What separates us from AI?

Today we use lots of time to think, why does AI decrease our IQ? The answer is this: this modern time where we live benefits superficial people. Our working life encourages us to have maximum velocity. There is nothing wrong with the velocity-based working life. But the problem is that the measurement tools for velocity are things like how many executions we make during our working day. The measurement tool can be how many screws we tight. Or how much money we bring to our employer. 

Deep thinking is not encouraged in our working life. When somebody sits in a coding company, that person should use the AI assistant. Can you even seriously imagine that you would go to the library and borrow a book about the problems? And would you have time to stop deeply thinking about things that something really means? How often in the week, do we discuss philosophically and think deeply about things that we really see? We can do many things without deep thinking and logic. 

And when we think about things like some 1970s chess simulators, we must ask ourselves are those things really thinking? Do some ATARI, or Commodore 64 really think? It can drive a car on screen, but does it think? The system can move chess buttons and win chess games or some formula games against humans. But is that a mark of advanced thinking? Or does the horse, who sees three fingers and knocks the floor three times using its hoof, be some doctor of philosophy? Is a chess simulator with 64 kb memory more intelligent than some university professor? Maybe that thing is not as versatile as a professor. 

The IQ is something only if we compare it with something else. If we play chess alone or make something else, we don't need to be intelligent. If we are surrounded by people who have an extremely high IQ, in that case even a high IQ doesn't mean impressive. Same way. If our only opponent in a chess game is Garry Kasparov. That makes all of us seem like very bad chess players. Then we can think how ordinary chess player Kasparov is. Did an ordinary player play 2533 matches at the world champion level and win 1371 of those games? That means 54,13% winning games. But that happened at the highest possible level of the chess game. So does an ordinary player ever reach that level? 

But if the professor wins the AI in chess that is not news. The news is that the professor, some AI chatbot, or quantum computer loses a chess game against that machine. Nobody cares how many things the professor made before that chess game. Nobody even cares if the professor plays that person’s first chess game. And nobody even asked if the AI played chess before, or did the AI even knew how to move buttons. In the same way, a professor might not necessarily play chess at all. The fact is that all geniuses don’t even play chess. And if AI learns like humans, there must be something there that gets things like button movements. The computer can play chess but it might not do anything else. 

Normally we say that AI simply mimics things and then it doesn’t have a deep knowledge of things that it makes. When I read about that kind of thing, I sometimes remember one question from philosophy exams. That question is: “What separates philosophical thinking from the every day, or regular thinking?”. The answer is that philosophical thinking is deeper and more analytic than regular thinking. And that brings new questions into my mind. That is when we last exercise philosophical, deep thinking?”. When we do something, like turn screws in workplaces, do we really think about the purpose of that action? 

How deep out thinking? And how deeply do we think about things that we do in everyday life? The thing that’s enough is that we do what we must and that’s it. We have no time to think deeply about what some screw or other things can do. We simply do our job and that’s it. The thing is that humans learn through mimicking. We know many things. We know how to drive cars and use computers. We know how to fly airplanes and still, we don’t know anything about those things. We can drive cars. But we don’t need to know what happens in the car when we pull the gas pedal. We know that cars accelerate, but we must not know how cars make that thing. 

We could put the car to react with the gas pedal two ways. We can make physical contact between the gas pedal and the engine. Or we can use a camera that registers the gas pedal’s position. Then the AI accelerates or brakes the vehicle. For that system, the AI doesn't need any deep knowledge of things that it does. The system must simply accelerate the electric engines if we use electric cars. And the fact is that the AI must not even know what an electric engine is. When a car accelerates the system can involve code there is the word “engine”. Then some control circuits have a code that makes it react to the signal that is meant for the engine. 

Same way, if we hear the word that is our name, we automatically react to that thing. Our name is the thing that activates our attention. Sometimes we think about our names. But we forget that we learn that thing. Why cannot our name be C3PO? Because our parents didn’t give that name to us. Our names are “Jacks” and “Jills” because our parents gave those names to us. But have we ever wondered why some names are reserved for girls and others for boys?  And then we learn that those words are our names. 

