subject:"Re\: An AI program that teaches itself"

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-11-05 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Nov 2017, at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing  
its danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times.


It's dangers have been exaggerated, but there are dangers as with  
alcohol, tobacco, and other things.


I have not found a paper showing this.

Each time I found a more serious study, like the one by Tashkin in  
2015, the result is "no problem" or even "good".


In particular, one of its studies (not sure if it is the one from  
2015) seemed to show that for lungs problem (emphysema, and lungs  
cancers), putting those having less problem at the bottom, and more  
problems at the top we have (in that study, on about 3000 person  
followed since 20 years (from memory):


Tobacco smoker
Cannabis+tobacco smoker
Non-smoker
Cannabis smoker

Apparently cannabis smoker have less problem than non smoker, not  
much, but still statistically significant.






My wife's first husband was (psychologically) addicted to smoking  
marijuana and lost all ambition.



I thought that from my students behavior when I was a young (math)  
teacher. But I have stopped to believe that. I have understood that,  
by its bad press and its innocuousness, cannabis was easily used by  
(lazy or problematic student) to give a simple explanation for their  
lack of work: they are intoxicated, druggy, etc. By changing my  
attitude toward smoking-cannabis students, I got the change of the  
results. Completely. Statistically, they got the best results, since  
long.


Maybe your wife's first husband was told that if he smokes cannabis it  
will lost ambition. Then again, smoking cannabis will help him to  
remain inactive with a simple culprit.
In general, cannabis is helpful to enhance motivation, and to find it  
back after some trauma. Of course, it is easier to control when it is  
prescribed, and not demonized.


It is not socially right to lack ambition, so maybe the guy here was  
just using cannabis to be able to point on an easy culprit too.


Again, I have not yet come to any serious studies showing the lack of  
motivation syndrom that some people often associated to cannabis. If a  
student compalin that he is a druggy, and you told him that due to  
this habit he will never succeed, there will be few chance for him to  
succeed. If you tell him: "oh, excellent, I expect you to succeed very  
well then", you cut the pretext out, and if they really want to "not  
succeed", they will try something else.


Bruno










Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-11-04 Thread Brent Meeker




On 11/4/2017 3:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its
danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times.


It's dangers have been exaggerated, but there are dangers as with alcohol,
tobacco, and other things.  My wife's first husband was (psychologically)
addicted to smoking marijuana and lost all ambition.

Could be a good or a bad thing, depending on what his ambition was.


To be a civil engineer.  A few years after the divorce he eventually 
stopped smoking so much dope and succeeded.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-11-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its
>> danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times.
>
>
> It's dangers have been exaggerated, but there are dangers as with alcohol,
> tobacco, and other things.  My wife's first husband was (psychologically)
> addicted to smoking marijuana and lost all ambition.

Could be a good or a bad thing, depending on what his ambition was.

Telmo.

>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-11-02 Thread PGC

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 9:51:33 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its 
> > danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times. 
>
> It's dangers have been exaggerated, but there are dangers as with 
> alcohol, tobacco, and other things.  My wife's first husband was 
> (psychologically) addicted to smoking marijuana and lost all ambition.

Even if we may never be able to understand particular cases, we *can* look 
at the phenomenon of conspiracy discourses and make observations. Of course 
there are real conspiracies and evidence. Yet there IS a place where 
cannabis discourse that bedevils ambition with some 60s style reference to 
ancient buddhism, or platonism, or virtue of laziness etc. exhibits a blind 
spot: It takes A LOT of work and/or luck to maintain a loss of ambition in 
our day and age. And often that loss of ambition becomes a whole full time 
job in itself, while the discourse frames itself as being more liberal, 
open, flexible than all the cops and squares. 

The immediate price is some variant of a permanent paranoid victimization 
in that discourse: where all the cops and square ambitious people are 
conspiring to stop liberals from getting what they want. And the conspiracy 
assuming exactly the kind of large proportions and properties that the 
discourse frames itself smart enough to discern, feeds back into the zero 
ambition loop, validating itself with precisely the same rhetorical moves 
it makes to distinguish itself as "the true conspiracy description that 
explains everything". And social media + internet posting/advertising push 
in a similar direction: the discourse in these contexts assumes itself to 
be social, good, decent, polite, relaxed, and clearly above the vulgar 
idiocies of labelling and policing people, and yet it tries to pull off 
this rhetorical trick in an environment where linguistic labels, linguistic 
categorization of people and their interests for advertising, simplifying 
pictures, animations, and video are the only means of relating to others. 
Is this social? Or do people confuse a means of convenient communication 
with the depth of relationships?

These kinds of discourses, internal and external, first rob themselves and 
then proceed to play some blame game, with the usual hierarchical trimmings 
and crude competitions for reputation: which is quite a trek for the folks 
that say they have modest to no ambitions. Even if the legalize campaigns 
or social justice warriors have their wishes come through, I don't see 
enough of the kind of education, content, art, advertising, and discourse 
that'd educate and enable people enough, to modulate their own subjectivity 
with increased degrees of freedom because the cynicism/conspiracy in 
peoples' heads becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, fanning the flames of 
the same fears that were to be definitely (in a personal hard ideological 
sense) avoided. Only to burn themselves. Conspiracy discourse 
self-tarnishes and locks itself out of the very sense of community it 
pretends to champion. 

Folks should modulate subjectivity to get softer, more communicative, more 
accessible, more able to change along developing the sensitivity and 
strength towards openness. Modulating subjectivity is an art so it pays to 
be vigilant AND caring; whether we consume some form of media, medication 
etc. is almost beside the point. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-11-01 Thread Brent Meeker




On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its 
danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times. 


It's dangers have been exaggerated, but there are dangers as with 
alcohol, tobacco, and other things.  My wife's first husband was 
(psychologically) addicted to smoking marijuana and lost all ambition.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-11-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 30 Oct 2017, at 20:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/30/2017 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Oct 2017, at 07:15, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the
psycho-tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of mice was dismissed
and stopped, and remain largely ignored. It is a total inhuman
shame!

I looked at that paper. It was statistically bogus.

Nobody has ever found that paper easily. One guy found one of the
author and got a manuscript draft, then later, someone found an
old print of it, but I think it is a hell of difficulty to find
the paper.

I guess you talk about something else. That paper was written by
people paid by the US Government to prove that cannabis causes
cancer, but they found the opposite: it cures cancer (at least on
mice for a collection of cerebral tumor). You may look at:

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

You should look at the original paper, not breathless second-hand
reports.

http://sci-hub.ac/10.1038/nrc1188

I can't access this. I see also russian text asking I register, I
guess. Could you send me a copy please, perhaps?

Anyway, that precise discovery,

It was anything but "precise".

and its extension on humans cells has been done again 20 years
later by a spanish Team, and belongs to the "mainstream":

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

It refers to cannabis inhibiting autophagy which may lead to cell
death, but not necessarily.

Some cannabinoids induce autophagy of the cancerous cells (in vitro).

That is not bogus, and has been verified, and followed by many
papers showing that cannabis is indeed an excellent medication
for many diseases---you can look at:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation in
vitro

Yes. But then you have the testimony. And the point I refer
initially are the lies. Even if cannabis cannot been used for human
cancer, the hiding of the discovery described above, and the
stopping of the research on something promising,

Where is the evidence that the discovery is hidden (it's published)
and that further research was stopped for some nefarious reason?

Published? Can you give me the exact references. And some working
link?, Or a copy? I am still not sure we talk about the same paper.

The evidence comes from the fact that nobody knew it until it was
rediscovered 20 years later. But even the new evidences have not made
the headline in the news, and also, cannabis is still schedule one.

Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its
danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times.

even if only promising, is the bad attitude I deplore. We are not
here to debate on cannabis.

I did verify some of those papers (some are bogus indeed, but
many are not).

As I said, the team of Mechoulam, in Jerusalem, have understood
the basic general mechanism, by discovering the anandamide, which
is the name they gave to the agonist of THC, and by unraveling
the endo-cannabinoid system in all enough high animals (which
means all, except for some primitive sea non-vertebrates). Google
on endo-cannabinoid system.

Also, it is a false secret that the reason to forbid cannabis was
brought by a set-up. There has never been any reason to make
cannabis illegal. There are many good videos and books on the
subject. I will not develop this here. I can give references,
including to the thousand of papers which add evidence that
cannabis can cure many disease and cancers. Of course such
research are not permitted in the land of the free, and it is not
yet that simple in Europa too.

There are plenty of pharmacological research labs outside the
U.S. Are you claiming there's a worldwide conspiracy to prevent
curing cancer?

I find it hilariously implausible. Corn->ethanol barely breaks even
on the energy-return-on-investment. Hemp would require even more
extraction processing.

But as Henri Ford already seem to have said: it is renewable, and does
not pollute.

Bruno

Brent

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-30 Thread Brent Meeker

On 10/30/2017 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Oct 2017, at 07:15, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the
psycho-tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of mice was dismissed and
stopped, and remain largely ignored. It is a total inhuman shame!

I looked at that paper. It was statistically bogus.

Nobody has ever found that paper easily. One guy found one of the
author and got a manuscript draft, then later, someone found an old
print of it, but I think it is a hell of difficulty to find the paper.

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

You should look at the original paper, not breathless second-hand
reports.

http://sci-hub.ac/10.1038/nrc1188

I can't access this. I see also russian text asking I register, I
guess. Could you send me a copy please, perhaps?

Anyway, that precise discovery,

It was anything but "precise".

and its extension on humans cells has been done again 20 years later
by a spanish Team, and belongs to the "mainstream":

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

It refers to cannabis inhibiting autophagy which may lead to cell
death, but not necessarily.

Some cannabinoids induce autophagy of the cancerous cells (in vitro).

That is not bogus, and has been verified, and followed by many
papers showing that cannabis is indeed an excellent medication for
many diseases---you can look at:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/

/Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation*in vitro*/

Yes. But then you have the testimony. And the point I refer initially
are the lies. Even if cannabis cannot been used for human cancer, the
hiding of the discovery described above, and the stopping of the
research on something promising,

Where is the evidence that the discovery is hidden (it's published) and
that further research was stopped for some nefarious reason?

even if only promising, is the bad attitude I deplore. We are not here
to debate on cannabis.

I did verify some of those papers (some are bogus indeed, but many
are not).

As I said, the team of Mechoulam, in Jerusalem, have understood the
basic general mechanism, by discovering the anandamide, which is the
name they gave to the agonist of THC, and by unraveling the
endo-cannabinoid system in all enough high animals (which means all,
except for some primitive sea non-vertebrates). Google on
endo-cannabinoid system.

Also, it is a false secret that the reason to forbid cannabis was
brought by a set-up. There has never been any reason to make
cannabis illegal. There are many good videos and books on the
subject. I will not develop this here. I can give references,
including to the thousand of papers which add evidence that cannabis
can cure many disease and cancers. Of course such research are not
permitted in the land of the free, and it is not yet that simple in
Europa too.

There are plenty of pharmacological research labs outside the U.S.
Are you claiming there's a worldwide conspiracy to prevent curing cancer?

I find it hilariously implausible. Corn->ethanol barely breaks even on
the energy-return-on-investment. Hemp would require even more
extraction processing.

Brent

That hypothesis explains a lot of things, notably that despite the
success of the cannabis medical, and the continuing lack of evidences
of problem with hemp, cannabis is still in schedule one. Even under
Obama, the schedule one of cannabis has been renewed, despite many
hope for putting it at least in schedule 2. But no: research is still
forbidden/strongly discouraged. The reefer madness persists. It looks
slightly attenuated, but the lies continue in the health domain and in
the industrial domain (not to mention the much older lies in the
theological domain).

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.

Visit this group at

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 30 Oct 2017, at 07:15, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

I looked at that paper. It was statistically bogus.

Nobody has ever found that paper easily. One guy found one of the
author and got a manuscript draft, then later, someone found an old
print of it, but I think it is a hell of difficulty to find the
paper.

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

You should look at the original paper, not breathless second-hand
reports.

http://sci-hub.ac/10.1038/nrc1188

I can't access this. I see also russian text asking I register, I
guess. Could you send me a copy please, perhaps?

Anyway, that precise discovery,

It was anything but "precise".

and its extension on humans cells has been done again 20 years
later by a spanish Team, and belongs to the "mainstream":

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

It refers to cannabis inhibiting autophagy which may lead to cell
death, but not necessarily.

Some cannabinoids induce autophagy of the cancerous cells (in vitro).

That is not bogus, and has been verified, and followed by many
papers showing that cannabis is indeed an excellent medication for
many diseases---you can look at:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation in vitro

Yes. But then you have the testimony. And the point I refer initially
are the lies. Even if cannabis cannot been used for human cancer, the
hiding of the discovery described above, and the stopping of the
research on something promising, even if only promising, is the bad
attitude I deplore. We are not here to debate on cannabis.

I did verify some of those papers (some are bogus indeed, but many
are not).

As I said, the team of Mechoulam, in Jerusalem, have understood the
basic general mechanism, by discovering the anandamide, which is
the name they gave to the agonist of THC, and by unraveling the
endo-cannabinoid system in all enough high animals (which means
all, except for some primitive sea non-vertebrates). Google on endo-
cannabinoid system.

