^ totally recommend that
― markers, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:15 (4 years ago) Permalink
yeah i read that one the other day, great stuff
― ciderpress, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:16 (4 years ago) Permalink
it was interesting, lol scientists
― ice cr?m, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
i liked this one, seemed like a great premise for movie: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_collins
― gr8080, Monday, 3 January 2011 20:43 (4 years ago) Permalink
Haven't finished it yet, but I'm digging the Freud, psychiatry, and mental health in China article (subscription needed): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/10/110110fa_fact_osnos
― Mordy, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
The Patel story was amazing.
― dan selzer, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:28 (4 years ago) Permalink
yeah needs a good 3rd act tho.
― gr8080, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:34 (4 years ago) Permalink
he only contributed a couple of articles this year but i always enjoy atul gawande's stuff: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande is probably his best piece this year
― they fund ph.d studies, don't they? (Lamp), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:11 (4 years ago) Permalink
if anyone subscribes then feel free to webmail me the china/freud article kthx
― max bro'd (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
I would, but I can't figure out how to turn it into a pdf or another webmail suitable file.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:24 (4 years ago) Permalink
just copy and paste the text? or is it a different viewer thing.....no worries if that's the case
― max bro'd (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:27 (4 years ago) Permalink
the lehrer article is indeed pretty good and supplies ~evidence~ for my distrust of falsificationism and the inability of some ppl to think of scienctific 'knowledge' subjunctively, tho it does show science self-correcting so i don't read it as a total excoriation of the method
The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.
The recent one on the Vatican Library was pretty sweet: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/03/110103fa_fact_mendelsohn
I really like Toobin's diptych on JP Stevens and... the other guy.
nakhchivan, FYI, digital subscription gives you access to this weird applet-y, un-C&P text.
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:26 (4 years ago) Permalink
Oh, and that review of the new biography on Sergei Diaghilev was A+++++++ and really wish it was available to all humans: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/09/20/100920crbo_books_acocella
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:37 (4 years ago) Permalink
you can c+p articles from an library institutional subscription, but the evan osnos china thing is from the jan 10 issue which is not on the library wires yet. if you can't get it nakh, bump this thread in a week or two and i'm sure someone from what the fuck am i getting myself into with this grad school stuff will help you out.
― caek, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:46 (4 years ago) Permalink
Lamp, thanks for the Gawande link.
― Kip Squashbeef (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:54 (4 years ago) Permalink
ive been using a friends login for the subscriber stuff for a while and the interface is just so poor i dont usually bother to fuck w/it - seems theyd much rather you read the actual magazine - lol
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 02:09 (4 years ago) Permalink
^agreed. kind of why i started this thread so i knew which actual magazine to pick up and start reading.
― gr8080, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 02:13 (4 years ago) Permalink
p interesting follow-up of sorts on the recent duchenne muscular dystrophy activism article -- they just had a spot f/ clay matthews sponsored by cadillac during the orange bowl
― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 03:13 (4 years ago) Permalink
OK a TA I had in college had a poem published a few issues ago, woah.
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 05:57 (4 years ago) Permalink
the whole Jan. 11 issue is worth picking up, the aforementioned freud in china article is amazing and hilarious, and it also has decent articles about belgium and why stieg larsson is so fucking popular
― symsymsym, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
i know the concept of 'worth picking up' is still valid, even for subscribers, in translating to 'worth retrieving from the well-intentioned pile of unread NYers', BUT in general it's still worth remembering how insanely valuable subscribing to the magazine is when compared to buying a newsstand copy. like forty bucks, for a year, for it to be mailed to your house, which is the cost of like seven newsstand issues.
― schlump, Monday, 10 January 2011 11:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
what is the point of an article like this? - http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/01/17/110117ta_talk_surowiecki
surowiecki doesn't have a single interesting thing to say here
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 12:03 (4 years ago) Permalink
He's just summarizing the various memes on this now that are being mentioned in newspapers and blogs without asking anyone where things could go from here--what is the future for unionized government employees, will there ever be more unionized private sector employees, how would this help in regards to the inequality differences that have grown since union membership has declined...)
― curmudgeon, Monday, 10 January 2011 17:08 (4 years ago) Permalink
His column is like a monthly crib-sheet of conventional wisdom so you can sound like you know what you're talking about when you get invited to a garden party in Stonington
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
what is the point of an article like this?
to summarize and provide some context to a current event or idea its not really about 'saying interesting things' its just a primer? like i know being 1000x smarter than anyone else ever is your thing but i mean the section is called 'talk of the town' so yeah, it exists so the mag's readers can get a vague grip on an issue - the column (which john cassidy also writes some weeks) is supposed to be a gloss? & thats not really all that terrible???
― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:19 (4 years ago) Permalink
honestly tracer maybe u wld get more out of the articles u read if u didnt spend all ur energy snarkily coming up w/ reasons why u wld have done it better
― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:21 (4 years ago) Permalink
dude there are a zillion interesting things happening with unions at the moment (the biggest of which imo is the belated but hugely important efforts to hook up with undocumented immigrants). i'm not sorry for wanting more out of a column called "the financial page"! this article could have been written at any time in the last 15 years - there is zero content to it!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:37 (4 years ago) Permalink
i'll also admit that i am rankled by his terminology - "cadillac health plans" etc - and his conclusion that ultimately the reason that lots of people "resent" unions now is because unions have been successful at negotiating good contracts
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:39 (4 years ago) Permalink
like, if i want economist-lite i'll read newsweek
snark on that one for size
there is a cover story public sector unions in the economist this week. dunno why i'm bringing it up though because i haven't read it.
― caek, Monday, 10 January 2011 17:40 (4 years ago) Permalink
i'll be interested in reading that, in an "oppo research" kind of way.
i should probably just recuse myself from talking about surowiecki - everything about his steez rankles me and i'm finding it hard to put into words - the "primer" aspect is part of it, but there are people who write primer-type stuff who i love. i dunno!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:44 (4 years ago) Permalink
yah i can see finding the article glib and too-neat "The Great Depression invigorated the modern American labor movement. The Great Recession has crippled it" both oversimplifies and maybe misses the point - i was just sort of baffled that you didnt seem to understand why an article like this gets written
― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 18:02 (4 years ago) Permalink
i guess i still don't! the avg new yorker reader could have dictated this article in their sleep 15 years ago
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 18:08 (4 years ago) Permalink
so did anyone else read the all of the "20 under 40" pieces? thought it was pretty disappointing. vaguely remember liking one about a guy working on a boat in florida that catches on fire, but not much else.
― Moreno, Monday, 10 January 2011 19:04 (4 years ago) Permalink
― gr8080, Monday, 10 January 2011 21:33 (4 years ago) Permalink
The psychoanalysis in China article is kind of disappointing imo, mostly because it seems to say that it'll explain why a) psychoanalysis fell out of a favor in the US and most other Western nations, and b) why China then picked it up. The article gets at b) at a certain superficial level, but really doesn't go into a) (which I'm sure has been the subject of a lot of other articles, just would've liked discussion here). Anyway, one of my prof is mentioned in the article, easily the best part of it.
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:21 (4 years ago) Permalink
really tapping into the slang here
The teens were from a variety of backgrounds—public and private schools, Manhattan and the outer boroughs—and they wore jeans, collared shirts, and leather jackets. They seemed like normal teen-agers, although they all had the faintly glamorous, knowing aura of city kids. They were discussing slang expressions. “ ‘Calm your tits,’ ” Yasha, an eighteen-year-old from Crown Heights, said, citing an expression that means “Calm down.”
“ ‘Good looks,’ ” said Kyjah, a sixteen-year-old fencer from the Upper West Side, who was wearing lime-green nail polish.
“It means ‘Thanks for looking out,’ ” Alexandria, from Yonkers, said. “Somebody’s like, ‘Oh, you dropped money.’ ‘Oh, good looks.’ ”
“ ‘Gucci’ is the same as ‘Good money,’ ” Yasha said.
“You can say, ‘What’s Gucci?’ ” Kyjah said. “ ‘What’s up?’ ”
Matteo, a sixteen-year-old from Park Slope, said, “ ‘What’s poppin’?’ ”
The teens hesitated. “That’s, like, a retro saying.”
Yasha added, “It’s gang-related.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2011/01/10/110110ta_talk_widdicombe#ixzz1AgfxnnHS
― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 01:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
Does a print subscription also give access to the full digital edition + archives? Their website is suspiciously vague about that.
― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
Yes it does - my international one does anyway.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:31 (4 years ago) Permalink
yes, you can look at literally every single page of every single issue going back to 1921 or something.
the applet viewer thing is kinda stupid, but functional
― gr8080, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:40 (4 years ago) Permalink
the david brooks article is so terrible i cant remember the last time i read something that managed to be so offensive w/o actually saying or meaning anything
― Lamp, Friday, 14 January 2011 17:09 (4 years ago) Permalink
Yes, that was ugh.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:09 (4 years ago) Permalink
i am considering writing a disappointed email, is how disappointed i am, right now
I know right! I couldn't even get through it.
I did enjoy the unintentional irony of describing what would commonly be thought of as "people skills" or "intuition" or "emotional intelligence" in ridiculously labored and aspergerian terms.
― hey boys, suppers on me, our video just went bacterial (Hurting 2), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
― nomar little (Leee), Monday, January 10, 2011 7:21 PM Bookmark
Agree with this. Started to raise some interesting implications about what psychoanalysis could mean for China as well, but then wastes way too much ink on here-and-now descriptions of various conferences and meetings, which new yorker writers love to bore us with.
