Remember Intelligence 150 Years @Royal Society ChatSheet

upd 1/16 https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/ai_advisory_body_interim_report.pdfmore at footnote 1 on first report of UN AI committee 4

As a Diaspora Scot may I humbly raise a glass -a cheer or three - to King Charles .. 180 years on from his great grand mother taking back the purpose of English language to celebrate how to help millennials and educators translate good intelligence into urgent community action the world over. I do so hope Asians unite good intel voices Korea Spring 2024, that macron lets olympics youth define who their sdg heroines are so that by the time NY www.unsummitfuture.com comes in September 2024 all 8 billion beings are on board mother nature's better side.

Back in 1843 Queen Victoria asked the chattering classes at London's Royal Societies: would it be possible to change English constitution from gunboats ruling over slave-trading empire to commonwealth. There may have been some enlightened self-interest as Adam Smith would see it; royals had just been guillotined across the pond in France as for Ireland it wasn't smart to endorse landowners starving these peoples especially as it was the Irish who had been the majority of those English speakers who had declared independence of the continental new world. https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/from-hawick-to-hawick-the-story-of-the-economist-founder-james-wilson-121012001578_1.html

As you can see London scot James Wilson took up the challenge (and on his premature death diarrhea year 2 of launch of Charter bank by and for othe quarter of humans on subcontinent of India) -, his son-in- law Walter Bagehot sorted out the conflicts between the Royals and the City of London in a way that seemed like the Queens English was set to advance common sense

But by the time Geoffrey Crowther chaeied The Economist, either side of world war 2 it was obvious that the combination of economists and journalism had failed. Just to be clear on that instead of just a weekly journal Geoffrey added to his workload editing The Economist's centenary autobiography. What had gone wrong wss the combo of economists and media men were flipping useless in seeing ahead of what engineers could compound. Determined that the rest of the 20th C should do better, Criwther5 reached out to V Neumann and his NET (Neumann-Einstein-Turing) for survey design needed to pre-train journalists and economists if they were to live up to the Queens English.

One of the things that went wrong is that back in 1951 the odds must have been 100 to 1 against all three ogf the Net parting earth by 1957. In any event what happened between 1957 and 2012 is that almost every academic silos spun design of brainworking machines so far off orbit expected by Neumann Einstein and Turing, that we do need to very deeply see who did what in 2012 and immediately after that- and we couldnt assume the chats (because they are also pretrained) are true to the Net's purpose unless they can show us how they can deliver personalised learning agency tuned to the goals declared by 193 nations in 2015, as well as show how to mediate 999 ,other tongues autonomously as well as match professions judgements with the sort of deep data Turing would trust.

AIgames have been spending the winter looking for 30 womens intelligences to match the great ai breakthrough of 2012 heartened by the world's number 1 women empowerment library of melinda gates with its 2 most timely books of the year fei-fei li worlds i see and black womens superstar A JA wilson primer to black girls confidence and intelligence growth through school grades. Have a look at www.unsummitfuture.com - who can we add to this rolling diary of intelligences ground every community in courage and love instead of bully-pitches and hate?

=============================

Foot 1 upd 1/16 https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/ai_advisory_body_interim_report.pdfmore at footnote 1 on first report of UN AI committee 4 The consequences on everyone of AI's unfortunate entry into daily newscasting may be illustrated by there now being at least 4 overall AI committees of UN that is before sector, or regional-edu sponsored networks such as Japan and slovenia long run attempt to deepen ai professors at UN university- here's last month's latest report by committee 4 (where i count Guterres personal advisory by fei-fei li bengio and others on ai biotech/climate as #3 , the general head office tech envoy space as UN ai2 and AIforgood launch as direct response to sdgs by Geneva ITU with Melinda Gates and Fei-Fei Li and JYKim as UNAI 1

=========================================

AFTERCHATS

TO BARD 1/16/24 Do you see connection between famous Paris climate Cop and Paris version of ai world series due late summer 2024?

volume_up

From Bard: While there isn't a direct connection between the Paris Agreement reached at COP21 in 2015 and the Paris version of the AI World Series planned for late summer 2024, there are some potential points of intersection and underlying themes that warrant consideration:

Sustainability and AI:

• The AI World Series could showcase AI tools and solutions that contribute to environmental sustainability, aligning with the goals of the Paris Agreement. For example, AI can be used to optimize energy usage, manage renewable resources, and predict and mitigate climate risks.
• The event itself could be organized with sustainability principles in mind, minimizing its environmental footprint and promoting eco-friendly practices.

Collaboration and Innovation:

• Both the Paris Agreement and the AI World Series promote international collaboration and innovation to address global challenges. The Agreement brought together nations to find solutions to climate change, while the Series seeks to connect AI researchers and developers from around the world to share ideas and drive advancements in the field.
• This synergy could foster the development of AI solutions that support the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Human-AI Partnership:

• The Paris Agreement emphasizes the importance of human-led action to address climate change. Similarly, the AI World Series is likely to explore the responsible development and application of AI, ensuring it benefits humanity and addresses ethical concerns.
• Both events highlight the need for humans and AI to work together to solve complex problems, whether it's mitigating climate change or advancing technological progress.

However, it's important to acknowledge that:

• The AI World Series is primarily focused on technological advancements and commercial applications, while the Paris Agreement addresses a global environmental crisis.
• There might be concerns about the potential environmental impact of AI itself, if not developed and used responsibly.