But if our parents would give the name C3PO to us. We would react to that as our name. But do we ever imagine, why cannot our name be C3PO? Because we never thought that before. Then we can go back to begin, and ask how to describe thinking. Does thinking mean that we think how many times we hit some nails? Or does thinking mean how many chess games we learn? 

The thing is this: if we drive about 10000 kilometers without accidents or we win millions of chess games in our life that is not news. The news is that if some robot car drives off the road. Or if some supercomputer loses a chess game to some ATARI chess machine. Those things can be translated into that maybe the ATARI chess machine is more intelligent than humans and supercomputers. 

Beware the fake moderators.

Beware the fake moderators.

On the Internet, moderators would play the same role with police, and their mission is to keep Internet clear from carbage. But there are also fake moderators, who would sell writings, what people have done in some social media. And sometimes those persons are compiled as the faked police officers. They are playing with trust and if somebody trusts them, their diaries and other writings can be delivered to the Internet.

The thing is that I sometimes thought that what would I play if I would claim to be the moderator. And the answer would be that I would play the undercover moderator because the same tricks would be effective in the virtual world what have an effect in the real world. And one of the best tricks would be playing the virtual version of an undercover cop like Ted Bundy played in his famous and notorious career. That serial killer worked in the helpful telephone and claimed to be the nurse or cop. And that was the way he made contact with his victims.

The faked moderators are using the same methods with faked cops for making the trustful relationship between them and their victims. Of course, when that kind of persons have been caught for selling stolen texts or photographs those "moderators" must pay the payments if those texts are sold to the third party and also every cost, which is caused because of illegal copying.

The punishments would be similar to the cases, that somebody sells the copies of DVD movies or photographs. Texts that are written on the Internet are protecting by copyrights, and if there are no contracts, the benefit, that person has got by criminal activities, should pay to the victim.

Remember that everybody, who play moderator on the Internet are not moderators. Sometimes we all have faced the people, who are acting like some undercover moderators. Those people are coming to the Internet and start to boss around other people. When we are facing this kind of people, we might first see person, who comes to the mate in the social media application. And after that, this person disappears. Then there would be some other person, who starts to cheat the target.

But do you know, why those people are acting like that? They have two kinds of accounts for use. The other is for regular use and intelligence purposes, and another is for striking, and the last ones are very dangerous to use because they can easily to ban. The first kind of accounts are used for mapping the social network of some person, and those accounts must be separated from the accounts, which are meant for striking purposes.

They would tell other people, how they should write or speak about things. And if somebody has a different kind of opinions, those people would target you for net cheating. If you have some other opinions than this "moderator" that person would start to boss around.

 When we are talking about the freedom of speeches, there is, of course, people, who think that those words mean the children pornography and cheating other people. And the thing is that those things are not interesting some moderators at all. Or at least some persons are playing moderators on the Internet, but they seem not to have real authorities to operate in that place.

The thing, what makes that thing interesting is that there are official moderators, who would have authorities to act against cheating and trolls. But sometimes we are facing people, who are coming to the Internet to tell other people, how they should write or how they should think about things. And those people are very often telling other people by using very clear argumentation, how they should write about things.

Those people could be called as the "undercover moderators". The idea of this kind of  "moderation" is that everything would be possible if the target is chosen by those "moderators". Those people way to act in the Net is simply hanging in there and then start to troll other people. The way, how those people are acting is interesting. The trolling would happen by using some faked profiles, but the person self uses own account for supervision.

This is a very interesting question because if I would be in some group, where is some discussions with special things, I must realize, that there should be something special hobby or skill, what seems like great in the mind of other people. That thing must be something, what might feel very extraordinary and brilliant, which makes me seem nice and beautiful in the eyes of other people. Also, this thing must be something, where other people have not very much knowledge.

But how would I act in this case, if I have the full support of my guardian angels? Would I respect the opinion of some other persons, or would I just give them commands, what they must think or what they must say? If we think the truth, the last one would be a more common thing than the first one.

And the thing is that every person, who doesn't agree with their opinions with moderators could be banned because they would not represent the thing, what is accepted by moderators. This is one thing, why people hate moderators. Sometimes moderators are the painful persons because they are coming to boss around other net users, and sometimes people have asked, why those moderators are not using their authorities to other net users? That means those persons are not official moderators at all.