Skip to content

Alice Siwoo Dream

Alice's Interest

Views 29 Votes 0 Comment 0
Atachment
Attachment '1'
?

Shortcut

PrevPrev Article

NextNext Article

Larger Font Smaller Font Up Down Go comment Print
?

Shortcut

PrevPrev Article

NextNext Article

Larger Font Smaller Font Up Down Go comment Print

Future Tense

The Real Threat From A.I. Isn’t Superintelligence. It’s Gullibility.

 

 20221012_173759.png

Possessed Photography/Unsplash

 

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence over the past few decades, from pipe dream to reality, has been staggering. A.I. programs have long been chess and Jeopardy! Champions, but they have also conquered poker, crossword puzzles, Go, and even protein folding. They power the social media, video, and search sites we all use daily, and very recently they have leaped into a realm previously thought unimaginable for computers: artistic creativity.

 

Given this meteoric ascent, it’s not surprising that there are continued warnings of a bleak Terminator-style future of humanity destroyed by superintelligent A.I.s that we unwittingly unleash upon ourselves. But when you look beyond the splashy headlines, you’ll see that the real danger isn’t how smart A.I.s are. It’s how mindless they are—and how delusional we tend to be about their so-called intelligence.

 

Last summer an engineer at Google claimed the company’s latest A.I. chatbot is a sentient being because … it told him so. This chatbot, similar to the one Facebook’s parent company recently released publicly, can indeed give you the impression you’re talking to a futuristic, conscious creature. But this is an illusion—it is merely a calculator that chooses words semi-randomly based on statistical patterns from the internet text it was trained on. It has no comprehension of the words it produces, nor does it have any thoughts or feelings. It’s just a fancier version of the autocomplete feature on your phone.

 

Chatbots have come a long way since early primitive attempts in the 1960s, but they are no closer to thinking for themselves than they were back then. There is zero chance a current A.I. chatbot will rebel in an act of free will—all they do is turn text prompts into probabilities and then turn these probabilities into words. Future versions of these A.I.s aren’t going to decide to exterminate the human race; they are going to kill people when we foolishly put them in positions of power that they are far too stupid to have—such as dispensing medical advice or running a suicide prevention hotline.

 

It’s been said that TikTok’s algorithm reads your mind. But it’s not reading your mind—it’s reading your data. TikTok finds users with similar viewing histories as you and selects videos for you that they’ve watched and interacted with favorably. It’s impressive, but it’s just statistics. Similarly, the A.I. systems used by Facebook and Instagram and Twitter don’t know what information is true, what posts are good for your mental health, what content helps democracy flourish—all they know is what you and others like you have done on the platform in the past and they use this data to predict what you’ll likely do there in the future.

 

Don’t worry about superintelligent A.I.s trying to enslave us; worry about ignorant and venal A.I.s designed to squeeze every penny of online ad revenue out of us.

 

And worry about police agencies that gullibly think A.I.s can anticipate crimes before they occur—when in reality all they do is perpetuate harmful stereotypes about minorities.

 

The reality is that no A.I. could ever harm us unless we explicitly provide it the opportunity to do so—yet we seem hellbent on putting unqualified A.I.s in powerful decision-making positions where they could do exactly that.

 

Part of why we ascribe far greater intelligence and autonomy to A.I.s than they merit is because their inner-workings are largely inscrutable. They involve lots of math, lots of computer code, and billions of parameters. This complexity blinds us, and our imagination fills in what we don’t see with more than is actually there.

 

In 1770, a chess playing robot—or “automaton,” in the parlance of the day—was created that for almost a century traveled the world and defeated many flabbergasted challengers, including notable individuals such as Napoleon and Benjamin Franklin. But it was eventually revealed to be a hoax: This was not some remarkable early form of A.I., it was just a contraption in which a human chess player could hide in a box and control a pair of mechanical arms. People so desperately wanted to see intelligence in a machine that for 84 years they overlooked the much more banal (and obvious, in hindsight) explanation: chicanery.

 

While our technology has progressed by leaps and bounds since the 18th century, our romantic attitude toward it has not. We still refuse to look inside the box, instead choosing to believe that magic in the form of superintelligence is occurring, or that it is just around the corner. This fanciful yearning distracts us from the genuine danger A.I. poses when we mistakenly think it is much smarter than it actually is. And if the past 250 years are any indication, this is the real danger that will persist into our future.

 

Just as people in the 18th and 19th centuries overlooked the banal truth behind the chess playing automaton, people today are overlooking a banal but effective way to protect our future selves from the risk of runaway A.I.s. We should expand A.I. literacy efforts to schools and the wider public so that people are less susceptible to the illusions of A.I. grandeur peddled by futurists and technology companies whose economic livelihood depends on convincing you that A.I. is far more capable than it really is.

