SI
SI
discoversearch

   Technology StocksThe Singularity, A.I.: Machine & Deep Learning,. and GFA


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: The Ox10/2/2017 2:37:08 PM
   of 105
 
fortune.com

What do you think about the current debate about artificial intelligence? Elon Musk has said it poses an existential threat to humanity.

Technology has always been a double-edged sword, since fire kept us warm but burned down our houses. It’s very clear that overall human life has gotten better, although technology amplifies both our creative and destructive impulses. A lot of people think things are getting worse, partly because that’s actually an evolutionary adaptation: It’s very important for your survival to be sensitive to bad news. A little rustling in the leaves may be a predator, and you better pay attention to that. All of these technologies are a risk. And the powerful ones—biotechnology, nanotechnology, and A.I.—are potentially existential risks. I think if you look at history, though, we’re being helped more than we’re being hurt.

How will artificial intelligence and other technologies impact jobs?


We have already eliminated all jobs several times in human history. How many jobs circa 1900 exist today? If I were a prescient futurist in 1900, I would say, “Okay, 38% of you work on farms; 25% of you work in factories. That’s two-thirds of the population. I predict that by the year 2015, that will be 2% on farms and 9% in factories.” And everybody would go, “Oh, my God, we’re going to be out of work.” I would say, “Well, don’t worry, for every job we eliminate, we’re going to create more jobs at the top of the skill ladder.” And people would say, “What new jobs?” And I’d say, “Well, I don’t know. We haven’t invented them yet.”

That continues to be the case, and it creates a difficult political issue because you can look at people driving cars and trucks, and you can be pretty confident those jobs will go away. And you can’t describe the new jobs, because they’re in industries and concepts that don’t exist yet.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: The Ox who wrote (82)10/2/2017 2:58:45 PM
From: The Ox
   of 105
 

journals.plos.org

Predicting couple therapy outcomes based on speech acoustic features
IntroductionBehavioral Signal Processing (BSP) [ 1, 2] refers to computational methods that support measurement, analysis, and modeling of human behavior and interactions. The main goal is to support decision making of domain experts, such as mental health researchers and clinicians. BSP maps real-world signals to behavioral constructs, often abstract and complex, and has been applied in a variety of clinical domains including couples therapy [ 1, 3, 4], Autism Spectrum Disorder [ 5], and addiction counseling [ 6, 7]. Parallel work with focus on social context rather than the health domains can be found in [ 8, 9]. Notably, couple therapy has been among one of the key application domains of Behavioral Signal Processing. There have been significant efforts in characterizing the behavior of individuals engaged in conversation with their spouses during problem-solving interaction sessions. Researchers have explored information gathered from various modalities such as vocal patterns of speech [ 3, 4, 10, 11], spoken language use [ 1, 12] and visual body gestures [ 13]. These studies are promising towards the creation of automated support systems for psychotherapists in creating objective measures for diagnostics, intervention assessment and planning. This entails not only characterizing and understanding a range of clinically meaningful behavior traits and patterns but, critically, also measure behavior change in response to treatment. A systematic and objective study and monitoring of the outcome relevant to the respective condition can facilitate positive and personalized interventions. In particular, in clinical psychology, predicting (or measuring from couple interactions, without couple, or therapist provided metrics) the outcome of the relationship of a couple undergoing counseling has been a subject of long-standing interest [ 1416].

Many previous studies have manually investigated what behavioral traits and patterns of a couple can tell us of their relationship outcome, for example, whether a couple could successfully recover from their marital conflict or not. Often the monitoring of outcomes involves a prolonged period of time post treatment (up to 5 years), and highly subjective self reporting and manual observational coding [ 17]. Such an approach suffers from the inherent limitations of the qualitative observational assessment, subjective biases of the experts, and great variability in the self-reporting of behavior by the couples. Having a computational framework for outcome prediction can be beneficial towards assessment of the employed therapy strategies and the quality of treatment, and also help provide feedback to the experts.

