HN user

rfergie

397 karma

richard dot fergie at gmail dot com fergie at eanalytica dot com

http://www.eanalytica.com/blog/ http://github.com/richardfergie

Posts2
Comments193
View on HN

It seems like ClosedAI wants their system to follow the desires of some people and not others, but without describing which ones or why

If the problem is "unaligned AI will destroy humanity" then I'd take a system aligned with the desires of some people but not others over the unaligned alternative

One construction of the natural numbers that I've seen is

1. There exists an element 0 that is a natural number

2. For every natural number there is a "sucessor" that is also a natural number. (i.e. if n is a natural number then n+1 is a natural number)

This construction means there can't be an upper bound N because then step 2 couldn't be applied to N.

Maybe there are other constructions that could workaround this? I'm guessing not because you'd still struggle to define the usual rules of addition for all numbers in a bounded set

There’s a huge difference between being there from day one vs day 2,555. Between being a founder and an employee who joined later on

This is true but there is also a huge difference between 97% and 3%

Just saying "36000 die" by itself doesn't tell me very much about how dangerous it is - expressing that as a percentage gives much more information I think.

As another person points out 0.03% is 3 times the risk of dying in traffic which, before looking at the numbers, I would have guessed to be the most dangerous aspect of a trip like this.

You seem to think I am being trite and using a "dry presentation" of statistics to minimise the risks of being murdered by a cartel but I actually find this presentation brings the (large) risk of it home to me much more clearly than with a contextless number like 36,000.

E.g. for the UK the numbers are 0.001% murders and 0.003% for traffic

I am very surprised by this.

I suppose somewhere like Ben Nevis maybe 90% of the people you meet won't have a map and it is possible that places like this will represent a large proportion of the total people you meet when doing a round. So maybe it does make sense that you frequently encounter people without a map doing Munros just because most of the people you encounter are on Munros like Ben Nevis

But the restriction to "non-obvious" Munros doesn't match with my experience

It has been a long time since I've studied this; can you link me to something more about the reals being consistent and complete? Or write a quick explanation in a comment?

I thought there were undecidable propositions in the reals (e.g. cardinality)

I took his point to be that things like "feels readable" and "feels fast" and to do with feelings rather than actual quantifiable things that could reasonably be compared between languages.

So it isn't that those things aren't important; just that they are subjective

You need a whole industry of people telling your customers that these things do work.

I think it is quite difficult to accomplish entirely by yourself

Not qualified to speak on this myself, but I asked a similar question to a friend and he said something like:

Part of good software development is knowing where and when to create abstractions. Category theory has a collection of interesting and very general abstractions - if you can spot these patterns in your software development then they will be good candidates for abstraction/generalisation

I do some data science type work for a charity. This is only part time but I'd imagine larger charities could employ someone full time at this.

The work is not cutting edge data science at all but I do find it meaningful.

Happy to answer questions on here or email me at my gmail (in profile) if you want more thoughts from me.