jrowen

scale is a necessary ingredient and running things at a physics sim level is just too taxing.

I once had an idea for a system that basically took in multiple video inputs and produced video output. Individuals would then run instances (that they could tweak) that were connected to a larger network. Somewhere between an MMO and Folding@home. Not only would it distribute the compute load but it would simulate the chaos of large numbers of individuals trying out different things.

Again I think it comes back to the fitness function and how things get nudged "upward." In any case it seems all you need to do is get fitness right and then let it rip...

Have you explored any distributed concepts like that?

Makes sense, thanks. Even attempting to go for something that could span all those layers of complexity would be such an ambitious project. I doubt any projects in this field have access to MMO-level resources but I feel like it would take a WoW-size dev team and timeline with PhDs across multiple disciplines, crucially with virtually no expectation of financial return. All the money is chasing immediate business value...

Maybe there is the possibility of some kind of stack? Something that starts low level and somehow can be composed or integrated into higher levels of abstraction?

And maybe that just isn't really your area of work, I get that it would be a totally different project (like saying to a C++ guy "have you tried JavaScript?"), but that's why I think it's interesting to ask, because it really is a question of understanding this entire integrated "stack" of biology and what parts of it are vital.

UBI is a distraction. Of course it would help, but it's not a solution. Nobody is going to accept "here's how you filthy masses can be miserable instead of very miserable" as an acceptable compromise.

I don't understand this. It's the endgame. Compromise for what? Working an invented job they don't actually want to work? What is your idea of a solution that combats misery better than a free paycheck?

People are confused into voting against their own interests all the time. Socialism is a bogeyman but Social Security is great (if UBI is too odious just call it lowering the social security age).

I'm to be seen as "you filthy masses" guy when you seem to be advocating some form of mass violence? You could actually, just, exercise democracy to redistribute the wealth. I daresay that would be smarter.

Yes, that's the other thing -- starting from a soup, it takes a very long time to know if the parameters that have been chosen are conducive to evolving something we would consider intelligent. The gif in vicgalle's github is largely inscrutable (even if you understand what it represents in aggregate), and I imagine one would be staring at something like that for quite some time.

Obviously, you have to "cheat" biology somewhere, we don't have hundreds of millions of years. Neural networks cheat by essentially throwing out the whole evolutionary process and environment that led to the brain, attempting to make a model that works like the brain. IMO that is too much cheating.

Starting with a substrate of random bits of assembly code strikes me as a little too low-level (which is not to dismiss this research at all, I think it's valuable, I'm just spitballing big-picture ideas). Have you considered starting with something like the Unreal or Unity engine, or even Minecraft?

You would lose the elegant and unopinionated search space of all programs, and you would have to engineer a more structured system (kind of like Spore but more simulation than game), but I feel like you might be able to get some more readily relatable behaviors sooner?

What I said was meant to apply at the societal level. I wasn't meaning to speak to personal responsibility. The fact that it's become standard practice for employers to require OTP or MDM is a reflection of how society chooses to use the technology.

It's like when Facebook was the bogeyman. Facebook is just a mirror. If you see bad stuff happening (e.g. people spreading and engaging with misinformation), that's the people, not the platform. Unless one is claiming specific intent on their part, Facebook (like most tech) enables good and bad in equal measure.

Getting rid of, or pushing back on, Facebook, or data centers, or smart phones, isn't going to move the needle toward a more caring and empathetic society. Those are all red herrings. Build schools. Pay teachers. Push back on fearmongering, xenophobia, and greed. Educating people to be good participants in the global community is the only chance we have.

I did look that up and took out a line about voter turnout because of it. He definitely has rallied people. He does tap into an energy that the DNC has been blind to. But if you look at the tenor of it, it really does seem to be about anger and dissatisfaction and combativeness -- destructive rather than constructive. MAGA talking points and initiatives aren't about building up communities, schools, infrastructure...they're about all the bogeymans.

I do see the failure of either party to produce a truly constructively inspiring candidate as something seriously wrong with the system. Thanks for the link, it does seem interesting.

I tried to be clever and succinct and it backfired.

I was more referring to "everyone else" as apathetic. Generally, I don't think voting is itself considered an act of activism. Somebody will always win the election regardless of overall levels of activism and apathy. January 6 could be considered activism, however (the bad kind that's closer to a riot). "Get out the vote" grassroots efforts are activism.

