New Yorker magazine alert thread

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.

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 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.)

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).

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.

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.

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?

http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/I-m-sorry-everyone-my-e-mail-account-got-hacked-last-night-by-some-alcoh-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i14088490_.htm

I want to start a pool to buy the biggest possible print of this for my house. And then my office. And then a spare in case one of the other ones gets damaged.

i think maybe ben lerner is v stupid ?

He wrote a bad article, and is apparently mind blown by the very idea that art objects are mediated.

The novel belongs to the genre of metafiction. The first-person narrator is a 33-year-old writer who lives in New York City. A successful novelist, he has recently been diagnosed with a heart condition that could prove fatal.[2] The book deals with love, art, city, illness, having children, and writing.

The first-person narrator of the novel, Adam Gordon, is an early 20s American poet participating in a prestigious fellowship in Madrid circa 2004. The stated goal of his fellowship is long narrative poem highlighting literature's role in the Spanish Civil War. Gordon, however, spends his time reading Tolstoy, smoking spliffs, and observing himself observing his surroundings.

adrian chen, new staff writer

so sweet

that piece he did on the woman who left the westboro Baptist church was dece (also was riding high on the "most popular" tab for a while) so makes a lot of sense

i was surprised he didn't get scooped up by somewhere after leaving gawker, guess he wanted to go freelance to beef up his cv before hitting the big leagues

it is possible that i am conflating New Writers with Existing Writers Recently Afforded Illustrated Masthead Avatars but they seem to have like ten, new, good writers, recently, for the blog.

Deeply moving piece:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/01/baby-doe

What do people make of the post-SFJ pop critics? I struggle with the same things I always did: a certain stiffness and need to overexplain every reference. They're all writing in roughly the same voice. I don't know why because Emily Nussbaum's TV criticism is vibrant and characterful, dropping in all kinds of jokes and allusions without feeling compelled to hold the reader's hand. They're all clearly good writers - this isn't a knock on the individuals - but I'd love to see a bit more swagger in that slot.

I may have missed it; surely the Tad Friend squash article needs to be addressed.

Actually, better to pretend it never happened, yah?

The New Yorker wouldn't be the New Yorker if it didn't print things like that and Adam Gopnik rambling about dogs.

I kinda loved the squash article but yea I get the criticism

similarly the mr money mustache dude in this weeks fits in the same realm and I want to see harm come to him tbqh

my younger brother is a die-hard mister money mustache disciple

i read that sentence, and in trying to parse it I feel as though I've had a stroke

Mister money mustache lives a couple blocks away from me -- he's in my neighborhood beer club! I haven't really talked to him about his theories, but reading that article was pretty weird.

My friend's new husband is into that whole scene and it's pretty inoffensive and anti-materialist from what I can tell. At least it's not get rich quick Internet marketing schemes or bullshit like that.
I can't relate because it's all grounded in knowing at 18 you want to major in something super boring to make a buck and be retired by your 30s - but for the people who can think that way from 18-22, good for them?

Yeah it doesn't seem inherently bad. Maybe annoying but not bad. The "guru" thing is funny, he's a pretty soft spoken guy in my experience.

Had no idea he had "followers" of any kind, just thought he had a successful blog.

What do people make of the post-SFJ pop critics? I struggle with the same things I always did: a certain stiffness and need to overexplain every reference. They're all writing in roughly the same voice. I don't know why because Emily Nussbaum's TV criticism is vibrant and characterful, dropping in all kinds of jokes and allusions without feeling compelled to hold the reader's hand. They're all clearly good writers - this isn't a knock on the individuals - but I'd love to see a bit more swagger in that slot.

― impossible raver (Re-Make/Re-Model), Friday, February 12, 2016 10:21 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You're not alone. Because I can't recall NYer pop critics pre-SFJ, everyone post SFJ sounds like SFJ. Sometimes I just pretend SFJ is ghostwriting for them.

I've thought Amanda Petrusich's stuff has been pretty great -- not sure if she's their "pop music" person though?

