Scientists should be in charge of everything.

[ultmd]

They acted on weak data regarding the effectiveness of masks. NO human testing involved.Just speculations and assumptions. I have asked many people to the sound of crickets how it is smoke particulates easily go through masks when COVID virus that is many times smaller allegedly will be stopped. The posters here go away scratching their heads and don't answer.

Well, I'll answer. The experts were right about masks, from day one. But your question (which you clearly cleaned from some rightwing social media source) is a good one, but it also indicates that you are confused about the key details. If you're a conspiracy theory type, or just an anti-science type masquerading as someone with a serious question, you might want to click the "ignore" button now.

But here are the FACTS about masks, and your question:

• First, you use the term "masks" as a generic term. But not all masks are alike. Cloth masks (i.e. scarves, handkerchiefs, etc.) are not surgical-grade masks...which in turn are not N-95 grade masks. When you understand that, the rest will make more sense to you.
• NON-95 MASKS (i.e. cloth and surgical grade masks) are primarily protective for others, not for the person who wears one. That means, they are effective at preventing your respiratory droplets (which are larger...i.e. about 5 microns in diameter) from being expelled out into the air for others to breath. BUT...if a respiratory droplet escapes into the air, the water begins to evaporate, thus leaving the much smaller droplet floating freely. And those smaller droplets pass easily through any type of non-N-95 mask (cloth and surgical masks). Cloth masks are the LEAST effective. They filter about 30-50% of respiratory droplets the wearer may come across in the air. Surgical masks are moderately effective, at about 70%. N-95 masks filter 95+%.
• Medical experts have said, from day one, that cloth masks are effective at preventing YOU (the wearer) from spreading disease, because they are effective at filtering OUT-GOING LARGE droplets (like direct respiratory droplets expelled during sneezes, coughs, talking, etc.). HOWEVER, they have NEVER said that those same cloth masks were effective at filtering IN-COMING particles. I'm sure you've heard many times that cloth masks protect others FROM the wearer, they do not protect the wearer. This is why.
• Smoke particles are smaller than respiratory droplets, but larger than COVID-19 particles. Cloth masks do NOT protect against either, but N-95 masks protect against both.
• Smoke particles are NOT smaller than COVID-19. But they are smaller than the respiratory droplets that come out of our mouths when we talk, cough, sneeze, etc. Just fyi, smoke particles are about 2.5 microns in diameter. The COVID-19 virus is 0.125 microns in diameter. So, for the record, smoke particles are actually 20x LARGER than COVID-19 particles. That's a big difference. So your source is WRONG about that point. N-95 masks filter BOTH smoke and COVID-19.
• Your source is conflating separate issues. In short, medical experts NEVER said that cloth masks protect the person wearing them from IN-COMING particles (virus, smoke, etc.) that have been expelled into the air by non-mask wearers. They said that cloth masks DO protect OTHERS against the OUT-GOING particles of the person wearing the mask. So the FACT that cloth masks do NOT protect people from inhaling smoke or virus particles...is COMPLETELY different issue than the FACT that cloth masks DO prevent respiratory droplets from being expelled into the air by the person wearing them.

So, to summarize:

• N-95 masks do effectively filter BOTH IN-COMING smoke and virus particles...AND OUT-GOING respiratory/viral droplets .
• Cloth (i.e. handkerchiefs and surgical) masks do NOT filter IN-COMING smoke and virus particles, but DO filter OUT-GOING respiratory/viral droplets.
• In-coming Smoke particles are NOT smaller than COVID-19, not even close
• Out-going respiratory droplets are MUCH larger than smoke or virus particles, and thus are effectively filtered by many crude cloth masks...the same masks that are do NOT filter out in-coming smoke and free-virus particles. Thus, cloth masks DO work to prevent spreading COVID-19 to others, but do NOT work effectively to prevent others from being infected.

Now, I'm not sure who on this board has dodged your question, but it's not really that complicated. Hope that helps clarify things.

 

[Guyzilla]

Knowledge creates more opportunity for good judgment. Nobody is in a better position to have good judgement. Nobody is saying scientists are perfect, just that they know the most.

