Toggle light / dark theme

One thing about Quntum; nothing ever stays consistent. Why it’s loved & hated by Cyber Security enthusiasts as well as AI engineers.


When water in a pot is slowly heated to the boil, an exciting duel of energies takes place inside the liquid. On the one hand there is the interaction energy that wants to keep the water molecules together because of their mutual attraction. On the other hand, however, the motional energy, which increases due to heating, tries to separate the molecules. Below the boiling point the interaction energy prevails, but as soon as the motional energy wins the water boils and turns into water vapour. This process is also known as a phase transition. In this scenario the interaction only involves water molecules that are in immediate proximity to one another.

An artificial quantum world of atoms and light

An artificial quantum world of atoms and light: Atoms (red) spontaneously arrange themselves in a checkerboard pattern as a result of the complex interplay between short- and long-range interactions. (Visualizations: ETH Zurich / Tobias Donner)

Good question? Answer as of to date — depends on the “AI creator.” AI today is all dependent upon architects, engineers, etc. design and development and the algorithms & information exposed in AI. Granted we have advanced this technology; however, it is still based on logical design and principles; nothing more.

BTW — here is an example to consider in this argument. If a bank buys a fully functional and autonomous AI; and through audits (such as SOX) it is uncovered that embezzling was done by this AI solution (like in another report 2 weeks ago showing where an AI solution stole money out of customer accounts) who is at fault? Who gets prosecuted? who gets sued? The bank, or the AI technology company; or both? We must be ready to address these types of situations soon and legislation and the courts are going to face some very interesting times in the near future; and consumers will probably take the brunt of the chaos.


A recent experiment in which an artificially intelligent chatbot became virulently racist highlights the challenges we could face if machines ever become superintelligent. As difficult as developing artificial intelligence might be, teaching our creations to be ethical is likely to be even more daunting.

Read more

Forget about generation ships, suspended animation, or the sudden appearance of a worm hole. The most likely way for aliens to visit us — whatever their motive — is by sending robotic probes. Here’s how swarms of self-replicating spacecraft could someday rule the galaxy.

Top image by Alejandro Burdisio via Concept Ships.

Back in late 1940’s the Hungarian mathematician John Von Neumann wondered if it might be possible to design a non-biological system that could replicate itself in a cellular automata environment, what he called a universal constructor. Von Neumann wasn’t thinking about space exploration at the time, but other thinkers like Freeman Dyson, Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, and Robert Freitas later took his idea and applied it to exactly that.

Read more

My own prediction is that we will see singularity with humans 1st via BMI/ BI technology and other bio-computing technology before we see a machine brain operating a the level of a healthy fully funtional human brain.


Since War of the Worlds hit the silver screen, never has the notion that machine intelligence will overtake human intelligence is more real. In this two-part series, the author examines the growing trend towards cognitive machines.

Read more

They need to be especially as we assess AI with SOX, HIPAA, and Cyber security. It will be interesting how auditors will approach this space as well since not many folks outside of tech are considered AI experts. This should be interesting.


Scott & Scott, LLP attorney, Christopher Barnett, expresses concern whether KPMG’s recent announcement that they will be deploying IBM’s Watson cognitive computing technology points to changes in software audits in the future.

Download PDF [259KB]

Read more

D-Wave not only created the standard for Quantum Computing; they are the standard for QC in N. America at least. Granted more competitors will enter the field; however, D-Wave is the commercial competitor with proven technology and credentials that others will have to meet up to or excel past to be a real player in the QC landscape.


Burnaby-based D-Wave, which was founded in 1999 as a spin-off from the physics department of the University of British Columbia has become nothing less than the leading repository of quantum computing intellectual property in the world, says the analyst. He thinks D-Wave’s customers will be positioned to gain massive competitive advantages because they will be able to solve problems that normal computers simply can’t, such those in areas such as DNA sequencing, financial analysis, and artificial intelligence.

“We stand at the precipice of a computing revolution,” says Kim. “Processing power is taking a huge leap forward thanks to ingenious innovations that leverage the counter-intuitive and unique properties of the quantum realm. Quantum mechanics, theorized many decades ago, is finally ready for prime time. Imagine, if we could go back to 1946 and have the same foresight with the ENIAC, the first electronic general-purpose computer. ENIAC’s pioneers created a new industry and opened up unimaginable possibilities. The same opportunity exists today with D-Wave Systems. D-Wave is the world’s first quantum computing company and represents the most unique and disruptive company that we have seen in our career.

