SolTerrasa posted:

This is insane. The AI gold rush (which is a pretty good term) is not doing anything that feeds into his preferred disaster scenario.

SolTerrasa posted:

I think I already covered why it's not going to be a deep neural net (or any neural net) which ends the world, unless you count the brain of the guy with the nuclear codes. I've been reading too much Yudkowsky, I'm going to go drink. If you have any questions or want any followups, I'll get back to you tomorrow.

SolTerrasa posted:

He believes that, while optimizing its own g factor, the intelligent system in question will have a high rate of return on improvements, that one unit of increased g factor will unlock cascading insights that contribute to the development of more than one additional unit of increased g. This is argued here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/we/recursive_selfimprovement/, and you'll find there's not a shred of argument there. It's bald assertion.

quote:

Seriously, I guess Eliezer really needs this kind of reality check wakeup, before his whole idea of "FOOM" and "recursion" etc... turns into complete cargo cult science.

quote:

In the post Eliezer and comment discussion with me tries to offer a math definition of "recursive" but in this discussion about Intel he seems to revert to the definition I thought he was using all along, about whether growing X helps Y grow better which helps X grow better. I don't see any differential equations in the Intel discussion.

Kit Walker posted:

In a plot twist, EY turns out to be a generative model and we are all the adversarial model and together we usher forth the creation of a true AI

SolTerrasa posted:

Fake "celebrity faces"

Honestly those are pretty persuasive; I looked at a few of them and thought "huh wait isn't that... nope, never mind".

SolTerrasa posted:

ate all the Oreos posted:

This is really cool, thanks!

On the off chance do you (or anyone here) have a recommendation for how to learn babby's first neural network? I'm a programmer who finds them fascinating but whenever I go to try and, idk, do some kind of babby's first "hello world" of neural networks I just get bogged down in "check out how this deep learning thing works!" articles and give up.

ate all the Oreos posted:

This is really cool, thanks!

On the off chance do you (or anyone here) have a recommendation for how to learn babby's first neural network? I'm a programmer who finds them fascinating but whenever I go to try and, idk, do some kind of babby's first "hello world" of neural networks I just get bogged down in "check out how this deep learning thing works!" articles and give up.

Billy Gnosis posted:

Depending on your background, a lab at Stanford has a good nuts and bolts tutorial. I don't have a link handy on my phone but I think it comes up if you search for Stanford deep learning tutorial.

(I have a PhD in this field but everything on the past page or so has been right so I people aren't letting me be a know it all )

BobHoward posted:

Thanks, SolTerrasa! That was an amazing post.

One question that comes to mind: Once a GAN gets extremely good at making fake data, do you hit a point where you want to stop using its output as negative training data for the discriminative model? For example, some of those generated faces are clearly "off" according to the neural networks in my head, but some appear to be good enough that maybe punishing a discriminative model for accepting them could harm its ability to assign a high P(human_face|image) to real faces.

divabot posted:

could I please quote your post (with or without attribution) on tumblr? I want to make rationalists cry.

ate all the Oreos posted:

This is really cool, thanks!

On the off chance do you (or anyone here) have a recommendation for how to learn babby's first neural network?

SolTerrasa posted:

If you like, but I didn't write it for an adversarial audience, so if they yell about some part of it being wrong they might very well be right. And without attribution ("AI engineer at Google" is fine if you like it better that way), please. Some of those people scare me, I don't know how you go around posting photos of yourself and still engage with them on a regular basis.

BobHoward posted:

I'd enjoy an effortpost about GANs, and perhaps also what distinguishes a "deep" neural network from the stuff that has been around since (I think?) the 1990s. If you're up for it.

quote:

if you believe that straight white tribe P males are more powerful than you, why the gently caress would you do seemingly everything in your power to convince them that one side really really needs to destroy the other?

Fututor Magnus posted:

I just saw this terrible post-rationalist post and had to post it here.

My favourite quote has to be:

Fututor Magnus posted:

I just saw this terrible post-rationalist post and had to post it here.

