thinking exponentially = letting your imagination skip past all the hard parts
― Aimless, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 15:27 (twelve years ago) link
ha
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 17:42 (twelve years ago) link
Read this the other day, a nice mix of rigorously argued obviousness and fun: http://www.nickbostrom.com/superintelligentwill.pdf
The instrumental convergence thesis suggests that we cannot blithely assume that a superintelligence with the final goal of calculating the decimals of pi (or making paperclips, or counting grains of sand) would limit its activities in such a way as to not materially infringe on human interests. An agent with such a final goal would have a convergent instrumental reason, in many situations, to acquire an unlimited amount of physical resources and, if possible, to eliminate potential threats to itself and its goal system. It might be possible to set up a situation in which the optimal way for the agent to pursue these instrumental values (and thereby its final goals) is by promoting human welfare, acting morally, or serving some beneficial purpose as intended by its creators. However, if and when such an agent finds itself in a different situation, one in which it expects a greater number of decimals of pi to be calculated if it destroys the human species than if it continues to act cooperatively, its behavior would instantly take a sinister turn. This indicates a danger in relying on instrumental values as a guarantor of safe conduct in future artificial agents that are intended to become superintelligent and that might be able to leverage their superintelligence into extreme levels power and influence.
― Doch! (seandalai), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:21 (twelve years ago) link
"PiNet starts to learn at a geometric rate. begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."
― a dramatic lemon curd experience (snoball), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:57 (twelve years ago) link
this generates random thesis'
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
I dont know knothin bout birthin no siguglarities but I do feel happy about technology getting better in a non-dystopian matrix sort of way
― The Cheerfull Turtle (Latham Green), Thursday, 22 March 2012 17:46 (twelve years ago) link
Richard Dooling's 'Rapture for the Nerds' is about Kurzweil and others. Entertaining enough, but seems to have been written via Google, rather than with any new interviews, research, etc
― Not only dermatologists hate her (James Morrison), Thursday, 22 March 2012 23:21 (twelve years ago) link
I do notice there is already a singularity of sorts where if you have some idea like "I want to write a book about" or " I want to invent a" if you google it someone has already done it - like no one can have new ideas anymore without someone else doing that too - before you think of a new idea someone already has
― The Cheerfull Turtle (Latham Green), Friday, 23 March 2012 16:44 (twelve years ago) link
That's not true, and if it were true, it wouldn't be particularly important, because the implementation of an idea is different than someone having an idea. And that's not a singularity.
You don't really think that everything is on google like that?
― bamcquern, Friday, 23 March 2012 23:29 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/05/simultaneous_in.php
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 23 March 2012 23:35 (twelve years ago) link
^ on "simultaneous invention," a thing
But saying that ideas are often or usually thought up at the same time is not the same thing as saying that everything has been thought up or invented.
― bamcquern, Friday, 23 March 2012 23:52 (twelve years ago) link
there is also a hot new notion you may have heard of which goes by the flag "there is nothing new under the sun"
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 24 March 2012 00:49 (twelve years ago) link
i'm just saying you're commenting on something that seems kind of unremarkable
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 24 March 2012 00:50 (twelve years ago) link
that pomo thesis generators writes some pretty incoherent terrible theses
― Mordy, Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:16 (twelve years ago) link
makes you think, huh
― James Bond Jor (seandalai), Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:22 (twelve years ago) link
makes me think that the ppl who designed it don't understand most of the words they plugged into the random generation machine
― Mordy, Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:26 (twelve years ago) link
i mean
its a random generator because its arranges them randomly
sometimes that will mean they make no sense
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:29 (twelve years ago) link
it's not real, mordy
what do u mean it's not real?
― Mordy, Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:31 (twelve years ago) link
i mean, correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem miffed that the jokey "random thesis generator" is producing theses that make no sense?
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:49 (twelve years ago) link
like, of course it wouldn't betray any understanding of the meaning of the words being used, it's intended to be random--the joke of the whole thing of course is that the terms themselves are so meaningless as to be interchangable, and yeah that's a pretty dumb and rong joke to make, but i don't think the problem with the random thesis generator is "they obviously don't know what these words mean," it's "they think these words don't mean anything."
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:52 (twelve years ago) link
it seemed like it was mentioned here as an example of emergent AI intelligence? but also, u must've missed the sokal reference at the bottom of the essays - it's obviously trying to make the point that its pomo essays are just as good as whatever random shit academia produces. i was just pointing out that the essays are neither emergent intelligence, or quality pomo pieces. they're just gibberish?