I think there is currently a general lack of enthusiasm for the political system and process in the US, and a lack of faith in the government. Trump has tapped into that, and riled people up. Tapping into fear and aggression and anger does not inspire what I would consider to be traditional political and civic activism which IMO is more rooted in "let's work together to make things better for our people."

As opposed to, "let's say MAGA but actually start foreign and domestic conflicts and squander resources on pointless personal ego projects." It is disturbing to me that people continue to support that but I'm still calling it more apathetic than activist.

Sadly if they were smart they would push for UBI rather than jobs or stopping data centers.

Zero-sum scarcity mentality needs to end. Don't push back on prosperity. Push to have those gains distributed more evenly.

Push for a ridiculous tax on data centers that goes directly to the local economy. If they don't buy it then it's the same result as blocking them on vibes.

And I would say that speaks more to your disconnect with most of US society. Very few folks actually trust activists for good reason.

I don't follow. What I said is in alignment with the idea that activism is out of vogue. The comment I replied to implied that electing Trump was an act of activism (or "doing something about it").

Anyway, we already had Hitler. Sadly too often, these guys pop up at the right time and wreak havoc but I would say they're outliers (and in general the world is globalizing and trending away from them).

Smart phones are fine though. Technology is just what we make it. It's a reflection. It is, and always has been, the people that need to change.

They did. They elected Trump.

I would say that speaks more to apathy than activism.

Some people view the president as the only directly-elected person powerful enough to fight for them in dismantling the rest of a government that isn't working

I think consciously verbalizing a position even that nuanced and esoteric is niche, but there is certainly something to be said for peoples' susceptibility to a type of "strong" cult leader.

Everyone may be discontent (which might be a baseline feature of the human experience for many), but is anyone actually willing to do anything about it?

Compared to the activism of the 60s and 70s, where so many people seemed willing to put their entire lives on hold for the cause, the fact that there is no major populist uprising against the dismantling of the institution of the presidency leads me to believe there is a threshold of contentment afforded by modern technology and QoL.

In either case it is about populism though. Hopping on a bus to California to protest was a cool thing to do. Somehow this data center thing happened to catch on and become a lever people felt they could move with mere outrage, even if it does seem pretty misguided.

I've long felt that Artificial Life or an approach rooted in that is the best way to get a novel and interesting machine intelligence. The breakthrough with more conventional methods was surprising, but it still seems like it might hit a ceiling (or may have already?).

The major thing that's always stumped me is how to design a universal fitness function that can take you from soup to a brain. IRL there is "the environment" which contains resources that need to be consumed to survive, and the majority of evolution (senses, bodyforms, metabolic pathways, etc) is based on navigating this environment and extracting energy. Can we say that life or intelligence is a meaningful concept without this universal background reference plane and survival game?

One of the things I think is limiting about conventional systems is what I call the "brain-in-a-vat" problem. They don't "exist" in any meaningful sense, they don't "experience" anything, they don't have any "reason" or "motivation" to do or develop anything.

I think of something more like a video game. The world of World of Warcraft or Call of Duty is a mathematical construct that doesn't truly reflect how our world works, but, through a window we can interpret it in a way that we understand and relate to. Some kind of video game environment with more relaxed and "open-ended" parameters and a simulated survival mechanism would be an interesting experiment.

The abstract mentions metabolic constraints. Can you share more of your thoughts or conceptual approach to this?

Did that comment indicate any condemnation of the west?

What I'm tired of is zero-sum jingoistic nationalism of any kind. Can we just be happy for all of the world to prosper?

edit: I didn't downvote you but it's probably the uncalled-for cynicism.

FWIW, I took the Jesus stuff to be "part of the joke."

You said I was on a high horse, I said I was just having fun.

Now you're just agreeing with my original assessment? What do you want me to do? They seem like they've got a handle on it.

Sure it’s a tall order but we’re not even trying (in a broader collective sense, I know there are people doing good work). We’re still voting for billionaires rights.

And many of them have the pleasure of working on projects that will never see the light of day and have roughly epsilon chance of positively impacting anyone! One golden goose that changed the world and legions of people spinning wheels. What a system!

It’s all in good fun, brother. One has to have some awareness of how unhinged they are (and yes it does take one to know one).

That is a good point. I’m not old enough to care too much about physical media but I do take pride in “my collection” which I would guess is less prevalent in Gen Z. Everything is on demand in the cloud now.