 

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

 

[Source https://slate.com/technology/2022/10/artificial-intelligence-superintelligence-gullibility.html]

JAVA
2022.09.29 12:49

[JAVA] Switch~ Case

Views 36 Votes 0 Comment 0
?

Shortcut

PrevPrev Article

NextNext Article

Larger Font Smaller Font Up Down Go comment Print
?

Shortcut

PrevPrev Article

NextNext Article

Larger Font Smaller Font Up Down Go comment Print

[JAVA/자바] 조건문(switch ~ case문)

 이번 포스트는 조건문 중 switch ~ case문을 알아보겠다. switch문은 if문으로 모두 대체할 수 있고 if문이 조건문 중 대표적으로 사용된다.(솔직히 나는 switch문은 거의 사용 안 한다..) switch문의 장점은 비교하고자 하는 조건이 많을 경우 사용하면 보기에 더 편한 경우가 있다.
switch ~ case문

 switch문을 정의하는 방법은 아래와 같다.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 switch문을 작성할 때 case는 여러 개가 나와도 상관없다. break라는 것은 보조제어문 중 하나이다. 위에 설명한 것처럼 조건에 해당하는 실행문만 실행시키고 종료시키기 위해서 사용된다. 보조제어문에 대해서는 반복문을 포스팅할 때 다시 다루겠다. switch문의 몇 가지 예제를 살펴보자.

 

 

 

 

 

 위의 예제처럼 조건(2)과 일치하는 값(2)에서만 실행문이 작동된다. 만일 break라는 보조 제어문이 없다면 어떻게 될까? 예제를 통해 확인해 보자.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 바로 위의 예제와 동일한 소스 코드이나 case 2의 break를 주석 처리하였다. 결과는 case 2와 case 3의 실행문이 모두 출력된다. 위에서 설명하였듯이 break는 조건에 해당되는 내용만 실행하고 조건문을 빠져나가게 해준다. 다르게 말하면 break가 없다면 조건과 일치하는 부분부터 break를 만나거나 종료되기 전까지 실행이 된다. 
 이어서 switch문의 대표적인 예제라고 할 수 있는 학점 등급을 구하는 예제를 확인해 보자.

 

 

 


 위 예제에서 눈 여겨볼 내용은 int형 변수 score를 10으로 나눈 것이다. 일반적으로 계산하면 8.5라는 값이 나오지만 이전 포스팅에서 설명하였듯이 자료형이 int형이므로 소숫점이 버려졌고 따라서 case 8이 실행된다.
[출처] [JAVA/자바] 조건문(switch ~ case문)|작성자 JOKER

 

 

TAG •

Science
2022.09.28 11:17

How to Raise a Pig for Its Organs

Views 46 Votes 0 Comment 0
Atachment
Attachment '1'
?

Shortcut

PrevPrev Article

NextNext Article

Larger Font Smaller Font Up Down Go comment Print
?

Shortcut

PrevPrev Article

NextNext Article

Larger Font Smaller Font Up Down Go comment Print

[Source :  https://slate.com/technology/2022/08/xenotransplantation-pigs-heart-kidney-donor-virus.html]

SCIENCE

How to Raise a Pig for Its Organs

Xenotransplantation could be the future—if only the pigs could be kept virus-free.

20220927_174456.png

 

 

 

These pigs are too dirty. Photo by Kenneth Schipper Vera on Unsplash

 

 

Not too far in the future, everyone will know someone who has a pig organ inside their body. At least, that’s what xenotransplantation researchers hope.

Over the past year, surgeons have been busy creating pig-human hybrids. In New York and Birmingham, they transplanted pig kidneys into three brain-dead humans—proof-of-concept operations. In Baltimore, surgeons transplanted a pig heart into a living person with end-stage heart failure.

If these pig organ transplants became commonplace, they could save a lot of lives. There are over 100,000 Americans on the national transplant list, and seventeen people die every day waiting. Kidneys are highest in demand, followed by livers, hearts, and lungs. The dream is to end this shortage with pigs.

But these transplants aren’t as easy as plucking a pig from a farm and putting its organs into humans. It’s a highly technical process, rife with risks. Take the Baltimore example where the 57-year-old patient David Bennett got infected with the pig virus pCMV and passed away 60 days after his surgery, as reported in The New England Journal of Medicine. Bennett’s death epitomizes the continued danger and uncertainty over xenotransplantation since it’s a process all too easily felled by viruses. There are major hurdles to clear if animals are to become a reliable source of organs for people. Chief among them is how do you make sure the pig’s “donation” won’t be carrying something that infects the recipient?

