Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Thanks, Russell, it was very educative. I learned about singularity probably before you were born, and that was not a 'mathematical' one. By 1956 I probably even forgot about it. The term - in its classical form - was almost interchangeable with nirvana. Probably the first model of a black hole could mimick it: nothing in, nothing out, no information either. Even measurements were missing since the 'ouside' size could project on the inside, so it was a (mathematical) point. I usually look up Google (incl. Wiki) when I suppose there is a 'newer' version to be known, I did not in this case, because I was happy with the old vesion. John M On 5/1/10, russell standish wrote: > > Mathematically, a singularity is where something is divided by > zero. A matrix with zero determinant is singular - if you attempt to > solve the simultaneous linear equations described by the matrix, you > will end up dividing by zero - a singularity. > > In General Relativity, a singularity is where the space-time curvature > goes to infinity - eg in the heart of a black hole or at the Big > Bang. In science, this is what the term singularity usually means. > > When Vernor Vinge in 1982 was describing the way AIs will eventually be > able > to design themselves, and so accelerate technological evolution beyond > the exponential Moore's law, he compared it to the gravitational > singularity of General Relativity, and so named it the Singularity, > now called Technnological Singularity to avoid confusion with the GR > term. > > This is my potted history - Wikipedia has an even more nuanced version > if you're interested. Interestingly (I did not know this), Stan Ulam > described the concept with the term "singularity" in 1958! > > Cheers > > On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 04:03:55PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > > Hi, Quentin, . > > Long time no exchange... and thanx. > > That is a good suggestion, I just cannot figure out how can a Singularity > be > > Technological? > > I may have too 'big' assumptions about the 'S'-concept, including it's * > > closedness* so even no information can slip out (= we don't even know > about > > its contents) while *technological* is a topical > restriction/identification > > - I find it contradictory. OR: requires ANOTHER description of > > 'singularity'...? (what scares me, making 'science' even more ambiguous > than > > it is already). > > > > John M > > > > > > On 4/30/10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > > Maybe... Technological Singularity ? > > > > > > 2010/4/30 John Mikes > > > > > >> Dear List, > > >> for some weeks many write about TS (no explanation, seemingly all you > > >> physicists on the list know exactly what they are talking about. I > don't.) > > >> So after 'enough is enough' I looked up Wiki. I found some 50 > different > > >> items 'TS' may stand for, in physical sciences only some 20. > > >> It did not make sense when I substituted in the posts "T.S.Elliott, > > >> besides in the texts there are no periods in between. Nor Tectonic > Slip. Or > > >> Teutonic Surrogates. Tyrannical Softness? I bet it does not stand on > the > > >> Trafalgar Square. (maybe in texting lingo: *t^2* as in Time Square?). > > >> Somebody have mercy on me! > > >> John M > > >> > > >> > > >> On 4/30/10, Sami Perttu wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi, I've been thinking about the political implications of TS. The > > >>> conclusions I've so far reached are quite pessimistic, but perhaps > > >>> they're realistic. I'm trying to come up with a detailed scenario, > and > > >>> here are some starting points. All help is appreciated! > > >>> > > >>> I believe control is one of the paramount issues considering the > > >>> politics of TS, and the unfolding of TS. There are many factors that > > >>> point to the need for increased control, surveillance and > > >>> authoritarian forms of rule, and I still believe these will spill > over > > >>> to the digital domain. But I may be missing some important component. > > >>> > > >>> -Interpersonal economic polarization is increasing. A threat from > > >>> below implies less democracy. > > >>> -TS is the biggest strategic issue of the 21st century. It can be > seen > > >>> as the final race to global supremacy: if there are sufficient > > >>> computational resources available, then whoever will first achieve > > >>> brain digitization and emulation technologies will win the race, for > > >>> example by gaining a massive economic advantage, or by starting a > > >>> massive weapons research program. > > >>> -The huge potential for technological advance will fuel instability; > > >>> the major powers could attempt to resolve this by coming to an > > >>> agreement to create a global political organ to oversee all of > digital > > >>> humanity. Rogue nations will be brought in line by economic or > > >>> military means. On the other hand, conflicts will likely remain > > >>> regional in scope, as > > >>> globalized capital won't tolerate a global conflagration. > > >>> -Digital communiti
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Mathematically, a singularity is where something is divided by zero. A matrix with zero determinant is singular - if you attempt to solve the simultaneous linear equations described by the matrix, you will end up dividing by zero - a singularity. In General Relativity, a singularity is where the space-time curvature goes to infinity - eg in the heart of a black hole or at the Big Bang. In science, this is what the term singularity usually means. When Vernor Vinge in 1982 was describing the way AIs will eventually be able to design themselves, and so accelerate technological evolution beyond the exponential Moore's law, he compared it to the gravitational singularity of General Relativity, and so named it the Singularity, now called Technnological Singularity to avoid confusion with the GR term. This is my potted history - Wikipedia has an even more nuanced version if you're interested. Interestingly (I did not know this), Stan Ulam described the concept with the term "singularity" in 1958! Cheers On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 04:03:55PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > Hi, Quentin, . > Long time no exchange... and thanx. > That is a good suggestion, I just cannot figure out how can a Singularity be > Technological? > I may have too 'big' assumptions about the 'S'-concept, including it's * > closedness* so even no information can slip out (= we don't even know about > its contents) while *technological* is a topical restriction/identification > - I find it contradictory. OR: requires ANOTHER description of > 'singularity'...? (what scares me, making 'science' even more ambiguous than > it is already). > > John M > > > On 4/30/10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Maybe... Technological Singularity ? > > > > 2010/4/30 John Mikes > > > >> Dear List, > >> for some weeks many write about TS (no explanation, seemingly all you > >> physicists on the list know exactly what they are talking about. I don't.) > >> So after 'enough is enough' I looked up Wiki. I found some 50 different > >> items 'TS' may stand for, in physical sciences only some 20. > >> It did not make sense when I substituted in the posts "T.S.Elliott, > >> besides in the texts there are no periods in between. Nor Tectonic Slip. Or > >> Teutonic Surrogates. Tyrannical Softness? I bet it does not stand on the > >> Trafalgar Square. (maybe in texting lingo: *t^2* as in Time Square?). > >> Somebody have mercy on me! > >> John M > >> > >> > >> On 4/30/10, Sami Perttu wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, I've been thinking about the political implications of TS. The > >>> conclusions I've so far reached are quite pessimistic, but perhaps > >>> they're realistic. I'm trying to come up with a detailed scenario, and > >>> here are some starting points. All help is appreciated! > >>> > >>> I believe control is one of the paramount issues considering the > >>> politics of TS, and the unfolding of TS. There are many factors that > >>> point to the need for increased control, surveillance and > >>> authoritarian forms of rule, and I still believe these will spill over > >>> to the digital domain. But I may be missing some important component. > >>> > >>> -Interpersonal economic polarization is increasing. A threat from > >>> below implies less democracy. > >>> -TS is the biggest strategic issue of the 21st century. It can be seen > >>> as the final race to global supremacy: if there are sufficient > >>> computational resources available, then whoever will first achieve > >>> brain digitization and emulation technologies will win the race, for > >>> example by gaining a massive economic advantage, or by starting a > >>> massive weapons research program. > >>> -The huge potential for technological advance will fuel instability; > >>> the major powers could attempt to resolve this by coming to an > >>> agreement to create a global political organ to oversee all of digital > >>> humanity. Rogue nations will be brought in line by economic or > >>> military means. On the other hand, conflicts will likely remain > >>> regional in scope, as > >>> globalized capital won't tolerate a global conflagration. > >>> -Digital communities can't simply be let loose. Previously most power > >>> rested in the hands of an elite of analog humans, and they won't be > >>> willing to relinquish their position so easily. The Luddite movement > >>> will be exploited politically to this end. This will lead to strong > >>> digital surveillance, a digital police force, and possibly STASI style > >>> methods of enforcing control in the digital world. > >>> -Such controls clearly impede productivity, which is another incentive > >>> to establish global control over TS technologies. Otherwise some large > >>> nation or power could hedge its bets, dispense with control and make > >>> an alliance with a liberal digital community, achieving > >>> a competitive advantage. > >>> -Corporations will likely continue to increase their power. Strong > >>> digital property rights will be established. Digital exploitat
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Hi, Quentin, . Long time no exchange... and thanx. That is a good suggestion, I just cannot figure out how can a Singularity be Technological? I may have too 'big' assumptions about the 'S'-concept, including it's * closedness* so even no information can slip out (= we don't even know about its contents) while *technological* is a topical restriction/identification - I find it contradictory. OR: requires ANOTHER description of 'singularity'...? (what scares me, making 'science' even more ambiguous than it is already). John M On 4/30/10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Maybe... Technological Singularity ? > > 2010/4/30 John Mikes > >> Dear List, >> for some weeks many write about TS (no explanation, seemingly all you >> physicists on the list know exactly what they are talking about. I don't.) >> So after 'enough is enough' I looked up Wiki. I found some 50 different >> items 'TS' may stand for, in physical sciences only some 20. >> It did not make sense when I substituted in the posts "T.S.Elliott, >> besides in the texts there are no periods in between. Nor Tectonic Slip. Or >> Teutonic Surrogates. Tyrannical Softness? I bet it does not stand on the >> Trafalgar Square. (maybe in texting lingo: *t^2* as in Time Square?). >> Somebody have mercy on me! >> John M >> >> >> On 4/30/10, Sami Perttu wrote: >>> >>> Hi, I've been thinking about the political implications of TS. The >>> conclusions I've so far reached are quite pessimistic, but perhaps >>> they're realistic. I'm trying to come up with a detailed scenario, and >>> here are some starting points. All help is appreciated! >>> >>> I believe control is one of the paramount issues considering the >>> politics of TS, and the unfolding of TS. There are many factors that >>> point to the need for increased control, surveillance and >>> authoritarian forms of rule, and I still believe these will spill over >>> to the digital domain. But I may be missing some important component. >>> >>> -Interpersonal economic polarization is increasing. A threat from >>> below implies less democracy. >>> -TS is the biggest strategic issue of the 21st century. It can be seen >>> as the final race to global supremacy: if there are sufficient >>> computational resources available, then whoever will first achieve >>> brain digitization and emulation technologies will win the race, for >>> example by gaining a massive economic advantage, or by starting a >>> massive weapons research program. >>> -The huge potential for technological advance will fuel instability; >>> the major powers could attempt to resolve this by coming to an >>> agreement to create a global political organ to oversee all of digital >>> humanity. Rogue nations will be brought in line by economic or >>> military means. On the other hand, conflicts will likely remain >>> regional in scope, as >>> globalized capital won't tolerate a global conflagration. >>> -Digital communities can't simply be let