L'AI et tout are in a song.

• So it's interesting to notice that AI could do things that humans thought to be the highest demonstration of their skills but can't do things that humans thought very easy to do.
• Yes, politically, it's dynamite !
• Why do you say that ?
• Just think about it. An AI would always beat human sin chess, go, poker, blabla (cf https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/17/ai-is-better-at-bluffing-than-professional-gamblers/) but never succeed in making a bed, cleaning an hotel room (Cf. https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2019/01/16/au-japon-l-hotel-gere-par-des-robots-fait-machine-arriere_1703373) or plugging two electric cords (cf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MevKTPN4ozw)...
  

  • HAHAHAHA !
  • Yeah, AI could also simulate sex and love conversation but i'm not sure AI could simulate friendship conversation.
  • False love and false sex !
  • Mechanical love and mechanical sex !
  • Ok , this is a huge subject that we maybe try to reach later but now i'm sorry to tell you that an AI could also produce friendship conversation. I remember having heard about a project of a theater play where two computers fullfilled with the containts of philosophy books and mostly with interview of philosophers and conversation between philosophers blabla, well, those two computers were discussing together, one was supposed to be Michel FOUCAULT and the other i can't remember. This happens maybe eight years ago and it was working more or less, technically i don't if that project use an AI or just an usual langage program, i'm not sure to know the difference. (Annie DORSEN – spectacle « hello, hi there ! » dialogue entre Michel FOUCAULT et NOAM CHOMSKY- 2010)
  • Well, these two computers were producing conversations around philosophy, did they produce philosophy ?
  • False philosophy or mechanical philosophy ?
  • HAHAHAHAHA !
  • Well, it can't work.. My body is my instrument to produce langage and thinking. It's because i put my body in the sea of already langage productions and try to swim (like dalphins can swim) and maybe find a boat, an island, others personns, or drown, be saved or becoming a sea monster living in the deep sea, etc.. blabla. So that way produces philosophy, poetry, litterature, and even, for theirs beginnings, science and mathematics. But recreate that sea in a machine can't allow the machine to produce philosophy, litterature, blabla cause the machine has no desire to do it, to be part of that sea or to experiment that sea or to find dalphins in that sea, blabla.
  • Hum.. i'm not sure. Those last years, you were doing « cut up », i mean the « Burroughs cut up »  but at your own way, so it was a machine that producing poetry, wasn't that ?
  • Well, i transfer my desire to a « bidule »..
  • let's say a « protocol », it's smarter ..
  •  … a « protocol » that i found gradually without searching hoping it will help me to get out a hole where i've been trapped or just falled in. Well, it's a formulation, you can say it differently : i was becoming blind so i need a help that had no desire by itself in order to find my way or go on my way, well it's still a formulation. There's many way of telling it. It was also a way of going on doing things in order not to die. It's still a formulation...
  • You want to say that you use machines.
  • Well, try to. The use of programs by chance was a way to keep on working with chance. More or less. It's seems clearer but it's done in the dark and in the mist for mind... But now i can say that it worked quite well, it has really helped me but it's not without danger.
  • Of course, your reasonnement was false …
  • Yes. Whatever it's always reconstruction of how the things happened in order to be able to tell a story but it's never happened as it's said it happened cause things find their way within the chaos of a daily life full of all its pratical and pragmatical concerns and worries.
  • That danger you mention, is it the reason why you don't do some others cut up anymore ?
  • You're not obliged to answer that question. So, could we stay focus on the fact that machines can do what humans thought being the highest demonstration of their superiority among the livings in the nature but machines can't do things that humans find very easy to do like making a bed or plugging two electric cords together. So, don't we have to rethink the way our society is organized ?
  • Don't get it  ...
  • A machine can do easily the work of a trader but can't do the work of a cleaner or of a factory worker. Elon MUSK had said it « We underestimated humans ». First time i had read that, you know headlines on the newspaper web site, i didn't get that the « we » referred to his teams in the Gigafactory but maybe also all his generation brought up in the Silicon Valley. So i couldn't understand who was that « we » who « underestimated humans » … So now that Elon MUSK opened the way of considering the future with this new perspective of a more realistic estimation of the humans work, shouldn't the human societies have to redraw the value of each work in their organisation ?
  • I understand : Could we define the human work as what is done by the human hand. Not just his mind but with his hand.
  • I remembered having observing that with the baby cats : they reach a point where they're stop to developp, cause they're don't have hands.. But they're go on developping on their own way that i can hardly understand, i mean their sense of smell, their coat, their claws, blabla
  • When you do some painting there's a point or there's some time when your hand is working by herself.
  • Quite the same with the only mind staff, sometimes, it work by itself !
  • HAHAHAHAHA !
  • Well, even that french philosopher Vincent DESCOMBES talks about a « visitation » about the fact that some ideas « come » in mind ...
  • That's really dynamite !
  • I say since the year 2000 that the numeric tools provide huge changes in the offices organisation that compel an another way of dispatching the money within the human organizations : we need very good workers, very good high technicians, very good cadre supérieur, we don't need cadre moyen cause those works are done better by the machines without that affect glue of that classe moyenne wanting to be elevated …
  • HAHAHAHA !
  • ... Or since the 2000 years, the cadres moyens produce intox and intox in order this is not seen cause they've want to keep their small part of in the domination and exploitation of the workers and technicians …
  • But maybe it has been done since, you know nothing, you're out !
  • HAHAHAHAHA !
  • I think it needs also to be told that the unemployed people are also exploited and used.
  • I feel vomit.
  • I told you that AI and discussions around AI could be a very good friend for political and economical democracy ..
  • As soon as it's shared !
  • Yes.
  • Maybe there's an illusion there.
  • An illusion ?
  • I understand pretty easily that an AI would be better than an human to play games that've got rules. So for poker, chess, go, etc... no problem that an AI would be better because of the speed and the size memory, blabla. There's legends about some autistic people very good in card plays as it's shown in the movie « Rain Man » but i don't know if it's real. But this could be real, cause it deals with the same thing.
  • And ?
  • Maybe the right question should be : if an Ai could do better than a trader his work, it's maybe because the trader conceives badly his works, just as a play and not as a real human work.
  • One point !
  • Yeah, i understand that it's hard to put the dirtyness in data and so that's why it's not easy for an AI to clean an hotel room. But maybe « they »'ve got it wrong when they limits the trader work into an analyse of data and information. So AI could do the analysis of datas since the trader has to go and see in the real what's happens and then, the result of the value would be the confrontation between the two.
  • « They » count on the works of journalists for that. They included in their data the press release.
  • But this is bullshit ! So if i can manipulate the media, i can manipulate the data !
  • I thought it was in the other sense «  if i can manipulate the datas, i can manipulate the medias. »
  • the two work,  isn't that called communitativity ?
  • Well, urban life is more or less just human life and that's why it's so boring...
  • Yes.
  • So, the question could be « does the real can be mapped ? » and the answer to my point of view is « of course not, but we can try to have some maps in order to try to do things but we have to remember that the maps are not the real and that an human is not just a sum of datas, there's a fire that we do know nothing about..
  • This is a good exit for this first part.
  • We agree.
  • So what do i write what in the compte-rendu ? « ils partirent main dans la main côté jardin » ?
  • Great.

(to be continued).