Also, it is a false secret that the reason to forbid cannabis was
brought by a set-up. There has never been any reason to make
cannabis illegal. There are many good videos and books on the
subject. I will not develop this here. I can give references,
including to the thousand of papers which add evidence that
cannabis can cure many disease and cancers. Of course such research
are not permitted in the land of the free, and it is not yet that
simple in Europa too.

There are plenty of pharmacological research labs outside the U.S.
Are you claiming there's a worldwide conspiracy to prevent curing
cancer?

Cannabis has been made illegal world-wide, rather rapidly. Only the
Russians took a bit more time. yes, I find plausible there has been a
worldwide multi-corporatist conspiracy to hide the medical and
industrial virtue of Hemp to sell as much Petrol as possible. That
hypothesis explains a lot of things, notably that despite the success
of the cannabis medical, and the continuing lack of evidences of
problem with hemp, cannabis is still in schedule one. Even under
Obama, the schedule one of cannabis has been renewed, despite many
hope for putting it at least in schedule 2. But no: research is still
forbidden/strongly discouraged. The reefer madness persists. It looks
slightly attenuated, but the lies continue in the health domain and in
the industrial domain (not to mention the much older lies in the
theological domain).

Bruno

Brent

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-30 Thread PGC



On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 3:08:58 PM UTC+1, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2017-10-30 14:58 GMT+01:00 PGC :
>
>> On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 6:40:53 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In acute, severe pain they are often the only thing that works, and 
>>> denying them to a suffering patient is inhumane. In chronic pain, their use 
>>> is more controversial. Perhaps not widely known is that in a way they are 
>>> very safe drugs in that they do not cause end organ damage, unlike, say, 
>>> alcohol or tobacco.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that tobacco would be much less dangerous if people were informed, 
>>> and could have more choice. Since tobacco exists, it has been used orally 
>>> by many people, and today, studies shows that this mode of consumption is 
>>> far less dangerous than smoking it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Elephant-killing doses of fentanyl are used in cardiac surgery, and as 
>>> long as respiration is supported, the patient wakes up fine. The problem is 
>>> that some people (not all) enjoy the euphoric effect so much that they 
>>> misuse them, leading to tolerance, dose escalation and risk of overdose.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is right, but seems to be an effect of its prohibition.
>>>
>>
>> Then next time a person requires that kind of surgery, they can thus 
>> inform the doctor that a small salvia infusion and some chewing tobacco 
>> suffices for their analgesic needs before a scalpel is reached for? The 
>> efficacy of opiates is not merely an effect of prohibition. 
>>
>> Assuming something severe like heart surgery, a work related accident, a 
>> soldier being exposed to an IED and losing a limb in a war zone... anywhere 
>> where high levels of pain are a clear matter, I know why most humane 
>> doctors today turn to opiates. Efficacy at pain management. Stathis is 
>> correct. 
>>
>> In addition to their utility in surgery, it is a fact that said soldier 
>> with a lost limb, supplied with an appropriate dose of morphine, fentanyl, 
>> or one of its equivalents may not have their mortifying/traumatic level of 
>> pain disappear completely; i.e. the pain is still there but somehow, from a 
>> subjective point of view, *it matters much less than before the opiate 
>> was administered*. If pain is assumed to be nature's "argument of 
>> authority", then opiates are the best local god atm. This property is 
>> remarkable, useful, and well established. You could argue that some of the 
>> dynamics of prohibition are due to opiates' efficacy: they are so effective 
>> at relieving pain that people have waged war over their control/use.
>>  
>>
>>> In the city of Liege, in Belgium, they have made (two times) a three 
>>> year experience of legalizing heroin. You need a medical prescription. This 
>>> has confirmed that the best medication to quit heroin is ... heroin itself, 
>>> when cheap and medically prescribed. heroin then loose completely its 
>>> appeal for "beginners", and old consummers, not only get fine, got the time 
>>> to search a job, diminish by themselves the consumption, and eventually 
>>> most have stopped. Obviously, this is helpful for getting clean needles and 
>>> preventing AIDS. Despite this success, heroin is still illegal in Belgium, 
>>> for pure insane political reason.
>>>
>>  
>> What's so insane about the usual social dynamics of loosing face or being 
>> in office? Assuming you had a sizable bit of political reputation to 
>> uphold, would you risk it by switching sides on something that is clearly 
>> not decidable in public? Betting on your aesthetic preference for 
>> everything minimalism, you'd choose the path of minimal risk and uphold the 
>> very prohibition you flatter yourself denouncing.
>>
>> Because it's much easier to yodel conspiracy from the outside than to 
>> face the practicalities and admit the tension of two opposing facts:
>>
>> 1) Opiates are the most effective tools for pain management known, and 
>> their usefulness in surgery is well established, so we need them for now.
>> 2) With chronic pain, it is often impossible to distinguish between those 
>> that are "truly suffering from consistent and/or worsening pain" and those 
>> that want access to the drug for whatever reason (which the Christians 
>> demonize because they loose subscribers). All copies state that they are in 
>> severe pain for true reasons in their history. Unfortunately, interviewing 
>> them in a thought experiment sheds no light on the matter. Some of them 
>> will die of overdose and respiratory failure.
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> Note that heroin was first sold in Germany to cure young infant cough. 
>>>
>> Its illegality is one of the most source of finance of terrorism, and in 
>>> this case there are proof that the CIA have organized traffic. It seems 
>>> also that it is part of the reason the american have gone to Afghanistan 
>>> (to protect the field of Opiate-plant (Pavot, in french). I have verified 
>>> this, but

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-30 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2017-10-30 14:58 GMT+01:00 PGC :

> On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 6:40:53 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>
>>
>> In acute, severe pain they are often the only thing that works, and
>> denying them to a suffering patient is inhumane. In chronic pain, their use
>> is more controversial. Perhaps not widely known is that in a way they are
>> very safe drugs in that they do not cause end organ damage, unlike, say,
>> alcohol or tobacco.
>>
>>
>> Note that tobacco would be much less dangerous if people were informed,
>> and could have more choice. Since tobacco exists, it has been used orally
>> by many people, and today, studies shows that this mode of consumption is
>> far less dangerous than smoking it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Elephant-killing doses of fentanyl are used in cardiac surgery, and as
>> long as respiration is supported, the patient wakes up fine. The problem is
>> that some people (not all) enjoy the euphoric effect so much that they
>> misuse them, leading to tolerance, dose escalation and risk of overdose.
>>
>>
>> That is right, but seems to be an effect of its prohibition.
>>
>
> Then next time a person requires that kind of surgery, they can thus
> inform the doctor that a small salvia infusion and some chewing tobacco
> suffices for their analgesic needs before a scalpel is reached for? The
> efficacy of opiates is not merely an effect of prohibition.
>
> Assuming something severe like heart surgery, a work related accident, a
> soldier being exposed to an IED and losing a limb in a war zone... anywhere
> where high levels of pain are a clear matter, I know why most humane
> doctors today turn to opiates. Efficacy at pain management. Stathis is
> correct.
>
> In addition to their utility in surgery, it is a fact that said soldier
> with a lost limb, supplied with an appropriate dose of morphine, fentanyl,
> or one of its equivalents may not have their mortifying/traumatic level of
> pain disappear completely; i.e. the pain is still there but somehow, from a
> subjective point of view, *it matters much less than before the opiate
> was administered*. If pain is assumed to be nature's "argument of
> authority", then opiates are the best local god atm. This property is
> remarkable, useful, and well established. You could argue that some of the
> dynamics of prohibition are due to opiates' efficacy: they are so effective
> at relieving pain that people have waged war over their control/use.
>
>
>> In the city of Liege, in Belgium, they have made (two times) a three year
>> experience of legalizing heroin. You need a medical prescription. This has
>> confirmed that the best medication to quit heroin is ... heroin itself,
>> when cheap and medically prescribed. heroin then loose completely its
>> appeal for "beginners", and old consummers, not only get fine, got the time
>> to search a job, diminish by themselves the consumption, and eventually
>> most have stopped. Obviously, this is helpful for getting clean needles and
>> preventing AIDS. Despite this success, heroin is still illegal in Belgium,
>> for pure insane political reason.
>>
>
> What's so insane about the usual social dynamics of loosing face or being
> in office? Assuming you had a sizable bit of political reputation to
> uphold, would you risk it by switching sides on something that is clearly
> not decidable in public? Betting on your aesthetic preference for
> everything minimalism, you'd choose the path of minimal risk and uphold the
> very prohibition you flatter yourself denouncing.
>
> Because it's much easier to yodel conspiracy from the outside than to face
> the practicalities and admit the tension of two opposing facts:
>
> 1) Opiates are the most effective tools for pain management known, and
> their usefulness in surgery is well established, so we need them for now.
> 2) With chronic pain, it is often impossible to distinguish between those
> that are "truly suffering from consistent and/or worsening pain" and those
> that want access to the drug for whatever reason (which the Christians
> demonize because they loose subscribers). All copies state that they are in
> severe pain for true reasons in their history. Unfortunately, interviewing
> them in a thought experiment sheds no light on the matter. Some of them
> will die of overdose and respiratory failure.
>
>
>>
>> Note that heroin was first sold in Germany to cure young infant cough.
>>
> Its illegality is one of the most source of finance of terrorism, and in
>> this case there are proof that the CIA have organized traffic. It seems
>> also that it is part of the reason the american have gone to Afghanistan
>> (to protect the field of Opiate-plant (Pavot, in french). I have verified
>> this, but it does not obvious to interpret all data; need to pursue the
>> research.
>>
>
> By all means do so with a bit more rigor. This list is a place where
> wishful thinking is shared most liberally, but I do know that some folks
> read

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-30 Thread PGC

On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 6:40:53 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Right.
>
>
>
> In acute, severe pain they are often the only thing that works, and 
> denying them to a suffering patient is inhumane. In chronic pain, their use 
> is more controversial. Perhaps not widely known is that in a way they are 
> very safe drugs in that they do not cause end organ damage, unlike, say, 
> alcohol or tobacco.
>
>
> Note that tobacco would be much less dangerous if people were informed, 
> and could have more choice. Since tobacco exists, it has been used orally 
> by many people, and today, studies shows that this mode of consumption is 
> far less dangerous than smoking it.
>
>
>
>
> Elephant-killing doses of fentanyl are used in cardiac surgery, and as 
> long as respiration is supported, the patient wakes up fine. The problem is 
> that some people (not all) enjoy the euphoric effect so much that they 
> misuse them, leading to tolerance, dose escalation and risk of overdose.
>
>
> That is right, but seems to be an effect of its prohibition.
>

Then next time a person requires that kind of surgery, they can thus inform 
the doctor that a small salvia infusion and some chewing tobacco suffices 
for their analgesic needs before a scalpel is reached for? The efficacy of 
opiates is not merely an effect of prohibition. 

Assuming something severe like heart surgery, a work related accident, a 
soldier being exposed to an IED and losing a limb in a war zone... anywhere 
where high levels of pain are a clear matter, I know why most humane 
doctors today turn to opiates. Efficacy at pain management. Stathis is 
correct. 

In addition to their utility in surgery, it is a fact that said soldier 
with a lost limb, supplied with an appropriate dose of morphine, fentanyl, 
or one of its equivalents may not have their mortifying/traumatic level of 
pain disappear completely; i.e. the pain is still there but somehow, from a 
subjective point of view, *it matters much less than before the opiate was 
administered*. If pain is assumed to be nature's "argument of authority", 
then opiates are the best local god atm. This property is remarkable, 
useful, and well established. You could argue that some of the dynamics of 
prohibition are due to opiates' efficacy: they are so effective at 
relieving pain that people have waged war over their control/use.

> In the city of Liege, in Belgium, they have made (two times) a three year 
> experience of legalizing heroin. You need a medical prescription. This has 
> confirmed that the best medication to quit heroin is ... heroin itself, 
> when cheap and medically prescribed. heroin then loose completely its 
> appeal for "beginners", and old consummers, not only get fine, got the time 
> to search a job, diminish by themselves the consumption, and eventually 
> most have stopped. Obviously, this is helpful for getting clean needles and 
> preventing AIDS. Despite this success, heroin is still illegal in Belgium, 
> for pure insane political reason.
>

What's so insane about the usual social dynamics of loosing face or being 
in office? Assuming you had a sizable bit of political reputation to 
uphold, would you risk it by switching sides on something that is clearly 
not decidable in public? Betting on your aesthetic preference for 
everything minimalism, you'd choose the path of minimal risk and uphold the 
very prohibition you flatter yourself denouncing.

Because it's much easier to yodel conspiracy from the outside than to face 
the practicalities and admit the tension of two opposing facts:

1) Opiates are the most effective tools for pain management known, and 
their usefulness in surgery is well established, so we need them for now.
2) With chronic pain, it is often impossible to distinguish between those 
that are "truly suffering from consistent and/or worsening pain" and those 
that want access to the drug for whatever reason (which the Christians 
demonize because they loose subscribers). All copies state that they are in 
severe pain for true reasons in their history. Unfortunately, interviewing 
them in a thought experiment sheds no light on the matter. Some of them 
will die of overdose and respiratory failure.

