Live data from Hacker News

Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

chronicle.com

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hanson is not breaking new ground; he's recycling SF as economics. World-building for purposes of entertainment generally has little to do with successful prediction. Hanson has made this point in a few places, eg, http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/11/science-fiction-is-fan... . I'm not sure if you've read Age of Em but it didn't feel like reading scifi, so much as reading an encyclopedia. RE: the list of "wild id…

> World-building for purposes of entertainment generally has little to do with successful prediction Do you have any evidence that that's true? A decent number of ideas portrayed in science fiction have come true, so clearly successful prediction is going on. Ultimately, economist or author are both using imagination and extrapolation. I don't see any particular reason to expect better results from the economist.

> clearly successful prediction is going on.

Throwing out all possible wild ideas, some of which happen to come true, isn't what "prediction" means.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#112

> You are beautiful, intelligent, and charismatic, as are your friends, co-workers, lovers. Aren't all of these qualities measured relative to our neighbors? I.e., each of us is a genius compared to our ape forebearers, but if everyone around you is beautiful, intelligent, and charming, then no one is. > You feel no hunger, no cold, no heat, no pain. Again, isn't discomfort relative to what one is prepared for? Under…

You're missing something by bringing up "human desire". Within the post-human fantasy there's no reason to not fix the bug that your happiness is only measured relative to other's misery. Or to present an altered set of peers to each individual so that they feel relatively successful, or any other number of solutions that become trivial once you accept the premise.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#113

The book’s premise is that in about a century, it will be possible to scan human brains at "fine enough spatial and chemical resolution," and to combine that with good-enough models of signal-processing functions of brain cells, "to create a cell-by-cell dynamically executable model of the full brain in artificial hardware, a model whose signal input-output behavior is usefully close to that of the original brain." L…

He talks about the time estimate in the book. He says he understood the need for a time estimate, and so gives the one he thinks is best. But the important thing is that he feels confident it will happen before artificial intelligence that isn't full-brain emulation, whether that's in one century or four centuries.

"confident" is too strong. I think the chance is high enough to make the premise worth considering in this detail.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what, though? The hazard of dealing with Bayesian epistemologists is that they will confidently state percentages that they literally made up.

Based on his own personal belief. Probabilities are a very useful way to precisely state the certainty of beliefs. It means that if you offered him betting odds that it would happen, of less than 1:2, he would take it. And he would bet against it at odds higher than 1:2. Of course betting on the far future is impractical, because money might not be worth anything if it does happen, but in principle that's how these n…

Yes, I know where Bayesian epistemologists get their numbers.

The danger is that they then announce these numbers as if they have any real-world basis, and that they are taken as making a claim about objective reality.

There's no evidence I know that pulling a number out of your backside and running it through Bayes' theorem produces better results than just pulling the number out directly and running with it. Indeed, the real-world track record of LessWrong/MIRI (to bring this back to topical relevance) strongly suggests it's less effective.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#115
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was specifically refuting the claim that the radiation problem is a blocker, when in fact it is just a minor nuisance. Storms posed more of a danger to the first ships exploring the new world than radiation will to Mars colonists, and that didn't stop anyone.

You are mistaken. https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-003.pdf

Do you have a link to a specific page within that report demonstrating your point? I skimmed through it and all I saw is that it says that there are some risks. Obviously I'm not denying that. It doesn't say at all that the risks are so high that we can't do missions with current technology (which provides minimal to no radiation shielding in transit). Mainly it's saying that further study is merited, which I absolutely agree with. I also think we don't need to hold off on going until we achieve perfect mitigation, and I believe most NASA employees would agree with me on that as well.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on his own personal belief. Probabilities are a very useful way to precisely state the certainty of beliefs. It means that if you offered him betting odds that it would happen, of less than 1:2, he would take it. And he would bet against it at odds higher than 1:2. Of course betting on the far future is impractical, because money might not be worth anything if it does happen, but in principle that's how these n…

Yes, I know where Bayesian epistemologists get their numbers. The danger is that they then announce these numbers as if they have any real-world basis, and that they are taken as making a claim about objective reality. There's no evidence I know that pulling a number out of your backside and running it through Bayes' theorem produces better results than just pulling the number out directly and running with it. Indeed…

He didn't claim it had "real world basis" or "run it through Bayes' theorem". He just said he expects about a 30% chance he is right.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#118
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know. I think I met him when Xanadu was being developed. (Xanadu was a pre-WWW technology for storing and distributing hypertext documents. Everything is pay per view in Xanadu. The Xanadu crowd were mostly fanatical libertarians. Everything is a market, with micropayments for everything.)

