HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016402.jpg
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Interview transcript / article excerpt (evidence file)
File Size:
Summary
This document is a page from an evidentiary file (stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016402) containing an edited transcript of a December 2015 interview with scientist Stephen Wolfram. In the text, Wolfram discusses the philosophical implications of Artificial Intelligence, arguing that while computation can be found in natural systems (like weather), 'goals' and 'purpose' remain uniquely human traits defined by history and biology. The page appears to be part of a larger collection of essays or transcripts, possibly from the Edge.org foundation which had connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Stephen Wolfram | Scientist, Inventor, CEO |
Interviewee discussing Artificial Intelligence and the future of civilization. Described as founder of Wolfram Resear...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Wolfram Research | ||
| Wolfram|Alpha | ||
| Mathematica |
Timeline (1 events)
Key Quotes (5)
"I see technology as taking human goals and making them automatically executable by machines."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016402.jpg
Quote #1
"Goals are uniquely human."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016402.jpg
Quote #2
"But what I’ve realized, as a result of the science I’ve done, is that this is not the case."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016402.jpg
Quote #3
"People might say, for instance, “The weather has a mind of its own.”"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016402.jpg
Quote #4
"What makes us different from all those other systems is the particulars of our history, which give us our notions of purpose and goals."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016402.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,327 characters)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION
Stephen Wolfram
Stephen Wolfram
Stephen Wolfram is a scientist, inventor, and the founder and CEO of Wolfram
Research. He is the creator of the symbolic computation program Mathematica and its
programming language, Wolfram Language, as well as the knowledge engine
Wolfram|Alpha. He is also the author of A New Kind of Science.
The following is an edited transcript from a live interview with him conducted in
December 2015.
Research. He is the creator of the symbolic computation program Mathematica and its
programming language, Wolfram Language, as well as the knowledge engine
Wolfram|Alpha. He is also the author of A New Kind of Science.
The following is an edited transcript from a live interview with him conducted in
December 2015.
I see technology as taking human goals and making them automatically executable by
machines. Human goals of the past have entailed moving objects from here to there,
using a forklift rather than our own hands. Now the work we can do automatically, with
machines, is mental rather than physical. It’s obvious that we can automate many of the
tasks we humans have long been proud of doing ourselves. What’s the future of the
human condition in that situation?
machines. Human goals of the past have entailed moving objects from here to there,
using a forklift rather than our own hands. Now the work we can do automatically, with
machines, is mental rather than physical. It’s obvious that we can automate many of the
tasks we humans have long been proud of doing ourselves. What’s the future of the
human condition in that situation?
People talk about the future of intelligent machines and whether they’ll take over
and decide what to do for themselves. But the inventing of goals is not something that
has a path to automation. Someone or something has to define what a machine’s purpose
should be—what it’s trying to execute. How are goals defined? For a given human, they
tend to be defined by personal history, cultural environment, the history of our
civilization. Goals are uniquely human. Where the machine is concerned, we can give it
a goal when we build it.
and decide what to do for themselves. But the inventing of goals is not something that
has a path to automation. Someone or something has to define what a machine’s purpose
should be—what it’s trying to execute. How are goals defined? For a given human, they
tend to be defined by personal history, cultural environment, the history of our
civilization. Goals are uniquely human. Where the machine is concerned, we can give it
a goal when we build it.
What kinds of things have intelligence, or goals, or purpose? Right now, we
know one great example, and that’s us—our brains, our human intelligence. Human
intelligence, I once assumed, is far beyond anything else that exists naturally in the
world; it’s the result of an elaborate process of evolution and thus stands apart from the
rest of existence. But what I’ve realized, as a result of the science I’ve done, is that this is
not the case.
know one great example, and that’s us—our brains, our human intelligence. Human
intelligence, I once assumed, is far beyond anything else that exists naturally in the
world; it’s the result of an elaborate process of evolution and thus stands apart from the
rest of existence. But what I’ve realized, as a result of the science I’ve done, is that this is
not the case.
People might say, for instance, “The weather has a mind of its own.” That’s an
animist statement and seems to have no place in modern scientific thinking. But it’s not
as silly as it sounds. What does the human brain do? A brain receives certain input, it
computes things, it causes certain actions to happen, it generates a certain output. Like
the weather. All sorts of systems are, effectively, doing computations—whether it’s a
brain or, say, a cloud responding to its thermal environment.
animist statement and seems to have no place in modern scientific thinking. But it’s not
as silly as it sounds. What does the human brain do? A brain receives certain input, it
computes things, it causes certain actions to happen, it generates a certain output. Like
the weather. All sorts of systems are, effectively, doing computations—whether it’s a
brain or, say, a cloud responding to its thermal environment.
We can argue that our brains are doing vastly more sophisticated computations
than those in the atmosphere. But it turns out that there’s a broad equivalence between
the kinds of computations that different kinds of systems do. This renders the question of
the human condition somewhat poignant, because it seems we’re not as special as we
thought. There are all those different systems of nature that are pretty much equivalent,
in terms of their computational capabilities.
than those in the atmosphere. But it turns out that there’s a broad equivalence between
the kinds of computations that different kinds of systems do. This renders the question of
the human condition somewhat poignant, because it seems we’re not as special as we
thought. There are all those different systems of nature that are pretty much equivalent,
in terms of their computational capabilities.
What makes us different from all those other systems is the particulars of our
history, which give us our notions of purpose and goals. That’s a long way of saying that
when the box on our desk thinks as well as the human brain does, what it still won’t have,
intrinsically, are goals and purposes. Those are defined by our particulars—our particular
biology, our particular psychology, our particular cultural history.
history, which give us our notions of purpose and goals. That’s a long way of saying that
when the box on our desk thinks as well as the human brain does, what it still won’t have,
intrinsically, are goals and purposes. Those are defined by our particulars—our particular
biology, our particular psychology, our particular cultural history.
182
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016402
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document