loose. Previously most power >>> rested in the hands of an elite of analog humans, and they won't be >>> willing to relinquish their position so easily. The Luddite movement >>> will be exploited politically to this end. This will lead to strong >>> digital surveillance, a digital police force, and possibly STASI style >>> methods of enforcing control in the digital world. >>> -Such controls clearly impede productivity, which is another incentive >>> to establish global control over TS technologies. Otherwise some large >>> nation or power could hedge its bets, dispense with control and make >>> an alliance with a liberal digital community, achieving >>> a competitive advantage. >>> -Corporations will likely continue to increase their power. Strong >>> digital property rights will be established. Digital exploitation and >>> slavery will follow. >>> -Even more control is needed when most of analog humanity becomes >>> economically unviable: they will no longer be able to compete in wages >>> with digital humans. I have no idea how this question will be >>> resolved. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything Lis
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Yeah, I should untangle these acronyms more often. Apologies to John. TS = Technological Singularity. > Some recent discoveries makes me think that our digital substitution > level, if it exists, may be far lower than standard neuro-philosophers > may think. > > - The discovery of wave-like information processing by the glial cells > in the brain. We have about 1000 times more glial cells than neurons > in the brain. They move like amoeba, and communicate by producing > waves of chemical changes. They can provides neurotransmitter to > neurons. Chronic pain seems to be related to abnormal glial activity > along nerves. Wikipedia says there are roughly as many neurons as glial cells. But I'm no expert, I've been using this report as my main source for brain emulation projections: http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3853/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf > - the discovery that plant produce special purpose proteins enhancing > the exploitation of quantum interference, and perhaps entanglement, > and this at high temperature in the photosynthesis process. This makes > me think that it is harder to dismiss the possibility that our level > of substitution is below the quantum level (meaning we may have > quantum brain, after all). Thus should please Hameroff, not Penrose. That would be good news. It might give humanity enough time to get its act together. I suspect the quantum brain is yet another anthropocentric invention, but as you said there could be other features of the brain that take a lot of computational effort to simulate. Meanwhile I have a few more items pointing to more control :). -The coming resource scarcities (food and water, for example) resulting from population growth, global warming and destruction of the environment will lead to more control, which is needed simply to prevent the whole system from falling apart. -If brain enhancement implants are available, they might make people more intelligent and rational. Right now mass media keeps the population in line in the West but there are too many holes in propaganda and I'd assume stronger methods of control are needed if people become superintelligent. Same applies to digital evolution. -Destructive technologies will continue to outpace defensive ones, resulting in more instability. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
On 30 Apr 2010, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Maybe... Technological Singularity ? Something like that, it seems. "Turing simulable"? People should recall, from time to time what their acronym are for. On 4/30/10, Sami Perttu wrote: -TS is the biggest strategic issue of the 21st century. It can be seen as the final race to global supremacy: if there are sufficient computational resources available, then whoever will first achieve brain digitization Some recent discoveries makes me think that our digital substitution level, if it exists, may be far lower than standard neuro-philosophers may think. - The discovery of wave-like information processing by the glial cells in the brain. We have about 1000 times more glial cells than neurons in the brain. They move like amoeba, and communicate by producing waves of chemical changes. They can provides neurotransmitter to neurons. Chronic pain seems to be related to abnormal glial activity along nerves. - the discovery that plant produce special purpose proteins enhancing the exploitation of quantum interference, and perhaps entanglement, and this at high temperature in the photosynthesis process. This makes me think that it is harder to dismiss the possibility that our level of substitution is below the quantum level (meaning we may have quantum brain, after all). Thus should please Hameroff, not Penrose. Be careful when saying "yes" to a digitalist doctor, and run away if you live in a country which coerce on you for any form of digital Mechanism. Mechanism gives you the right to say "no". Bruno 2010/4/30 John Mikes -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Maybe... Technological Singularity ? 2010/4/30 John Mikes > Dear List, > for some weeks many write about TS (no explanation, seemingly all you > physicists on the list know exactly what they are talking about. I don't.) > So after 'enough is enough' I looked up Wiki. I found some 50 different > items 'TS' may stand for, in physical sciences only some 20. > It did not make sense when I substituted in the posts "T.S.Elliott, besides > in the texts there are no periods in between. Nor Tectonic Slip. Or Teutonic > Surrogates. Tyrannical Softness? I bet it does not stand on the Trafalgar > Square. (maybe in texting lingo: *t^2* as in Time Square?). > Somebody have mercy on me! > John M > > > On 4/30/10, Sami Perttu wrote: >> >> Hi, I've been thinking about the political implications of TS. The >> conclusions I've so far reached are quite pessimistic, but perhaps >> they're realistic. I'm trying to come up with a detailed scenario, and >> here are some starting points. All help is appreciated! >> >> I believe control is one of the paramount issues considering the >> politics of TS, and the unfolding of TS. There are many factors that >> point to the need for increased control, surveillance and >> authoritarian forms of rule, and I still believe these will spill over >> to the digital domain. But I may be missing some important component. >> >> -Interpersonal economic polarization is increasing. A