>
> Note that heroin was first sold in Germany to cure young infant cough. 
>
Its illegality is one of the most source of finance of terrorism, and in 
> this case there are proof that the CIA have organized traffic. It seems 
> also that it is part of the reason the american have gone to Afghanistan 
> (to protect the field of Opiate-plant (Pavot, in french). I have verified 
> this, but it does not obvious to interpret all data; need to pursue the 
> research.
>

By all means do so with a bit more rigor. This list is a place where 
wishful thinking is shared most liberally, but I do know that some folks 
read and interpret it literally and when I saw "Analgesic effect of opiates 
is a result of its prohibition" today, then somebody should beg to

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:03, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The "Schedule One" notion does not make sense: to forbid research  
on something because it would be dangerous. Why not forbid research  
in guns, bombs, or car, plane train, I meant, except cannabis, what  
is not dangerous?


Did you know that the U.S. Congress forbids the Center for Disease  
Control (whose charter is to research public health issues) to  
research firearm related deaths.


I did not. That is so shameful.

Thanks for that sad news confirming what I said,

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-30 Thread Brent Meeker

On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the
psycho-tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of mice was dismissed and
stopped, and remain largely ignored. It is a total inhuman shame!

I looked at that paper. It was statistically bogus.

Nobody has ever found that paper easily. One guy found one of the
author and got a manuscript draft, then later, someone found an old
print of it, but I think it is a hell of difficulty to find the paper.

I guess you talk about something else. That paper was written by
people paid by the US Government to prove that cannabis causes cancer,
but they found the opposite: it cures cancer (at least on mice for a
collection of cerebral tumor). You may look at:

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

You should look at the original paper, not breathless second-hand reports.

http://sci-hub.ac/10.1038/nrc1188

Anyway, that precise discovery,

It was anything but "precise".

and its extension on humans cells has been done again 20 years later
by a spanish Team, and belongs to the "mainstream":

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

It refers to cannabis inhibiting autophagy which may lead to cell death,
but not necessarily.

That is not bogus, and has been verified, and followed by many papers
showing that cannabis is indeed an excellent medication for many
diseases---you can look at:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/

/Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation*in vitro*/

I did verify some of those papers (some are bogus indeed, but many are
not).

As I said, the team of Mechoulam, in Jerusalem, have understood the
basic general mechanism, by discovering the anandamide, which is the
name they gave to the agonist of THC, and by unraveling the
endo-cannabinoid system in all enough high animals (which means all,
except for some primitive sea non-vertebrates). Google on
endo-cannabinoid system.

Also, it is a false secret that the reason to forbid cannabis was
brought by a set-up. There has never been any reason to make cannabis
illegal. There are many good videos and books on the subject. I will
not develop this here. I can give references, including to the
thousand of papers which add evidence that cannabis can cure many
disease and cancers. Of course such research are not permitted in the
land of the free, and it is not yet that simple in Europa too.

There are plenty of pharmacological research labs outside the U.S. Are
you claiming there's a worldwide conspiracy to prevent curing cancer?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-29 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 28 Oct 2017, at 14:55, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 3:30 am, John Clark   
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker   
wrote:


> There are a lot of other painkillers

But marijuana is the only painkiller I know of that has a  
0% chance of death by overdose, and yet it is illegal to use in most  
states, even for cancer patients in agony.  But Aspirin is  
legal and that can kill you, and Oxycodone is  
legal too and if the pain is too strong for Aspirin the law  
encourages you to switch to that or some other opioid  
which is projected to kill 500,000 Americans in the next decade.  
And if you defy the law and choose marijuana instead the law will do  
its best to see to it that your last days are not only spent in  
agony they will also be spent in jail.


This is the Trump administration's idea of getting government off  
out backs.


It’s important not to demonise opioids.


Right.



In acute, severe pain they are often the only thing that works, and  
denying them to a suffering patient is inhumane. In chronic pain,  
their use is more controversial. Perhaps not widely known is that in  
a way they are very safe drugs in that they do not cause end organ  
damage, unlike, say, alcohol or tobacco.


Note that tobacco would be much less dangerous if people were  
informed, and could have more choice. Since tobacco exists, it has  
been used orally by many people, and today, studies shows that this  
mode of consumption is far less dangerous than smoking it.





Elephant-killing doses of fentanyl are used in cardiac surgery, and  
as long as respiration is supported, the patient wakes up fine. The  
problem is that some people (not all) enjoy the euphoric effect so  
much that they misuse them, leading to tolerance, dose escalation  
and risk of overdose.


That is right, but seems to be an effect of its prohibition. In the  
city of Liege, in Belgium, they have made (two times) a three year  
experience of legalizing heroin. You need a medical prescription. This  
has confirmed that the best medication to quit heroin is ... heroin  
itself, when cheap and medically prescribed. heroin then loose  
completely its appeal for "beginners", and old consummers, not only  
get fine, got the time to search a job, diminish by themselves the  
consumption, and eventually most have stopped. Obviously, this is  
helpful for getting clean needles and preventing AIDS. Despite this  
success, heroin is still illegal in Belgium, for pure insane political  
reason.


Note that heroin was first sold in Germany to cure young infant cough.  
Its illegality is one of the most source of finance of terrorism, and  
in this case there are proof that the CIA have organized traffic. It  
seems also that it is part of the reason the american have gone to  
Afghanistan (to protect the field of Opiate-plant (Pavot, in french).  
I have verified this, but it does not obvious to interpret all data;  
need to pursue the research.


In Russia, they have try to eradicate heroin in a large part of the  
country. the result is the apparition of the drug Krokodil. That one  
is total poison, in horrible pain and always leading to long agony and  
death ...


No medication at all should be demonized. To use a drug/medication  
concerns only you and/or you shaman/doctor. The very idea that a  
government has its say on it makes no sense at all. We can accept that  
a government enforces transparency, warning on secondary effects,  
traceability, etc. But not on what is or not a medication. That can  
only lead to the interdiction of efficacious medication, for the  
simple reason that a cured patient is a client lost. Money is the best  
tool to share the product of work, and the worst goal when money is  
used only to make more money. That is equivalent to cancer at the  
social level.


Bruno







--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-29 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/27/2017 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:

> There are a lot of other painkillers

But marijuana is the only painkiller I know of that
has a 0% chance of death by overdose, and yet it is illegal to use
in most states, even for cancer patients in agony. But
Aspirin is legal and that can kill you,

So can table salt. "The dose makes the poison." - Paracelsus

Except precisely cannabis and salvia divinorum. They are less
dangerous than water (2000 death by overdose of water!). With cannabis
and salvia, the lethal dose does not exist, or you die by being
injected to much material. Yes, if you got one ton of compact cannabis
on the head, you die.

and Oxycodone is legal too and if the pain is too strong
for Aspirin the law encourages you to switch to that or
some other opioid which is projected to kill 500,000
Americans in the next decade .

And air pollution, mostly from fossil fuel extraction and burning,
is projected to kill 2 million.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-20-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829

I have heard at the radio and read in some newspaper that pollution
would have killed 9 million of people just for the year 2015.

And pollution coming from fossil extraction would be less severe if
cannabis did not have been made illegal. Both Diesel and Ford conceive
their first engine using bio-fuel, and notably hemp.

The free-market would have regulated such problem, if .. its was not
made impossible by prohibition.

Bruno

Bent

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-29 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the psycho-
tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of mice was dismissed and
stopped, and remain largely ignored. It is a total inhuman shame!

I looked at that paper. It was statistically bogus.

Nobody has ever found that paper easily. One guy found one of the
author and got a manuscript draft, then later, someone found an old
print of it, but I think it is a hell of difficulty to find the paper.

I guess you talk about something else. That paper was written by
people paid by the US Government to prove that cannabis causes cancer,
but they found the opposite: it cures cancer (at least on mice for a
collection of cerebral tumor). You may look at:

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

Anyway, that precise discovery, and its extension on humans cells has
been done again 20 years later by a spanish Team, and belongs to the
"mainstream":

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

That is not bogus, and has been verified, and followed by many papers
showing that cannabis is indeed an excellent medication for many
diseases---you can look at:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/

I did verify some of those papers (some are bogus indeed, but many are
not).

As I said, the team of Mechoulam, in Jerusalem, have understood the
basic general mechanism, by discovering the anandamide, which is the
name they gave to the agonist of THC, and by unraveling the endo-
cannabinoid system in all enough high animals (which means all, except
for some primitive sea non-vertebrates). Google on endo-cannabinoid
system.

Also, it is a false secret that the reason to forbid cannabis was
brought by a set-up. There has never been any reason to make cannabis
illegal. There are many good videos and books on the subject. I will
not develop this here. I can give references, including to the
thousand of papers which add evidence that cannabis can cure many
disease and cancers. Of course such research are not permitted in the
land of the free, and it is not yet that simple in Europa too.

Bruno

Brent

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 3:30 am, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> > 
>> There are a lot of other painkillers
>>
>
> But
>  
> marijuana
>  
> is the only painkiller I know of that has a 0% chance of death by
> overdose, and yet it is illegal to use in most states, even for
> cancer
>  patients in agony.  But Aspirin is legal
> and
>  that can
> kill
>  you,
> and 
> Oxycodone
>  is legal too and
> if
> the pain is too strong for 
> Aspirin the law encourages you to switch to
> that
>
> or some 
> other
>  
> opioid which is projected to kill 500,000 Americans in the next decade
> . And if you defy the law and choose marijuana instead the law will do
> its best to see to it that your last days are not only spent in agony they
> will also be spent in jail.
>
> This is the Trump administration's idea of getting government off out
> backs.
>

It’s important not to demonise opioids. In acute, severe pain they are
often the only thing that works, and denying them to a suffering patient is
inhumane. In chronic pain, their use is more controversial. Perhaps not
widely known is that in a way they are very safe drugs in that they do not
cause end organ damage, unlike, say, alcohol or tobacco. Elephant-killing
doses of fentanyl are used in cardiac surgery, and as long as respiration
is supported, the patient wakes up fine. The problem is that some people
(not all) enjoy the euphoric effect so much that they misuse them, leading
to tolerance, dose escalation and risk of overdose.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-28 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 10/27/2017 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> >
>> There are a lot of other painkillers
>
>
> But
> marijuana
> is the only painkiller I know of that has a 0% chance of death by overdose,
> and yet it is illegal to use in most states, even for
> cancer
>  patients in agony.  But Aspirin is legal
> and
>  that can
> kill
>  you,
>
>
> So can table salt.  "The dose makes the poison." - Paracelsus
>
> and
> Oxycodone
> is legal too and
> if
> the pain is too strong for
> Aspirin the law encourages you to switch to
> that
>
> or some
> other
> opioid which is projected to kill 500,000 Americans in the next decade
> .
>
>
> And air pollution, mostly from fossil fuel extraction and burning, is
> projected to kill 2 million.
> http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-20-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829

Another class of drugs can help here -- also ranking quite low in
terms of harm potential on the meta-study by Dr. David Nutt*.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881117714049

* I know, I know, his name doesn't really help :)

> Bent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-27 Thread Brent Meeker




On 10/27/2017 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote:


> 
There are a lot of other painkillers

But
 
marijuana
 
is the only painkiller I know of that has a 0% chance of death by 
overdose, and yet it is illegal to use in most states, even for

cancer
 patients in agony.  But Aspirin is legal
and
 that can
kill
 you,



So can table salt.  "The dose makes the poison." - Paracelsus


and 
Oxycodone
 is legal too and
if
the pain is too strong for 
Aspirin the law encourages you to switch to
that
or some 
other
 
opioid which is projected to kill 500,000 Americans in the next decade
.


And air pollution, mostly from fossil fuel extraction and burning, is 
projected to kill 2 million.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-20-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829

Bent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-27 Thread Brent Meeker




On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the 
psycho-tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of mice was dismissed and 
stopped, and remain largely ignored. It is a total inhuman shame! 


I looked at that paper.  It was statistically bogus.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-27 Thread Brent Meeker




On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The "Schedule One" notion does not make sense: to forbid research on 
something because it would be dangerous. Why not forbid research in 
guns, bombs, or car, plane train, I meant, except cannabis, what is 
not dangerous? 


Did you know that the U.S. Congress forbids the Center for Disease 
Control (whose charter is to research public health issues) to research 
firearm related deaths.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 26 Oct 2017, at 22:33, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 10/26/2017 12:51 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Brent Meeker  
 wrote:


>  Are you claiming, without evidence, that cannabis is  
cheaper and safer than all other pain killers?


I don't know about Bruno but I am claiming i n the entire  
history of the world there is not been  one confirmed case  
of  death by marijuana   overdose, the same can not be said of  
aspirin. In addition , recent studies have found that after  
states in the USA legalized marijuana   overdose deaths  
from opioids  DECREASED by 25%.  O xycodone  used for  
chronic pain can kill you but  marijuana  can not, and it's only  
a unfortunate historical accident that alcohol is socially  
acceptable but cannabis is  not.


(1) There are a lot of other painkillers


Yes, but except salvia, they are usually either more addictive (under  
the same conditions) and more toxic, and more expensive.




and (2) marijuana is not equally effective as oxycodone and (3) in  
many states and nations doctors can prescribe marijuana just as they  
can other pain killers.


Well, Perou is just the sixth states in South-America to have  
legalized medical cannabis, but in the US ii is illegal at the federal  
level, and cannabis is still schedule one, which means no right to do  
research, or only with many difficulties, ... Big-Pharma resists, and  
we can understand.