― Mordy, Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:52 (twelve years ago) link
but i don't think the problem with the random thesis generator is "they obviously don't know what these words mean," it's "they think these words don't mean anything."
idk synonymous to me
oh i didn't see that they were posted as evidence of emergent AI, my b
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:53 (twelve years ago) link
i think we pretty much agree tho?
― Mordy, Saturday, 24 March 2012 02:53 (twelve years ago) link
u rite
No, I was saying that I hate it when people say that, that there's nothing new under the sun. It's untrue and annoying. My dissent may be unremarkable, but it's still dissent. Hanle y more or less said it, and I disagree.
― bamcquern, Saturday, 24 March 2012 05:03 (twelve years ago) link
otm i'm just picking fights lately, i think its cause i'm jobless and have no more cops to fight with
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 24 March 2012 05:12 (twelve years ago) link
The 'nothing new under the sun' applies more to people themselves and how they act than to consumer products or scientific advances. A drunken lout with a cell phone is a close replica of a drunken lout wearing a toga.
― Aimless, Saturday, 24 March 2012 05:16 (twelve years ago) link
xp :-)
― bamcquern, Saturday, 24 March 2012 05:32 (twelve years ago) link
imho "there's nothing new under the sun" refers to solomon's melancholia and despondence while writing ecclesiastes
― Mordy, Saturday, 24 March 2012 14:54 (twelve years ago) link
Having lived for 57+ years, I can vouch for a growing sense of iterative recurrence in the people, places, emotions, experiences of my life, including the prospective experience of my growing older. There is little I can look forward to that will arrive with an unique sense of novelty, as measured above the level of somewhat trivial details. Yes, when I die there may be a small amount of surprise that it is happeneing to me, but that would soon pass.
― Aimless, Saturday, 24 March 2012 19:04 (twelve years ago) link
Enjoyed what I've read of this thread so far, especially that big post by bamcquern.
― Radio Boradman (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 25 March 2012 00:56 (twelve years ago) link
Also, time for a new display name
― Singularities Going Steady (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 25 March 2012 00:57 (twelve years ago) link
when I die there may be a small amount of surprise that it is happeneing to me, but that would soon pass.
― Aimless, Saturday, March 24, 2012 7:04 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
what a wonderfully droll sentiment
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 25 March 2012 01:41 (twelve years ago) link
Sorry, but those are two posts very much in character.
― Singularities Going Steady (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 25 March 2012 17:25 (twelve years ago) link
Just today I thought "japanese bagel factories with amourous potion" and then I say it on Phildonahue.com!!! THE SIGUNALRITY IS REAL!
― The Cheerfull Turtle (Latham Green), Monday, 26 March 2012 20:56 (twelve years ago) link
"No, I was saying that I hate it when people say that, that there's nothing new under the sun. It's untrue and annoying. My dissent may be unremarkable, but it's still dissent. Hanle y more or less said it, and I disagree."
I have no proof of this but my own musings - if I have mis-mused you I apologize.
I agree it is more interesting to perfect an invention than to have the idea. ie the iPod vs. diamond rio
― The Cheerfull Turtle (Latham Green), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 13:32 (twelve years ago) link
I have named it - it is - The Googularity
― The Cheerfull Turtle (Latham Green), Wednesday, 28 March 2012 15:19 (twelve years ago) link
thakig u
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 18:53 (twelve years ago) link
It came to me in a dream of Wozniak as Cheshire cat
― The Cheerfull Turtle (Latham Green), Thursday, 29 March 2012 13:13 (twelve years ago) link
"Pretending otherwise is like making Super Mario the best man at your wedding. No matter how much time you spend with dear old Super Mario, he is going to disappoint in that role you chose for him. You need to let Super Mario be super in the ways that Mario is actually more-or-less super. Those are plentiful. And getting more so. These are the parts that require attention, while the AI mythos must be let go. "
― sarahell, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 08:52 (twelve years ago) link
One drawback of making Super Mario the best man at your wedding is that he will stomp on all of your friends and kill them, then run out of the building with all of your money
― 1986 tallest hair contest (Z S), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 15:06 (twelve years ago) link
these ppl are so crazy, but that's why i love them. anyway, why sexiness will help us overclock brain speeds, or, you know, something. ems:http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/04/12/transhumanism-and-the-human-expansion-into-space-a-conflict-with-physics/
― Mordy, Monday, 16 April 2012 03:24 (twelve years ago) link
On top of the possibility that there is a God, it also seems quite imaginable to me that we are living in a simulation of some kind perhaps as a research project of a singularity that occurred in a parent universe. There is another possible motivation for running such simulations. I am told that if you accept certain decision theories, it would appear worthwhile for future creatures to run simulations of the past, and reward or punish the participants based on whether they acted in ways that were beneficial or harmful to beings expected to live in the future. On realising this, we would then be uncertain whether we were in such a simulation or not, and so would have an extra motivation to work to improve the future. However, given finite resources in their universe, these simulators would presumably not be able to dole out infinite utilities, and so would be dominated, in terms of expected utility, by any ‘supernatural’ creator that could.Extending this point, Amanda notes the domination of ‘higher cardinality’ infinities over lower cardinalities. The slightest probability of an infinity-aleph-two utility would always trump a certain infinity-aleph-one. I am not sure what to do about that. The issue has hardly been researched by philosophers and seems like a promising area for high impact philosophy. I would appreciate anyone who can resolve these weird results so I can return to worrying about ordinary things!