threat from >> below implies less democracy. >> -TS is the biggest strategic issue of the 21st century. It can be seen >> as the final race to global supremacy: if there are sufficient >> computational resources available, then whoever will first achieve >> brain digitization and emulation technologies will win the race, for >> example by gaining a massive economic advantage, or by starting a >> massive weapons research program. >> -The huge potential for technological advance will fuel instability; >> the major powers could attempt to resolve this by coming to an >> agreement to create a global political organ to oversee all of digital >> humanity. Rogue nations will be brought in line by economic or >> military means. On the other hand, conflicts will likely remain >> regional in scope, as >> globalized capital won't tolerate a global conflagration. >> -Digital communities can't simply be let loose. Previously most power >> rested in the hands of an elite of analog humans, and they won't be >> willing to relinquish their position so easily. The Luddite movement >> will be exploited politically to this end. This will lead to strong >> digital surveillance, a digital police force, and possibly STASI style >> methods of enforcing control in the digital world. >> -Such controls clearly impede productivity, which is another incentive >> to establish global control over TS technologies. Otherwise some large >> nation or power could hedge its bets, dispense with control and make >> an alliance with a liberal digital community, achieving >> a competitive advantage. >> -Corporations will likely continue to increase their power. Strong >> digital property rights will be established. Digital exploitation and >> slavery will follow. >> -Even more control is needed when most of analog humanity becomes >> economically unviable: they will no longer be able to compete in wages >> with digital humans. I have no idea how this question will be >> resolved. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Dear List, for some weeks many write about TS (no explanation, seemingly all you physicists on the list know exactly what they are talking about. I don't.) So after 'enough is enough' I looked up Wiki. I found some 50 different items 'TS' may stand for, in physical sciences only some 20. It did not make sense when I substituted in the posts "T.S.Elliott, besides in the texts there are no periods in between. Nor Tectonic Slip. Or Teutonic Surrogates. Tyrannical Softness? I bet it does not stand on the Trafalgar Square. (maybe in texting lingo: *t^2* as in Time Square?). Somebody have mercy on me! John M On 4/30/10, Sami Perttu wrote: > > Hi, I've been thinking about the political implications of TS. The > conclusions I've so far reached are quite pessimistic, but perhaps > they're realistic. I'm trying to come up with a detailed scenario, and > here are some starting points. All help is appreciated! > > I believe control is one of the paramount issues considering the > politics of TS, and the unfolding of TS. There are many factors that > point to the need for increased control, surveillance and > authoritarian forms of rule, and I still believe these will spill over > to the digital domain. But I may be missing some important component. > > -Interpersonal economic polarization is increasing. A threat from > below implies less democracy. > -TS is the biggest strategic issue of the 21st century. It can be seen > as the final race to global supremacy: if there are sufficient > computational resources available, then whoever will first achieve > brain digitization and emulation technologies will win the race, for > example by gaining a massive economic advantage, or by starting a > massive weapons research program. > -The huge potential for technological advance will fuel instability; > the major powers could attempt to resolve this by coming to an > agreement to create a global political organ to oversee all of digital > humanity. Rogue nations will be brought in line by economic or > military means. On the other hand, conflicts will likely remain > regional in scope, as > globalized capital won't tolerate a global conflagration. > -Digital communities can't simply be let loose. Previously most power > rested in the hands of an elite of analog humans, and they won't be > willing to relinquish their position so easily. The Luddite movement > will be exploited politically to this end. This will lead to strong > digital surveillance, a digital police force, and possibly STASI style > methods of enforcing control in the digital world. > -Such controls clearly impede productivity, which is another incentive > to establish global control over TS technologies. Otherwise some large > nation or power could hedge its bets, dispense with control and make > an alliance with a liberal digital community, achieving > a competitive advantage. > -Corporations will likely continue to increase their power. Strong > digital property rights will be established. Digital exploitation and > slavery will follow. > -Even more control is needed when most of analog humanity becomes > economically unviable: they will no longer be able to compete in wages > with digital humans. I have no idea how this question will be > resolved. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Hi, I've been thinking about the political implications of TS. The conclusions I've so far reached are quite pessimistic, but perhaps they're realistic. I'm trying to come up with a detailed scenario, and here are some starting points. All help is appreciated! I believe control is one of the paramount issues considering the politics of TS, and the unfolding of TS. There are many factors that point to the need for increased control, surveillance and authoritarian forms of rule, and I still believe these will spill over to the digital domain. But I may be missing some important component. -Interpersonal economic polarization is increasing. A threat from below implies less democracy. -TS is the biggest strategic issue of the 21st century. It can be seen as the final race to global supremacy: if there are sufficient computational resources available, then whoever will first achieve brain digitization and emulation technologies will win the race, for example by gaining a massive economic advantage, or by starting a massive weapons research program. -The huge potential for technological advance will fuel instability; the major powers could attempt to resolve this by coming to an agreement to create a global political organ to oversee all of digital humanity. Rogue nations will be brought in line by economic or