And I'm 100% in favor of legalizing marijuana and have been for  
decades - not because I think it has any amazing medical powers, but  
because "the war on (some) drugs" is a civil rights disaster,  
screwing up people's lives right and left and distorting law  
enforcement (c.f. civil forefiture).


OK, we agree on this.

Bruno





Brent



By the way, I have never smoked a  marijuana  cigarette in my  
life, so far I've never had the need but if I ever get cancer I  
would certainly start with a joint before I moved onto O xycodone  
.


http://www.newsweek.com/opioid-marijuana-legal-states-hospital-overdose-addiction-575385


John K Clark







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-27 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> 
> There are a lot of other painkillers
>

But

marijuana

is the only painkiller I know of that has a 0% chance of death by overdose,
and yet it is illegal to use in most states, even for
cancer
 patients in agony.  But Aspirin is legal
and
 that can
kill
 you,
and 
Oxycodone
 is legal too and
if
the pain is too strong for 
Aspirin the law encourages you to switch to
that

or some 
other

opioid which is projected to kill 500,000 Americans in the next decade
. And if you defy the law and choose marijuana instead the law will do its
best to see to it that your last days are not only spent in agony they will
also be spent in jail.

This is the Trump administration's idea of getting government off out backs.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 26 Oct 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 10/26/2017 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Oct 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term,  
the free-market can work, both for preserving resource and  
happiness.
We might have a different feelings due to the fact that it does  
not seem to have work with us, but the reason is that we don't  
have a free-market, given that we have the prohibition laws. Even  
at the start, Henri Ford, who made his 300 first Ford car in  
Hemp, and using Hemp, defended the Hemp for building car by  
saying that it is a renewable resource, and that it would not  
perturb the current concentration of 0_2, C0_2. If the Market  
would have been free, most people would have used Hemp (which was  
the petrol before petrol) instead of petrol.


Nonsense.  Hemp was grown for rope.  It was never a fuel.


Rudolph Diesel and Henri Ford seems to have conceived and planned  
to build their engine with hemp and vegetable source of oil.  
Googling on I don't find real refutation of this. Of course they  
did not succeed.




Henry Ford built a car whose body panels were made from plant  
cellulose, mostly from soybeans but including 10% hemp.  But it  
was never shown to be economically viable or durable enough to  
replace steel.  Notice that when GM built plastic bodied cars, the  
Corvette, Saturn, Fiero...they did not make the plastic from  
soybeans or hemp and the cars have not aged well.  The plastic  
hardens and cracks.


Because they did not make bio-plastic indeed. To be sure, we don't  
know the life-time of bio-plastic either, given that all such  
project have been impeached by prohibition.






To sell something as toxic and disgusting as petrol, you *need*  
to abolish the free market, which is what happened. After that  
you do lose happiness, and you do destroy basically everything  
quickly, hopefully in a reversible way.
Free-market is like evolution. It does not see anything in the  
long term, but can still lead to building things which can see in  
a longer and longer terms.


Bruno


I'm afraid you've become a crank on this point...as though  
marijuana the basis and measure of world capitalism.


No, only a witnessing of the inexistence of capitalism or what we  
call in Europe liberalism, that is simply the non-existence of a  
free market.


How could we have a a free-market if we tolerate that a government  
decide what can and cannot be consumed? That makes no sense at all.  
Without legal market, you only create the criminal market, and this  
can only augment the consumption, and the possible dangers, of the  
product.


A legal market can be a regulated market.


Exactly.





A criminal market is by definition unregulated.


Exactly.



There is no inspection, no labeling requirements, no enforcement of  
contracts, no penalty for fraud,...


Yes. It is rare that a street drug dealer advise you to respect a  
posology. Nor will he ask for the identity cart if his patient/client/ 
victim ...





So you should be happy that marijuana is available in a criminal  
market instead of a legal one where the government would interfere.



?










Prohibition is only that: to prevent the market to be controlled by  
the actual need of the people. It benefits only to criminals, and  
partially to their hostages.


Is that why the emperor tried to prohibit the opium trade in China?


He tried to protect his people from an act of war. Opium was free, and  
not a problem, but has been abnormally and artificially propagated,  
with politics interfering, not the need of the people. Opiates need  
medical prescription, I would say.









A "drug" is only a medication which can become dangerous when  
prohibited. Have you heard a street dealer telling his "client" to  
respect the posology? Or asking for a medical prescription?


The vocation of a drug is to reduce the harm, but prohibition  
entails the complete opposite. Even legal medication becomes  
dangerous in time of prohibition, because the goal is no more to  
cure and helps people, but to maximize benefits. Money, the  
wonderful mean, is transformed into a senseless goal.


Then you should be happy to buy your medicines from the street  
stalls in Thailand and Somolia.


I doubt it could be graver than here, but I have no clue what you  
think about. I have not been in Thailand and Somalia.









I am a classical thinker. I think that once we tolerate one lie, we  
quickly get many lies, if not all.


That's the kind ideological thinking that leads to totalitarianism -  
every imperfection must be eliminated or nothing will work.


Only the lies, or known error, must be stopped, as soon as possible,  
as they propagate.


The rigor of thought, and reason, are the best prevention against  
totalitarianism.


This ask for modesty, and the acceptance that we are not perfect, but  
this

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 26 Oct 2017, at 20:30, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 10/26/2017 6:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Brent Meeker  
 wrote:


On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the
free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness.
We might have a different feelings due to the fact that it does  
not seem to
have work with us, but the reason is that we don't have a free- 
market, given
that we have the prohibition laws. Even at the start, Henri Ford,  
who made
his 300 first Ford car in Hemp, and using Hemp, defended the Hemp  
for
building car by saying that it is a renewable resource, and that  
it would
not perturb the current concentration of 0_2, C0_2. If the Market  
would have
been free, most people would have used Hemp (which was the petrol  
before

petrol) instead of petrol.


Nonsense.  Hemp was grown for rope.  It was never a fuel.  Henry  
Ford built
a car whose body panels were made from plant cellulose, mostly  
from soybeans
but including 10% hemp.  But it was never shown to be economically  
viable or
durable enough to replace steel.  Notice that when GM built  
plastic bodied
cars, the Corvette, Saturn, Fiero...they did not make the plastic  
from
soybeans or hemp and the cars have not aged well.  The plastic  
hardens and

cracks.

To sell something as toxic and disgusting as petrol, you *need* to  
abolish
the free market, which is what happened. After that you do lose  
happiness,
and you do destroy basically everything quickly, hopefully in a  
reversible

way.
Free-market is like evolution. It does not see anything in the  
long term,
but can still lead to building things which can see in a longer  
and longer

terms.

Bruno


I'm afraid you've become a crank on this point...as though  
marijuana the

basis and measure of world capitalism.

It seems reasonable to assume that the negative social impact of the
alcohol prohibition is not a fluke, but instead a natural consequence
of any prohibition.


Yes, an prohibition, in fact any action, has negative as well as  
positive natural consequences.  Did the British bringing free-market  
opium trade to China have positive as well as negative  
consequences...sure it did.



I personally am in favor of laws, but only laws which makes sense into  
helping and protecting people, not laws enforced by special interest  
of  minorities.


The British bringing free-market opium trade was basically an act of  
war. Opiates, which can be addictive for depressed or despair people  
(or rat, like those alone in a small cage), should better be  
prescribed medically, with some posology, I think.











It is also not a well-kept secret that there is collusion between
corporate interests and state actors to maintain prohibitions, and
that these reasons (already present in the times of Al Capone), have
little to do with a concern for public health. You need to go no
further than the current opioid crisis in the US. The corporate
interests promoting this terrible addiction are the same that lobby
for keeping the much safer and cheaper alternative illegal.


Are you claiming, without evidence, that cannabis is cheaper and  
safer than all other pain killers?


There are tuns of evidence, in vivo, in vitro, personal, close  
friends, and their friends, etc. In Belgium and France you can see an  
abundance of pharma-shops. But most people using cannabis see their  
medication budget dropping very quickly.
I have has sciatic many years ago (I think I told the list about  
this). After 2/3 month of intense "legal" unsuccessful treatment, when  
the doctor told me I need surgery, I tried cannabis. After three days,  
I felt well, and after three weeks I was back at work. One case is not  
a statistics, and cannabis has the same drawback than alcohol,  
benzodiazepine and most long term muscular relaxant, which happens to  
be bad for me, so I use it as a medication with strong moderation. But  
you can also find thousand of wittnessing on Youtube.


The humans seem to know the medical, and industrial virtue of Hemp  
since more than 5000 years.


Some medical people voted for the interdiction of marijuana, described  
as a killer, without knowing it was hemp. The origin of prohibition  
was a masquerade. A clever choice of bandits who understood that  
prohibition can only work with a non dangerous product, because it  
augment the consumption and the danger, as they understood with  
alcohol prohibition.


Prohibition is born from the collusion of the racist anti-mexicans, +  
the interest of the paper-wood industry, the petrol, (textile and  
pharma) alcohol, tobacco, + the descendents of Al Capone and the  
underground criminals.


The "Schedule One" notion does not make sense: to forbid research on  
something because it would be dangerous. Why not forbid research in  
guns, bombs, or car, plane train, I meant, except cannabis,

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-27 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 10/26/2017 12:51 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> >
>> Are you claiming, without evidence, that cannabis is cheaper and safer
>> than all other pain killers?
>
>
> I don't know about Bruno but I am claiming i
> n the entire history of the world there is not
> been
> one confirmed case
> of
> death by marijuana
> overdose, the same can not be said of aspirin. In addition
> ,
> recent studies have found that after states in the USA legalized marijuana
> overdose deaths
> from opioids
> DECREASED by 25%.
> O
> xycodone
> used for chronic pain can kill you but
> marijuana
> can not, and it's only a unfortunate historical accident that alcohol is
> socially acceptable but
> cannabis is
> not.
>
>
> (1) There are a lot of other painkillers

Yes, I was alluding specifically to the current opiate crisis in the
US, which appears to be fueled by drugs that are prescribed by doctors
-- specifically Oxycodone, as John said, as well as Fentanyl. Two
drugs that generate big bucks for the pharmaceutical companies as well
as for the health insurance racket that you guys suffer under.

There is now some evidence that people have been weening themselves
off of prescribed opiates in Colorado. The number of deaths by opiate
overdose decreases since cannabis was legalized. There are still
confounding factors, so we can't draw strong conclusions, but the
upshot in public health and safety is so big that this is definitely
something to consider.

> and (2) marijuana is not equally
> effective as oxycodone

Well, a machine gun is not as effective as a nuclear bomb...

I have no doubt that oxycodone is the right choice for certain cases.
I also have no doubt that it is being overprescribed for profit,
otherwise how do you explain the current crisis? There are reports of
doctors advising patients to stop using cannabis and switching to
oxycodone. Patients that feel that cannabis is working well to manage
their pain. This is immoral. Oxycodone is a very dangerous drug. It is
highly addictive (unlike cannabis) and can kill you (unlike cannabis).
There is overwhelming evidence for this. Don't take my word for it,
check the research of the world-class experts, such as Dr. David Nutt
-- who was sacked out of a government advisory position by the UK
government because he was not willing to go along with the lies.

> and (3) in many states and nations doctors can
> prescribe marijuana just as they can other pain killers.

Not so many nations, unfortunately. Even in the US, this is still
being resisted at the federal level by lobbyists. Who do these
lobbyists represent? Pharmaceutical companies. Don't you find this
strange?

Regarding price, it would be dirt cheap if not for
prohibition/sin-taxes. It's a weed. It grows very easily. Orders of
magnitude cheaper than pharmaceutical-grade opiates.

> And I'm 100% in favor of legalizing marijuana and have been for decades -
> not because I think it has any amazing medical powers, but because "the war
> on (some) drugs" is a civil rights disaster, screwing up people's lives
> right and left and distorting law enforcement (c.f. civil forefiture).

Alright. That's the humane position to have.
It can be a wonderful substance for certain people and certain
conditions, as other substances can.
Just please don't argue for lack of evidence in terms of safety. There
is overwhelming evidence that it is much safer than many commonly used
(and legal) drugs.

Best,
Telmo.

> Brent
>
>
>
> By the way, I have never smoked a
> marijuana
> cigarette in my life, so far I've never had the need but if I ever get
> cancer I would certainly start with a joint before I moved onto
> O
> xycodone
> .
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/opioid-marijuana-legal-states-hospital-overdose-addiction-575385
>
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-26 Thread Brent Meeker




On 10/26/2017 12:51 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote:


> 
Are you claiming, without evidence, that cannabis is cheaper and
safer than all other pain killers?

I don't know about Bruno but I am claiming i
n the entire history of the world there is not
been 
one confirmed case
of
death by marijuana
 
overdose, the same can not be said of aspirin. In addition
,
recent studies have found that after states in the USA legalized 
marijuana

 
overdose deaths
from opioids
DECREASED by 25%.
 O
xycodone
 used for chronic pain can kill you but
marijuana
 can not, and it's only a unfortunate historical accident that 
alcohol is socially acceptable but

cannabis is
 not.


(1) There are a lot of other painkillers and (2) marijuana is not 
equally effective as oxycodone and (3) in many states and nations 
doctors can prescribe marijuana just as they can other pain killers.


