This is not quite correct either. 1p is of course generally much stronger than an arbitrary amateur dan (even some (many? most?) 9d amateurs) and you can advance up the pro ranks quickly by winning certain games, but you can see the histograms yourself that while there's a clump of 9ps everywhere but China there's still a distribution. http://senseis.xmp.net/?ProfessionalRankHistograms Another problem is you don't lose your 9p rank once you earn it. It would be nice if there was an international Elo system tracking all the 9ps of various countries to rank them properly... Maybe someone's tried to calculate rankings independently? Still, I think it's pretty uncontroversial that someone who's been a lower-rank pro for longer than a few years is going to be significantly weaker than their higher-rank peers.
HN user
cobaltblue
Very nice. How come you guys didn't enter the UEC Cup? (Edit: rereading this it kind of sounds snarky, not meant that way. Really impressive if you can kick CrazyStone's teeth in...)
Oh man overblown article.
Fan Hui is 2p, so very skilled, but the ranking system goes up to 9p. To give a sense of how large a gap that is, there is and has only ever been one Westerner to achieve that rank, Michael Redmond. The article states they plan to face off against Lee Sedol 9p, and if they beat him in a no-handicap game, that will be as impressive as Deep Blue against Kasparov.
You'll want to watch this year's Computer Go UEC Cup[0] in March, with Zen and CrazyStone being the typical victors. (CrazyStone in particular has sustained a 6d rating on KGS, a popular Go server, but lately has been at 5d. In the past it has beaten a 9p with a 4 stone handicap, which is impressive, but that handicap is huge and it hasn't yet won with 3 stones.) Of interest this year is that Facebook is competing, and AFAIK they seem to take a similar approach as Google by training the AI using deep learning techniques and then strengthening it further with MCTS. In their public disclosures they claim to beat Pachi pretty often, which puts their bot around 4d-6d, it'll be interesting to see how it fairs against Zen and CrazyStone in the Cup and if it wins against a 9p.
The only one who knows if the input is needed anymore is the caller, not all callers will agree, so it's bad form to let the called function decide automatically unless it's very clearly marked as a mutating, list-destroying function.
Besides, all the ARIA stuff isn't free. It only benefits screen readers and bots that aren't Google's. The rejection from lack of accessibility is as strange as rejection from lack of functionality in IE 8 or less (which has perhaps 2-4x as much market share as that of all screen readers). For any website or webapp you should know your market and make the call whether you need to spend time upfront, burn the time now, or delay indefinitely or forever, on supporting these low market share alternatives.
There already are tax and welfare benefits to having children, and indeed it does incentivize having them when you really can't afford them. It doesn't seem sustainable long term, but we'll see. I don't think it's a problem with basic income any more than the current system. The bigger issue I find with basic income is that proposals typically don't include any mention of price control on the seller side and purchase control on the buyer side. Poor people are often trapped there because every local actor selling them stuff is trying to maximize rent extraction, and they continually buy things that are expensive and bad for them (case in point the recent cigarette article). Landlords get a lot of money from rent extraction, since they're paid in rent directly. It's even worse with universal, unconditional basic income. If as a landlord I hear everyone in my apartment complex is now getting an unconditional basic income of $20k/yr, guess what, next year rent prices are going up by around $20k, with lowered adjustments to account for other actors (like local food suppliers) also competing for this extra $20k/person/yr. This is basically the same thing that has happened to student loans. Without authoritarian measures to restrict economic freedom, which in addition to being authoritarian must also be good measures so as to not backfire as every other centrally planned economy has, basic income has no real chance at a large scale. In America in particular, authoritarian anything is a no-go.
