The problem with knowledge, whether it is generated by code or by a scientific work of three hundred pages, is that it will never be a knowledge that represents a totality.
All knowledge is never total knowledge. Even if one would unite all scientific works of all existing sciences in one tau intelligence, it would only reflect knowledge exactly on the level which is available as data. Inevitably a knowledge outside of this matrix is excluded. So far completely unknown knowledge, which does not know any language. Beyond the space of language, which is always bound to the mind that understands this language, there is "speechlessness". Everything, which is so far unconsidered and unnamed. This unnamed and ignorant is not found in the mind (of a human being or a machine), because it is bound to the corporeality of organic life, it is an experience not yet made.
The comparison Ohad Asor makes here is very well made. A person who learns a language from the age of 0 to the age of 20 has reached exactly the language level he has reached. In this span of life he has learned to reach a level: his own level. This is the same with Tau. It would be worth asking when the time had actually been reached when Tau had reached a learning goal of which one could say: This is the final goal to which learning is needed. How long would such a time span be? Five years, ten years, a hundred years? How long does Tau's intelligence have to mature to become an "adult" from "childhood"? And what effect does this have on the ability to make decisions and the applications that, for example, Tau suggested in its childhood - based on its current knowledge - and which have an impact on the physically organic world of humans?
What if the question of atomic energy revealed that the operation of atomic milers was a deeply illogical form of energy production? So if the answer would be total certainty that we humans are overwhelmed with a definitive analysis of atomic energy? Would this then mean that people who are currently deciding how to proceed with energy production would make physically relevant decisions because Tau Intelligence has calculated it that way? Would the Tau answer change anything about the fact that nuclear waste is highly toxic and solve the question of disposal for us?
Ohad Asor also says that applications would be many times faster. But what about human speed? Since we humans do not have an almost infinite capacity for processing knowledge in the sense of data, we feel inferior to machine knowledge. To what extent is an application of human value if it specifies speeds that are beyond human speed?
I ask myself the question whether we are not heading towards a transformation of our physical world, which - already now - allows us to rather serve the needs of machines. We seem to believe that machines are at our service, but when I look at how much space machines need, how much effort is required for their production, maintenance and care, I can already see that my living space is highly dominated by them. The time and energy I have to spend to maintain a car, for example, from both the financial and energy aspects. Production facilities including again machinery, then roads, parking spaces as external operators and space requirements as well as my own time and finances spent on administration and driving. Hospital employees who understand, maintain, operate, and manage their high technical equipment to a high degree can compare this with the amount of energy spent on organic entities such as staff and patients. It's clear to me that as technology increases, it's the technology that's cared for and noticed by us humans. This can be seen very clearly in the Caesarean section in maternity clinics, which give preference to this method because of its technological structures. This means that the collection of data outside of clinics and intervention-free births does not take place or takes place to such an extent that it is not relevant. That means that data which could be collected is not collected because of the use of technology.
From an organic point of view, tau intelligence does not make as much sense as from a mechanical point of view.
On the other hand, I, too, find it fascinating to get an answer to a question that neither I nor other people would have come up with. In fact, it's not the answers themselves that are interesting, but the questions we ask.
I haven't even started with all the psychological aspects but I will leave it at that.
Great to see your inquisitive mind entering the Tau discussions... :-)
In fact, I did think a lot about AI even before entering the steemit blockchain. I do know though, that I will be hardly listened to and that my critical attitude is somehow disturbing the enthusiasm about tau technology. This steemit realm has way more tech enthusiasts then all the other social media platforms I ever entered and is by nature more leaning towards foreseeing only the beneficial aspects of a technology like this (even without understanding it).
I haven't made up my mind yet - and don't know if I ever will take one side (probably not) - but I always would ask people to be more like a greek debater and also investigate the cons of a technology.
While I really do think that dealing personally with such a topic is highly enriching and leads to philosophical realms and intimate questions about ones own outlook on life and humanity I know that not many people are taking their times in doing so. They all have their reasons.
One thing I find particularly fascinating about the prospects of Tauchain:
Even if “people would hardly listen to you,” it wouldn’t matter so much.
There is value in your critical perspectives.
And if Tau gets built successfully, the contribution of that value gets accounted for and factored into whatever discussions you show up in. It wouldn’t matter whether or not other people wouldn’t “like” your opinions because they conflicted with theirs - your input would still be a valuable contribution - perhaps even moreso, as it might be of a rarer nature than commonly-held opinions...
hm hm ... :-) yeah, my man would say something similar. We talk a lot about this topic, really, a lot.
Oh, I am always risking my popularity, more often than I do promote it I would say. ;-)
We'll see what tau will bring ...
Thanks for coming back for a little chat.
Have a good day,
Night from Hamburg
A sign of integrity, I’d say.
After all, what’s more valuable: popularity or honesty...?
(The answer no doubt varies person-to-person, though might reasonably be considered a reflection of one’s maturity/wisdom...)