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

121–130 of 180 posts

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

#121

Post by ArkyBeagle »

pastProlog wrote: post #75
dredmorbius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also, Adam Smith's example of the invisible hand was as a mechanism to prevent so-called free trade, and raise protectionist tariffs. The people you mentioned have twisted Smith's words into the exact opposite meaning - they say Smith's invisible hand sweeps away protectionist tariffs and allows international free trade. He said the complete opposite of what they say he said.

I think you may have a diode in backwards :)

Smith compared free(er) trade to Mercantilism - extremely un-free, Royal patent oriented rent seeking .

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

#122

Post by daveguy »

atemerev wrote: post #71
skinnyarms wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should try building a toaster from scratch https://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_thwaites_how_i_built_a_toas...

Unfortunately, I am not that good at manually building hardware. Learning how it works is another thing, though.

Be careful assuming you understand how something works without having built at least a prototype.

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

#123

Post by [deleted] »

roymurdock wrote: post #73
Rauchg wrote: post #45

For different versions of this argument see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect . Bostrom said: "A lot of cutting edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labelled AI anymore". Finally, the problem with all these articles is the lack of precise definition for the terminology involved (it reminds me of deb…

A lot of the arguments/heated debates on HN stem from a failure to define key terms. Less so in threads on compsci-related topics, but almost always on threads with econ-related topics. Especially universal basic income. Once you identify this common issue it becomes easy to avoid these frustrating (and frustrated) conversations altogether. Eno has taken a pretty liberal view of "AI" but he makes a good point about s…

[deleted]

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

#124

Post by getgoingnow »

JoBrad wrote: post #63
Rauchg wrote: post #45

For different versions of this argument see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect . Bostrom said: "A lot of cutting edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labelled AI anymore". Finally, the problem with all these articles is the lack of precise definition for the terminology involved (it reminds me of deb…

It's generally accepted that any intelligence that isn't from a living being is artificial. Global Civilization isn't living, per se.

Could you offer an abstract definition of "life" and "intelligence" (or maybe even 'thinking' or 'consciousness') ?

For example, if you're trying to figure out whether something is 'moving', you would define the term in such a way that it could apply to planets or animals or other things/systems. If you define 'motion' = 'humans putting one leg in front of another', then of course non-human animals or anything else couldn't move. But, that definition is too restrictive. If you're trying to say that animals can't move, then provide a more abstract definition of 'motion' (e.g. 'change in location') and then you will see animals and many other things start moving.

Here is a video with a good explanation of how a lack of an abstract definition results in confusion:

  https://youtu.be/_Wvv-bt9SzI?t=11s

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

#126

Post by unusximmortalis »

daveguy wrote: post #122
atemerev wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, I am not that good at manually building hardware. Learning how it works is another thing, though.

Be careful assuming you understand how something works without having built at least a prototype.

Interesting thought. Do not say you know it/understand it untill you experience it. I thing there a thin line between these two categories, those things we ca understand without experience, and the rest. Is there a research paper about this aspect?

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

#127

Post by scotty79 »

pajop wrote: post #106

Tim Urban points out in his AI article that it might be dangerous to expect that the AI that we know now would still be the same AI we will have in the very near future http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolu... "So as AI zooms upward in intelligence toward us, we’ll see it as simply becoming smarter, for an animal. Then, when it hits the lowest capacity of humanity—Nick Bostrom uses the term “th…

I'm not afraid of AI because intelligence has diminishing returns. 1000 times smarter entity might be only 2 or 3 times better at predicting the future than human is. So 1000 times smarter superhuman AI maybe could tell weather two weeks ahead instead of one. And the physical world is inherently like weather, chaotic in mathematical sense.

Our upper hand against even very dumb animals doesn't come from our intelligence. It comes from thousands of years of infrastructure that we built to amplify ourselves. AI would have to build its own, which we won't let it (at least initially) or steal ours in which having ability to see just a bit farther in the future doesn't help that much with.

It won't get much ahead of us with science because science is limited by technology. 1000 times smarter physicist won't figure out new universe laws without getting his hands on data from new accelerator, larger than any other built before.

That's some reasons why I think run-away AI won't be dangerous to us unless we let it build or take over our physical world which won't happen given our current caution towards subject.

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

#128

Post by unusximmortalis »

jonknee wrote: post #83
tambourine_man wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that scary. A huge collection of specialists makes for a pretty fragile species.

Specializing enabled huge advances, everyone having to do everything is actually quite fragile because it can only support a small population.

I think it can be drawn a parallel with the centralized vs decentralised network. Which one is better? And I think the stronger one for the species is a combination of the two.

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

#129

Post by atemerev »

daveguy wrote: post #122
atemerev wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, I am not that good at manually building hardware. Learning how it works is another thing, though.

Be careful assuming you understand how something works without having built at least a prototype.

This is correct. Got burned by this quite a few times.

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

#130

Post by ZenoArrow »

dredmorbius wrote: post #91
ZenoArrow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "For those interested in what people who actually know whereof they speak have to say on the topic" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority I've no problem with learning from others, but pointing to a select handful of people who 'actually know whereof they speak' is not going to help explore the field fully.

Pointing to expertise is not argument from authority.

It depends. In this case, it was the framing that made it the argument from authority, namely "in what people who actually know whereof they speak". The implication is that the sources of truth are limited to a select few people.
Post reply on HN