I used ourTunes in the dorms, people just sharing their entire iTunes with the network. I've always been more of a solo digger, but I never liked Spotify. I have specific dance/electronic tastes so I browse and purchase music on sites like bandcamp or beatport, though actually these days it's strictly junodownload.

I do wonder though how much of what you describe, or some form of it, is still happening in dorm rooms. As we get older we just do less of that kind of stuff. I still connect with a large circle of friends through music, and discuss different artists and such, mostly at events.

HN is everything. HN is nothing. HN is this. HN is that. HN is Meta™

edit: how many HN comments talk shit on HN comments? Ask your therapist about self-loathing

While I certainly sympathize with your distaste for certain institutions and traditions within the medical industry, I feel compelled to share that you do seem -- if ever so slightly -- imbalanced.

I once asked a long-term partner, point blank, "do you think you're not long for this world?" That person remains one of the deepest connections I've ever had. There is a great amount of variance in human brains and how they react to the time and place they find themselves in, and it is statistically true that a good number are going to have a harder path to walk. Just as with any kind of predisposition to health issues. In that case medication may be the best answer we have at this point.

People perpetually parrot that statement.

Funny, I thought I just made it up, but it did sound pretty good! I don't know what you mean by examples, but it can be as simple as words that can help you identify your feelings and understand your reactions. If you feel like you're good on that (and I can empathize, I don't have a therapist), there may not be much there for you.

I would guess that you have expectations of the world -- perhaps visions of what it could be -- that are unrealistic, which sets you up to be consistently disappointed.

Personally, I'm fighting for the idea that words mean things, and the 2nd best word wont do.

Now ask if this battle is worth fighting with someone that is actually "just trying to do the right thing," on the front lines of gritty social work, and who may not care as deeply about the philosophical implications of linguistic prescriptivism at hand.

I can't really imagine what nefarious purposes someone might have in trying to control you into using the word unhoused vs. homeless, it doesn't seem to me an important hill to die on in this context.

It was a don't call me Shirley thing to say to begin with. I merely added on.

I would dare to say that your interpretation of that vague FUD was largely a projection of your own experience. And I think you sharing that in a constructive and connective way was a lot more clear, empathetic and helpful than the original formulation.

As someone who didn't flag or downvote you, "unhoused" is the newer and currently more politically correct term. That's it. Pushing back on it is seen as pointless and unhelpful at best, and "anti-woke" aggression at worst. Ask yourself what you are fighting for there.

I actually love this comment. I feel seen. Thank you. I am prone to a sort of grandstanding that can elicit such responses, which I believe to actually have a similar philosophical aim as mine (and are perhaps subject to similar dramatic flaws?). I do stand by the sentiment I expressed though.

I do think it does undermine one's point to bemoan the efficacy of HN comments relating to mental health, while making a comment on HN attempting to speak on mental health. Either don't do it, or accept that you believe it can have value.

Your interpretation of their statement is incredibly nuanced. Language matters. Tone matters. Confusion, misinterpretation and miscommunication are the defaults. You certainly understand the importance of endeavoring to express yourself clearly and precisely.

I didn't infer the "beware of harsh self-talk" angle, I was too caught up on their comment actually embodying that approach, which I commented on. Based on the surrounding context I got more of a "HN is dumb because they debate about super nuanced technical stuff" vibe. (Also see sp1nningaway's comment for another completely different interpretation).

I stand by the sentiment that writing a blog post about your mental health and posting it on HN is a totally valid and respectable strategy and I would argue it's had good results even if it's not a "solved problem" and they should still seek other avenues to understanding as well.

P.S. "trivial albeit obnoxious" is an interesting construction I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

It's a lot harder to change the shape of the hole. But I do agree that there is too much emphasis on the pathology of it. I think therapy needs a major rebranding and it shouldn't be seen as something that we do to "fix" "broken" people.

It should just be about more deeply understanding ourselves as individuals, and understanding the world around us (particularly other people), so that we may navigate it better.

I saw a video of a comedian (a woman) doing crowd work, and kind of playfully bullying someone (a man), asking them about their therapy. I thought it was funny, but a lot of the comments were along the lines of "that's not cool, how dare you."

But that audience member was at a comedy club, where comics do that kind of thing. Going to therapy isn't about collectively making sure the world babysits and coddles everyones needs. It's about giving you the tools to handle what you can't change.