Does that includ Ted Nelson himself? My interest in Xanadu has just dropped a few orders of magnitude.

Nelson's vision was something like a wiki, where everybody paid to read, and anyone could edit or fork the document. You got paid for how much of your stuff was read. Here's part of his original paper.[1] Towards the end of that paper, you can see him describing something like Github, with all the branching stuff, but with a better UI and intended for text documents, not code. This was in 1974. He was way ahead of his time.

He tried to architect a system to do this, and it was insanely complex. It had strong internal consistency requirements, so it wouldn't scale out or parallelize well. It had explicit links all over the place, which was how people thought about databases back then. They were combining the application logic and the database architecture, which resulted in a horrid mess. Today we know to decouple those. Github is built on top of a key/value store. Wikis are built on an SQL database. Works fine.

Eventually, in 2014, there was a working demo of Xanadu. Here's a view of religion in Xanadu format.[2]

[1] http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-21-nelson.pdf [2] http://xanadu.com/xanademos/MoeJusteOrigins.html

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This brings to my mind an interesting line of thought that I ran across via Peter Watts writing about it in Blindsight [1]. In that link, page down to the "Sentience/Intelligence" header, and read that section for a concise introduction to this line of thought: sentience is separate from intelligence. Looking at what computer science research and industry has accomplished thus far, I'm very open-minded about the idea…

Too be fair, labor for those tasks is so cheap to make robots uncompetitive price wise. The money is in putting that lawyer out of work nor hector, the immigrant strawberry picker

The money is in both, and arguably there are greater knock-on effects from automating "labor for those tasks is so cheap to make robots uncompetitive price wise".

A humaniform robot imbued with sentience and what little progress we've made on (emulating?) sapience is sufficient to substantially (not entirely replace) disrupt the human labor demand from the following industries.

  * Residential lawn care for Single Family Residences, a $10B annual industry in the US alone. http://bit.ly/2eu4Ulm
  * Residential maid service, a $30B annual industry in the US alone. http://bit.ly/2eSQ3oL
  * Residential home senior health care, a $180B annual industry in the US alone. http://bit.ly/1ufk95Y
  * If residential meal prep and cooking were mostly or possibly entirely automated, then that can convert the personal chef
    industry from hundreds of millions into one that poaches a significant portion of the $780B fast casual industry.
    http://bit.ly/2dJweO0
That's just four industries, with a combined annual revenue of $1T in the US alone, with tremendous consumer demand. There are lots of other possible industries that can be disrupted with such a "simple" robot, especially in the commercial sectors, and globally. It is not a stretch to say such a robot is a multi-trillion dollar opportunity.

Suppose you offer a $100K humaniform robot with OTA software updates that can perform most household chores, geofence young children into a specific locality, and basically the sense range, kinesthetic sense of a human, object recognition depth of current AI software, but with only the sapience of what we associate with AI today. Amortize the payments over 30 years, and I expect a billion households will beat a path to your door and happily pay that amount.

It would be hard to predict the knock-on economic and other effects of the development of mass-produced personal household robots. Probably similar to trying to predict the demand upon lithium supplies a century from when the Model T was introduced. Perhaps something similarly unexpected like divorce rates dramatically drop due to fewer domestic disputes over household chores because most of those chores disappear.

My thesis is that the people building robots are not dumb, and already realize the financial potential in figuring out sentience, and already are aware at some level that the sentience I speak of is incredibly difficult to build because we understand so little about it, and the AI field focuses upon coming in at the problem from the sapience angle/level for the good reason that sapience is closer to our current form of computer technology than sentience.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This brings to my mind an interesting line of thought that I ran across via Peter Watts writing about it in Blindsight [1]. In that link, page down to the "Sentience/Intelligence" header, and read that section for a concise introduction to this line of thought: sentience is separate from intelligence. Looking at what computer science research and industry has accomplished thus far, I'm very open-minded about the idea…

Too be fair, labor for those tasks is so cheap to make robots uncompetitive price wise. The money is in putting that lawyer out of work nor hector, the immigrant strawberry picker

>* Who is programming a computer to feel emotions? I'm not aware of any significant work in the direction. (If anyone is, please link it!)*

Affectiva is working on reading emotions, and there is some philosophy work on whether or not an AI can feel emotions [1]. A Russian group claims they will release an emotional robot around 2018, but scant details on what that even means [2]. More scholarly work [3] [4] [5] is ongoing, but slow going.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_artificial_intel...

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3680874/Scien...

[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563204...

[4] http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-2792-6_1...

[5] https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OqbMnWDKIJ4C&oi=...

Post reply on HN