate these technologies.
Ito Ichi: It is difficult to guess what kind of work will be replaced. If you assume that you have a computer that understands the medical system and is very good at diagnosis, doctors are more likely to be replaced than nurses and pharmacists because nurses and pharmacists are less expensive. Some high-end jobs, such as lawyers and auditors, may also cease to exist. Relatively speaking, many service industry jobs, as well as art work, that is, areas where computers are not good at, are hard to replace. I don't know how you think about universal basic income, but when we see that jobs are being replaced, one way of thinking is to look at other models, such as academic research and art, where people's goals are not directly related to money. I think one of the problems is that we have a universal concept. If you don't have money, what is smart? But in fact, in the academic world, I have met many smart people who have no money.
Obama: It’s completely correct. This is what I call the redesign of the social contract. At present, is this model accepted by a wide range of people, regardless of whether the general basic income is the correct model? This is a topic we have discussed for 10 or 20 years. Artificial intelligence replaces not only weakly skilled work, but also highly skilled work, but these work are highly reproducible, so the computer is capable. Undoubtedly, with the wider application of artificial intelligence, society may become more and more affluent, and the correlation between production and distribution, that is, the relationship between how much and how much to earn will become weaker. The computer will do a lot of work. Therefore, we need to make some more difficult decisions. We don't pay enough for the teachers. Although it is a difficult job, it is difficult for the computer to do well. Therefore, we need to reassess our values. What kind of people are we willing to pay higher fees for teachers, nurses, carers, full-time moms, artists? These things are very valuable, but they are not ranked high in our compensation system. We need to initiate such a dialogue.
Wired: What kind of technology do you care about when solving the biggest challenge in the government?Obama: In order to make the government more friendly to the people, or at least make your tax filing process as simple as ordering a pizza or buying a ticket, we still have a lot of work to do. Whether it's encouraging people to vote, or pushing big data applications to help people complete online form processing faster, much work needs to be done to push the federal, state, and local governments into the 21st century. The talent gap between the government and the business community is not that big. However, the gap in technology is huge. When I first came here, I thought the White House War Room would be very cool, like the scene of Tom Cruise in the Minority Report. This is actually not the case at all. (Laughs) Especially when we are going to fight terrorists on the other side of the globe, the film will portray us as omnipotent, but it is not. Our funds are insufficient and the mechanism is not reasonable.
With regard to the broader issue of technology, I firmly believe that if we want to deal with climate change correctly, if we want to step on the brakes and prevent the sea level from rising by 6 feet, then humans need to figure out some problems. I am an optimist. We have done a lot of good work, but there is still a long way to go.
We are still conducting research on how we manage the connections on the Internet in a responsible, transparent and secure manner, helping us identify the bad guys and ensuring that the government does not interfere too much with the lives of all of us. Some of them are technical issues, and encryption is a good example. I have seen liberals and people related to national security many times. This is a tricky question, because no one can give me a really good answer as to how we want to reconcile this issue.
Since this is a frontier issue, the last point I want to mention is that I am still a space fan, and we are not investing enough money in the exploration of the next generation of space travel. Private companies have done a great job because the investment in the concept of madness has replaced government investment. But when we envision space flight, we are still studying the chemical reaction of the "Apollo" era. It has been 50 years since we have made some breakthroughs.
"Connect": I know that you are a fan of Star Trek. The film was inspired by the utopian ideal of technology. What impact does this have on your perception of the future?Obama: When I was a kid, I really like Star Trek. The movie is very interesting. What makes this film enduring is that it actually has nothing to do with technology. This is about values ​​and relationships. This also explains why special effects are not that important. The key to this film's discussion is the common humanity and our confidence in problem-solving.
Recently, a movie reflects the same spirit. This is "Mars Rescue." Not only because of this complicated scene, but also because the film shows many different characters trying to solve the same problem. Through creativity and hard work, and firmly believe that we can succeed in the end, we can do it. This is my favorite point in the United States. It is also the reason why this film continues to attract audiences around the world. For the problems we face, our spirit is "we can solve this problem." In this sense, the greatest value of science is also to help us solve problems. We will try, if not successful, we will explore why it is not successful, and then make other attempts. We will expose our mistakes because this will ultimately teach us how to solve the problem. If we lose this spirit, we will lose the essence of the United States and the essence of humanity.
Ito Yuichi: Fully agree. I like the optimism in Star Trek. And I also saw that the composition of the federation is very diverse, the crew is diversified, and the bad guys are actually not demons, they are just misled.
Obama: Like any good story, Star Trek says that all of us are complex and we always have multiple sides. This is what I said to solve the problem. Part of solving the problem is to overcome obstacles and bridge the differences. We believe in reason and maintain a certain degree of humility. This is the case for the finest arts and sciences. We have mastered many incredible ideas that can be used for me. However, we still only open the corner of the curtain and should not be too arrogant. We should remind ourselves that there are still many that we don't know.
Strain/flex Reliefs And Grommets
the power Connectors we provide overmolding solutions and modular tooling.
We also offer to the OEM and distributor users a diversified line of strain / flex reliefs and grommets, such as Solid, Solid-Rib, Uniflex, Multiflex, in standard off the shelf or custom designs.
Overmolding the power connectors offers significant opportunities for cable improvements with higher pull strength not available with conventional backshells. Our technical staff is ready to help you from design and prototyping to small production run, assistance, and training.
Our team is ready to help with any of the following power connectors projects: overmolding mini fit jr. and mini-fit sr. connectors, , overmolded cables with micro fit terminations, sabre molded cable asemblies, amp duac overmolded power connectors, mate-n-lock power cables, power connector overmolding services, power connector molding, design and prototype of power cables across the board, small run molded power connecotrs , molded cable manufacturing, overmolding connectors for any power applications
Strain Reliefs And Grommets,Flex Reliefs And Grommets,Cable Strain Reliefs,Cable Flex Reliefs,Cable Grommets,Molded Strain Relief
ETOP WIREHARNESS LIMITED , https://www.oemwireharness.com