In this article, we analyze the vocal speech patterns of couples engaged in problem-solving interactions to infer the eventual outcome of their relationship—whether it improves or not–over the course of therapy. The proposed data-driven approach focuses primarily on the acoustics of the interaction; unobtrusively-obtainable, and known to offer rich behavioral information. We adopt well-established speech signal processing techniques, in conjunction with novel data representations inspired by psychological theories to design the computational scheme for the therapy outcome prediction considered. We formulate the outcome prediction as binary (improvement vs. no improvement) and multiclass (different levels of improvement) classification problems and use machine learning techniques to automatically discern the underlying patterns of these classes from the speech signal.

We compare the prediction using features directly derived from speech with prediction using clinically relevant behavioral ratings (e.g., relationship satisfaction, blame patterns, negativity) manually coded by experts after observing the interactions. It should be noted that human behavioral codes are based on watching videos of interactions that provide access to additional information beyond vocal patterns (solely relied by the proposed prediction scheme) including language use and visual nonverbal cues.

In addition to evaluating how well directly signal-derived acoustic features compare with manually derived behavioral codes as features for prediction, we also evaluate the prediction of the outcome when both feature streams are used together.

We also investigate the benefit of explicitly accounting for the dynamics and mutual influence of the dyadic behavior during towards the prediction task. The experimental results show that dynamic functionals that measure relative vocal changes within and across interlocutors contribute to improved outcome prediction.

The outline of the paper is as follows. We discuss relevant literature in Section 1. The Couple Therapy Corpus used in the study is described in Section 1 and illustrated in Fig 1. An overview of the methodologies for speech acoustic feature extraction is given in Section 1 and the use of behavioral codes as features is described in Section 1. We provide an analysis of the proposed acoustic features in Section 1 and the results of the classification experiments in Section 1. Finally, we conclude the paper with a discussion of our findings as well as possible directions for future research in Section 1.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: The Ox who wrote (82)10/3/2017 8:00:51 AM
From: w0z
   of 105
 
“Well, don’t worry, for every job we eliminate, we’re going to create more jobs at the top of the skill ladder.”


What happens if a large part of today's workforce is at an ~8th grade level of education?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: The Ox who wrote (83)10/3/2017 11:24:11 AM
From: The Ox
   of 105
 
Walmart spending on AI:

Message 31288137

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: The Ox who wrote (82)10/3/2017 4:02:25 PM
From: Doren
   of 105
 
I own a Kurzweil synth. Ray is like a lot of Techies... brilliant... no common sense... totally isolated from blue collar people, he probably lives in a protected white collar island, probably inside a fenced and gated community with its own police force.

I work on those homes. They pay me pretty well because I do custom work. Super custom. I make every absurd demand they make come true.



"we’re going to create more jobs at the top of the skill ladder"

So... we are going to fill those jobs with people with IQs of 100? Good luck. #1 people who get those jobs are increasingly the best of the best, any recruiter knows that #2 those jobs are frequently obsoleted... not many people are using COBAL anymore. I was a recruiter. As a recruiter I interviewed a lot of 40 year old techies nobody wanted anymore, both because they only knew obsoleted software/languages and because nobody wanted to hire any techies over 40 years old. Many of them were completely depressed and dejected. Kurzweil really has little in common with these kinds of people being management.

COBOL programmers were obsoleted... to the point TOO MANY LEFT THE FIELD... once a person is obsoleted they think twice about putting time into learning a new skill. A few had good stable jobs maintaining legacy systems... but no one thought about learning COBOL for decades.

Guys like Ray always remind me of this:



I would have change it... but I would have charged at LEAST $100, probably more.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Doren who wrote (86)10/3/2017 4:06:07 PM
From: The Ox
   of 105
 
Won't AI help teach people what they need to know in a fashion that will increase their ability to execute better? Shouldn't AI be able to find ways to communicate with different levels of intelligence/ability which would help the "lesser IQ" individual show more promise?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: The Ox who wrote (87)10/3/2017 4:18:27 PM
From: Doren
   of 105
 
Sheech. I once had a roomie, I took him into my granny pad because he was facing homelessness. It wasn't free. I required he do $500 worth of work each month to pay his rent.

I had to show him how to use a drill to put a screw into wood.