What is this total inequality you talk about? It seems like you're picking the inequality of 0 and infinity. But we live in a finite world, this total inequality is impossible. Furthermore, whether we introduce an infinite inequality or a finite inequality, there's no reason the lower bound should be at 0 (where people starve and die). Suppose we have a society whose inequality range generally falls within 1 and 1,000,000. 1 is a sustenance standard of living, any unfortunate event could totally wipe you out, but it's pretty much maintainable with little effort provided that unfortunate event doesn't happen. Somewhere around 3 being the poverty line and somewhere around 8 being a decent standard of living so long as you're working to maintain it, and somewhere around 50-100 is enough for most people to effectively have that same decent standard of living as 8 but without having to maintain it so hard e.g. through a job. What's wrong with this lower bound increasing by 1 every year (with its associated low level of upkeep remaining the same) while the upper bound increases by 2 every year? The inequality is growing with each year, but in 2 years there is no one below the poverty line, and in 7 years everyone has a decent standard of living but they don't really have to put in effort for it. Why is inequality the issue here?
The entire thrust of our medical regulatory system, from the Flexner Report to today, is the belief that it's better for 1000 patients to die of neglect, than 1 from quackery. Until this irrational fear of quack medicine is cured, there will be no real progress in the field.[1]
They'll probably succeed for the most part, too. Who's going to spend their time playing cat and mouse when they can just unsubscribe and torrent? If you're not seeding, you're breaking the same law of unlicensed access to content either way.
I remember looking at Beeminder, probably around the time that article was written unless you promoted/were promoted on LW before then. How much would you say you've improved the service since then? It definitely looks better than I remember... I think I'll test it out this weekend since I can see it being pretty helpful for those long term yet easily measurable goals, two of which I have under "lose x lbs" and "read y books this year". I'm not so sure it would be that helpful for the smaller goals, though, especially ones that require more subjective measurement ("you've been on your cell phone too much today") or ones that require frequent measurement updates from the individual ("out of this list of whitelisted sites that are directly work related your fraction of time spent on other sites over the last time period is x%, which happens to be too much"). Anyway I wanted to ask if you're familiar with any research on akrasia correlated with childhood. I have no idea if or how much things like divorce, loose parenting, strict parenting, or a change in style as the child transitions into teenage years affects anything. It was just an idea I had this morning when I realized my above comment is really just asking for a strict parent who in the process of looking out for my own best interests (that as an adult I can now agree with are such, or at least rationally argue otherwise and be taken seriously) can do such a wide variety of things like taking away my phone for a set period (while still letting me answer any important calls that might come in), or periodically poking me with a stick if I'm staring at my screen seemingly frozen and there isn't a code editor open.
If you include thinking about work, then even work-from-home people could reach the 50+ figure relatively easily since you include weekends and trying to get to sleep. But then you might easily get into low numbers of hours per week, 15-30, if you subtract things like spending some large % of your time doing non-productive non-work (happy hours, lunches not at your desk, watercooler talk, browsing HN) even though you're at work.
Work time should generally only be the time between clock-in and clock-out. For professionals that are freed from clock-in-clock-out, I think they would still clump around that 40 hour figure if you made them clock-in-clock-out for the data rather than for the pay.
Non-judgmental fair third-party oversight who has free action only reversible by themselves over your environment.
Whence the high performance claim? I tried finding some benchmarks, and apparently they used to be on the home page since this was on HN about a year ago, but I didn't find any recent ones. It would be nice to see it compared to, say, Rust, Nim, Haskell, OCaml, C...
Looking at your portfolio -- are you applying for video game jobs or generic Big Co software engineer? Or pretty much anywhere you can find / that reaches out to you? Try for something outside of your experience, or even something you might think is "beneath you", selling yourself as a new college grad eager to grow your experience and be part of a team. Also consider applying for SDET jobs after learning some basics about in-vogue testing philosophies. Other than that, I second the advice that it's just a numbers game, keep trying as long as you're able, and if you can up your job search into a full-time activity (i.e. 8 hours a day spent on job search) that's even better. Once you get your foot in the door, even as an engineer-in-test, you can start transitioning within the company more easily as well as continue looking elsewhere without the stress of "I need a job now to pay bills."
