Have you heard of a ‘super recogniser’? No nor me, until I met one such super recogniser this morning and discovered they are the people who rectify mistakes made by so-called AI. And sorry if everyone else knew this, but I realised there and then that AI is a misnomer and AI is not Artificial Intelligence, just more complicated computer technology. It’s a point that bears repeating before anyone gets carried away and thinks that AI will be the silver bullet to get the NHS working again, the police to solve crime or the traffic industry to stop jams.
So sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but let me explain the connection between super recognisers and the flaw in our leaders banking on AI to revive our ailing economies. Here goes:
My new super recogniser acquaintance discovered her talent while watching This Morning years ago. “There was some professor on from The University of Greenwich talking about the ability to recognise people’s faces. I assumed that everyone can do this, but apparently they can’t. They were after people to research so I signed up.” (Lord Frost need not apply.)
It turns out my new chum is in the top 1% of super recognisers in that she can see someone’s face once and remember the face from all sorts of different angles and locations. She’s great with all races, which apparently not all super recognisers are. After being trained up she now works in the evenings, looking at images of faces captured by private security firms and matching them up to the faces suggested by facial recognition technology taken from various databases of suspects (I didn’t get round to asking where that came from). Now here’s the disappointing bit: according to my chum, the matches she is presented with by the facial recognition software are only accurate 75% percent of the time. (Big Brother Watch thinks the matches of live facial recognition technology have an even lower hit rate.)“Quite often the matches are laughable,” she explains. If arrests are to be made, facial technology must also be overseen by a human operative, hence the use of super recognisers – because the so-called AI is less top set, more SEN.
This disappointing situation can be applied to all sorts of other so called AI solutions: reading MRI scans, X-rays, understanding blood test results; all of the AI suggestions will need to be verified by humans – for at least the first few years until it gets better. And why is this? Because AI is not Artificial Intelligence, it’s just technology. Hopefully impressive technology, but it is not and nor will it ever be intelligent.
Defined by Dr. Johnson as “spirit, unembodied mind”, intelligence will always and forever elude these machines and software that are currently misnamed AI. Sure, these AI might be able to solve problems and learn from data but they will never be intelligent. School mums will always be there in the background, working part-time making sure they’ve read the X-ray properly.
We are not the first generation to naïvely bequeath non-existent intelligence to machines. There is the famous incidence in 1601 when Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary presented a mechanical clock to the Emperor of China who thought this clever automata was a living creature. We who pin our hopes on AI are as green as that Emperor; it’s just tech, and should therefore be called AT – Advanced Technology – rather than AI.
It’s all Descartes’s fault for positing the mind-body duality which allows us to imagine that if there is a body, there may well follow a mind. The 18th century saw great discussion and interest in the potentiality of automata – all the fancy fountains, clocks and clever self-running toys that were made – to develop souls. The roots for this go way back into folklore when it was believed that animal or ancestral spirits would inhabit puppets. Alas they don’t; in the same way that life does not inhabit a machine and intelligence not exist within a computer. Pinocchio will never become a real boy.
Then as now, we just got carried away with the novelty of new invention. The only known higher intelligence in the universe is human. And that fact is perhaps more terrifying than the prospect of non-intelligent AI.
Joanna Gray is a writer and confidence mentor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Thank the gods for that! Expel the toxic turd. Is this the part where she cries ”racism”?!
expel and deport all these uglies, these anti white racists, these half bred, half wits.
surely there exist nirvana’s created by non whites they can flee to
It seems to me that it’s a scary time to be working at the BBC for anyone with strong opinions of any sort. After all, it would seem she got fired for her anti-semitic views.
I don’t like the idea that people get fired just for having opinions, even when I find them distasteful, like in this case.
Who decides what’s off limits? Where does it end?
I can remember when David Irving was interviewed on the BBC’s on Hardtalk. Just him for 30 minutes.
Let me ask, what do you prefer, the world in which the BBC interviews a holocaust sceptic or the world in which the BBC fires someone for being a holocaust sceptic?
As almost always, with you 100% on this one. Think employees in general should be protected by law from action by their employer relating to “speech” not directly relevant to their job. The example I give is a car salesman Tweeting that their brand of cars is crap, or something along those lines. The problem of the BBC is really entirely separate from this woman – the state has no business running a media empire. The BBC is utterly captured by the political left, sacking her makes no difference, she just upset the wrong people. If the BBC were privately owned and funded, they could be as left wing as they like. This gives the appearance the BBC is cleaning house – it’s not.
I remind you of some words I received by email from a “dis/mis information” colleague of the notorious Ms Spring, regarding their coverage of anti-lockdown protests. I think it gives a clear picture of how the anointed see the world, their role in it and ours.
“Of course those who believe in conspiracy theories are not going to call their beliefs conspiracy theories, and are going to call themselves mainstream, moderate people.
We viewed footage of the speakers and spoke to people who were there.
We have no obligation to give a platform to erroneous ideas. We don’t, to take an extreme example, broadcast the manifestos of mass murderers alongside police statements so that people can “make up their own minds”.