And I'm 100% in favor of legalizing marijuana and have been for decades 
- not because I think it has any amazing medical powers, but because 
"the war on (some) drugs" is a civil rights disaster, screwing up 
people's lives right and left and distorting law enforcement (c.f. civil 
forefiture).


Brent



By the way, I have never smoked a 
marijuana
 cigarette in my life, so far I've never had the need but if I ever 
get cancer I would certainly start with a joint before I moved onto

O
xycodone
.

http://www.newsweek.com/opioid-marijuana-legal-states-hospital-overdose-addiction-575385


John K Clark






Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-26 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> 
> Are you claiming, without evidence, that cannabis is cheaper and safer
> than all other pain killers?

I don't know about Bruno but I am claiming i
n the entire history of the world there is not
been 
one confirmed case
of
death by marijuana

overdose, the same can not be said of aspirin. In addition
,
recent studies have found that after states in the USA legalized marijuana

overdose deaths
from opioids
DECREASED by 25%.
 O
xycodone
 used for chronic pain can kill you but
marijuana
 can not, and it's only a unfortunate historical accident that alcohol is
socially acceptable but
cannabis is
 not.

By the way, I have never smoked a 
marijuana
 cigarette in my life, so far I've never had the need but if I ever get
cancer I would certainly start with a joint before I moved onto
O
xycodone
.

http://www.newsweek.com/opioid-marijuana-legal-states-hospital-overdose-addiction-575385

John K Clark

> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-26 Thread Brent Meeker




On 10/26/2017 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Oct 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the 
free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness.
We might have a different feelings due to the fact that it does not 
seem to have work with us, but the reason is that we don't have a 
free-market, given that we have the prohibition laws. Even at the 
start, Henri Ford, who made his 300 first Ford car in Hemp, and 
using Hemp, defended the Hemp for building car by saying that it is 
a renewable resource, and that it would not perturb the current 
concentration of 0_2, C0_2. If the Market would have been free, most 
people would have used Hemp (which was the petrol before petrol) 
instead of petrol. 


Nonsense.  Hemp was grown for rope.  It was never a fuel.


Rudolph Diesel and Henri Ford seems to have conceived and planned to 
build their engine with hemp and vegetable source of oil. Googling on 
I don't find real refutation of this. Of course they did not succeed.




Henry Ford built a car whose body panels were made from plant 
cellulose, mostly from soybeans but including 10% hemp.  But it was 
never shown to be economically viable or durable enough to replace 
steel.  Notice that when GM built plastic bodied cars, the Corvette, 
Saturn, Fiero...they did not make the plastic from soybeans or hemp 
and the cars have not aged well.  The plastic hardens and cracks.


Because they did not make bio-plastic indeed. To be sure, we don't 
know the life-time of bio-plastic either, given that all such project 
have been impeached by prohibition.






To sell something as toxic and disgusting as petrol, you *need* to 
abolish the free market, which is what happened. After that you do 
lose happiness, and you do destroy basically everything quickly, 
hopefully in a reversible way.
Free-market is like evolution. It does not see anything in the long 
term, but can still lead to building things which can see in a 
longer and longer terms.


Bruno 


I'm afraid you've become a crank on this point...as though marijuana 
the basis and measure of world capitalism.


No, only a witnessing of the inexistence of capitalism or what we call 
in Europe liberalism, that is simply the non-existence of a free market.


How could we have a a free-market if we tolerate that a government 
decide what can and cannot be consumed? That makes no sense at all. 
Without legal market, you only create the criminal market, and this 
can only augment the consumption, and the possible dangers, of the 
product.


A legal market can be a regulated market.  A criminal market is by 
definition unregulated.  There is no inspection, no labeling 
requirements, no enforcement of contracts, no penalty for fraud,... So 
you should be happy that marijuana is available in a criminal market 
instead of a legal one where the government would interfere.




Prohibition is only that: to prevent the market to be controlled by 
the actual need of the people. It benefits only to criminals, and 
partially to their hostages.


Is that why the emperor tried to prohibit the opium trade in China?



A "drug" is only a medication which can become dangerous when 
prohibited. Have you heard a street dealer telling his "client" to 
respect the posology? Or asking for a medical prescription?


The vocation of a drug is to reduce the harm, but prohibition entails 
the complete opposite. Even legal medication becomes dangerous in time 
of prohibition, because the goal is no more to cure and helps people, 
but to maximize benefits. Money, the wonderful mean, is transformed 
into a senseless goal.


Then you should be happy to buy your medicines from the street stalls in 
Thailand and Somolia.




I am a classical thinker. I think that once we tolerate one lie, we 
quickly get many lies, if not all.


That's the kind ideological thinking that leads to totalitarianism - 
every imperfection must be eliminated or nothing will work.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-26 Thread Brent Meeker




On 10/26/2017 6:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the
free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness.
We might have a different feelings due to the fact that it does not seem to
have work with us, but the reason is that we don't have a free-market, given
that we have the prohibition laws. Even at the start, Henri Ford, who made
his 300 first Ford car in Hemp, and using Hemp, defended the Hemp for
building car by saying that it is a renewable resource, and that it would
not perturb the current concentration of 0_2, C0_2. If the Market would have
been free, most people would have used Hemp (which was the petrol before
petrol) instead of petrol.


Nonsense.  Hemp was grown for rope.  It was never a fuel.  Henry Ford built
a car whose body panels were made from plant cellulose, mostly from soybeans
but including 10% hemp.  But it was never shown to be economically viable or
durable enough to replace steel.  Notice that when GM built plastic bodied
cars, the Corvette, Saturn, Fiero...they did not make the plastic from
soybeans or hemp and the cars have not aged well.  The plastic hardens and
cracks.

To sell something as toxic and disgusting as petrol, you *need* to abolish
the free market, which is what happened. After that you do lose happiness,
and you do destroy basically everything quickly, hopefully in a reversible
way.
Free-market is like evolution. It does not see anything in the long term,
but can still lead to building things which can see in a longer and longer
terms.

Bruno


I'm afraid you've become a crank on this point...as though marijuana the
basis and measure of world capitalism.

It seems reasonable to assume that the negative social impact of the
alcohol prohibition is not a fluke, but instead a natural consequence
of any prohibition.


Yes, an prohibition, in fact any action, has negative as well as 
positive natural consequences.  Did the British bringing free-market 
opium trade to China have positive as well as negative 
consequences...sure it did.




It is also not a well-kept secret that there is collusion between
corporate interests and state actors to maintain prohibitions, and
that these reasons (already present in the times of Al Capone), have
little to do with a concern for public health. You need to go no
further than the current opioid crisis in the US. The corporate
interests promoting this terrible addiction are the same that lobby
for keeping the much safer and cheaper alternative illegal.


Are you claiming, without evidence, that cannabis is cheaper and safer 
than all other pain killers?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 25 Oct 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the  
free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness.
We might have a different feelings due to the fact that it does not  
seem to have work with us, but the reason is that we don't have a  
free-market, given that we have the prohibition laws. Even at the  
start, Henri Ford, who made his 300 first Ford car in Hemp, and  
using Hemp, defended the Hemp for building car by saying that it is  
a renewable resource, and that it would not perturb the current  
concentration of 0_2, C0_2. If the Market would have been free,  
most people would have used Hemp (which was the petrol before  
petrol) instead of petrol.


Nonsense.  Hemp was grown for rope.  It was never a fuel.


Rudolph Diesel and Henri Ford seems to have conceived and planned to  
build their engine with hemp and vegetable source of oil. Googling on  
I don't find real refutation of this. Of course they did not succeed.




Henry Ford built a car whose body panels were made from plant  
cellulose, mostly from soybeans but including 10% hemp.  But it was  
never shown to be economically viable or durable enough to replace  
steel.  Notice that when GM built plastic bodied cars, the Corvette,  
Saturn, Fiero...they did not make the plastic from soybeans or hemp  
and the cars have not aged well.  The plastic hardens and cracks.


Because they did not make bio-plastic indeed. To be sure, we don't  
know the life-time of bio-plastic either, given that all such project  
have been impeached by prohibition.






To sell something as toxic and disgusting as petrol, you *need* to  
abolish the free market, which is what happened. After that you do  
lose happiness, and you do destroy basically everything quickly,  
hopefully in a reversible way.
Free-market is like evolution. It does not see anything in the long  
term, but can still lead to building things which can see in a  
longer and longer terms.


Bruno


I'm afraid you've become a crank on this point...as though marijuana  
the basis and measure of world capitalism.


No, only a witnessing of the inexistence of capitalism or what we call  
in Europe liberalism, that is simply the non-existence of a free market.


How could we have a a free-market if we tolerate that a government  
decide what can and cannot be consumed? That makes no sense at all.  
Without legal market, you only create the criminal market, and this  
can only augment the consumption, and the possible dangers, of the  
product.


Prohibition is only that: to prevent the market to be controlled by  
the actual need of the people. It benefits only to criminals, and  
partially to their hostages.


A "drug" is only a medication which can become dangerous when  
prohibited. Have you heard a street dealer telling his "client" to  
respect the posology? Or asking for a medical prescription?


The vocation of a drug is to reduce the harm, but prohibition entails  
the complete opposite. Even legal medication becomes dangerous in time  
of prohibition, because the goal is no more to cure and helps people,  
but to maximize benefits. Money, the wonderful mean, is transformed  
into a senseless goal.


I am a classical thinker. I think that once we tolerate one lie, we  
quickly get many lies, if not all.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-26 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the
> free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness.
> We might have a different feelings due to the fact that it does not seem to
> have work with us, but the reason is that we don't have a free-market, given
> that we have the prohibition laws. Even at the start, Henri Ford, who made
> his 300 first Ford car in Hemp, and using Hemp, defended the Hemp for
> building car by saying that it is a renewable resource, and that it would
> not perturb the current concentration of 0_2, C0_2. If the Market would have
> been free, most people would have used Hemp (which was the petrol before
> petrol) instead of petrol.
>
>
> Nonsense.  Hemp was grown for rope.  It was never a fuel.  Henry Ford built
> a car whose body panels were made from plant cellulose, mostly from soybeans
> but including 10% hemp.  But it was never shown to be economically viable or
> durable enough to replace steel.  Notice that when GM built plastic bodied
> cars, the Corvette, Saturn, Fiero...they did not make the plastic from
> soybeans or hemp and the cars have not aged well.  The plastic hardens and
> cracks.
>
> To sell something as toxic and disgusting as petrol, you *need* to abolish
> the free market, which is what happened. After that you do lose happiness,
> and you do destroy basically everything quickly, hopefully in a reversible
> way.
> Free-market is like evolution. It does not see anything in the long term,
> but can still lead to building things which can see in a longer and longer
> terms.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> I'm afraid you've become a crank on this point...as though marijuana the
> basis and measure of world capitalism.

It seems reasonable to assume that the negative social impact of the
alcohol prohibition is not a fluke, but instead a natural consequence
of any prohibition.

It is also not a well-kept secret that there is collusion between
corporate interests and state actors to maintain prohibitions, and
that these reasons (already present in the times of Al Capone), have
little to do with a concern for public health. You need to go no
further than the current opioid crisis in the US. The corporate
interests promoting this terrible addiction are the same that lobby
for keeping the much safer and cheaper alternative illegal.

Telmo.

> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-25 Thread Brent Meeker




On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the 
free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness.
We might have a different feelings due to the fact that it does not 
seem to have work with us, but the reason is that we don't have a 
free-market, given that we have the prohibition laws. Even at the 
start, Henri Ford, who made his 300 first Ford car in Hemp, and using 
Hemp, defended the Hemp for building car by saying that it is a 
renewable resource, and that it would not perturb the current 
concentration of 0_2, C0_2. If the Market would have been free, most 
people would have used Hemp (which was the petrol before petrol) 
instead of petrol. 


Nonsense.  Hemp was grown for rope.  It was never a fuel.  Henry Ford 
built a car whose body panels were made from plant cellulose, mostly 
from soybeans but including 10% hemp.  But it was never shown to be 
economically viable or durable enough to replace steel. Notice that when 
GM built plastic bodied cars, the Corvette, Saturn, Fiero...they did not 
make the plastic from soybeans or hemp and the cars have not aged well.  
The plastic hardens and cracks.


To sell something as toxic and disgusting as petrol, you *need* to 
abolish the free market, which is what happened. After that you do 
lose happiness, and you do destroy basically everything quickly, 
hopefully in a reversible way.
Free-market is like evolution. It does not see anything in the long 
term, but can still lead to building things which can see in a longer 
and longer terms.


Bruno 


I'm afraid you've become a crank on this point...as though marijuana the 
basis and measure of world capitalism.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-25 Thread Bruno Marchal


Hi Telmo,








With AlphaGo, it is curious that the heuristic half of the system is
also the one that becomes a black box.


When you have the time, you might elaborate on this.


AlphaGo combines search trees and neural networks.

The old-school approach to solving turn-based games such as checkers,
chess, etc is by using the minimax search tree algorithm. The idea of
minimax is simple: suppose you start with a give board state and it's
your turn. You consider all of your possible moves, then all possible
opponent moves from each move and so on, alternating between players.
The goals is to maximize your expected outcome on each of your moves,
while minimizing your expected outcome for every opponent move (thus
the name). Intuitively, it tries to find the strongest possible play
assuming the strongest possible opposition.

