Based on thoughts in the prior blog entry regarding Biometric ID of uniquely identified human beings with the attribute of Natural Intelligence and entities having Artificial Intelligence it helps to look at this relationship: Biometric ID (many types but all applicable to a living or dead human being entity) is applicable at the unique granular to single Human Being. In the Artificial Intelligence domain what is the analog of Biometric ID?
The Internet of Things is the physical entity that holds data, information, knowledge and creation of new knowledge. The IoT at the granular object level is an IPV6 unique identifier. Might that the the equal of a uniquely identifying Biometric Human ID.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/12/9th-circuit-its-a-federal-crime-to-visit-a-website-after-being-told-not-to-visit-it/
Look at it this way: Driverless cars are driven by Artificial Intelligence robots that are currently the focus of popular attention. Each car will be a uniquely identified entity in the IoT possessing its own Artificial Intelligence. Note that it will be superior in performance to a Natural Intelligence Driver entity. Back seat drivers too. Artificial Intelligence is now smart enough to get that joke that involves a higher degree of literal amibuity!
Look at what the court is ruling.
Then look at it in the frame of how I am presenting my view of Biometric Human ID and IoT Machine Entity ID. How closely are the two the same? In what ways? How are they different in the Object Oriented view of the relationship of entities, attributes, methods and messages?
This gives something to think about for subsequent blog exploration!
One possible relationship is that every IoT device with an IPV6 ID must have an exclusive link to a uniquely Biometric identified Human Being that interacts with it? Then there is no doubt or ambiguity as to who is interacting with the IoT device. Artificial Intelligence eschews ambiguity.
A day later:
Thinking about all of the preceding thoughts trying to distill it: Perhaps by a comparative list of attributes of two SuperClass Objects:
1. Human Beings (Aggregate Class: All Human Beings) Unique instance Child of the Class: single Human Being.
2 Internet. (Aggregate Class: All Things on the Internet of Things) Unique instance Child of the Class: single Device.
Create a matrix of these two SuperClassObjects by applying two aspects to each of them:
1. Physical Attributes (Analogous to Body)
2. Conceptual Attributes (Analogous to Mind)
Then really complicate the view of the Problem Domain by adding two more things to the 4 part matrix view:
1. Operating System
2. Application Programs
I would expect the result to be a great amount of parallelism. 1 to 1 relationships. Things that look the same are the same?
If the Point of Entry view to the Problem Domain is from the Human Centric standpoint then the picture is one of Machines becoming more like Humans.
If the Point of Entry to the Problem Domain is from the Machine Centric standpoint then the picture is one of Humans becoming more like Machines (that Humans create by investing/projecting both their Physical and Conceptual Class Attributes, Methods and Messages into a Machine Analog.
At some point of investing/projecting Human SuperClass Object Structure into Machine SuperClass Object Structure there is emergence of Intelligence Transfer.
At this point of Intelligance Transfer at the unique instance of the SuperClass:Human Being called "Me" (or you depending on view) there is a Mini-Me doppleganger mirror of Me on the Machine side. For example: the mirror machine image of me that will drive my car.
Another Point of Entry View to the Problem Domain:
Call HumanBeing (in aggregate SuperClass or unique InstanceofClass): "Feet" or "Foot".
Make: HumanBeings = Feet (SuperClassAggregate) and Human Being = Foot (ClassInstance)
Call Internet (in aggregate SuperClass or unique InstanceofClass: "Internet of Things" or "Device".
Make IoT = Feet and Device = Foot.
If the 16 part matrix of Human or Internet (Inclusive of all of its ObjectOriented Physical/Logical and OperatingSystem/ApplicationProgram matrixes reduced to a higher conceptual ParentClass level of Foot and Shoe then...
Fit the Shoe to the Foot or the Foot to the Shoe and to which level and instances of the level does each approach to the Problem Domain apply?
And like the reductionism of hands on a baseball bat to make a binary choice: Which one is the final hand on top?
If our collective intelligence with all its bugs and features is filtered through reason and logic processes (Artificial Intelligence) to exclude ambiguity then that product is the best model to guide a Plan?
What is "Artificial" about Artificial Intelligence except the predisposition to call it that because from the Human Centric approach to which we are likely predisposed to use? It is our own intelligence run through filters that in the past was locked into physical representation implemented by pen to paper.
Our modern day paper upon which we write our logic and reason has been given the ability to "Speak" by us to us because we gave it voice. Literally. Endowed with our best logic and reason ability of our intelligence it can refine what it says to us and does for us as it gains the ability to independently implement conceptual relationships through both physical and conceptual means to serve us in our image and likeness?
Returning to the foot and shoe fitting problem:
I think we must design to fit ourselves into the requirements of the Artificial Intelligence Machine System shoe to the extent that we must all have our own established mandatory Human Biometric ID to interact with the Intelligent System we are creating. Beyond that we fit the System Shoes to our own Feet.
That is about as far as the logic and reason of my intelligence takes me on this matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment