Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 180 posts

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#11

Post by tomrod »

Noseshine wrote: post #9

While taking neuroscience it occurred to me that one could make an argument - depending on what one wants to show, the usefulness of a model is always limited by the intended use - to see a similarity between neurons and humans: The system outcome is not the sum of what each neuron "knows", and each neuron is really "ignorant" and "stupid". For example, why are people bothered that there are people who are into consp…

> For example, why are people bothered that there are people who are into conspiracy theories?

I upvoted, because you bring up a good general idea if we consider all humanity as holonic items in a larger system. However, in the case of conspiracy, most individuals find their time wasted.

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#12

Post by Moshe_Silnorin »

What people are worried about is artificial systems that are of higher capability than all or the vast majority of humans. If the principal agent problem is solved by those that create them and they can be cheaply reproduced, then the value of human wages goes below subsistence. This likely isn't a big problem as economic growth rates would be so unimaginably high in this scenario (with doubling times on the order of months) that even significantly less wealth distribution than what occurs today could easily cover a basic income. This is why I'm not nearly as worried about technological unemployment. And as most people have at least some capital, even without redistribution many people would be fine.

If we can't solve the principle agent problem, we will have introduced self-replicating entities with much higher intelligence into our environment. As most possible utility functions require resources to pursue, we will be competing for resources with more intelligent entities. A competition we will lose.

So solving the principal agent problem is a big issue. Comparing human-level AI to markets is like Megafauna saying "We've been competing with other mammals for millions of years, man is only a difference in degree rather than kind. We'll be fine."

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#13

Post by dredmorbius »

josephpmay wrote: post #8

This is closely related to the economic concept of the "Invisible Hand"[0] and also explains why planned economies never seem to work, no matter how well-intentioned they are (see the current state of Venezuela - although in their case, as in almost every case of central planned economies, greed and corruption were the prevailing forces of the ruling agency) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

The "invisible hand" metaphor used by Adam Smith is not an explanatory mechanism, and if anything is an admission that the specific mechanism isn't understood. In use at the time and earlier, it had the sense of "the invisible hand of Providence" (or God). Though Smith, as Hume, was almost certainly what we'd now call an athiest.

He used the term three times, in three different books: The Theory of Moral Sentiments, then An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, and finally in a book on the history of astronomy. It's clear from context that Smith wasn't embuing markets especially with invisible handedness, but using a common phrase of the age.

The modern invention of this metaphor dates to the 1930s and 1940s, being first used in its modern sense by Paul Samuelson, and latched onto like a desperate child by the budding organs of the Mont Pelerin Society, better known as the von Mises / Hayek / Friedman / Rothbardian variant of Libertarian theology. Its popular significance grew after publishing of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, a compilation of modern economic fallacies miscast as truths, by Regenry Press, a Libertarian propaganda mill, in 1963. You can trace the evolution of the term via Google's Ngram viewer.

One of the more notable "quotations" from Smith's Wealth of Nations

Economic historian Gavin Kennedy has traced this history in depth, published multiple papers on it, and writes a blog, "Adam Smith's Lost Legacy", which I highly recommend.

(You'll also find some discussion of the false myth that's developed over the term in the very Wikipedia article you've linked.)

https://econjwatch.org/articles/adam-smith-and-the-invisible...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1781536

https://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/

My own recommendation is that people actually read Adam Smith to see what he wrote and meant: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4cyroa/adam_sm...

More on the Mont Pelerin Society: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#14

Post by CharlesW »

tomrod wrote: post #11
Noseshine wrote: post #9

While taking neuroscience it occurred to me that one could make an argument - depending on what one wants to show, the usefulness of a model is always limited by the intended use - to see a similarity between neurons and humans: The system outcome is not the sum of what each neuron "knows", and each neuron is really "ignorant" and "stupid". For example, why are people bothered that there are people who are into consp…

> For example, why are people bothered that there are people who are into conspiracy theories? I upvoted, because you bring up a good general idea if we consider all humanity as holonic items in a larger system. However, in the case of conspiracy, most individuals find their time wasted.

> However, in the case of conspiracy, most individuals find their time wasted.

I like this idea too, or at least it makes me at least a bit sympathetic to people I tend to dismiss. And I suppose, the key word is "most".

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#15

Post by mwfunk »

He's addressing one aspect of AI that can be disturbing to some people, specifically becoming reliant on the expertise of others in your day-to-day life and thus becoming less independent. If your biggest issue with the concept of AI assistants is that they might have insights about you that you yourself don't have, I could see this article making someone feel better about it.

For me at least, that's not the primary fear. I don't fear people becoming dependent on AI. Rather, I fear people misusing the information that AI reveals about others. I don't feel uncomfortable from (for example) AI observing my media habits and using that information to make recommendations for other media.

However, I would feel uncomfortable if someone with access to that AI then fed those insights into some other AI that I wasn't aware of for much more nefarious purposes, such as profiling me to try to quantify my loyalty to the government.

That's just one example. Even if I had absolute faith in my government, bad actors could misuse that information to do other things, like determine which people would be most likely to take on debt on unfavorable terms (so they could be sent a 20% APR preapproved credit card, naturally!), or which people would be most likely to want to help a troubled Nigerian prince who just needs a place to temporarily park a bunch of money.

I'm not trying to fearmonger and I'm actually very excited for the future of AI. I just don't think this piece is addressing the deeper fears people have about the technology.

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#16

Post by reitzensteinm »

tomrod wrote: post #11
Noseshine wrote: post #9

While taking neuroscience it occurred to me that one could make an argument - depending on what one wants to show, the usefulness of a model is always limited by the intended use - to see a similarity between neurons and humans: The system outcome is not the sum of what each neuron "knows", and each neuron is really "ignorant" and "stupid". For example, why are people bothered that there are people who are into consp…

> For example, why are people bothered that there are people who are into conspiracy theories? I upvoted, because you bring up a good general idea if we consider all humanity as holonic items in a larger system. However, in the case of conspiracy, most individuals find their time wasted.

Or maybe the cynical and paranoid strain of thought that goes along with conspiracy theories has been historically important, but obsoleted by the sheer scale of our modern civilization and the complexity of the problems we face.

Being irrationally paranoid that the next tribe over is going to attack you might actually pay dividends.

Being irrationally paranoid that Obama is spraying us all with mind control chemtrails... not so much.

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#17

Post by Noseshine »

tomrod wrote: post #11
Noseshine wrote: post #9

While taking neuroscience it occurred to me that one could make an argument - depending on what one wants to show, the usefulness of a model is always limited by the intended use - to see a similarity between neurons and humans: The system outcome is not the sum of what each neuron "knows", and each neuron is really "ignorant" and "stupid". For example, why are people bothered that there are people who are into consp…

> For example, why are people bothered that there are people who are into conspiracy theories? I upvoted, because you bring up a good general idea if we consider all humanity as holonic items in a larger system. However, in the case of conspiracy, most individuals find their time wasted.

I refer to Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Black Swan events. Or fire insurance. Yes, it probably is wasted. However, that is the point: employ a few (few!) neurons on looking out for the "crazy", the unlikely, the improbable. Hope that it's all wasted.

But just like with insurance, when it is wasted you say "Thank god" (I'm an atheist but I can't think of an atheist phrase :-) ), you don't say "what a waste" (that I paid for insurance). You can be sure you have (quite) a number of neurons that if you knew what they do would think are "waste".

Also, the point is for you as someone not into that stuff to ignore them. Not like some of my Facebook friends (former colleagues) who seem to spend most of their day hunting for what they think are examples of the most stupid humanity can create. I'm not so sure that it isn't them who really are stupid. If they just ignored "crazy", nobody would even know such people exist. Instead more people seem intent on bringing the most obscure ideas and idiocies some human somewhere developed to the light that it would otherwise never even have.

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#18

Post by daveguy »

PeCaN wrote: post #5
zitterbewegung wrote: post #3

I think the article is missing the point of what AI will do by eliminating jobs like transportation and fast food preparation . I think once we get to that point we will have to implement basic income .

AI and basic income in the same comment. I almost forgot I was on HN for a second there.

To be fair, the urgency of figuring out whether basic income will work is largely driven by the concern that the number of available jobs will be reduced due to AI (or automation in general). Reduced job availability is about the only legitimate current concern (sub 30 years) of present day AI advances.

It makes sense they are discussed in the same comment to an article about whether we have dealt with the influence of the equivalent of AI for thousands of years through efficiency and specialization.

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#19

Post by pygy_ »

Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #12

What people are worried about is artificial systems that are of higher capability than all or the vast majority of humans. If the principal agent problem is solved by those that create them and they can be cheaply reproduced, then the value of human wages goes below subsistence. This likely isn't a big problem as economic growth rates would be so unimaginably high in this scenario (with doubling times on the order of…

For your first scenario economic growth must be fueled by a proportional growth in energy consumption.

Fossil and Nuclear fuels exist in finite quantities, and the rate of sunlight that hits earth is more or less constant.

Most people would still starve as fields would be repurposed to produce fuel.

Re: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)

#20

Post by Bromskloss »

dredmorbius wrote: post #13
josephpmay wrote: post #8

This is closely related to the economic concept of the "Invisible Hand"[0] and also explains why planned economies never seem to work, no matter how well-intentioned they are (see the current state of Venezuela - although in their case, as in almost every case of central planned economies, greed and corruption were the prevailing forces of the ruling agency) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

The "invisible hand" metaphor used by Adam Smith is not an explanatory mechanism , and if anything is an admission that the specific mechanism isn't understood . In use at the time and earlier, it had the sense of "the invisible hand of Providence" (or God). Though Smith, as Hume, was almost certainly what we'd now call an athiest. He used the term three times, in three different books: The Theory of Moral Sentiments…

> "the invisible hand of Provenance"

_Providence_, perchance?

Post reply on HN