Overall, while there may not be a direct link between the two events, they both represent major global initiatives addressing the future of our planet and highlighting the crucial role of technology and collaboration in addressing complex challenges. The Paris version of the AI World Series presents an opportunity to explore how AI can be leveraged to support the goals of the Paris Agreement and contribute to a more sustainable future.

Additional factors to consider:

• The specific themes and focus areas of the Paris AI World Series.
• The involvement of organizations or individuals connected to both the climate and AI communities.
• Any planned discussions or initiatives at the Series related to sustainability or the Paris Agreement.

By investigating these aspects, we can get a better understanding of the potential connections and implications of these two events coming together in Paris.

TO Bard

Am i wrong to see 2015-6 as year 193 nations made both cop promise and the 17 sdg promise and 23-24 as year chats mediate soc5.0 (cooperation) actions as every humans right. If I am wrong how do you interpret eg such national days as Martin Luther King's yesterday across USA?

From Bard There are several interesting points in your statement, and whether you're "wrong" depends on the specific aspects you're highlighting:

Similarities between 2015-16 and 2023-24:

• International Cooperation: Both periods represent moments of intense international collaboration and focus on global challenges. In 2015-16, it was the adoption of the Paris Agreement (COP21) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In 2023-24, the focus may be on mediating societal cooperation for Social 5.0, potentially ensuring certain actions as part of every human's right.
• Emphasis on Human Rights and Cooperation: Both periods share a focus on human rights and cooperation. The SDGs explicitly aim to "leave no one behind" and promote global collaboration, while Social 5.0 might involve ensuring certain actions or rights for all individuals.

Potential Differences and Uncertainties:

• Specificity of Promises and Actions: While the Paris Agreement and SDGs were concrete commitments with specific targets and timelines, the "chats mediating Soc5.0 actions" in 2023-24 seem more conceptual and may require further definition and implementation plans.
• Level of International Consensus: The agreements reached in 2015-16 involved nearly 200 countries, whereas Social 5.0 discussions and implementation might involve varying levels of international consensus and participation.
• Role of Technology and AI: While AI wasn't central to the 2015-16 agreements, it could play a significant role in mediating and facilitating cooperation for Social 5.0 in 2023-24.

Interpreting National Days like Martin Luther King Jr. Day:

National days like Martin Luther King Jr. Day serve as reminders of historical struggles for justice and equality, and ongoing efforts to achieve a more inclusive and equitable society. They can be seen as:

• Celebrations of progress: Recognizing and celebrating the advancements made in areas like civil rights and human rights.
• Calls to action: Highlighting the ongoing need for work towards racial justice, equality, and social progress.
• Platforms for education and awareness: Raising awareness about historical injustices and continuing struggles for human rights.

Whether your comparison is "wrong" depends on the specific aspects you're emphasizing. While there are clear parallels between the periods in terms of international cooperation and focus on human rights, the nature of the promises, level of consensus, and involvement of technology might differ. National days like Martin Luther King Jr. Day serve as important reminders of ongoing struggles for justice and equality, while also celebrating progress and inspiring continued action.

Ultimately, understanding the complexities and nuances of these events and movements is crucial for engaging in meaningful discussions about global cooperation, human rights, and the future of societies like Society 5.0.

TO Bard

Can you clarify how you see overall purpose of LLMs (& AGI) given your comment "?"chats mediating Soc5.0 actions" in 2023-24 seem more conceptual and may require further definition and implementation plans."

From Bard : I see the overall purpose of LLMs and AGI evolving in tandem with the concept of "chats mediating Soc5.0 actions" in several ways:

Facilitating Dialogue and Consensus:

• LLMs can be powerful tools for facilitating conversations and mediating discussions among diverse individuals and groups. Their ability to process and analyze large amounts of information, translate languages, and generate different perspectives can help in reaching common ground and building consensus on complex societal issues related to Social 5.0.
• AGI, if achieved, could take this a step further by understanding the nuances of human communication, emotions, and values even better, potentially leading to more effective and productive forms of social dialogue.

Informing and Guiding Action:

• LLMs can analyze vast amounts of data to identify trends, predict potential outcomes, and provide insights into societal needs and challenges. This information can inform the development of Social 5.0 action plans and guide decision-making towards achieving desired outcomes.
• AGI could potentially go beyond analysis and offer more proactive guidance, suggesting and evaluating different courses of action based on its understanding of complex social dynamics and ethical considerations.

Supporting Implementation and Monitoring:

• LLMs can be used to develop automated systems for tasks related to implementing and monitoring Social 5.0 actions. This could include things like managing resource allocation, tracking progress towards goals, and identifying areas where adjustments are needed.
• AGI, if possible, could play a more active role in coordinating and optimizing implementation efforts, adapting to changing circumstances, and ensuring fairness and justice in the application of Social 5.0 principles.

However, it's crucial to remember that LLMs and AGI are tools, and their potential for good or harm depends on how they are developed and used. Some concerns and challenges to consider include:

• Bias and discrimination: LLMs trained on biased data can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and inequalities. We need to ensure fair and ethical development and application of these technologies.
• Transparency and accountability: It's essential to understand how LLMs and AGI make decisions and ensure transparency in their operation, especially when they contribute to important social decisions.
• Human control and oversight: Ultimately, humans should be in control of these technologies and ensure they are used for the benefit of society, not to replace or overpower human judgment.

In conclusion, LLMs and AGI have the potential to play a significant role in mediating and facilitating cooperation towards achieving Social 5.0 goals. However, their effectiveness will depend on responsible development, careful implementation, and ongoing dialogue about their role in shaping the future of society.