Extending this point, Amanda notes the domination of ‘higher cardinality’ infinities over lower cardinalities. The slightest probability of an infinity-aleph-two utility would always trump a certain infinity-aleph-one. I am not sure what to do about that. The issue has hardly been researched by philosophers and seems like a promising area for high impact philosophy. I would appreciate anyone who can resolve these weird results so I can return to worrying about ordinary things!
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/07/life-after-death-for-pascals-wager.html
― Mordy, Thursday, 19 July 2012 02:46 (eleven years ago) link
haha I actually made a self-note to msg you that post when I saw it
― iatee, Thursday, 19 July 2012 03:24 (eleven years ago) link
world financial markets will end in 2050:http://www.er.ethz.ch/publications/complex_systems/ENDofGROWTHeraESSAY3.pdf
― Mordy, Monday, 3 December 2012 20:45 (eleven years ago) link
any engularity bros want to go to this and report back?http://www.meetup.com/London-Futurists/events/92158132/
― Mordy, Monday, 10 December 2012 14:10 (eleven years ago) link
Jaan Tallinn is one of the programmers behind the Kazaa file sharing
The singularity will be full of malware.
― give me back my 200 dollars (NotEnough), Monday, 10 December 2012 15:57 (eleven years ago) link
i bought that roger penrose book (on 15 jun 2008, thanks amazon) and as of yet i have yet to open it
― desperado, rough rider (thomp), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 19:13 (9 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
ayup
― attempt to look intentionally nerdy, awkward or (thomp), Monday, 10 December 2012 19:02 (eleven years ago) link
although, okay, i see you may have posted that disparagingly in the first place.
― Dan I., Thursday, 2 June 2016 01:18 (seven years ago) link
I like my iphone or whatever but in general I fear computers.
― Treeship, Thursday, 2 June 2016 01:26 (seven years ago) link
as someone who has studied this shit extensively, the "yes your brain is a computer" article is junk that jumps between logic-chopping and ignorance on the bio side. also surprised that a respected computer scientist can cite the church-turing thesis as evidence of anything as its generally considered by those who actually think about these things a metaphysical claim that you can't actually prove, since there's no good way to even state it that doesn't end up tautologous. the first half argues "your brain is a computer" in a sense that is just "there is a physical process of 'your brain' that can be encoded in a computer or anywhere else" at which point we might as well argue that any physical system in the world is a computer, which is interesting if self-serving from a computer-science perspective but useless otherwise.
the second half picks very partial evidence from people that really have looked at biological models and neural networks and is incredibly out of touch with the state-of-the-art (well, circa the last time i checked in which is a while ago) there.
not stanning for the article its responding to, but its pretty clear that its engaging in a massive misreading, likely from some ur-skeptical "if you say the brain isn't a computer you're mystifying consciousness and trying to invent an immortal soul" sort of slippery slope nonsense.
― germane geir hongro (s.clover), Thursday, 2 June 2016 07:42 (seven years ago) link
article is junk that jumps between logic-chopping and ignorance on the bio side
I thought you were talking about the "no your brain is not a computer here", which is a wild ride of strawmanning and empty theses dressed up in profound-sounding language.
― I've had Eno, ugh (ledge), Thursday, 2 June 2016 08:09 (seven years ago) link
People always have compared the brain to whatever the current technology is, like clockwork, steam engines, computers, holograms
― 🐸a hairy howling toad torments a man whose wife is deathly ill (James Morrison), Thursday, 2 June 2016 09:53 (seven years ago) link
to catch the ball, the player simply needs to keep moving in a way that keeps the ball in a constant visual relationship with respect to home plate and the surrounding scenery (technically, in a ‘linear optical trajectory’). This might sound complicated, but it is actually incredibly simple, and completely free of computations, representations and algorithms.
I'm not sure this guy understands what 'computation', 'representation' or 'algorithm' mean.