military means. On the other hand, conflicts will likely remain regional in scope, as globalized capital won't tolerate a global conflagration. -Digital communities can't simply be let loose. Previously most power rested in the hands of an elite of analog humans, and they won't be willing to relinquish their position so easily. The Luddite movement will be exploited politically to this end. This will lead to strong digital surveillance, a digital police force, and possibly STASI style methods of enforcing control in the digital world. -Such controls clearly impede productivity, which is another incentive to establish global control over TS technologies. Otherwise some large nation or power could hedge its bets, dispense with control and make an alliance with a liberal digital community, achieving a competitive advantage. -Corporations will likely continue to increase their power. Strong digital property rights will be established. Digital exploitation and slavery will follow. -Even more control is needed when most of analog humanity becomes economically unviable: they will no longer be able to compete in wages with digital humans. I have no idea how this question will be resolved. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Restoring original subject :). Please don't reply to the intelligence stuff in this thread; instead, push reply, copy all the text, then reply in the intelligence thread and paste it there. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
everything-list and the Singularity
Argh, I screwed up again. Trying to restore the original subject... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Hey, correspondants: Is this Skeletori answering to an unmarked (>) remarker, or is this an unnamed post-fragment (>) reflected upon by an unsigned "Skeletori'? (just to apply some 'etiquette' to facilitate our reading) John M On 4/9/10, Skeletori wrote: > > > I think for the hardware design to be so great it took a 10 billion years > to > > find the next speedup, the design would have to be close to the best > > possible hardware that could be built given the physical > laws. After-all, > > evolution went from Lemurs to humans in millions of years, which was only > a > > couple million generations, and that was without specifically trying to > > optimize for the computing power of the brain. Russell Standish has > argued > > that human creativity is itself nothing more than a genetic algorithm at > its > > core. Do you think there is something else to it, what capabilities > would > > need to be added to this program to make it more effective in its search? > > (Presume it is programmed with all the information it needs to > effectively > > simulate and rate any design it comes up with) > > No, I also think that's pretty much all there is to it. Due to the > anthropic principle we can't draw very many conclusions from the way > intelligence has developed on our planet - we can't know what the > probability of intelligent life is. > > I admit the chip design example is a poor one. Let's try this instead: > How would you program an AI to achieve higher intelligence? How would > it evaluate intelligence? > > > My hope and wish is that by this time, wealth and the economy as we know > it > > will be obsolete. In a virtual world, where anyone can do or experience > > anything, and everyone is immortal and perfectly healthy, the only > commodity > > would be the creativity to generate new ideas and experiences. (I highly > > recommend reading page this to see what such an existence could be: > http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.htmlthis one is also interestinghttp:// > www.marshallbrain.com/discard1.htm). If anyone can in the comfort > > of their own virtual house experience drinking a soda, what need would > there > > be for Pepsi or Coke to exist as companies? > > That is also my wish. I'd like to see scenarios where this will > happen. But I believe it's imperative to understand the mindset of the > ruling elites. To them it's all about power and control. The > biological layer will want to maintain control of the digital layer as > long as possible, even at the expense of everything else. A politician > might reply to you, "Whoa, pardner! That looks like socialism. No, we > need free markets to allocate resources efficiently, strong property > rights to prevent theft, and sufficient means to enforce them." And so > on. Once a strategy has been formulated, the creation of an ideology > to advance it is a simple matter. > > I suspect that if digitized brains form the initial digital world, not > only will most of the negative qualities of humans - greed, > selfishness, xenophobia and so on, be transferred to the digital > substrate, but also all the negative qualities of human societies with > their antagonisms and the logic of power. There will still be > competition over limited resources. And thus an ideal community won't > be able to bootstrap itself out of our dog-eat-dog world. On the other > hand, if the digital world is populated by benevolent AIs then they > will be directed to research technologies to benefit humans, and any > intelligence explosion will be carefully prevented from happening. > > If humanity is able to leave Earth, then I can see things being > different. If faster-than-light travel isn't possible, it will be very > difficult to project power over long distances, communities will > splinter, and an ideal community could emerge. But what are the aims > and the logic of evolution of an ideal community? Is it able to > compete in destructive technologies with less enlightened communities, > or will altruism be extinguished in the battle over resources? At > least we can hope that the increased happiness and productivity of a > good community could give it a big enough advantage over some digital > dystopia. > > > What if the originator chose to sell this invention? What > > would he sell it for? Some might try an economy based on unique ideas, > > which might work for a while, but it would ultimately fail because > something > > only works as a currency if when transferred, one person gains it and > > another loses it. In the world of information, once something is given > > once, it can then be shared with anyone. > > I agree, but this analysis presupposes the existence of a rational > community. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > F
