<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have long thought of the singularity as being kinda like the Spanish Inquisition: it just shows up unexpected, as it did in Monte Python.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But what if… the more gradual singularity model prevails, analogous to the way chess programs just kept getting better and better over the years. I watched that one grow for fifty years. It would appear to be AI from the point of view of a 1970 chess guy, but it isn’t.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>MicroSloth has been experimenting with making Word subtly modify one’s writing. It is nothing shocking: it changes the word “man” to person or some gender-neutral version. Policeman becomes police officer, fireman becomes fire fighter. OK.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The whole thing has my wheels spinning. I bet we extrapolate on the idea, write software which would modify or translate a passage from politically right to left, to prevent writers from being Twitter-banned. It would automatically delete right wing (or left wing) memes, or switch them. That could be a fun game. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am not sure how it would work, but I don’t think it really requires AI to do it. The news people are going nuts over it and saying MicroSloth is using AI, but it isn’t that, any more than good chess algorithms are AI. They are just “good” rather than intelligent. Two different things, often conflated. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Spike’s postulate: any algorithm we know how to write is not AI, by definition.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A real AI could come into existence, then use that algorithm to cover its tracks. It could disguise itself as a PC-editor, merely seeking to make one’s writing politically correct, to prevent triggering the masses. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Perhaps the singularity could sneak up on us such that when it arrives, no one would notice. Oh, we could make a cubic buttload of money off of this.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>