Non-human primates, such as chimpanzees and baboons, were initially the animal of choice, but they fell out of favor in the ‘90s. Their biggest advantage—similarity to humans—elicited their downfall. Animal rights organizations protested the use of our “closest evolutionary cousins.” And the public was worried that a monkey virus could make it into humans. After all, HIV originated in chimpanzees.

Pigs, in turn, had a lot going for them. With centuries of agricultural experience under our belt, pigs were easier to breed, keep pathogen-free, and even genetically engineer.

That last part is crucial because, before these pigs are even born, they needed to be “humanized” so that their organs are compatible with our bodies. This is done using the gene-editing tool CRISPR. There’s the three-gene pig (as in, three genes have been added or deleted), the five-gene pig, the ten-gene pig, and the sixty-gene pig, with a Goldilocks-like debate over how many changes are just right. Everybody agrees that, at minimum, three pig genes need to be knocked out so that our bodies have a fighting chance of accepting the organ. Beyond that, you have two general theories: “size doesn’t matter” and “the bigger, the better.”

Researchers Joseph Tector and Eckhard Wolf are the minimalists. They believe the limitations of CRISPR call for modesty. For one, CRISPR is not entirely efficient, meaning that it alters only a percentage of earmarked DNA. And secondly, CRISPR causes all kinds of off-target mutations, inadvertently snipping up other bits of DNA. Going for as simple a pig as possible, both argued, is the best way to ensure a consistent product.

Biotechnology companies Revivicor and eGenesis, on the other hand, are the embellishers, hoping that with a more ambitious set of edits, they can eliminate the need for immunosuppression and get the best long-term survival. “Some of our colleagues and competitors are minimum editing,” eGenesis’ CEO Mike Curtis said, “because, well, they can’t do anything else.” After several years of testing and dozens of iterations, Revivicor and eGenesis have been able to ensure more-or-less consistent models.

Regardless of the CRISPR strategy, once the necessary genetic modifications are made, the pig embryos are transferred into a surrogate inside a designated pathogen-free (DPF) facility. The name of the game is to keep everything sterile. Imagine a concrete facility—it’s easy to wash down—with filtered air, UV-treated water, and no way for pigs to go outside. Basically the polar opposite of a pigsty.

For pigs, pregnancy naturally lasts exactly three months, three weeks, and three days. A few days before this 3-3-3 delivery date, surgeons will perform a caesarean section, because vaginal births leave piglets at risk of pCMV and other pathogens. The pigs will go straight from the womb into a bath of disinfectant. Then, they’ll be raised in isolation boxes, away from their mothers.

These pigs are fed a kind of baby formula by technicians dressed up in “spacesuits” (you couldn’t technically go to space in them, but they would comprehensively cover your body.) Regular screenings check for viruses; pigs that test positive for the bad ones—those that might infect humans—are killed. And after about six months when they’ve grown to adult human size, these pigs are ready to have their organs cut out and transplanted—if everything goes well, without any viruses enclosed.

But Bennett, the Baltimore patient who briefly lived with a pig heart, still got pCMV. His pig was screened four separate times before transplantation via nasal swab and PCR, testing negative for the virus every single time. What Bennett’s surgeon Bartley Griffith thinks may have happened is that the pig had a dormant pCMV infection that “hitched a ride” via the donor heart and reactivated in Bennett’s immunosuppressed body. Griffith’s team successfully treated the infection, but it was too late—the virus had likely already done too much damage to Bennett’s heart. “We won the battle, lost the war,” Griffith said.

However, losing this war signals trouble for the pig-organ dream. Every xenotransplantation expert I spoke to was surprised that Bennett was infected with a pig virus. For twenty years, it’s been known that you need to get rid of pCMV to make pig-heart transplants possible, and the protocol for raising pigs has the express purpose of ensuring a clean donor. So, Bennett’s infection by pCMV is not only baffling but also alarming, to say the least. When speaking to The New York Times, Griffith nonetheless predicted, “Knowing it was there, we’ll probably be able to avoid it in future.”

Still, the difficulty of ensuring a clean pig reveals how the road ahead may still be winding and uncertain. We don’t know what pig we should be using. We don’t know whether pig hearts can sustain humans long-term. We don’t know what we don’t know.

After all, if the patient got infected with pCMV of all things, despite the precautions, then, Curtis asked, “what else could possibly happen?”


Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 Next
/ 3

Copyright© 2022 by Alice Siwoo KIM All Rights Reserved

Writer : Allice(AliceSiwoo) / ksw050712@gmail.com

sketchbook5, 스케치북5

sketchbook5, 스케치북5