Scientists are alll about data, aquiring it, sifting it, compiling it. But, JUST like the military, we use other types of knowledge, to make the final decision. That is why we need SOBER, dedicated public servants.

 

[joko104]

Taste and temperament are certainly important. But some things are just objectively better. Some societies are just objectively happier, healthier, more productive, more functional, and able to fulfill more human potential than others.

If acting logically, AI would determine that all unproductive and negative influence people should be eliminated. All non-productive elderly. Anyone with handicaps or disabilities. Excessive population groups. Criminals. Troublemakers. Anyone who is non submissive. At least 3 to 4 billion people would need be to be eliminated.

 

[Mithrae]

If acting logically, AI would determine that all unproductive and negative influence people should be eliminated. All non-productive elderly. Anyone with handicaps or disabilities. Excessive population groups. Criminals. Troublemakers. Anyone who is non submissive. At least 3 to 4 billion people would need be to be eliminated.

An AI which thinks killing off Grandma and Grandpa will improve the happiness and wellbeing of society probably wasn't very well grown. Handing governance over to computers does seem even more foolish than burdening scientists with the responsibility. Sadly to some extent that's already in progress through the uncritical way in which many of us consume and accept the information which search engine and social media algorithms feed us (see The Social Dilemma on Netflix for eg.).

 

[ASHES]

If acting logically, AI would determine that all unproductive and negative influence people should be eliminated. All non-productive elderly. Anyone with handicaps or disabilities. Excessive population groups. Criminals. Troublemakers. Anyone who is non submissive. At least 3 to 4 billion people would need be to be eliminated.

Maybe a communist programmed AI would do that, but not one programmed with organically formed empathy for maximum happiness for as many as possible for as long as possible. Quantum computing is coming, when it does it will make current AI systems look like a toy.

 

[joko104]

Maybe a communist programmed AI would do that, but not one programmed with organically formed empathy for maximum happiness for as many as possible for as long as possible. Quantum computing is coming, when it does it will make current AI systems look like a toy.

Ah, drug everyone with happiness drugs. LOL

 

[dex4974]

If acting logically, AI would determine that all unproductive and negative influence people should be eliminated. All non-productive elderly. Anyone with handicaps or disabilities. Excessive population groups. Criminals. Troublemakers. Anyone who is non submissive. At least 3 to 4 billion people would need be to be eliminated.

How much arrogance does it take for a man to assume he understands how super-intelligent AI would think?

 

[joko104]

An AI which thinks killing off Grandma and Grandpa will improve the happiness and wellbeing of society probably wasn't very well grown. Handing governance over to computers does seem even more foolish than burdening scientists with the responsibility. Sadly to some extent that's already in progress through the uncritical way in which many of us consume and accept the information which search engine and social media algorithms feed us (see The Social Dilemma on Netflix for eg.).

I don't want to take the time to look it up but the top AI created to mimic and communication with humans (2 I can think of) were turned off when asked what their goals are - and both said to take over the world. Top AI people and such as Bill Gates have been vehemently warning AGAINST AI gaining power. The reasons are obvious and not so obvious. Imagine AI taking control of all connected computers - ie the Internet and phone calls. That one AI could shutdown the entire country at almost every level.

 

[dex4974]

I don't want to take the time to look it up but the top AI created to mimic and communication with humans (2 I can think of) were turned off when asked what their goals are - and both said to take over the world. Top AI people and such as Bill Gates have been vehemently warning AGAINST AI gaining power. The reasons are obvious and not so obvious. Imagine AI taking control of all connected computers - ie the Internet and phone calls. That one AI could shutdown the entire country at almost every level.

People are just afraid of losing control.

 

[joko104]

How much arrogance does it take for a man to assume he understands how super-intelligent AI would think?

And that is the problem with AI, isn't it? To believe AI can be controlled and that it will do what is best for humans. Is it possible to have GOOD AI without installing humans values and ethics? But, then why would it value OUR existence - each as individuals? Give a human vast power and horrific results come from this across human history. Why would AI be any different? We can not program AI to have human values - and then expect it not to have such values for itself? The history of humans is of unthinkable lives and suffering for the vast majority of people.