I’m not saying the people there were violent. Some of them were (as the story reflected) were drawn by legitimate concerns. But the speakers (Mr Icke and others) were not expressing mainstream views that would benefit from airing and debate.”
It would be hilarious if it weren’t so frightening.
That’s EXACTLY what they’re supposed to do.
What I found interesting is that he was quite happy to share this view with me – I am sure that he believes 100% that he and the other anointed are eminently qualified to decide what views are suitable for us plebs to hear.
But they are happy to make programmes on mass murderers using gory detail for the purposes of entertainment and boosting ratings.
Would my 6 downtickers care to explain themselves? For example, if you think I am endorsing this woman’s views, then I am not (I haven’t looked at what she said in detail and don’t much care one way or another). My starting point is any speech is allowed beyond libel and slander. I don’t think we can pick and choose what kind of speech is allowed by employers and what isn’t based on what we agree with – then we’re as bad as our enemy, surely?
Stop moaning. I’ve got 8 (for now). 6 is nothing.
There is another aspect to this.
Within many organisations there is a proviso that employees must not bring the company / business into disrepute. I believe this woman by going public with her frankly nasty and offensive opinions has done just that. The BBC is after all supposed to be impartial – a joke I know – and if this Queva woman had kept her views to herself none of us would be any the wiser. However, she decided to go very public and it would not be unreasonable for some people to conclude that her comments were actually sanctioned by the BBC. So it is possible that the BBC has acted with the aim.of safeguarding its “impartiality.”
Ms Queva possibly assumed her grossly offensive views would be ignored by her bosses but that reflects more on her intelligence levels than it does the BBC attempts to stick to its Charter.
I have no sympathy for this woman and I believe in this instance a sacking was all she deserved. Her commentary has been crude, vindictive, malicious and in these febrile times frankly dangerous. Without doubt there has been a recruitment issue with this woman and evidently she was a quota appointment – black and female – but she was appointed to a reasonably high profile position and doubtless a significant salary for what appears to be a non-job. The least she could do was to act in a manner befitting her relatively senior position.
Whatever the rationale behind the BBC decision the sacking was the correct outcome.
The trouble is hp that the same rationale could be applied to a BBC employee saying that sex is immutable and men claiming to be women are not women. Who decides what is “grossly offensive”?
I understand your point tof but if you take the shilling you act by the employer’s rules. Or bugger off.
Well IMO it should be illegal for employers to sack you for speech not connected to your work. I have faced this danger as I know I have views on certain subjects that our former owner would find “hateful” – for example that Black Lives Matter is a deeply dangerous organisation, and that we should stop talking about race and “racism”. Views that you may well agree with and feel I should be able to express without fear of losing my job. “Employers’ rules” can be used to protect all sorts of damaging narratives from being questioned.
Well, that’s all nice and dandy but what consequence is the guy who hired her going to face? Or the people who weren’t able to communicate clearly what is or isn’t acceptable in her position beforehand? IMHO, that’s the millipede chopping off an insignificant leg for the benefit of itself. She has accidentally annoyed the wrong people. But I don’t think this kind of behind-the-scenes powerplay should exist. Had she claimed all men were rapists, she’d have gotten away it. Had she claimed all Germans were genocidal Nazis, she’d doubtlessly have gotten away with that as well. Etc.
In the end, she did nothing but voice an opinion some people consider really disagreeable while some other people certainly very much agree with it. The proper reaction to that is speech and not disciplinary action.
“ So it is possible that the BBC has acted with the aim.of safeguarding its “impartiality.”
WTGR, the BBC’s output is littered, daily, with “science decided” bias, BBCHYS vs subjects which they know will attract vicious comments, and do, which they then will only moderate if you are A) on their automatic watch list or B) someone complains and it might, but only might, get removed. Some comments are very clearly libellous which in very many cases are left published for hours. Let’s not forget that The BBC is a lynchpin of TNI – enough said.
If she thinks the holocaust is a hoax, her work colleagues could have taken the opportunity to counter the information her view is based on as part of what used to be general office chat.
It’s curious that this is considered problematic:
“The BBC Three executive also shared a video suggesting Israel wanted a mosque to ‘collapse'”
Yet the Israeli media has articles such as:
“‘Whoever died at Nova was fat’; PE teacher rants about October 7 during class”
“It was also reported that the teacher said “Death to the Arabs,” and “Kahana tzadak” (Kahana was right,) according to student testimonies.”
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-784608
Well if there is to a be a world with unlimited Free Speech fair enough. I could live with that. After all, how can I disagree with people if I don’t know what they think——-But that is not what we are getting. Try criticising Islam and see where that gets you. Probably with your head in a basket.
Seconded. She’d doubtlessly have gotten away with this when she had stuck to publishing abuse about English people and white people in general. That she accidentally stepped onto the toes of a group with enough leverage at the BBC for this to have consequences for her shouldn’t matter.
Has she made a cringing non-apology and claimed that she’s suffering from mental health issues yet?
I am sure she will be polishing her race card. Dianne Abacus will be out next.
I am so grateful to the Daily Sceptic which gives me the opportunity to read your statement.