― hey boys, suppers on me, our video just went bacterial (Hurting 2), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:17 (4 years ago) Permalink
freud/china piece nakh http://pastie.org/1460821
― caek, Friday, 14 January 2011 17:59 (4 years ago) Permalink
The David Brooks article was so poor that I kept double checking to see if it was in fact fiction and supposed to be ironic. Or, failing that, if it was nonfiction and supposed to be a parody.
― Virginia Plain, Friday, 14 January 2011 18:19 (4 years ago) Permalink
I knew the Brooks article would settle the argument.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 18:28 (4 years ago) Permalink
I had trouble just imagining people named Harold and Erica being the same age.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2011 18:30 (4 years ago) Permalink
i guess i find myself in the oddly familiar position of defending the idea that there's a nonzero probability of something coming to pass in the distant future, but:
i think very few people are saying we're "on the verge" of discovery. among those in the field, it seems like the median estimate of superintelligence arising comes around 2050-60. there are plenty of researchers who believe it will never happen. and then there are some on the other side of the curve, too, who say maybe 10-15 years. i think people have the idea that everyone who is into AI is like ray kurzweil. from what i've observed, i think the kurzeil people are just the most loudest, obnoxious and visible edge to a community of practice that is much more varied.
i don't really trust anyone who is willing to put a 0% probability on things like this ever occurring. the only way you'd ever be able to do that is if you knew more than everyone else about the topic, which is hard to do because there are so many angles and approaches that people are taking and so many different disciplines that are involved. to reject it out of hand you have to look at a crazy talented field of researchers and phds and bona fide geniuses and textbook writers and philosophers and say, "i know more about this than all of them. every single one of them are wrong. there is a zero percent chance of it happening." i also think that it makes sense that it doesn't ~feel~ like we're close to solving AI. if there was already a semi-functional AI that could do some basic self-learning, we'd be on the very cusp of superAI, because it's knowledge growth would be exponential, not linear. it seems unlikely that a low-level AI will be developed that then gets "smarter" in an incremental, predictable way. it seems much more likely that it would come out of nowhere.
the important part of bostrom's new book is about the containment/security problem of superintelligence and how it needs to be addressed early on in the research cycle (bostrom talks a lot about why it can't wait until later in his book), and i haven't seen anyone say that it wouldn't be an enormous problem IF superintelligence were developed. if there's even a small chance of superintelligence being developed during any of our lifetimes, then i think it's worth thinking about. the consequences are enormous in terms of net present value, because even a tiny probability of it happening would have to be multiplied by the huge effect it create. it's kind of like a version of pascal's wager, only with something that's actually possible instead of hell/heaven.
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 21 November 2015 02:37 (6 days ago) Permalink
however near/far/impossible, it seems like something worth thinking about. (tbh i'm more 'worried' about a cane toads-like mistake with various bioengineering choices)
otm is always otm, and more o. nate is always good
― mookieproof, Saturday, 21 November 2015 02:47 (6 days ago) Permalink
is moore's law still operating?
― Mordy, Saturday, 21 November 2015 02:54 (6 days ago) Permalink
i keep read references to rumors that it will slow soon, but still operating for now, 50 years on
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:03 (6 days ago) Permalink
It's already yielding diminishing returns, because the improvements in recent years have been about multiple cores on a chip, not making those cores run faster. That's harder to take advantage of.
― o. nate, Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:06 (6 days ago) Permalink
If Moore’s law has started to flag, it is mainly because of economics. As originally stated by Mr Moore, the law was not just about reductions in the size of transistors, but also cuts in their price. A few years ago, when transistors 28nm wide were the state of the art, chipmakers found their design and manufacturing costs beginning to rise sharply. New “fabs” (semiconductor fabrication plants) now cost more than $6 billion. In other words: transistors can be shrunk further, but they are now getting more expensive. And with the rise of cloud computing, the emphasis on the speed of the processor in desktop and laptop computers is no longer so relevant. The main unit of analysis is no longer the processor, but the rack of servers or even the data centre. The question is not how many transistors can be squeezed onto a chip, but how many can be fitted economically into a warehouse. Moore's law will come to an end; but it may first make itself irrelevant.
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:08 (6 days ago) Permalink
― Karl Malone, Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:09 (6 days ago) Permalink
I'm pretty sure that whether or not 'strong' AI can ever be achieved, someone will continue to pursue it. It's too deeply connected to the will to power ever to be laid aside. It's as alluring as perpetual motion.
― Aimless, Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:09 (6 days ago) Permalink
remember when that AI beat a turing test last year bc it mimicked teen-speak
― Mordy, Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:21 (6 days ago) Permalink
Also, the same guy scared of AI wants to upload himself into computers. At which point what does he think he will be?
