This is a very offensive epithet and I demand you rescind it immediately. Just because you have your own language does not mean you can make up hurtful words in English.
The AI Misinformation Epidemic
131–140 of 286 posts
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Peter Thiel has made some other interesting observations: - that our language about the ‘developed' vs ‘developing' world is excessively bullish about globalization while implicitly pessimistic about technology. - that government has changed from thinking that progress can be achieved via planning, into thinking that it's more just there to watch random forces & statistics evolve the world. This change in mindset awa…
interesting points in this podcast http://www.talkhouse.com/comedian-tim-heidecker-talks-with-a... Adam Curtis argues that we no longer subscribe to grand visions and as a result we're floundering as our internet-induced bubbles send us into every more fragmented echo-chambers We're never going to achieve anything great again...it's the beginning of the heat-death of human progress! I think that the recent idolatry o…
The thing to understand about nature is that it is made up of complex systems that have evolved into finely balanced equilibria. Our reductionist science only works well in linear systems where variables are cleanly separable, which complex systems by definition are not. Thus tinkering with nature under the assumption that it is a linear system is likely to have lots of unintended consequences. That is why science's track record in promoting health is so abysmal, and our agriculture is completely unsustainable.
The only way to really evolve a complex system is to make a lot of small gradual changes, constantly course correcting as you go.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's reasonable to equate 'technologies that existed since the 60s' with 'technologies that are ubiquitous today'. I'm in the bottom 15% of my country (UK) by income and I have access to things like: near-instantaneous hot water at all times, affordable next-day delivery services from a pocket-sized device I carry around with me, international air travel that is affordable for me, efficient fridge/freez…
Almost everything you listed there already started becoming common by the 1960's. Step back and forget about informational technology. Look at the world of atoms, not at the world of bits. Since the decommissioning of the Concorde, our fastest commercial means of transportation has actually been getting slower , not faster. Man hasn't reached farther out in space than the moon missions of the 1960s. The first half th…
> Since the decommissioning of the Concorde, our fastest commercial means of transportation has actually been getting slower, not faster.
Our means of travel have also gotten vastly more efficient.
Prioritizing progress in average efficiency over speed of a showpiece that is used for a very small share of actual travel isn't the end of progress, and it is very much change in the world of atoms, not bits.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is you "economics background" a BA, by any chance? The people who say economics "became religion" are usually those whose only exposure to economics is through secondhand knowledge (ie. they read about it in media) or took a handful of undergraduate classes. Take a look at what modern economics research looks like [1]. Seriously, read __any__ of those articles and come tell me with a straight face it's not doing norm…
Sure. The first NBER paper in [1] features the following jewel (p.34): "B. Calibration To quantitatively decompose the contribution of different factors to the growth of shadow banks and fintech firms, we first have to calibrate the model to the conforming loan market data." I can tell you with a straight face that is not normal science. Economists themselves increasingly recognize so-called "calibration" is a farce.
If the paper gets traction and the model specification is indeed not robust, the first thing you'll see in a few months is something like "paper xyz: comment" driving holes in the methodology getting even more traction. Empirical microeconomics is fairly open about methodology flaws and critiques.
Also, by the way, you see pretty much the same type of thing in a ton of fMRI neuroscience, medical and psychology studies (even the ones you'll later see on NPR or ted talks). You shouldn't ever believe any one empirical result in basically anything except maybe CERN particle physics type work.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
True that. 1880-1950 (70 years) took us from train-and-telegraph to jet-and-atom bomb. Horse and carriage was the top-tier tech for personal transportation in 1880, and they were just starting to understand that diseases are often caused by these little blobby creatures called germs. 1950-2020 (70 years) will take us much less distance. Almost everything we're developing seems to be about information processing. If y…
I don't think it's reasonable to equate 'technologies that existed since the 60s' with 'technologies that are ubiquitous today'. I'm in the bottom 15% of my country (UK) by income and I have access to things like: near-instantaneous hot water at all times, affordable next-day delivery services from a pocket-sized device I carry around with me, international air travel that is affordable for me, efficient fridge/freez…
None of the above are new technologies (last decade(s) or so) developments -- except those that concern computers (which is in accordance to what the parent said).
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
compared to what though ? are we assuming a linear rate of development ? in evolution organisms change gradually with occasional bursts, and the same seems to be true of human tech evolution. There are periods of stagnation with tiny increments or even regress in places, then there are rapid bursts of unpredictable change, often enabled by information from one area reaching another previously unrelated one.
Peter Thiel has made some other interesting observations: - that our language about the ‘developed' vs ‘developing' world is excessively bullish about globalization while implicitly pessimistic about technology. - that government has changed from thinking that progress can be achieved via planning, into thinking that it's more just there to watch random forces & statistics evolve the world. This change in mindset awa…
>- that government has changed from thinking that progress can be achieved via planning, into thinking that it's more just there to watch random forces & statistics evolve the world. This change in mindset away from planning for innovation has made it impossible to achieve grandiose mission like the Apollo space missions. As a result if there is going to be a government role in getting innovation started, people have to philosophically believe again that it’s possible to plan.
It's pretty bloody ironic to hear Peter Thiel say we need state planning.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#137Stop calling it "Machine Learning" and "Neural Networks" if you don't want the attention. Do we refer to code or computers as "Machines?". That kind of language is just begging for skynet references.
Any sort of elaborate processing network could be called "Neural" or maybe even a fancy linked-list . Something more reasonable like a learning network would keep the sensationalism down. Im sure we can come up with better names...
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost everything you listed there already started becoming common by the 1960's. Step back and forget about informational technology. Look at the world of atoms, not at the world of bits. Since the decommissioning of the Concorde, our fastest commercial means of transportation has actually been getting slower , not faster. Man hasn't reached farther out in space than the moon missions of the 1960s. The first half th…
> Since the decommissioning of the Concorde, our fastest commercial means of transportation has actually been getting slower, not faster. Our means of travel have also gotten vastly more efficient. Prioritizing progress in average efficiency over speed of a showpiece that is used for a very small share of actual travel isn't the end of progress, and it is very much change in the world of atoms, not bits.
>Our means of travel have also gotten vastly more efficient.
Hardly vastly. At best within an order of magnitude better, but not even close to that.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#139The AI and Singularity hype irks me, because I'm genuinely in agreement with Peter Thiel's argument that technological progress is actually decelerating relative to how it was moving 60 years ago once you look beyond the advancements we have experienced in information technology and finance.
True that. 1880-1950 (70 years) took us from train-and-telegraph to jet-and-atom bomb. Horse and carriage was the top-tier tech for personal transportation in 1880, and they were just starting to understand that diseases are often caused by these little blobby creatures called germs. 1950-2020 (70 years) will take us much less distance. Almost everything we're developing seems to be about information processing. If y…
Do you think this could have something to do with ingrained interests that have subverted disruptive technological progress? I have a feeling that there have been at least a few cases of this preventing the public from enjoying the benefits of "future living" that the 60's envisioned.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost everything you listed there already started becoming common by the 1960's. Step back and forget about informational technology. Look at the world of atoms, not at the world of bits. Since the decommissioning of the Concorde, our fastest commercial means of transportation has actually been getting slower , not faster. Man hasn't reached farther out in space than the moon missions of the 1960s. The first half th…
Not sure I'd consider stuff like the vast majority of human knowledge sitting in my pocket to be less useful than the dishwasher because it has fewer moving parts or most people can afford to fly to be less of an achievement than the megarich can fly 50% faster . Recent decades might a disappointment compared with the millenialist interpretation of exponential curves, but that's only the same as the disappointment a…
>Not sure I'd consider stuff like the vast majority of human knowledge sitting in my pocket to be less useful than the dishwasher because it has fewer moving parts or most people can afford to fly to be less of an achievement than the megarich can fly 50% faster.
Not sure anybody told you to consider that.
What they did ask you to consider is that technological progress, outside of the digital realm, has been slowed down.