[LINK] Wi-Fi 7

[Roger Clarke]

On 5/1/24 12:38 pm, David wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 19:49, Narelle Clark wrote:
>> From the November issue of the IEEE Communications Magazine there are 
>> some papers on 'Semantic Communication': "In contrast to the Shannon 
>> paradigm that focuses on correct reception of the transmitted packet 
>> regardless of its meaning, semantic communication is concerned with 
>> the issue of how to efficiently transmit and receive the desired 
>> meaning of the source content to the destination. By transmitting only 
>> the meaning or semantics of the source content, semantic communication 
>> holds the promise of making wireless networks significantly more 
>> energy-efficient, robust, and sustainable than ever before."
>>
>> Just what we need embedded in everything, huh? AI determining the 
>> "meaning" and summarising the lower layer communications for more 
>> efficient transmission.
> 
> I can think of an even more efficient way of communicating: forget about 
> all those difficult theoretical concepts like Shannon's Equation or 
> Entropy, and let the listener just assume they know what the human at 
> the other end is saying!  Why bother about physics, it's all too 
> difficult and too hard to market.
> 
> I must be feeling in a cynical mood this morning.
> 
> "Semantic communication" is quite often known as poetry, which conveys 
> its message by conjuring the listener's emotions and imagination, their 
> shared experience of life, and their empathy for others.
> 
> However humans have been developing such understanding and mental 
> capacity one way and another since the dawn of sentient life, and the 
> human brain began its evolution perhaps two million years ago. 
> Furthermore, human cerebral reactions cannot be separated from the rest 
> of the body's biochemistry, such as the endocrine system, the 
> sympathetic & para-sympathetic nervous system, and so on.
> 
> This is essentially why AI machines should be conceived (by humans!) as 
> fast correlation processors.  That's not to deny they're an extremely 
> important technology with vast potential to improve the lot of humanity, 
> and also to destroy it.  I don't agree that AI is some sort of 
> technology bubble which will just disappear given time.
> 
> Yes?  No?
At the following link, I run the argument that 'AI' was great as a means 
of getting a research grant in 1965, but the misconceptions embedded in 
it have done a lot of damage already and will do a lot more shortly:
http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/AITS.html#RAI

If, and only if, we re-conceive and re-orient can we can get the threats 
back under control, and reap benefits.

What's needed is not 'AI', but 'Complementary Artefact Intelligence'.

And that requires the use of decision-support thinking, envisioning 
Artefact Intelligence as being *designed to* integrate with Human 
Intelligence, to produce Augmented Intelligence.

And, while we're at it, we need to build an explicit linkage with 
robotics - or better still with 'co-botics' - and talk about 
complementary artefact capability combining with human capability to 
deliver augmented capability:
http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/AITS.html#F2


-- 
Roger Clarke                            mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
T: +61 2 6288 6916   http://www.xamax.com.au  http://www.rogerclarke.com

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA 

Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/attachments/20240105/ae4bed9d/attachment.sig>