― as verbose and purple as a Peter Ustinov made of plums (James Morrison), Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:33 (6 days ago) Permalink
it's kind of like a version of pascal's wager, only with something that's actually possible instead of hell/heaven.
Same could be said of go all warming, look how well we've done in mitigating that threat.
remember when that AI beat a turing test last year
― ledge, Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:44 (6 days ago) Permalink
go all warming
― ledge, Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:45 (6 days ago) Permalink
With a purposefully constrained input range and clearly defined objective (win at chess, win at Jeopardy!, pass the Turing Test, navigate a highway) computing is capable of amazing things. Regardless of horsepower, a "superintelligence" that could possibly be a greater existential threat to humankind than climate change, nuclear war or an errant space rock would demand a cosmic leap in information processing techniques so that it doesn't *ever* throw an uncaught exception and fatally shit the bed. Bostrom's a head case.
Kind of like I was saying on the presidential race thread, these people get profiled and written about and people get drawn in because on one level it can be interesting to listen to a sufficiently intelligent nutjob explain their rationale for moving to cloud cuckoo country, but on another level I think writers of these types of pieces (not to mention their conde nast taskmasters, and their readers) are completely sick and tired of climate science, there's no news other than "it's not looking good" and readers are frankly bored by it. So space tycoons and futurist lunatics are great for filling up 17 pages in a magazine. It's not that nobody cares about what's actually most likely going to kill us, we just all have fatigue and need distractions, and a cat like Bostrom fits nicely into the But What If? feature category.
― El Tomboto, Saturday, 21 November 2015 03:54 (6 days ago) Permalink
thanks for the new DN there
― Eugene Goostman (forksclovetofu), Saturday, 21 November 2015 05:50 (6 days ago) Permalink
Had my suspicions tbh
― ledge, Saturday, 21 November 2015 08:52 (6 days ago) Permalink
at the risk of being facile, computers aren't humans. which is to say, that when computers make mistakes, they are not the same kind of mistakes computers make. machine intelligence is first and foremost logical, so for instance you would never see a computer which supports donald trump. a computer might, on the other hand, award gaz coombes the mercury prize. a sentient machine also has a non-trivial chance of going all forbin project on us.
― rushomancy, Saturday, 21 November 2015 11:01 (6 days ago) Permalink
I was thinking about this (and having a conversation with someone else about it) today, and bear in mind I barely graduated high school, but:
• All machines are, at this point, reactive in nature. They require external input - stimulus/response. Hence "garbage in, garbage out." So true AI would have to be much more active than reactive, and that's a leap computers haven't made yet.
• Physical logistics are not on superAI's side. Let's say a computer gets smart enough, and active enough, that it wants to build a robot army and kill all humans. There are lots and lots of processes and steps along the way - like, say, mining ore and smelting steel to make the robot army - that can be interrupted. The whole "superAI runs the world" thing only works on a whiteboard. The physical world will intrude. (Right down to the point of "Hey, this computer's getting awfully mouthy - Joe, kick the plug out of the wall, will ya?")
― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Saturday, 21 November 2015 16:01 (6 days ago) Permalink
the improvements in recent years have been about multiple cores on a chip, not making those cores run faster. That's harder to take advantage of.
Yeah, I have heard people say in seminars lately that we've built an entire theoretical apparatus on "design an algorithm to perform task X in the fewest number of operations" and that we're going to have to rethink everything to minimize number of TRANSMISSIONS rather than number of operations; operations are stupidly cheap now, but physically getting the results of those operations to interact with each other is the bottleneck (in time, cost, even heat.)
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Saturday, 21 November 2015 16:06 (6 days ago) Permalink
re physical infrastructure, I think the idea is that because all the electronics in the world are just a few years out from all being wirelessly connected to each other, the superintelligence would take control of our own infrastructure, and most importantly, all the Minuteman silos and SSBNs (so basically the Forbin Project crossed with Maximum Overdrive).
― El Tomboto, Saturday, 21 November 2015 16:07 (6 days ago) Permalink
This discussion has reached a mass where it should probably take place on an AI thread, but of course, it never will. This typifies what separates ilxors from machine intelligence.
― Aimless, Saturday, 21 November 2015 17:01 (6 days ago) Permalink
There are lots and lots of processes and steps along the way - like, say, mining ore and smelting steel to make the robot army - that can be interrupted.
doesn't really have to be that complicated. unlock the safeguards on biological weapons storage, say. even just shutting down the power grid would make modern society fall apart pretty quickly.
― mookieproof, Saturday, 21 November 2015 20:24 (6 days ago) Permalink
Why wouldn't that be a good thing tho? This hypothetical AI might have a point, is anyone abt to claim humanity's all that great?
― albvivertine, Saturday, 21 November 2015 22:42 (6 days ago) Permalink