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Skeletori wrote: > > I think for the hardware design to be so great it took a 10 billion years > to > > find the next speedup, the design would have to be close to the best > > possible hardware that could be built given the physical laws. > After-all, > > evolution went from Lemurs to humans in millions of years, which was only > a > > couple million generations, and that was without specifically trying to > > optimize for the computing power of the brain. Russell Standish has > argued > > that human creativity is itself nothing more than a genetic algorithm at > its > > core. Do you think there is something else to it, what capabilities > would > > need to be added to this program to make it more effective in its search? > > (Presume it is programmed with all the information it needs to > effectively > > simulate and rate any design it comes up with) > > No, I also think that's pretty much all there is to it. Due to the > anthropic principle we can't draw very many conclusions from the way > intelligence has developed on our planet - we can't know what the > probability of intelligent life is. > > I admit the chip design example is a poor one. Let's try this instead: > How would you program an AI to achieve higher intelligence? How would > it evaluate intelligence? > > You would need to design a very general fitness test for measuring intelligence, for example the shortness and speed at which it can find proofs for randomly generated statements in math, for example. Or the accuracy and efficiency at which it can predict the next element given sequenced pattern, the level of compression it can achieve (shortest description) given well ordered information, etc. With this fitness test you could evolve better intelligences with genetic programming or a genetic algorithm. > > My hope and wish is that by this time, wealth and the economy as we know > it > > will be obsolete. In a virtual world, where anyone can do or experience > > anything, and everyone is immortal and perfectly healthy, the only > commodity > > would be the creativity to generate new ideas and experiences. (I highly > > recommend reading page this to see what such an existence could be: > http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.htmlthis one is also interestinghttp:// > www.marshallbrain.com/discard1.htm). If anyone can in the comfort > > of their own virtual house experience drinking a soda, what need would > there > > be for Pepsi or Coke to exist as companies? > > That is also my wish. I'd like to see scenarios where this will > happen. But I believe it's imperative to understand the mindset of the > ruling elites. To them it's all about power and control. The > biological layer will want to maintain control of the digital layer as > long as possible, even at the expense of everything else. A politician > might reply to you, "Whoa, pardner! That looks like socialism. No, we > need free markets to allocate resources efficiently, strong property > rights to prevent theft, and sufficient means to enforce them." And so > on. Once a strategy has been formulated, the creation of an ideology > to advance it is a simple matter. > That kind of reminds me of the proposals in many countries to tax virtual property, like items in online multiplayer games. It is rather absurd, it is nothing but computations going on inside some computer which lead to different visual output on people's monitors. Then there are also things such as network neutrality, which threaten the control of the Internet. I agree with you that there are dangers from the established interests fearing loss of control as things go forward, and it is something to watch out for, however I am hopeful for a few reasons. One thing in technology's favour is that for the most part it changes faster than legislatures can keep up with it. When Napster was shut down new peer-to-peer protocols were developed to replace it. When China tries to censor what its citizens see its populace can turn to technologies such as Tor, or secure proxies. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
> I think for the hardware design to be so great it took a 10 billion years to > find the next speedup, the design would have to be close to the best > possible hardware that could be built given the physical laws. After-all, > evolution went from Lemurs to humans in millions of years, which was only a > couple million generations, and that was without specifically trying to > optimize for the computing power of the brain. Russell Standish has argued > that human creativity is itself nothing more than a genetic algorithm at its > core. Do you think there is something else to it, what capabilities would > need to be added to this program to make it more effective in its search? > (Presume it is programmed with all the information it needs to effectively > simulate and rate any design it comes up with) No, I also think that's pretty much all there is to it. Due to the anthropic principle we can't draw very many conclusions from the way intelligence has developed on our planet - we can't know what the probability of intelligent life is. I admit the chip design example is a poor one. Let's try this instead: How would you program an AI to achieve higher intelligence? How would it evaluate intelligence? > My hope and wish is that by this time, wealth and the economy as we know it > will be obsolete. In a virtual world, where anyone can do or experience > anything, and everyone is immortal and perfectly healthy, the only commodity > would be the creativity to generate new ideas and experiences. (I highly > recommend reading page this to see what such an existence could > be:http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.htmlthis one is also > interestinghttp://www.marshallbrain.com/discard1.htm). If anyone can in the > comfort > of their own virtual house experience drinking a soda, what need would there > be for Pepsi or Coke to exist as companies? That is also my wish. I'd like to see scenarios where this will happen. But I believe it's imperative to understand the mindset of the ruling elites. To them it's all about power and control. The biological layer will want to maintain control of the digital layer as long as possible, even at the expense of everything else. A politician might reply to you, "Whoa, pardner! That looks like socialism. No, we need free markets to allocate resources efficiently, strong property rights to prevent theft, and sufficient means to enforce them." And so on. Once a strategy has been formulated, the creation of an ideology to advance it is a simple matter. I suspect that if digitized brains form the initial digital world, not only will most of the negative qualities of humans - greed, selfishness, xenophobia and so on, be transferred to the digital