Unfortunately he picked the wrong unjust laws to break, the wrong targets to go after. The problem with being a true believer... http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/01/noam-ch...
I still sympathize with a subset of the ICs, those that must see so many problems (maybe even futilely trying to fix them) but being crippled from doing much by internal dynamics. I wish them the courage to pack up and leave for someplace better, while on those who have been responsible long-term I agree with you.
It's more like x86 beat everything, which is also saying that externally CISC/RISC didn't matter so much. I like the section on RISC here: http://danluu.com/butler-lampson-1999/ Specifically part of the last paragraph: "It’s possible to nitpick RISC being a no by saying that modern processors translate x86 ops into RISC micro-ops internally, but if you listened to talk at the time, people thought that having a external RISC ISA would be so much lower overhead that RISC would win, which has clearly not happened. Moreover, modern chips also do micro-op fusion in order to fuse operations into decidedly un-RISC-y operations."
I wanted to recommend Nim elsewhere in the thread, too. For a lot of serious game devs, a language with a forced GC is often a no-go, for good reasons or bad, so that immediately eliminates a lot of potential candidates to replace C or C++. The only objections I frequently see people have with Nim once they look deeper into it are on syntax (not so much on indentation as on the symbol identifier rule -- case and underscore/dash insensitive except for the first character), current usability (not being 1.0), and expected longevity. Basically the same objections to Rust. (I think Rust can convert a lot of C++ game programmers eventually, I'm not so sure it can convert a lot of C game programmers because of the additional mental complexities in the name of safety, a low priority on a game dev's list.)
Odd to see it not mentioned as another benefit, but by targeting C instead of say direct assembly you benefit from the decades of optimization research that has gone into modern C compilers.
Can you name three? In any case, a good economist typically just says what the state of the world is or will be given x, y, z, not what should be. I can think of one economist (Robin Hanson) who doesn't say "we should reduce financial inequality".
I was thinking of Musk too. A person with $1bn in the bank is very rich. So is a person with $200m in the bank. But the first person still has a lot more freedom of action. When you rob people of their freedom of action, you get bad economies.
We could, maybe, for various degrees of help and with various dangers depending on how much help (look up Oracle AI), and I would easily wager using relevant tools (not just "AI tech") would make the positive outcome more likely than not using them, but there are still many ways it can go wrong, and while past and present weak-AI technology might be useful in creating a sentient machine I'm doubtful much would be that helpful in solving the Friendliness (or benevolence) problem directly.
For instance the other comment brings up the uncertainty around giving an Oracle AI the task of finding what benevolence means to humans, to then plug into the final AI hoping it will be Friendly. You don't know how to precisely define 'benevolent' so let the Oracle AI do it (or help you do it), though you think you can at least program the Oracle AI to do a good job in finding answers to vague, complex, fragile problems. (Why? Past success in AI tech?) Is what the Oracle AI outputs actually good? How do you know? What did the Oracle AI have to do to reach its answer, or gain a last bit of certainty in it? (e.g. Did it reason it needed more data and so built or hastened the arrival of brain-scanning technology, started scanning brains from volunteers, the very recently deceased, cryonics patients, or just without its creators knowledge through black market deals, and at some point did it simulate trillions of human minds under all sorts of gruesome scenarios to test responses? Do you even morally care about sentience on silicon? Would you care more if you were an upload?) You've got a lot of problems just building an Oracle AI (or anything powerful enough that can help you solve the hardest problems). Even supposing the output it gives is good and the costs (practical and ethical) were acceptable, will a seed AI allowed to recursively self-improve be guaranteed to preserve this Friendliness property in all subsequent improvements?