The problem, of course, is combinatorial explosion. A first approach
is alpha-beta prunning. When exploring a branch, once it finds that it
already knows a play that is guaranteed to be better than the one
being explored it stops (prunes)  that branch.

Then this can be further improved with heuristics. For example, one
can have an heuristic function for chess that assigns a utility value
to a board configuration, based on the pieces remaining on each side
and their positions. By exploring the most promising branches first,
more branches can be pruned earlier.

Then it can be made even more aggressive by using the heuristic
speculatively, cutting branches even if it's not certain (but just
likely) that they will be weaker. One strategy for chess is to go as
deeps as time allows, and fallback to heuristic pruning once there is
no more time. The more powerful the computer and the more clever the
implementation the deeper you can go, and this is how Deep Blue
eventually defeated a grandmaster (plus a dictionary of openings and
endings from human masters playing the game, chess textbooks, etc).

AlphaGo replaces the heuristic function with neural networks: the
protocol network and the value network. The value network learns to
assign a value to board configuration.


Ah! OK.




It also uses a stochastic version of minimax, using a Monte Carlo
technique. Instead of following all branches, or following them by
some heuristically-determined order, it samples them. The sampling is
guided by a probability assigned to each future state. The protocol
network learns to assign these probabilities.


OK.





In the first version of AlphaGo, the protocol network was first
trained to replicate the actions of human masters. Then, it was
further improved by playing against itself. The first stage is
supervised learning, the second is reinforcement learning (more
similar dopamine-based learning, if you will). The new version was
able to do it purely by reinforcement learning, with no reference to
human-generated examples. It became a master by exploring the game
from scratch.

The neural networks used are convolutional networks, usually applied
to image recognition. Instead of taking a large number of inputs (the
entire board), they scan it. A smaller square starts on the top-left
feeding the input of the network, and then it iteratively roams the
board.

It's a very clever, hybrid combination of AI techniques, combining the
strength of old-fashioned symbolic methods with more recent
statistical learning.


Cool.




What I meant is that the search-tree part is purely logic and
deterministic, while the neural networks learn to have the right
intuition about which board configurations look promising. The
search-tree is easy to understand, while the neural network becomes a
complex black-box. So the programmers of AlphaGo can inspect its data
structures and explain what it hopes to achieve with a given move, but
they are not capable of explaining you why the program bet on
exploring certain ideas and not others.


Thank, I understand now.




I find this is akin to the bicameral model of the brain, which I know
you like. Here the corpus callosum is simply the piece of code that
plugs the output of the neural networks to the Monte Carlo search
algo.

It seems obvious from the above description that this cannot easily be
extrapolated to creating computer programs (or performing
self-modification), but it is also clear that this hybrid approach
looks promising. I like it very much. There is a big fight in AI
between its "tribes" (symbolic, connectionist / statistical,
evolutionary).


Yes, that fight is part of the process. Tomorrow, the "clever"  
machines will ask to see the archives of that fight. Their origin.





I think that wonderful things will be built by
combining all of these ideas, and using their respective strengths
where appropriate.



What is missing (but has no economical value) is to make such a  
machine with the only goal being to survive by itself, and multiply.  
It would be implemented by a reentry of all above into itself (a  
circular neural nets). Instead of learning games, it

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-25 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 23 Oct 2017, at 15:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 3:58 PM, John Clark   
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Brent Meeker  
 wrote:




The problem is that, like most real problems, improving computer  
code has
no simple one-dimensional measure of "better".  Go games are won  
or lost.



A computer program that does the same thing as another but is  
smaller and

executes faster is objectively better
; and although there is no guarantee small fast programs usually  
have fewer
bugs than large slow programs, and the bugs they do have are easier  
to find

and fix.


This is not necessarily the case. In engineering practice it is common
to use the expression "premature optimization". The idea is: don't try
to make programs as fast as you can, because this hurts readability
and maintainability. Only optimize for speed when you absolutely must.

There are biological equivalents, the idea of "evolution of
evolvability". Some species hit local maxima and strongly optimize for
a dimension, but this also places them in a dead end. Less optimized
solutions might have the property of being more easily evolvable
beyond the local maxima. This is why modern scientists use Python
instead of C whenever they can. Python is one order of magnitude
slower than C.

And if you complain that speed size and robustness are 3 dimensions  
not one

then try making the most money. That's the great thing about the Free
Market, one dimension rules them all.


The above is also a problem with the free market. The free market is
incredibly efficient in utilizing resources to spread the maximum
amount of gizmos to the maximum amount of people. It is not
necessarily optimally efficient in preserving resources for what
really matters in the long term, or creating incentives for individual
happiness, or anything long-term to be honest.



I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the  
free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness.
We might have a different feelings due to the fact that it does not  
seem to have work with us, but the reason is that we don't have a free- 
market, given that we have the prohibition laws. Even at the start,  
Henri Ford, who made his 300 first Ford car in Hemp, and using Hemp,  
defended the Hemp for building car by saying that it is a renewable  
resource, and that it would not perturb the current concentration of  
0_2, C0_2. If the Market would have been free, most people would have  
used Hemp (which was the petrol before petrol) instead of petrol. To  
sell something as toxic and disgusting as petrol, you *need* to  
abolish the free market, which is what happened. After that you do  
lose happiness, and you do destroy basically everything quickly,  
hopefully in a reversible way.
Free-market is like evolution. It does not see anything in the long  
term, but can still lead to building things which can see in a longer  
and longer terms.


Bruno




You seem to love astrophysics -- I do too, but you are surely more
knowledgeable. Who pays for the astrophysicists and their equipment?
Would the free-market ever do that? Maybe once there's a clear path to
profit. Elon Musk is banking on that, but would Elon Musk take the
leap without the previous efforts by NASA and other such agencies? I
think this is equivalent to the local maxima problem that I allude to
above.

Best,
Telmo.



John K Clark






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-24 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Bruno,

> With AlphaGo, it is curious that the heuristic half of the system is
> also the one that becomes a black box.
>
>
> When you have the time, you might elaborate on this.

AlphaGo combines search trees and neural networks.

The old-school approach to solving turn-based games such as checkers,
chess, etc is by using the minimax search tree algorithm. The idea of
minimax is simple: suppose you start with a give board state and it's
your turn. You consider all of your possible moves, then all possible
opponent moves from each move and so on, alternating between players.
The goals is to maximize your expected outcome on each of your moves,
while minimizing your expected outcome for every opponent move (thus
the name). Intuitively, it tries to find the strongest possible play
assuming the strongest possible opposition.

The problem, of course, is combinatorial explosion. A first approach
is alpha-beta prunning. When exploring a branch, once it finds that it
already knows a play that is guaranteed to be better than the one
being explored it stops (prunes)  that branch.

Then this can be further improved with heuristics. For example, one
can have an heuristic function for chess that assigns a utility value
to a board configuration, based on the pieces remaining on each side
and their positions. By exploring the most promising branches first,
more branches can be pruned earlier.

Then it can be made even more aggressive by using the heuristic
speculatively, cutting branches even if it's not certain (but just
likely) that they will be weaker. One strategy for chess is to go as
deeps as time allows, and fallback to heuristic pruning once there is
no more time. The more powerful the computer and the more clever the
implementation the deeper you can go, and this is how Deep Blue
eventually defeated a grandmaster (plus a dictionary of openings and
endings from human masters playing the game, chess textbooks, etc).

AlphaGo replaces the heuristic function with neural networks: the
protocol network and the value network. The value network learns to
assign a value to board configuration.

It also uses a stochastic version of minimax, using a Monte Carlo
technique. Instead of following all branches, or following them by
some heuristically-determined order, it samples them. The sampling is
guided by a probability assigned to each future state. The protocol
network learns to assign these probabilities.

In the first version of AlphaGo, the protocol network was first
trained to replicate the actions of human masters. Then, it was
further improved by playing against itself. The first stage is
supervised learning, the second is reinforcement learning (more
similar dopamine-based learning, if you will). The new version was
able to do it purely by reinforcement learning, with no reference to
human-generated examples. It became a master by exploring the game
from scratch.

The neural networks used are convolutional networks, usually applied
to image recognition. Instead of taking a large number of inputs (the
entire board), they scan it. A smaller square starts on the top-left
feeding the input of the network, and then it iteratively roams the
board.

It's a very clever, hybrid combination of AI techniques, combining the
strength of old-fashioned symbolic methods with more recent
statistical learning.

What I meant is that the search-tree part is purely logic and
deterministic, while the neural networks learn to have the right
intuition about which board configurations look promising. The
search-tree is easy to understand, while the neural network becomes a
complex black-box. So the programmers of AlphaGo can inspect its data
structures and explain what it hopes to achieve with a given move, but
they are not capable of explaining you why the program bet on
exploring certain ideas and not others.

I find this is akin to the bicameral model of the brain, which I know
you like. Here the corpus callosum is simply the piece of code that
plugs the output of the neural networks to the Monte Carlo search
algo.

It seems obvious from the above description that this cannot easily be
extrapolated to creating computer programs (or performing
self-modification), but it is also clear that this hybrid approach
looks promising. I like it very much. There is a big fight in AI
between its "tribes" (symbolic, connectionist / statistical,
evolutionary). I think that wonderful things will be built by
combining all of these ideas, and using their respective strengths
where appropriate.

Best,
Telmo.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-24 Thread Bruno Marchal



Hi Telmo,







On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

Hi Telmo,



On 22 Oct 2017, at 09:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hola Alberto,

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Alberto G. Corona 

wrote:


Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about
artificial
intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network application-  
can not

answer the question why you did that move?.

If  they could answer, the answer would be ever the same: " I don 
´t know,

I
moved this because if found some patterns that are very close to  
this new

one, so I did this move that produced a win at the end within those
patterns".



The neural network is used to prune the minimax search tree. AlphaGo
can tell you exactly what it hopes to achieve with a given move.  
What

it cannot tell you precisely is why it decided that a certain branch
of the tree could be ignored.

Under your terminology, one could say that the minimax search tree  
is

the intelligence part, while the neural network plays the role of
intuition. This is not so different from what a human player does.

(I am basing myself on the original AlphaGo paper, and assuming that
nothing fundamental changed in this incarnation)

That does not qualify as intelligence. For me, the appropriate  
name is

intuition.



You are a bit on the side of Chomsky on this -- something that you
might not exactly like :)
In any case, I can see value in yours and Chomsky's position. Neural
networks and statistical learning in general are great, but we  
should
not lose sight of understanding intelligence. However, I would not  
be

surprised if a given mind cannot fully understand the mechanisms
underlying itself. Maybe there's a threshold of complexity that must
be somewhat below the complexity of the mind itself.



The machine can bet correctly on its syntactical, mechanical level,  
and
reason correctly with respect to that bet, made in practice with  
respect to
some bet on some universal environment. That amkes transhumanism  
consistent.


Ok.

I suspect that transhumaning is our only hope of surviving our own
creations in the future.


In the "long run", I hope Earth will survived as a Museum of Carbon  
Life, at least a virtual one, because the big challenge will be to  
survive and remain connected when Andromeda and Milky Way will met,  
assuming Magellan does not make to much mess meanwhile. It will be the  
opportunity to find a younger sun, also.


To spread in the galaxy, we will come back to bacteria, but "modern  
one" all connected in such a way that we keep our virtual human body,  
and kids will have hard to learn that "we are bacteria spread in the  
galaxy".







On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter.
Perhaps we are too attached to being homo sapiens. Nothing ever stays
the same. If the future belongs to Jupiter-brain entities, I guess
they are people too...



We have partial control in the terrestrial plane, and can try to  
reduce the harms, but this by itself can be risky.


I think that arithmetic emulates an infinite war between Security and  
Liberty, at least in the normal dreams.


Democracy is a big progress in the harm reduction in that conflict,  
and it is a bit of a splitting between []p & p and []p, like in my  
comment to David.





It is interesting how we are worried about the existence of homo
sapiens in the far future, but we are not bothered by the fact that
they did not exist in the distant past. I find this reminiscent of
fear of "not-existing" after death, but no problem with not having
existed before birth. I think you will agree that it comes from a
misunderstanding of reality.


Or a misunderstanding of who you are. When I read Plotinus and its  
critics, sometimes, I feel like nothing has really changed.


In arithmetic, infinitely many numbers asks themselves "why does that  
shit happen to me, how could we fix this and that".
The universal machine are born "never completely satisfied". They  
always feel, like in the song, that there is something more to say.


Death is useful memory-amnesia, in this plane.




But no machine can name or circumscribe its own semantic, that is  
what

incompleteness is about.
Any semantic requires some act of faith on the par of the machine  
(probably

in large part instinctive for the animals).


Agreed, I did not forget about Gödel :)

I love the challenge of reverse-engineering how our brain works. There
is some learning algorithm that it runs that we haven't cracked. There
are some clues:

Artificial neural networks use activation and inhibition (equivalent
to glutamate and GABA), but what about the other neurotransmitters?
For example dopamine, which appears to be strongly related to the
reward system -- and thus learning. In our current artificial models,
learning (mainly backpropagation) are still mostly "top-down". They
are something we impose on the network, as opposed to something that
emerges from local

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-24 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 23 Oct 2017, at 02:26, David Nyman wrote:




On 22 October 2017 at 15:31, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 22 Oct 2017, at 09:16, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about  
artificial intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network  
application- can not answer the question why you did that move?.