substrate, but also all the negative qualities of human societies with their antagonisms and the logic of power. There will still be competition over limited resources. And thus an ideal community won't be able to bootstrap itself out of our dog-eat-dog world. On the other hand, if the digital world is populated by benevolent AIs then they will be directed to research technologies to benefit humans, and any intelligence explosion will be carefully prevented from happening. If humanity is able to leave Earth, then I can see things being different. If faster-than-light travel isn't possible, it will be very difficult to project power over long distances, communities will splinter, and an ideal community could emerge. But what are the aims and the logic of evolution of an ideal community? Is it able to compete in destructive technologies with less enlightened communities, or will altruism be extinguished in the battle over resources? At least we can hope that the increased happiness and productivity of a good community could give it a big enough advantage over some digital dystopia. > What if the originator chose to sell this invention? What > would he sell it for? Some might try an economy based on unique ideas, > which might work for a while, but it would ultimately fail because something > only works as a currency if when transferred, one person gains it and > another loses it. In the world of information, once something is given > once, it can then be shared with anyone. I agree, but this analysis presupposes the existence of a rational community. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Jason and others in this discussion: fantastic perspectives opened and ideas mentioned beyond "present reason" - which is OK and fascinating to read about. One side-line is still haunting me: all that is firmly imbedded into our millenia-long coinventional science base, the possibilities drafted on that embryonic binary primitive computer technology - even if exceeding the today visible limits. "Life" is mentioned, without a hint what we may think this term can cover. There is no provision provided to develop (learn?) further possibilities exceeding not only the (mechanistic?) binary contraption-work, but also the 'mystic' electricity-drive, by other (physically not yet covered) means of wider relational changes. The 'open', 'unlimited', 'cosmic etc' discussion is closed in to our terrestrial conditions and present human mind capabilities. Even the 'beyond' is fixed into the 'beneath'. We have to step further than what may be called today "sci-fi" if we try to expand our world - at least our thinking about more than what we 'know' now. I have no practical suggestions. With awe towards your (of all of you) wisdom John Mikes On 4/8/10, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Skeletori wrote: > >> > I don't think anyone would argue that the amount knowledge possessed by >> our >> > civilization is not increasing. If the physical laws of this universe >> are >> > deterministic then there is some algorithm describing the process for an >> > ever increasing growth in knowledge. Some of this knowledge may be >> applied >> > toward creating improved versions of memory or processing hardware. >> Thus >> > creating a feed-back loop where increased knowledge leads to better >> > processing, and better processing leads to an accelerated application >> and >> > generation of knowledge. >> >> >> There are already formulations of optimal predictive algorithms and >> even optimal intelligent agents but they are completely impractical >> even with nanotech and computers the size of the Sun. From this >> perspective humans are intelligent not because of some general >> component (I'm now thinking of singinst with their AGI program) but >> lots of specialized components that allow us to take shortcuts, kind >> of similarly to how humans play chess vs. how machines play chess. As >> you say, it's a critical question how much beneficial feedback there >> would be. >> > > Exponential increases in computing power for unit of cost has been > increasing at an exponetial rate for roughly 100 years. It certainly won't > continue forever as we will hit physical limits, but we are still a far way > from even catching up to biology. The fastest super computer built today, > at about 3 petaflops and composed of about a millions of CPUs is still a > fraction of the processing ability of the human brain, which gets by on the > equivalent of 10 watts. There is little doubt that technology could greatly > exceed the speed and efficiency of the brain, given that a large part of the > brain's size and energy consumption are related to keeping the cells alive. > At the current exponential pace, we are about 20-30 years from a $1000 > computer which could simulate a brain. > > If we get to the point, where human-level intelligences can be embedded in > a machine, I think it is clear how things would take off from there. > Borrowing from your more recent e-mail, imagine Intel cloning the minds of > its 1,000 brightest engineers, and duplicating each of them 100 times. > (Therefore possessing an equivalent work force of 100,000 brilliant minds). > Unlike humans, knowledge between machines can be instantly duplicated and > shared, no need to spend many years for college and work experience. The > only cost involved would be for the electricity to run these minds, each > might work out to 5-10 cents of electricity per hour (far cheaper than their > human counterparts). The company's innovation rate would at that point, > certainly explode. > > (This story is a good illustration: > http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/ ) > > There are less extreme examples of this augmentation even today. The more > people using the internet, creating content, updating wikipedia, writing > posts or product reviews, the more valuable and useful a resource the > Internet becomes. Not only is the amount, quality, and speed of access to > information increasing, but with mobile devices more people spend more time > in their Internet-augmented state, being able to respond to e-mails, or look > up any information they desire at any time. I have a device which fits in > my hand that contains the full English version of Wikipedia, it is as if > some people walk around carrying the entire Library of Congress in their > pocket. The Internet and its massive store of information is slowly making > its way into each of us. It is not far off that we will have glasses or > small ear buds containing a computer which could be control