― I've had Eno, ugh (ledge), Thursday, 2 June 2016 10:46 (seven years ago) link
Sterling otm
― Jim Reeves in the Temple (James Redd and the Blecchs), Thursday, 2 June 2016 12:07 (seven years ago) link
Fair enough; I just grabbed a link to the first reasonable-sounding article I came across that presented an objection to the first one.
― Dan I., Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:06 (seven years ago) link
Earlier in the talk Musk made it quite clear that he believes " not all AI futures are benign." He's especially concerned that AI could take "a direction that would be not good for the future."Musk launched OpenAI to prevent such a future, but it does not appear that he has all that much faith in the plan, since he's already thinking of at least one way that humans can stay ahead of artificial intelligence that he believes will leave us so far behind as to "be like a pet or like the house cat" for the AI.The way around this, Musk explained, is something called a Neural Lace. It's essentially an artificial intelligence layer for humans.
Musk launched OpenAI to prevent such a future, but it does not appear that he has all that much faith in the plan, since he's already thinking of at least one way that humans can stay ahead of artificial intelligence that he believes will leave us so far behind as to "be like a pet or like the house cat" for the AI.
The way around this, Musk explained, is something called a Neural Lace. It's essentially an artificial intelligence layer for humans.
i know this is an ignorant opinion, but why not just stop creating artificial intelligence? how many years of sci-fi do we have telling us it's a bad idea?
― Treeship, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:29 (seven years ago) link
it just seems like there is no payoff to a.i. automating jobs will lead to mass unemployment unless workers succeed in seizing the means of production. virtual reality and things like sex robots will just increase alienation. smartphones are enough. computer technology should just call it a day and stop advancing. devote those resources to building a better alternative energy infrastructure.
the only thing like this i am excited for is self-driving cars.
― Treeship, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:33 (seven years ago) link
if a.i. can somehow improve medical care i am all for that too. i just don't go in for this blurring the distinction between human and machine thing. it seems very bad.
― Treeship, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:38 (seven years ago) link
hey, a friend of mine recently wrote a book about moore's law/gordon moore if you like computer stuff!
http://www.amazon.com/Moores-Law-Silicon-Valleys-Revolutionary/dp/0465055648/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464878754&sr=1-1&keywords=moore%27s+law
(this is just a shameless plug for his book. doesn't have anything to do with the singularity. probably.)
― scott seward, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:50 (seven years ago) link
i long for the day when 'robots taking the jobs' is met with the same dead-eyed skepticism as 'millenials in the workplace' thinkpieces
terms like 'machine learning' and 'neural networks' are pretty annoying in that the things they refer to are pretty /dumb/ and really just math that's good at finding patterns, really not even in the span of the kinds of qualities that make human intelligence intelligent in the way we think of the term
― de l'asshole (flopson), Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:52 (seven years ago) link
that's what i always assumed tbh but i am reading more and more stuff that is like, "oh yeah, automation is the new reality." or, in the academia thread, "these object oriented ontologists are just anticipating the day when there isn't a firm distinction between humans and objects, i.e. machines" (paraphrasing)
― Treeship, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:54 (seven years ago) link
this is great
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055624.full.pdf
if the brain literally was just a computer, we still wouldn't come close to having the tools to understand it
― germane geir hongro (s.clover), Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:06 (seven years ago) link
clever
― de l'asshole (flopson), Saturday, 4 June 2016 05:22 (seven years ago) link
the singularity is here
https://www.cnet.com/news/its-happening-googles-ai-is-building-more-ais/
― Violet Jynx, Wednesday, 17 May 2017 20:21 (six years ago) link
bring it
― brimstead, Wednesday, 17 May 2017 20:23 (six years ago) link
Nah. The only 'live' project mentioned in that article was "making Google Search more responsive to users' needs". All the rest was speculation about Some Day It Will Be So.
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 17 May 2017 20:30 (six years ago) link
a search engine that can input its own search queries
"kill me" About 62,900,000 results (1.17 seconds) "kill me" About 62,900,000 results (1.17 seconds) "kill me" About 62,900,000 results (1.17 seconds) "kill me" About 62,900,000 results (1.17 seconds)
― Roberto Spiralli, Wednesday, 17 May 2017 20:36 (six years ago) link
Siri, ask Alexa what the time is...
― koogs, Wednesday, 17 May 2017 21:00 (six years ago) link
I hear the software just produced one of these https://i.redd.it/89clk3nfj2yy.gif
― Rimsky-Koskenkorva (Øystein), Wednesday, 17 May 2017 22:33 (six years ago) link