And he was relatively intelligent. I don't think you are going to be able to teach people with IQs of 100 how to visualize the architecture of a software package, let alone how AI works.

IMO the jobs that will be available to non-genetically enhanced/non-AI connected humans will be the nasty jobs that robots can't figure out how to do. Like my job. Mostly for the very rich winners. Our society is increasingly winner take all.

Kids know this... they think if you haven't developed a great career by the time your 30 you are toast.



This was made in the early 90s. That's Leelee Sobieski from Kubricks "Eyes Wide Shut"...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Doren who wrote (88)10/3/2017 4:38:40 PM
From: The Ox
   of 105
 
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Nearly everyone has different skill levels and abilities. Someone who might have good skills with their hands or have excellent eye/hand coordination will be suited for different tasks than someone of lesser aptitude for these tasks. AI should, in theory at least, be able to quickly analyze or test an individual to gauge not only what (and where) they are able to be more successful but also where they may be likely to have more satisfaction and happiness in their work. Someone who might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer may be able to pilot a drone more efficiently or cook better and so on. They may be a better gardener or work better with animals.


So taking your point about a "smart" person but one who has never even drilled a screw into wood, where do we start? Was it the lack of education, experience, initiative or what? Then jumping into "visualizing software architecture", which is likely going to be done by the AI systems themselves and not by even the smartest individuals, strikes me as way off base.



Some of the "winner take all" concepts may start to be modified as well unless we are going to continue to repeat many past failures.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: The Ox who wrote (89)10/4/2017 5:33:16 PM
From: Doren
   of 105
 
Good point about analyzing aptitudes.

> pilot a drone more efficiently or cook better

Nope. AI will do both of these better. Robots will take these jobs.

> They may be a better gardener or work better with animals.

I think robots will take these jobs too.



I work on homes for the rich. I can easily see self driving tractors doing the trenching, self driving trucks delivering trees and planting them in the holes the self driving tractors dug. Some things aren't going to be replaced easily, mostly highly skilled jobs that take some craftsmanship like tile setting, custom stone work. But things like doors are already being made by CNC machines. Logging machines now both cut trees, buck off the branches, and load trucks. The self driving trucks will deliver the logs to mills which will be automated and more efficient than humans figuring out how to get the best lumber out of a log, separate by grade, and in the case of a door the wood will be routed to a kiln, then packaged and sent to a CNC door factory, milled and delivered by a self driving truck. Not one human until maybe a guy sets the door. And even that job will disappear.

Even in some jobs like custom bricklaying is going to loose some workers. For example stones are going to be very hard for machines to use to make something look good. But things like twisting chimneys done with bricks are perfect for machines.


This isn't like manual labor being replaced by machines. This is brains being replaced.

Humans will probably stick around for maybe 100 more years but after that the super-humans and robots will replace them entirely. The thing about the super humans is they won't get smarter in a linear way, it will be logarithmic, just like chips. Both their genes and their AI implant chips. So the first generation will have IQs of say 200, ten years later they'll have IQs of 400, five years later 800, two years later 1600, one year later 3200. In a hundred years they'll be so far beyond what we think of as absolute genius as to be unrecognizable...

The question is will they keep humans around like we keep dogs around? I don't think so. We treat our pets better than our homeless. Dogs don't compete for food and land and resources. They will own all of that, land and resources, actual and intellectual property.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Doren10/4/2017 5:52:29 PM
   of 105
 
You have to think about this in terms of who these people are. The Silicon Valley people.

You can take a perfectly moral human being... but when it comes to their kids, people will do anything, anything it takes, to give them the advantage it takes to survive and indeed stay ahead of the pack.

For the people in Silicon Valley it will become a race, those who are in early will have a huge advantage because everyone else will be trying to keep up with the logarithmic advances. They will come to the conclusion that everyone else is doing it. It can't be stopped by laws, since it will happen world wide, and if need be underground like the dark web. Kids who are not genetically altered will become doomed. Its going to be a life or death war of intelligence and power.

And they have the money. The desire and quest for money will also accelerate because the competition for the best of the best of genetic engineers will be crucial.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2017 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.