My favourite quote has to be:

Relevant Tangent posted:

Replace chat with sex and you've nailed it (unlike Yud).

ate all the Oreos posted:

My background is computational mathematics + like 8 years of coding random garbage as a career so I can probably figure it out, thanks!

e: I assume it's this one, here's the link for anyone else who's interested: http://deeplearning.stanford.edu/tutorial/

Pope Guilty posted:

I regret to inform you that an old friend of mine is his brother in law, so bad news on that front.

Doc Hawkins posted:

Yyyeeah. You can take it from me, that guy fucks.

Steven Pinker posted:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in an isolated system (one that is not taking in energy), entropy never decreases. (The First Law is that energy is conserved; the Third, that a temperature of absolute zero is unreachable.)

Why the awe for the Second Law? The Second Law defines the ultimate purpose of life, mind, and human striving: to deploy energy and information to fight back the tide of entropy and carve out refuges of beneficial order. An underappreciation of the inherent tendency toward disorder, and a failure to appreciate the precious niches of order we carve out, are a major source of human folly.

To start with, the Second Law implies that misfortune may be no one’s fault. The biggest breakthrough of the scientific revolution was to nullify the intuition that the universe is saturated with purpose: that everything happens for a reason. In this primitive understanding, when bad things happen—accidents, disease, famine—someone or something must have wanted them to happen. This in turn impels people to find a defendant, demon, scapegoat, or witch to punish. Galileo and Newton replaced this cosmic morality play with a clockwork universe in which events are caused by conditions in the present, not goals for the future. The Second Law deepens that discovery: Not only does the universe not care about our desires, but in the natural course of events it will appear to thwart them, because there are so many more ways for things to go wrong than to go right. Houses burn down, ships sink, battles are lost for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Poverty, too, needs no explanation. In a world governed by entropy and evolution, it is the default state of humankind. Matter does not just arrange itself into shelter or clothing, and living things do everything they can not to become our food. What needs to be explained is wealth. Yet most discussions of poverty consist of arguments about whom to blame for it. More generally, an underappreciation of the Second Law lures people into seeing every unsolved social problem as a sign that their country is being driven off a cliff. It’s in the very nature of the universe that life has problems. But it’s better to figure out how to solve them—to apply information and energy to expand our refuge of beneficial order—than to start a conflagration and hope for the best.

WrenP-Complete posted:

Yud does? Didn't someone find his dating profile at some point?

danger-carpet posted:

TL;DR: Shut up liberals

danger-carpet posted:

TL;DR: Shut up liberals

Razorwired posted:

Lol misinterpreting the Second Law of Thermodynamics because sociology is hard. These guys are just Southern Christians at this point.

divabot posted:

Dr Chuck Tingle's new news site: Buttbart

quote:

- TROMP BREAKS PROMISE BY RAISING BUTT TAX BY %30 ON LOW INCOME FAMILIES
​- SCREAMING BABY MILO YANANANA STILL CRYING
​- TROMP VOTERS REGRET VOTING TO ALLOW VOID CRABS ACCESS TO THEIR BRAIN, CLAIM THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT "SKULL NEST" MEANT.

divabot posted:

Dr Chuck Tingle's new news site: Buttbart

ate all the Oreos posted:

I love you chuck tingle

TinTower posted:

So the the BBC is showing a documentary about trans kids tonight, centred around a disgraced psychologist who had his gender clinic shut down for institutional child torture and has well documented links to the proto-alt-right Human Biodiversity Institute.

divabot posted:

Dr Chuck Tingle's new news site: Buttbart

quote:

FROM SUAVE TO SPOOKY: TOP FIVE ALT-RIGHT BASEMENTS (NO GIRLS ALLOWED!)

Pinker posted:

GlassElephant posted:

Glancing at 4chan's LGBT board I spotted a politics thread.









Obviously it is impossible to know the sincerity of each poster but still interesting to see.

Oligopsony posted:

This is genuinely super interesting even if the most interesting cases are bogus.

Caveatimperator posted:

You cannot use scientific explanations for what is to moralize about what should be. That's why we have ethical and political philosophy, and this pesky thing called free will (or some semblance of it.) Using science to moralize, even if you're right about the science, is nothing but a fatalistic attempt to absolve oneself of one's or society's moral failings.