With the idea of using "AI tech", you've basically drawn a line in the outcome space that on one side says something like "let's just program the thing" and the other says "hold on, let's just program the thing but also use all these other relevant computer tools we've developed over the decades to help program the thing". It's the start of an approach, but does it really prune all that much? What do these relevant tools actually buy you in safety, if a safety-guarantee-tool is not among them? Another line which may be what you were heading towards, could be on one side say something like "we might not be able to solve all the necessary problems with our current intelligence, so let's also spend time looking for ways to augment human intelligence -- brain-computer interfaces, brain emulations, tweaks to our genetic code, that sort of thing" and the other side "no, we're capable, let's try our best right now". Using ems based on friendly-ish human minds that become better than human could very well be a better approach to solving the superintelligent problems correctly and efficiently than doing so on raw human levels, on the other hand it could turn very bad if one of those ems instead just solves the problem of recursively improving themselves and their goal and value system is insufficiently friendly. Or many other failure modes. (Though an interesting "most likely scenario" given certain assumptions and only looking at a span of 2 years which by itself doesn't look too terrible is Robin Hanson's Age of Em idea.) Just like approaches involving molecular nanotech to help us, there's reasons why it could be seen to help the best outcome along, but it also opens the door to a lot of other risks that aren't necessarily there if you took the other side, so again how much is really pruned?
What I take as your general idea of "maybe we need and should employ additional help and knowledge that we've yet to gain to even really start" isn't bad, though, much better than "Benevolence is easy, a King and his subjects all know he is a great ruler when everyone is smiling frequently", it's just lacking in detail to constitute a plan. Throwing in the positive feedback loop idea (which might even manifest as impressive accelerating returns, who knows) to me seems only relevant to figuring out time scales, I don't think it says anything about the fraction of good vs. bad outcomes apart from whether short or long time scales matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_about_the_RMS_Ti...
You give a director a big budget from their past successes, not necessarily because the underlying thing is somehow easier or harder to make money off of due to copyright. That's icing, not cake.
thanks to the democratization of resources like powerful hardware
(Em mine.) I have a problem, my rig's not very powerful. Where can I vote to get a better rig? Or does my rig do the voting weighted by its power? (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/)
You may find the pattern of complaints repeated decade after decade, but as the other commenter mentioned that is just as easily explained if it is in fact getting worse and worse. If you believe that, and believe that pretty much everything people point out as better that even our ancestors before the 20th century would agree with is better (less homicides for instance) is simply due to technological (incl. medical and scientific) improvement, then you're basically a neoreactionary. Give the authors in that field (or just writers from before the 20th century) a serious read sometime if you want a very different perspective on the world you live in.
My parenthetical is important. The "it doesn't [want to]" is precisely why many ideas won't work, because many adversaries within the species (the rest of us) will work against anyone trying, and getting enough people with the know-how and desire to try will be hard. In fact the hardest part of the fragment you pulled out is developing a strategy that will indeed end almost all life without first killing all humans. A lot of strategies are likely relatively long-term (and inplausible to actively work on because of adversaries, however some believe human activity is already an ongoing inadvertent mass-extinction event for other life and maybe ourselves eventually). However the thing in my mind when I wrote that was intentional asteroid impact. We've already demonstrated we can land on the things, NASA's been busy finalizing the details of a redirection mission, so redirecting a sufficient number of smaller ones or just one really big one (but why stop at one?) ought to do the trick for most plant and animal life.
I think a shorter tl;dr is simply that the ways a human-level or beyond AI can be programmed incorrectly (it eventually kills us all or worse), even trying our best to do it right, outnumber the ways it can be programmed correctly. If you don't believe this, I'm not sure how to convince you, other than to poke holes in your ideas about how a benevolent AI could be programmed correctly so you see that such an idea is actually a terrible one or at least insufficient. There are many level of detail attacks I could use, other attacks around the lack of a proof that the AI's goals and preferences will remain exactly the same let alone within a window of benevolence over time.
You should still accept and then offload your decisions onto someone else you think is responsible enough.