Sometimes I feel like the magazine really stretches to make A long form piece out of what doesn't really justify it. Reading the piece about the carries interest loophole and it's sort of interesting but it mostly just seems to be saying "carried interest loophole is bad. These guys are so rich. Carried interest loophole bad. "

I'm struggling to get into Jane Mayer's "Dark Money." I respect her work a lot, but I'm a quarter of the way in, maybe, and it's been less than illuminating, or at least relentlessly exactly what I expected. "You know this shadowy cabal of loosely associated assholes who came from money and have been using their wealth to undermine liberal causes and democracy in general? Well, um, yeah, that's what they've been doing." Should I keep going? I hate giving up on books, but it feels a little like, well, the aforementioned long piece that just goes on too long. Only, because it's a book, even longer.

there's admittedly not a whole lot of "story" to it, but subsequent chapters do at least focus on specific ideological battles and key turning points that give the narrative a little more steam, like ACA and climate change and the takeover of state legislatures.

I wish it was just a New Yorker article about one of those subjects. Maybe it was!

the gay talese motel owner/voyeur article is p interesting

"interesting", definitely.

but imo mainly o_O

it's fucking insane

and not in a good way, i would say

and there's a book about forthcoming !

and there's a book about Foos forthcoming !

i suspect (hope) the murder in the motel was an invention. seems like a story that could express his need for power in a way that's dramatic and not totally pathetic.

lol i stumbled upon his card collection hes trying to sell --http://www.historicsportscollection.net/the-collection.html

1,000,000 plus common cards, alphabetically listed in binders (all sports)

Just finished the Foos story, incredible stuff. I also came away thinking the murder was a figment of his imagination, although I suspect that, over the years, he's lost track of whether it really happened or not. This part was particularly interesting and even kind of beautiful: "I've pondered on occasion that perhaps I don't exist, only represent a product of the subjects' dreams. No one would believe my accomplishments as a voyeur anyway, therefore, the dreamlike manifestation would explain my reality."

Whole thing has a movie-like quality to it, I wouldn't be surprised if Hollywood is swarming over it right now.

i don't know what i think about it but i'm glad i read it.

i thought the guy was not interesting at all. the story itself -- man buys motel for the purpose of setting up decades long elaborate peeping tom operation -- is certainly unique but it needed to be explored from angles beyond just foos. the sum result of his peeping is that he notices men pee in the sink and are bad at fucking. okay?????? this is noteworthy because? otherwise he's just a dime a dozen paranoid weird old dude zzzz

handwaving the murder part by going "oh well he probably just invented it" is a pretty huge cop out imo

m struggling to get into Jane Mayer's "Dark Money." I respect her work a lot, but I'm a quarter of the way in, maybe, and it's been less than illuminating, or at least relentlessly exactly what I expected. "You know this shadowy cabal of loosely associated assholes who came from money and have been using their wealth to undermine liberal causes and democracy in general? Well, um, yeah, that's what they've been doing." Should I keep going? I hate giving up on books, but it feels a little like, well, the aforementioned long piece that just goes on too long. Only, because it's a book, even longer.

I loved it and had trouble putting it down tbh. I had no idea the Kochs' dad was a fucking psycho.

xxp i think the more provocative element for me was that it tapped into what i think is a pretty universal feeling (of you know "am i normal," "what are other people like in private,") but then projected through this horrific transgressive context which practically scans like a horror movie. like i couldn't help but empathize on some level w. this desire to know but then absolutely repulsed by the ways that he went about satiating it. the writer in some ways an even creepier individual on how he has allowed himself to be complicit in these crimes as their stenography (and then even participate in them himself!) bc of this sense of like journalistic adventurism. tbh jordan i'm surprised you didn't like it, or maybe that is why you didn't like it.

stenographer* -- and apparently there's a book coming out too? i don't know which of the two are sicker - the guy crazy motel owner who has convinced himself he has done nothing wrong or the journalist who knows it's wrong but participates anyway for the story.

I think the voyeur guy is definitely grosser than 36-years-ago Gay Talese.

definitely creepier but they both seem v unpleasant