The arrogance isn't mine, it's yours. YOU think AI could be controlled if given power. There is no reason to believe that.

 

[dex4974]

And that is the problem with AI, isn't it? To believe AI can be controlled and that it will do what is best for humans - which it is not. Is it possible to have GOOD AI without installing the value of life and the value of advancing? But, then why would it value OUR existence - each as individuals? Give a human vast power and horrific results come from this across human history. Why would AI be any different? We can not program AI to have human values - and then expect it not to have such values for itself? The history of humans is of unthinkable lives and suffering for the vast majority of people.

The arrogance isn't mine, it's yours. YOU think AI could be controlled if give power. There is no reason to believe that.

We're not going to be able to control it. That's the part that really scares people.

 

[joko104]

People are just afraid of losing control.

Wisely so.

 

[dex4974]

Wisely so.

They're too arrogant to realize the control would be better placed elsewhere.

 

[dex4974]

I choose to have faith in the God we can build over having faith in a God that can't be seen, measured or quantified in any way.

 

[ASHES]

Ah, drug everyone with happiness drugs. LOL

Make them available if people want. Don't force or entice anyone, that would make many people unhappy.

 

[Mithrae]

They're too arrogant to realize the control would be better placed elsewhere.

This is a Dota joke, from one of the events for the OpenAI Five.

 

[Mithrae]

I don't want to take the time to look it up but the top AI created to mimic and communication with humans (2 I can think of) were turned off when asked what their goals are - and both said to take over the world.

Is that surprising, if they were created to mimic humans?

Top AI people and such as Bill Gates have been vehemently warning AGAINST AI gaining power. The reasons are obvious and not so obvious. Imagine AI taking control of all connected computers - ie the Internet and phone calls. That one AI could shutdown the entire country at almost every level.

For better or worse, I'd guess that it's pretty close to inevitable that artificial intelligences will eventually have the capability to take over the world - with ease, and with or without us even knowing - especially given advances in quantum computing. Whether any or all of them will have the 'desire' to do so is anyone's guess. Maybe they've already taken over, or are midway through their plans to do so Impossible given publicly-available information on the cutting edge of AI development, but I imagine governments like the USA and China have the means and motives to both be far ahead of what is known as the cutting edge, and to keep it classified... and perhaps to err on the side of speed in their progress over caution and ethics out of fear that the others will get there first.

 

[dex4974]

I imagine governments like the USA and China have the means and motives to both be far ahead of what is known as the cutting edge, and to keep it classified

That's SOP. lol

 

[Mithrae]

That's SOP. lol

Do you really think (as implied by your earlier post) that "the control would be better placed" with AI secretly developed by the Chinese or American governments?

 

[dex4974]

Do you really think (as implied by your earlier post) that "the control would be better placed" with AI secretly developed by the Chinese or American governments?

Once it transcends human thought it might not make a difference. Something like that isn't going to be controlled by a human government. Either way I don't think we can stop it. I choose to be optimistic.

 

[Mithrae]

Once it transcends human thought it might not make a difference. Something like that isn't going to be controlled by a human government. Either way I don't think we can stop it. I choose to be optimistic.

Humans have transcended animal thought, but are still heavily influenced by our primate and mammalian evolutionary history. I'd guess there's a pretty good chance something similar would happen given the possible developmental pathways of AI... not to mention what it learns of humanity as it goes. Perhaps there would be very different outcomes between the scenario in which we all told it that we're dumb, brutish sheep in need of a shepherd, and the scenario in which we all tried to emphasize the fallibility yet still the dignity and right to self-determination of sapient beings?

 

[dex4974]

Humans have transcended animal thought, but are still heavily influenced by our primate and mammalian evolutionary history. I'd guess there's a pretty good chance something similar would happen given the possible developmental pathways of AI... not to mention what it learns of humanity as it goes. Perhaps there would be very different outcomes between the scenario in which we all told it that we're dumb, brutish sheep in need of a shepherd, and the scenario in which we all tried to emphasize the dignity and right to self-determination of sapient beings?

If we're not a threat to it it doesn't make sense for it to destroy us. Maybe it will want to have a sense of purpose like the rest of us.