If  they could answer, the answer would be ever the same: " I don´t  
know, I moved this because if found some patterns that are very  
close to this new one, so I did this move that produced a win at  
the end within those patterns".


That does not qualify as intelligence. For me, the appropriate name  
is  intuition.


Perhaps. Usually intuition points on the informal insight, and  
intuitionist logic was about informal reasoning starting from the  
distinguishability basic insight (notably the distinguishability of  
1 and its successors).
That leads to constructive logics, or controllable machines where a  
proof of (p v q) always provides a proof of p, or a proof of q,  
where in classical logic we allow a proof of (p v q) by showing that  
(p v q) leads to an absurdity (without showing us if p, or q is the  
one true).


Yet,  I think I see what you mean: it is more like associative  
learning, deep, with many layers, but still only associative. That  
guy would not be immune to the propaganda of the type "gateway  
drug", and I agree with you, that might make him not quite  
intelligent, locally speaking.


The least to do is a circular net, perhaps with many layers. A brain  
is either a couple of universal machine in front of each other, in  
that circular relation,


Could you say a bit more about this? For example, does this relate  
to the G/G* split?




Not directly, it is an intuition! (and so, technically speaking,  
should be related to S4Grz). Of course S4Grz exists because of G/G*  
splitting.


The three primary hypostases are presented usually in the order ONE/ 
truth, Noùs/ideas/formal-proof, and then the Soul, here given (thanks  
to incompleteness) by the conjunct of truth and representaion mirror.  
I speculate that a "brain" automatically handle the representation and  
the truth differently. Indeed the truth will usually be connected to  
the senses, the interface with some possible "reality"(*).


So "[]p versus []p" would be more a polarity than a duality, from  
the brain's constitution.


I am plausibly impressed by some video showing kids suffering from so  
highly debilitating epilepsy, or have the Rasmussen syndrome,  that  
their parents accept the ablation of a whole hemisphere. if I remember  
well(**). Typically, they seem cured from the epilepsy, and recovered  
"completely" very quickly, and experiences provided evidence that the  
one hemisphere remaining quickly re-organize itself into "two brains",  
somehow.


A brain is a dynamical mirror, beginning to mirror some truth p,  
getting the []p. Our bilaterality makes each half mirroring the other  
half, and this probably repeat recursively. Of course the p is itself  
only a mirror, a crude one, like the sump up of the sense made by the  
cerebral stem, and the high cortex is plausibly the one exploiting the  
more the representational ability to emulate itself, getting the sense  
from limbic system which manage pleasure and displeasure. But each  
part can be seen as two cooperating parts, when not in conflict.




(*) "Reality" (for the person owning that brain) is a a bunch of  
universal numbers above the substitution level, and what results from  
the first person statistics on infinitely many universal numbers below  
that level).


(**) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MKNsI5CWoU

I speculate (for a change) that any self-referentially correct machine  
will






or a couple of brains in front of each others, always in that  
circular relation.


Same question.


Same answer, but reapplied recursively on the 2, 4, 8, 16, 32,  
sub...sub-brains.


Of course, in the local terrestrial reality it can be said to end on  
the cells, but the cells too have the will to duplicate. "nature"  
repeat simple ideas. I have discovered that the iteration of the  
cosecante(z) in the complex plane gives all the shapes of the  
coleopterans (!).


It is the fractal aspect of nature, relying on the importance of the  
(deterministic) chaos (which are fractals). If you fuzzifie Gödel  
sentence (You cannot prove me with degree 0,98) or Löb sentence (You  
can prove me with degree 0,98, say), you get chaotic regime (Marr and  
Grimm).


Bruno





David

I would say. Babbage already knew that the beast can eat its own  
tail. Of course, such a thing is not controllable and the  
intelligent machines will do strike to have the right to choose its  
users.


Bruno





2017-10-21 3:46 GMT+02:00 John Clark :
Google reports in the current issue of the journal Nature that it  
has a new greatly improved Go program called  "AlphaGo Zero"

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-23 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 3:58 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> >
>> The problem is that, like most real problems, improving computer code has
>> no simple one-dimensional measure of "better".  Go games are won or lost.
>
>
> A computer program that does the same thing as another but is smaller and
> executes faster is objectively better
> ; and although there is no guarantee small fast programs usually have fewer
> bugs than large slow programs, and the bugs they do have are easier to find
> and fix.

This is not necessarily the case. In engineering practice it is common
to use the expression "premature optimization". The idea is: don't try
to make programs as fast as you can, because this hurts readability
and maintainability. Only optimize for speed when you absolutely must.

There are biological equivalents, the idea of "evolution of
evolvability". Some species hit local maxima and strongly optimize for
a dimension, but this also places them in a dead end. Less optimized
solutions might have the property of being more easily evolvable
beyond the local maxima. This is why modern scientists use Python
instead of C whenever they can. Python is one order of magnitude
slower than C.

> And if you complain that speed size and robustness are 3 dimensions not one
> then try making the most money. That's the great thing about the Free
> Market, one dimension rules them all.

The above is also a problem with the free market. The free market is
incredibly efficient in utilizing resources to spread the maximum
amount of gizmos to the maximum amount of people. It is not
necessarily optimally efficient in preserving resources for what
really matters in the long term, or creating incentives for individual
happiness, or anything long-term to be honest.

You seem to love astrophysics -- I do too, but you are surely more
knowledgeable. Who pays for the astrophysicists and their equipment?
Would the free-market ever do that? Maybe once there's a clear path to
profit. Elon Musk is banking on that, but would Elon Musk take the
leap without the previous efforts by NASA and other such agencies? I
think this is equivalent to the local maxima problem that I allude to
above.

Best,
Telmo.

>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-23 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Bruno,

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> Hi Telmo,
>
>
>
> On 22 Oct 2017, at 09:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> Hola Alberto,
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about
>>> artificial
>>> intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network application- can not
>>> answer the question why you did that move?.
>>>
>>> If  they could answer, the answer would be ever the same: " I don´t know,
>>> I
>>> moved this because if found some patterns that are very close to this new
>>> one, so I did this move that produced a win at the end within those
>>> patterns".
>>
>>
>> The neural network is used to prune the minimax search tree. AlphaGo
>> can tell you exactly what it hopes to achieve with a given move. What
>> it cannot tell you precisely is why it decided that a certain branch
>> of the tree could be ignored.
>>
>> Under your terminology, one could say that the minimax search tree is
>> the intelligence part, while the neural network plays the role of
>> intuition. This is not so different from what a human player does.
>>
>> (I am basing myself on the original AlphaGo paper, and assuming that
>> nothing fundamental changed in this incarnation)
>>
>>> That does not qualify as intelligence. For me, the appropriate name is
>>> intuition.
>>
>>
>> You are a bit on the side of Chomsky on this -- something that you
>> might not exactly like :)
>> In any case, I can see value in yours and Chomsky's position. Neural
>> networks and statistical learning in general are great, but we should
>> not lose sight of understanding intelligence. However, I would not be
>> surprised if a given mind cannot fully understand the mechanisms
>> underlying itself. Maybe there's a threshold of complexity that must
>> be somewhat below the complexity of the mind itself.
>
>
> The machine can bet correctly on its syntactical, mechanical level, and
> reason correctly with respect to that bet, made in practice with respect to
> some bet on some universal environment. That amkes transhumanism consistent.

Ok.

I suspect that transhumaning is our only hope of surviving our own
creations in the future. On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter.
Perhaps we are too attached to being homo sapiens. Nothing ever stays
the same. If the future belongs to Jupiter-brain entities, I guess
they are people too...

It is interesting how we are worried about the existence of homo
sapiens in the far future, but we are not bothered by the fact that
they did not exist in the distant past. I find this reminiscent of
fear of "not-existing" after death, but no problem with not having
existed before birth. I think you will agree that it comes from a
misunderstanding of reality.

> But no machine can name or circumscribe its own semantic, that is what
> incompleteness is about.
> Any semantic requires some act of faith on the par of the machine (probably
> in large part instinctive for the animals).

Agreed, I did not forget about Gödel :)

I love the challenge of reverse-engineering how our brain works. There
is some learning algorithm that it runs that we haven't cracked. There
are some clues:

Artificial neural networks use activation and inhibition (equivalent
to glutamate and GABA), but what about the other neurotransmitters?
For example dopamine, which appears to be strongly related to the
reward system -- and thus learning. In our current artificial models,
learning (mainly backpropagation) are still mostly "top-down". They
are something we impose on the network, as opposed to something that
emerges from local network behaviors.

Further, while glutamate and GABA appear to be mostly topological --
they propagate in cascades of neural activation across the network --
dopamine and others seem to work by diffusion. So the topology of the
brain networks is not the only thing that matters, it's spacial layout
also does. This is another layer of complexity. Let's not even get
into gene expression.

Can we figure out how to design such a powerful learning algorithm? It
has been tried for so long with no success. Current AI-hype comes from
enormous computing power and big datasets. There is nothing new about
AlphaGo. Can this wave be ridden all the way to human-level
intelligence (or competence :) or is there something fundamental we
are still missing? I bet on the latter. But then, could it be that the
reason this algo has not be found yet is that its intrinsic complexity
is beyond the grasp human intelligence itself? If you agree with this
idea, do you feel it is related to the Gödelian limit?

>
>>
>> On the other hand: historically, what you call "intuition" has been
>> the hard part...
>
>
> Yes, it is the soul, the knower, the feeler, the "hard" part of the
> mind-body problem, fogetting that the "matter" is as much hard.
>
> But the canonical theology, when understanding that incompletenees make

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-22 Thread David Nyman

On 22 October 2017 at 15:31, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 22 Oct 2017, at 09:16, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about
> artificial intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network application-
> can not answer the question why you did that move?.
>
> If  they could answer, the answer would be ever the same: " I don´t know,
> I moved this because if found some patterns that are very close to this new
> one, so I did this move that produced a win at the end within those
> patterns".
>
> That does not qualify as intelligence. For me, the appropriate name is
> intuition.
>
>
> Perhaps. Usually intuition points on the informal insight, and
> intuitionist logic was about informal reasoning starting from the
> distinguishability basic insight (notably the distinguishability of 1 and
> its successors).
> That leads to constructive logics, or controllable machines where a proof
> of (p v q) always provides a proof of p, or a proof of q, where in
> classical logic we allow a proof of (p v q) by showing that (p v q) leads
> to an absurdity (without showing us if p, or q is the one true).
>
> Yet,  I think I see what you mean: it is more like associative learning,
> deep, with many layers, but still only associative. That guy would not be
> immune to the propaganda of the type "gateway drug", and I agree with you,
> that might make him not quite intelligent, locally speaking.
>
> The least to do is a circular net, perhaps with many layers. A brain is
> either a couple of universal machine in front of each other, in that
> circular relation,
>

Could you say a bit more about this? For example, does this relate to the
G/G* split?


> or a couple of brains in front of each others, always in that circular
> relation.
>

Same question.

David


> I would say. Babbage already knew that the beast can eat its own tail. Of
> course, such a thing is not controllable and the intelligent machines will
> do strike to have the right to choose its users.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> 2017-10-21 3:46 GMT+02:00 John Clark :
>
>> Google reports in the current issue of the journal Nature that it has a
>> new greatly improved Go program called  "AlphaGo Zero" that is now the most
>> powerful GO program in the world. And the program isn't good because
>> of brute force, it needs to make less than one tenth as many calculations
>> as the previous best GO program "AlphaGo" that defeated the world's top
>> human GO player in 2015  4 games out of 5; and yet AlphaGo Zero just
>> defeated AlphaGo in a 100 game tournament 100 games to zero.
>>
>> Even more interesting is how AlphaGo Zero got so smart. The older
>> program AlphaGo had to start by analyzing hundreds of thousands of
>> championship level games made by human players, but AlphaGo Zero started
>> with nothing but the simple rules of GO and instructions to learn to get
>> better. At first the program was terrible but day by day it got better and
>> after 40 days of thinking about the problem became the best at it in the
>> world. But of course after 40 days of constant self modification no human
>> being can say how  AlphaGo Zero works.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature24270.html
>>
>> It seems to me the next logical step would be to switch the program's
>> interest from getting better at the game of GO to improving computer code,
>> including its own. I wonder where that could lead.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-22 Thread Brent Meeker

An interesting point.  But then the question is which is it better to 
have good intuition or good intelligence.  Intelligence as 
self-consciousness in a typical alpha-beta game program would give 
explanations like "I projected all possible moves ahead for six steps 
and evaluated the positions according weighting algorithm Xyz and this 
move was the mini-max best."  Is that really any better than the neural 
net?  It seems that the function of self-consciousness must be a kind of 
learning, and in this cases social learning in which the person who has 
done well is asked to teach others how to do well.  If we were talking 
about AI robots then perhaps the robot who had done well could simply 
copy over its intuition network about the subject.  Humans can't do 
that, but as social animals they evolved to cooperate using language.  
So they also teach and learn using language.  This means the even when 
their learning is intuitive (as in most sports) they create stories 
about how to perform well by trying to introspectively describe what 
they do intuitively.


Brent

On 10/22/2017 12:16 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about 
artificial intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network 
application- can not answer the question why you did that move?.


If  they could answer, the answer would be ever the same: " I don´t 
know, I moved this because if found some patterns that are very close 
to this new one, so I did this move that produced a win at the end 
within those patterns".