Read more

The growth of human and computer intelligence has triggered a barrage of dire predictions about the rise of super intelligence and the singularity. But some retain their skepticism, including Dr. Michael Shermer, a science historian and founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine.

quote-i-m-a-skeptic-not-because-i-do-not-want-to-believe-but-because-i-want-to-know-michael-shermer-71-29-72

The reason so many rational people put forward hypotheses that are more hype than high tech, Shermer says, is that being smart and educated doesn’t protect anyone from believing in “weird things.” In fact, sometimes smart and educated people are better at rationalizing beliefs that they hold for not-so-rational reasons. The smarter and more educated you are, the better able you are to find evidence to support what you want to be true, suggests Shermer.

“This explains why Nobel Prize winners speak about areas they know nothing about with great confidence and are sure that they’re right. Just because they have this great confidence of being able to do that (is) a reminder that they’re more like lawyers than scientists in trying to marshal a case for their client,” Shermer said. “(Lawyers) just put together the evidence, as much as you can, in support of your client and get rid of the negative evidence. In science you’re not allowed to do that, you’re supposed to look at all the evidence, including the counter evidence to your theory.”

The root of many of these false hypotheses, Shermer believes, is based in religion. Using immortality as an example, Shermer said the desire to live forever has strong parallels to religious beliefs; however, while there are many making prophecies that technology will insure we’ll live forever, too many people in groups throughout history have made similar yet unfulfilled promises.

“What we’d like to be true is not necessarily what is true, so the burden of proof is on them to go ahead and make the case. Like the cryonics people…they make certain claims that this or that technology is going to revive people that are frozen later…I hope they do it, but you’ve got to prove otherwise. You have to show that you can actually do that.”

Even if we do find a way to live forever, Shermer notes the negatives may outweigh the positives. It’s not just living longer that we want to achieve, but living longer at a high quality of life. There’s not much benefit in living to age 150, he adds, if one is bedridden for 20 or 30 years.

Instead, Shermer compares the process to the evolution of the automobile. While the flying cars promised by 1950’s-era futurists haven’t come to pass, today’s automobile is exponentially smarter and safer than those made 50 or 60 years ago. While forward thinkers have had moments of lucid foresight, humans also have a history of making technology predictions that often don’t turn out to be realized. Often, as is the case with the automobile, we don’t notice differences in technological changes because the changes happen incrementally each year.

“That’s what’s really happening with health and longevity. We’re just creeping up the ladder slowly but surely. We’ve seen hip replacements, organ transplants, better nutrition, exercise, and getting a better feel for what it takes to be healthy,” Shermer says. “The idea that we’re gonna’ have one big giant discovery made that’s going to change everything? I think that’s less likely than just small incremental things. A Utopian (society) where everybody gets to live forever and they’re infinitely happy and prosperous and so on? I think it’s unrealistic to think along those lines.”

Looking at the future of technology, Shermer is equally reticent to buy in to the predictions of artificial intelligence taking over the world. “I think the concern about AI turning evil (and) this dystopian, science fiction perspective is again, not really grounded in reality. I’m an AI optimist, but I don’t think the AI pessimists have any good arguments,” Shermer said

While we know, for the most part, which types of governments work well, we don’t have any similar precedent for complex AI systems. Humans will remain in control and, before we start passing laws and restrictions to curb AI out of fear, Shermer believes we should keep improving our computers and artificial intelligence to make life better, evaluating and taking action as these systems continue to evolve.

Twenty six hundred years ago, a band of Judahite soldiers kept watch on their kingdom’s southern border in the final days before Jerusalem was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar. They left behind numerous inscriptions—and now, a groundbreaking digital analysis has revealed how many writers penned them. The research and innovative technology behind it stand to teach us about the origins of the Bible itself.

“It’s well understood that the Bible was not composed in real time but was probably written and edited later,” Arie Shaus, a mathematician at Tel Aviv University told Gizmodo. “The question is, when exactly?”

Shaus is one of several mathematicians and archaeologists trying to broach that question in a radical manner: by using machine learning tools to determine how many people were literate in ancient times. Their first major analysis, which appears today in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, suggests that the ability to read and write was widespread throughout the Kingdom of Judah, setting the stage for the compilation of Biblical texts.

Read more