I find it pretty obnoxious and the accusation that jews murdered 67 million people in Russia extremely bizarre.
But I’m glad that you had your say and that I got to read it and I can safely report that at least for now it hasn’t made me anti-semitic. Not even a tincy wincy bit.
I thought Coup D’etat was a better name. Jon Smith is a bit plain. ——I thought you couldn’t afford 5 quid a month though? Or are you just having another flying visit ?
ha ha ha ha….I am so glad you have paid another fiver, I love a good laugh. ——Why don’t you try comedy for a living?
‘Prophet Orwell’ was another flash in the pan from one of my other haters. I mean, nothing says that you’re a rational, decent, well-balanced person like resorting to a name change so you can carry on singling out and targeting certain posters for extra abuse and harassment. All the while projecting your evident psychological issues onto that person and imagining you’re fooling anybody.
A certain Cypress Hill classic springs to mind…
It’s ok I can deal with a spot of name calling and trust me they get it back with change. ——-But all that name calling does is show how insecure you are and often how weak your argument really is.
I really hope the DS leaves all your comments on and. doesn’t “moderate” you.
Your comments and your style only seem to increase my sympathy for Jewish people.
Well done——You showed that all people are bad at times. What makes you think no one realises that? There have been atrocities all over the world. You seem to think that everyone else’s atrocities are not worth a shit because Jews did some of it. ——–I hate all atrocities mate, and your specialist subject included.
This discussion has been truncated it seems.
Despite my pleas.
I don’t understand it.
People with gross and offensive ideas should be allowed to express them, especially in the way that Jon Smith or whoever it was was expressing himself. He and his ideas couldn’t have been more off putting.
Censorship is just incredibly self defeating.
“Censorship is just incredibly self defeating.”
Jon Smith had previously commented that Zionists control the media. Censoring him added weight to his argument.
Who lifted the “ weight “ to be added …?
Apart from calling the Holocaust a hoax every other statement by her is correct.
Wars of conquest have occurred in all times and ages, hence, singling out Jews as invader species is nonsense. If anything, Jewish people are responsible for substantially less wars of conquest than many others as the Jews didn’t have a state and thus, also didn’t have a miltary force of their own, for most of the last 2000 years. I’m also pretty certain Jews and people who aren’t Jews can interbreed, hence, calling Jews a species is wrong.
There has been a Jewish state in the last 2000 years: the Khazarian empire of the middle ages adopted Judaism and wielded significant trade and military power. See “The Jews of Khazaria” by Kevin Alan Brook.
Being “intermarried” might raise questions:
https://daytonjewishobserver.org/2011/10/knesset-member-intermarried-but-not-interfaith/
Please spare me this somethingload of speculative history about a past we have no records of. If you want to waste your time with this, please feel free to do so. I don’t.
Interesting that the Jewish Quarterly Review was not so dismissive.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1455583
If you think that’s interesting, spend your time with it. I don’t.
The idea that a major empire showing religious tolerance which adopted Judaism should be of interest when it shows an alternative to the historic divisions that are raised to stoke present-day conflicts.
As far as Palestine is concerned Jews are invaders.
By 1800 there were 7,000 Jews in Palestine. This compares with 268,000 non-Jewish Palestinians.
By 1890 there were 43,000 Jews in Palestine. This compares with 489,000 non-Jewish Palestinians.
The UK government with their Balfour Declaration in 1917 to Lord Rothschild gave the green light for European Jews to go to Palestine.
Before 1917 the number of Jews in Palestine between 1914-15 was 38,754 (it is unclear how many of these were European Jews). This compares with 683,389 non-Jewish Palestinians.
By 1922 there were 83,790 Jews in Palestine. This compares with 673,392 non-Jewish Palestinians.
By 1931 there were 91,398 Jews in Palestine. This compares with 944,423 non-Jewish Palestinians.
By 1945 there were 553,600 Jews in Palestine. This compares with 1,210,920 non-Jewish Palestinians.
By 2014 there were 6.2 million Jews in Palestine (Israel). This compares with 6.1 million non-Jewish Palestinians.
As far as Palestine is concerned Jews are invaders
Obviously. Even twice, when we consider biblical stories. But in this respect, they’re in no way different from the Assyrians who invaded ‘biblical’ Israel, from the Athenians who invaded Melos during the time of the Peloponnesian war, from the Aztecs of central America who invaded every other state in the region or from the Brits who – at one time or another – invaded pretty much every country which ever coexisted with Great Britain. And this is by no means an exhaustive list.
Some Jews consider areas such as the Gaza their home, it’s an entrenched belief. The Knesset channel has some good examples. I can’t see David Cameron changing their mind but then he’s probably not been dug-up for any genuine diplomatic reason.
https://twitter.com/knessett
It was not that long ago that asking a lady of African origin wearing African dress where she was from was considered intolerable racism. Seems the goal posts have shifted
So basically, she’s not so much anti-Semitic, but hates everyone (including whites) who isn’t like her. This is narcissism. As for the Free Speech Union – speech is free so long as they agree with you? Free speech should be exactly that. You can’t legislate against bigotry.