Adding to this, imagine you were part of an ancient alien species checking in on earth every so often. Around 4.5 billion years ago, Earth was formed. 500 million years later, the first self-replicators appeared. Another half billion years (now 3.5 billion years ago) for things to settle down and create the most recent ancestor from which all life descends from. Over the next 3 billion years nothing much happens, until the Phanerozoic Eon is reached around 500 million years ago where more "interesting", larger life starts to develop. But again for another half a billion years nothing that much happens other than evolution continuing playing its game of optimizing for gene replication in more and more interesting ways. Around one hundred thousand years ago, an interesting branch of a species has been developing in ways that indicate the rise of general intelligence (their few pounds of squishy matter in their heads are pretty neat: http://www.yudkowsky.net/singularity/power/). But they don't seem to be doing all that much until about 10-20 thousand years ago. And even then, less than 10 thousand years ago, they built some interesting structures like the pyramids, but their population is still tiny and their global influence is limited. And it wasn't until about 500 years ago when things really started picking up in population growth and world influence (some mark that as the discovery of a formal scientific process to build and record more and more truths about the world that are actually true). Just around 100 years ago, this species developed air travel. In about 60 years after that, they went beyond their planet to their moon. This species at present could wipe out almost all life from the planet (if it wanted, which it doesn't) in multiple ways, to really get every last bit of life exterminated would take some doing but in a large enough time span doesn't seem impossible.
An alien species would have to be observing this planet at very frequent intervals to be able to catch any of these recent developments -- because if millions of years ago they determined nothing interesting was happening, and decided to only look in every five hundred thousand years or so, it's very likely the last time they looked our species wasn't even around.
Now you take the development of an AI that is roughly human level intelligent with a given amount of resources. If you give it the same amount of resources again, it can "breed", copy itself perfectly onto them, and now we have a "population" of two AIs whose combined intelligence should roughly match that of two twin humans. Maybe it doesn't even copy perfectly, maybe it switches some things about to see if it can create something smarter without modifying its own code directly. In any case its breeding is only restricted by its ability to breed and desire to breed in the first place and the compute and power resources it needs to run a new copy, and these can always get lower than initially. What does the long-term look like? Even if the initial resources for the first one are astronomical (e.g. all computing power in use on the planet as of 2016), I would still bet you that left to breed without any other restriction it would take the AI family far less time than 100 thousand years to reach 7 billion instances. So you're looking at many, many more AIs than non-AIs, plus each with human level intelligence that isn't distributed normally (assuming soft eugenics doesn't become widespread in non-AI populations) but is mainly all the same with perhaps increases here and there (assuming a soft takeoff), each coordinating with the same goals in mind. This situation without further specification can be either extremely good for the non-AIs or extremely bad for the non-AIs. The question of whether this will happen (and whether it happens in that exact form, personally I think hard takeoff from a single AI is likely) in the next 100 years or the next hundred thousand years (perhaps a near-extinction-level event occurs forcing our species to basically start over but with an even harder battle to survive since many low-hanging-fruit resources have been depleted) might help you determine whether to worry now about doing actions that make the extremely-good more likely than the extremely-bad, but if one thinks human-level AI can't happen at all in any amount of time, that there's something special about our squishy brains or something inherently limiting about our so-far-general intelligence such that we can't solve the engineering problem of creating another intelligence directly and must always go through breeding, the argument needs to take place at a different level.
The paperclip maximizer argument (not sure if Bostrom repeats it in his book) is yet another level of argument but it's meant for those who already buy the premise of human level AI and self-improving AI but who also think increased intelligence will naturally converge to a human-loving benevolent AI that sees how self-evidently obvious it is to love all life or whatever, that we don't have to worry about all the messy details around Friendliness because they'll just fall out of the entity naturally. No one is actually worried about Clippy tiling the solar system with himself, its probability is epsilon. But a lot of people just see this one argument out of context and infer the arguer believes it to be a relevant possibility to worry about and write off the whole group as crazy...
You're right. One's sanity being in question requires many more qualifications.