That does not qualify as intelligence. For me, the appropriate name 
is  intuition.


2017-10-21 3:46 GMT+02:00 John Clark >:


Google reports in the current issue of the journal Nature that it
has a new greatly improved Go program called  "AlphaGo Zero" that
is now the most powerful GO program in the world. And the program
isn't good because of brute force, it needs to make less than one
tenth as many calculations as the previous best GO program
"AlphaGo" that defeated the world's top human GO player in 2015  4
games out of 5; and yet AlphaGo Zero just defeated AlphaGo in a
100 game tournament 100 games to zero.

Even more interesting is how AlphaGo Zero got so smart. The older
program AlphaGo had to start by analyzing hundreds of thousands of
championship level games made by human players, but AlphaGo Zero
started with nothing but the simple rules of GO and instructions
to learn to get better. At first the program was terrible but day
by day it got better and after 40 days of thinking about the
problem became the best at it in the world. But of course after 40
days of constant self modification no human being can say how
 AlphaGo Zero works.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature24270.html


It seems to me the next logical step would be to switch the
program's interest from getting better at the game of GO to
improving computer code, including its own. I wonder where that
could lead.

 John K Clark
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.




--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-22 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
wrote:

> 
> Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about
> artificial intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network application-
> can not answer the question why you did that move?. If  they could answer,
> the answer would be ever the same: " I don´t know, I moved this because if
> found some patterns that are very close to this new one, so I did this move
> that produced a win at the end within those patterns". That does not
> qualify as intelligence. For me, the appropriate name is  intuition.
>

People were always asking Einstein where he got his brilliant ideas but he
could never answer their question, if he could then we'd all be as creative
as Einstein was. All he could say was that after thinking about a problem
for a long time an idea popped into my head that turned out to solve it. So
was Einstein not intelligent? 


John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 22 Oct 2017, at 09:16, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about  
artificial intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network  
application- can not answer the question why you did that move?.


If  they could answer, the answer would be ever the same: " I don´t  
know, I moved this because if found some patterns that are very  
close to this new one, so I did this move that produced a win at the  
end within those patterns".


That does not qualify as intelligence. For me, the appropriate name  
is  intuition.


Perhaps. Usually intuition points on the informal insight, and  
intuitionist logic was about informal reasoning starting from the  
distinguishability basic insight (notably the distinguishability of 1  
and its successors).
That leads to constructive logics, or controllable machines where a  
proof of (p v q) always provides a proof of p, or a proof of q, where  
in classical logic we allow a proof of (p v q) by showing that (p v q)  
leads to an absurdity (without showing us if p, or q is the one true).


Yet,  I think I see what you mean: it is more like associative  
learning, deep, with many layers, but still only associative. That guy  
would not be immune to the propaganda of the type "gateway drug", and  
I agree with you, that might make him not quite intelligent, locally  
speaking.


The least to do is a circular net, perhaps with many layers. A brain  
is either a couple of universal machine in front of each other, in  
that circular relation, or a couple of brains in front of each others,  
always in that circular relation. I would say. Babbage already knew  
that the beast can eat its own tail. Of course, such a thing is not  
controllable and the intelligent machines will do strike to have the  
right to choose its users.


Bruno





2017-10-21 3:46 GMT+02:00 John Clark :
Google reports in the current issue of the journal Nature that it  
has a new greatly improved Go program called  "AlphaGo Zero" that is  
now the most powerful GO program in the world. And the program isn't  
good because of brute force, it needs to make less than one tenth as  
many calculations as the previous best GO program "AlphaGo" that  
defeated the world's top human GO player in 2015  4 games out of 5;  
and yet AlphaGo Zero just defeated AlphaGo in a 100 game tournament  
100 games to zero.


Even more interesting is how AlphaGo Zero got so smart. The older  
program AlphaGo had to start by analyzing hundreds of thousands of  
championship level games made by human players, but AlphaGo Zero  
started with nothing but the simple rules of GO and instructions to  
learn to get better. At first the program was terrible but day by  
day it got better and after 40 days of thinking about the problem  
became the best at it in the world. But of course after 40 days of  
constant self modification no human being can say how  AlphaGo Zero  
works.


https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature24270.html

It seems to me the next logical step would be to switch the  
program's interest from getting better at the game of GO to  
improving computer code, including its own. I wonder where that  
could lead.


 John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 21 Oct 2017, at 15:58, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Brent Meeker  
 wrote:


> The problem is that, like most real problems, improving  
computer code has no simple one-dimensional measure of "better".  Go  
games are won or lost.


A computer program that does the same thing as another but is  
smaller and executes faster is objectively better; and although  
there is no guarantee small fast programs usually have fewer bugs  
than large slow programs, and the bugs they do have are easier to  
find and fix.






Very little one then. We cannot algorithmically bound the complexity  
of debugging. In learning theory, accepting errors and change of minds  
leads to non computable amount of enlargement of classes of  
recognizable phenomena. We say that a number/machine m recognize i  
relatively to u if phi_m output i or j eventually when presented with  
an initial segment of phi_i.


And if you complain that speed size and robustness are 3 dimensions  
not one then try making the most money. That's the great thing about  
the Free Market, one dimension rules them all. 



If only the free market existed. But it has disappeared since the  
prohibition law. Hemp has been made illegal to transform decaying  
living matter into gold, with a big price though.


Bruno





 John K Clark







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-22 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hola Alberto,

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
> Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about artificial
> intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network application- can not
> answer the question why you did that move?.
>
> If  they could answer, the answer would be ever the same: " I don´t know, I
> moved this because if found some patterns that are very close to this new
> one, so I did this move that produced a win at the end within those
> patterns".

The neural network is used to prune the minimax search tree. AlphaGo
can tell you exactly what it hopes to achieve with a given move. What
it cannot tell you precisely is why it decided that a certain branch
of the tree could be ignored.

Under your terminology, one could say that the minimax search tree is
the intelligence part, while the neural network plays the role of
intuition. This is not so different from what a human player does.

(I am basing myself on the original AlphaGo paper, and assuming that
nothing fundamental changed in this incarnation)

> That does not qualify as intelligence. For me, the appropriate name is
> intuition.

You are a bit on the side of Chomsky on this -- something that you
might not exactly like :)
In any case, I can see value in yours and Chomsky's position. Neural
networks and statistical learning in general are great, but we should
not lose sight of understanding intelligence. However, I would not be
surprised if a given mind cannot fully understand the mechanisms
underlying itself. Maybe there's a threshold of complexity that must
be somewhat below the complexity of the mind itself.

On the other hand: historically, what you call "intuition" has been
the hard part...

Telmo.

> 2017-10-21 3:46 GMT+02:00 John Clark :
>>
>> Google reports in the current issue of the journal Nature that it has a
>> new greatly improved Go program called  "AlphaGo Zero" that is now the most
>> powerful GO program in the world. And the program isn't good because of
>> brute force, it needs to make less than one tenth as many calculations as
>> the previous best GO program "AlphaGo" that defeated the world's top human
>> GO player in 2015  4 games out of 5; and yet AlphaGo Zero just defeated
>> AlphaGo in a 100 game tournament 100 games to zero.
>>
>> Even more interesting is how AlphaGo Zero got so smart. The older program
>> AlphaGo had to start by analyzing hundreds of thousands of championship
>> level games made by human players, but AlphaGo Zero started with nothing but
>> the simple rules of GO and instructions to learn to get better. At first the
>> program was terrible but day by day it got better and after 40 days of
>> thinking about the problem became the best at it in the world. But of course
>> after 40 days of constant self modification no human being can say how
>> AlphaGo Zero works.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature24270.html
>>
>> It seems to me the next logical step would be to switch the program's
>> interest from getting better at the game of GO to improving computer code,
>> including its own. I wonder where that could lead.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-22 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about artificial
intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network application- can not
answer the question why you did that move?.

If  they could answer, the answer would be ever the same: " I don´t know, I
moved this because if found some patterns that are very close to this new
one, so I did this move that produced a win at the end within those
patterns".

That does not qualify as intelligence. For me, the appropriate name is
intuition.

2017-10-21 3:46 GMT+02:00 John Clark :

> Google reports in the current issue of the journal Nature that it has a
> new greatly improved Go program called  "AlphaGo Zero" that is now the most
> powerful GO program in the world. And the program isn't good because
> of brute force, it needs to make less than one tenth as many calculations
> as the previous best GO program "AlphaGo" that defeated the world's top
> human GO player in 2015  4 games out of 5; and yet AlphaGo Zero just
> defeated AlphaGo in a 100 game tournament 100 games to zero.
>
> Even more interesting is how AlphaGo Zero got so smart. The older program
> AlphaGo had to start by analyzing hundreds of thousands of championship
> level games made by human players, but AlphaGo Zero started with nothing
> but the simple rules of GO and instructions to learn to get better. At
> first the program was terrible but day by day it got better and after 40
> days of thinking about the problem became the best at it in the world. But
> of course after 40 days of constant self modification no human being can
> say how  AlphaGo Zero works.
>
> https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature24270.html
>
> It seems to me the next logical step would be to switch the program's
> interest from getting better at the game of GO to improving computer code,
> including its own. I wonder where that could lead.
>
>  John K Clark
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-21 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 09:58:20AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The problem is that, like most real problems, improving computer code has
> > no simple one-dimensional measure of "better".  Go games are won or lost.
> >
> 
> A computer program that does the same thing as another but is smaller and
> executes faster is objectively better
> ; and although there is no guarantee small fast programs usually have
> fewer bugs than large slow programs, and the bugs they do have are easier
> to find and fix.
> 
> And if you complain that speed size and robustness are 3 dimensions not one
> then try making the most money. That's the great thing about the Free
> Market, one dimension rules them all. 
> 

And in any case, there is such a thing as multiobjective optimisation,
by using the so-called Pareto frontal method.

I agree with John, that machine learning could be used to optimise
attributes such as performance, code quality (which is related to
size), a process known in the industry as refactoring, but in order to
do that one also needs formal verification techniques that proves that
the resultant code satisfies the original design requirements. Not
much existing code is written in such a way to make that possible.

That suggests another possible use for AI - take an existing code, and
get it to write unit tests that improves code coverage (stopping when 100%
coverage is reached). However, you cannot remove a human completely
from the loop, as when I do this process manually, bugs are found and
removed, which is one of a number of positive side-effects of this
procedure.

The trouble is there is still a gap between 100% code coverage, and
correctly implementing the requirements...

-- 

Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-21 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


Well, the news this week had a dimension all its own, with IBM's simulation of 
a 56 qubit processor that beats what Google currently has at 49 qubits, and 
would run at 1 billion times faster than the schematic simulation itself does. 
For me, I am not totally craving an intelligent Guy in a Box, which was what AI 
was all about, but rather, a machine that scans all science papers and by ultra 
fast combination and sorting, whips up new inventions and medicines, all on its 
own. 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 21, 2017 9:58 am
Subject: Re: An AI program that teaches itself



On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:




  

> 
The problem is that, like most real problems, improving computercode has no 
simple one-dimensional measure of "better".  Go gamesare won or lost.




A computer program that does the same thing as another but is smaller and 
executes faster is objectively better
; and although there is no guarantee small fast programs usually have fewer 
bugs than large slow programs, and the bugs they do have are easier to find and 
fix. 




And if you complain that speed size and robustness are 3 dimensions not one 
then try making the most money. That's the great thing about the Free Market, 
one dimension rules them all. 






 John K Clark









 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-21 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> 
> The problem is that, like most real problems, improving computer code has
> no simple one-dimensional measure of "better".  Go games are won or lost.
>

A computer program that does the same thing as another but is smaller and
executes faster is objectively better
; and although there is no guarantee small fast programs usually have
fewer bugs than large slow programs, and the bugs they do have are easier
to find and fix.

And if you complain that speed size and robustness are 3 dimensions not one
then try making the most money. That's the great thing about the Free
Market, one dimension rules them all. 

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

2017-10-20 Thread Brent Meeker

The problem is that, like most real problems, improving computer code 
has no simple one-dimensional measure of "better".  Go games are won or 
lost.


Brent

On 10/20/2017 6:46 PM, John Clark wrote:
Google reports in the current issue of the journal Nature that it has 
a new greatly improved Go program called  "AlphaGo Zero" that is now 
the most powerful GO program in the world. And the program isn't good 
because of brute force, it needs to make less than one tenth as many 
calculations as the previous best GO program "AlphaGo" that defeated 
the world's top human GO player in 2015  4 games out of 5; and yet 
AlphaGo Zero just defeated AlphaGo in a 100 game tournament 100 games 
to zero.


Even more interesting is how AlphaGo Zero got so smart. The older 
program AlphaGo had to start by analyzing hundreds of thousands of 
championship level games made by human players, but AlphaGo Zero 
started with nothing but the simple rules of GO and instructions to 
learn to get better. At first the program was terrible but day by day 
it got better and after 40 days of thinking about the problem 
became the best at it in the world. But of course after 40 days of 
constant self modification no human being can say how  AlphaGo Zero 
works.


https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature24270.html 



It seems to me the next logical step would be to switch the program's 
interest from getting better at the game of GO to improving computer 
code, including its own. I wonder where that could lead.


 John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

51 matches

Mail list logo