si
ogni singolo neurone e' un dispositivo analogico (qualcuno lo potrebbe definire "computer
analogico", riduttivamente.
e relazioni con altre parti del cervello (ad esempio i gangli della base) non sono ancora
comprese.
infine, c'e' un crescente consenso che il cervello non opri in modo classico
The aim of this study was to show that the brain is non-classical. We assumed that unknown
brain functions exist which can mediate entanglement between auxiliary quantum systems.
The experimental detection of such an entanglement created by the brain would then be
sufficient to prove cerebral non-classicality. We found experimental evidence that such
entanglement creation occurs as part of physiological and cognitive processes.
(questo e' uno
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be )
On 09/02/24 15:00, alessandro marzocchi wrote:
Siamo davvero irripetibili?
Mi appassiona la domanda: davvero i nostri cervelli funzionano diversamente
dall'IA?
Cordialmente,
Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi)
Il 9 feb 2024 alle ore 12:00 <nexa-requ...@server-nexa.polito.it
<mailto:nexa-requ...@server-nexa.polito.it>>Daniela Tafani ha scritto:
Grazie della segnalazione, Maurizio.
Sono domande che Joseph Weizenbaum poneva, anche a proposito della
comprensione del
linguaggio naturale,
in Computer power and human reason:
The second kind of computer application that ought to be avoided, or at
least not
undertaken without very careful forethought,
is that which can easily be seen to have irreversible and not entirely
foreseeable
side effects. If, in addition, such an application cannot
be shown to meet a pressing human need that cannot readily be met in any
other way,
then it ought not to be pursued. The latter stricture
follows directly from the argument I have already presented about the
scarcity of
human intelligence.
The example I wish to cite here is that of the automatic recognition of
human speech.
There are now three or four major
projects in the United States devoted to enabling computers to understand
human
speech, that is, to programming them in such a
way that verbal speech directed at them can be converted into the same
internal
representations that would result if what had been said
to them had been typed into their consoles.
The problem, as can readily be seen, is very much more complicated than
that of
natural-language understanding as such, for
in order to understand a stream of coherent speech, the language in which
that speech
is rendered must be understood in the first place.
The solution of the "speech-understanding problem" therefore presupposes
the solution
of the "natural-language-understanding
problem." And we have seen that, for the latter, we have only "the tiniest
bit of
relevant knowledge." But I am not here concerned with
the technical feasibility of the task, nor with any estimate of just how
little or
greatly optimistic we might be about its completion.
Why should we want to undertake this task at all? I have asked this
question of many
enthusiasts for the project. The most cheerful
answer I have been able to get is that it will help physicians record their
medical
notes and then translate these notes into action more
efficiently. Of course, anything that has any ostensible connection to
medicine is
automatically considered good. But here we have to
remember that the problem is so enormous that only the largest possible
computers will
ever be able to manage it. In other words,
even if the desired system were successfully designed, it would probably
require a
computer so large and therefore so expensive
that only the largest and best-endowed hospitals could possibly afford
it—but in fact
the whole system might be so prohibitively
expensive that even they could not afford it. The question then becomes, is
this
really what medicine needs most at this time?
Would not the talent, not to mention the money and the resources it
represents, be
better spent on projects that attack more urgent and
more fundamental problems of health care?
But then, this alleged justification of speech-recognition "research" is
merely a
rationalization anyway. (I put the word
"research" in quotation marks because the work I am here discussing is mere
tinkering.
I have no objection to serious scientists
studying the psycho-physiology of human speech recognition.) If one asks
such
questions of the principal sponsor of this work, the
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of
Defense,
as was recently done at an open meeting,
the answer given is that the Navy hopes to control its ships, and the other
services
their weapons, by voice commands. This project then
represents, in the eyes of its chief sponsor, a long step toward a fully
automated
battlefield. I see no reason to advise my students to lend
their talents to that aim.
I have urged my students and colleagues to ask still another question about
this
project: Granted that a speech-recognition
machine is bound to be enormously expensive, and that only governments and
possibly a
very few very large corporations will
therefore be able to afford it, what will they use it for? What can it
possibly be
used for? There is no question in my mind that there is
no pressing human problem that will more easily be solved because such
machines exist.
But such listening machines, could they be
made, will make monitoring of voice communication very much easier than it
now is.
Perhaps the only reason that there is very little
government surveillance of telephone conversations in many countries of the
world is
that such surveillance takes so much
manpower. Each conversation on a tapped phone must eventually be listened
to by a
human agent. But speech-recognizing machines
could delete all "uninteresting" conversations and present transcripts of
only the
remaining ones to their masters. I do not for a moment
believe that we will achieve this capability within the future so clearly
visible to
Newell and Simon. But I do ask, why should a talented
computer technologist lend his support to such a project? As a citizen I
ask, why
should my government spend approximately 2.5
million dollars a year (as it now does) on this project?
https://archive.org/details/computerpowerhum0000weiz_v0i3/page/270
<https://archive.org/details/computerpowerhum0000weiz_v0i3/page/270>
Un saluto,
Daniela
________________________________________
Da: nexa <nexa-boun...@server-nexa.polito.it
<mailto:nexa-boun...@server-nexa.polito.it>> per conto di maurizio lana
<maurizio.l...@uniupo.it <mailto:maurizio.l...@uniupo.it>>
Inviato: giovedì 8 febbraio 2024 16:57
A: NEXA ML
Oggetto: [nexa] sistemi di IA e scrittura
mi sono imbattuto in questo libro:
Baron, Naomi S. Who wrote this? how AI and the lure of efficiency threaten
human
writing. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2023.
nel capitolo finale l'autrice scrive:
Imagine a world where AI’s current writing challenges have been solved.
Where large
language models (or their successors) don’t churn out ugliness. Where using
them is
energy efficient. Where predictive texting, spellcheck, and grammar
programs are
infallible. Where AI can produce lengthy texts that are non-repetitive,
stylistically
interesting, factually accurate, and always on topic. Oh, and can generate
text that’s
indistinguishable from what you might have written. Where would this world
leave us
humans?
As we weigh options, keep in mind potential blowback of getting what we
wish for.
Cultural lore—be it of King Midas in Greek mythology, the recurrent “three
wishes”
stories across European tales, or W. W. Jacobs’s more modern “The Monkey’s
Paw”—reminds us that attractive prospects may bear unforeseen consequences.
lo trovo interessante perché molta parte della riflessione critica sui
sistemi di AI
si appunta su singoli aspetti mal-funzionanti/dis-funzionanti.
mentre qui c'è una riflessione critica globale, 'a prescindere', che si
esprime sui
sistemi di IA ma che riguarda ogni ambito: è desiderabile/quali conseguenze
ha, che in
ogni campo ogni necessità sia risolta e ogni difficoltà operativa sia
eliminata ?
"teletrasporto per tutti a costo zero" e via in cima al monte Bianco con un
tasto (in
questo esempio si vede che sono proprio uno al pie' dei monti -
piemontese): che cosa
mi significherebbe?
Maurizio
________________________________
quanti nella loro vita
si fecero custodi delle termopili,
sono degni di più grande onore
se prevedono (e molti lo prevedono)
che all’ultimo comparirà un efialte
e comunque i persiani passeranno
kostantinos kavafis, termopili
________________________________
Maurizio Lana
Università del Piemonte Orientale
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