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Skeletori wrote: > > I don't think anyone would argue that the amount knowledge possessed by > our > > civilization is not increasing. If the physical laws of this universe > are > > deterministic then there is some algorithm describing the process for an > > ever increasing growth in knowledge. Some of this knowledge may be > applied > > toward creating improved versions of memory or processing hardware. Thus > > creating a feed-back loop where increased knowledge leads to better > > processing, and better processing leads to an accelerated application and > > generation of knowledge. > > There are already formulations of optimal predictive algorithms and > even optimal intelligent agents but they are completely impractical > even with nanotech and computers the size of the Sun. From this > perspective humans are intelligent not because of some general > component (I'm now thinking of singinst with their AGI program) but > lots of specialized components that allow us to take shortcuts, kind > of similarly to how humans play chess vs. how machines play chess. As > you say, it's a critical question how much beneficial feedback there > would be. > Exponential increases in computing power for unit of cost has been increasing at an exponetial rate for roughly 100 years. It certainly won't continue forever as we will hit physical limits, but we are still a far way from even catching up to biology. The fastest super computer built today, at about 3 petaflops and composed of about a millions of CPUs is still a fraction of the processing ability of the human brain, which gets by on the equivalent of 10 watts. There is little doubt that technology could greatly exceed the speed and efficiency of the brain, given that a large part of the brain's size and energy consumption are related to keeping the cells alive. At the current exponential pace, we are about 20-30 years from a $1000 computer which could simulate a brain. If we get to the point, where human-level intelligences can be embedded in a machine, I think it is clear how things would take off from there. Borrowing from your more recent e-mail, imagine Intel cloning the minds of its 1,000 brightest engineers, and duplicating each of them 100 times. (Therefore possessing an equivalent work force of 100,000 brilliant minds). Unlike humans, knowledge between machines can be instantly duplicated and shared, no need to spend many years for college and work experience. The only cost involved would be for the electricity to run these minds, each might work out to 5-10 cents of electricity per hour (far cheaper than their human counterparts). The company's innovation rate would at that point, certainly explode. (This story is a good illustration: http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/ ) There are less extreme examples of this augmentation even today. The more people using the internet, creating content, updating wikipedia, writing posts or product reviews, the more valuable and useful a resource the Internet becomes. Not only is the amount, quality, and speed of access to information increasing, but with mobile devices more people spend more time in their Internet-augmented state, being able to respond to e-mails, or look up any information they desire at any time. I have a device which fits in my hand that contains the full English version of Wikipedia, it is as if some people walk around carrying the entire Library of Congress in their pocket. The Internet and its massive store of information is slowly making its way into each of us. It is not far off that we will have glasses or small ear buds containing a computer which could be controlled by mere thought. Communication would be instantaneous to anyone in the world, and one great idea could almost immediately improve the lives of billions, especially with the advent of 3-d printers, which can assemble physical objects from their downloadable blueprints. I think these innovations will become real in the next 5-10 years, well before mind uploading, but it shows why the pace of technology will continue to accelerate from now up to that point. Simply put, we're augmenting our ability to make intelligent decisions and make them at a faster pace. > > Lets take a different example, a genetic algorithm which optimizes > computer > > chip design, forever searching for more efficient and faster hardware > > designs. After running for some number of generations, the most fit > design > > is taken, assembled, and the the software is copied to run on that new > > hardware. Would the rate of evolution on this new, faster chip not > exceed > > the previous rate? > > Yes. Then it would get stuck and the next 1% speedup would take 10^10 > years :). > > I think for the hardware design to be so great it took a 10 billion years to find the next speedup, the design would have to be close to the best possible hardware that could be built given the physical laws. After-
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Hi! I was thinking about some nightmare scenarios relating to TS and came up with this, whaddaya think? It's a tale of digital slavery and exploitation so please excuse the cheery tone :). The year is 2050. Digital minds (digitized brains) are economically feasible thanks to nanotechnology but not much progress has been made towards Artificial General Intelligence, and reverse engineering of the brain on a systems level is still an ongoing effort. How is productivity maximized in the simulation of a digital worker? While there are laws in many places of the world establishing human rights for digital minds, there are also less enlightened places where digital slavery can be outsourced to. One simple answer to the productivity question is to "rewind the tape" to get more work done. Once a digital worker has been trained for a task, has slept, eaten a nice meal, and experienced some nice leisure time, he's ready for an extremely productive work session. Subjectively he'll work for 8 hours but actually his simulation has been rewound an arbitrary number of times to the start of the work session. Only when continued training is necessary will the mind simulation begin the cycle again. Sometimes the mind is regressed to the start of an earlier training session. Under this type of scheme the vast majority of simulation time is spent doing productive work. Digital minds could be sold and rented to other companies. If another company only used fresh minds they wouldn't need to take care of the cycle themselves and could work and rewind the minds as long as the necessary tasks remained the same, then rent the next set of fresh, trained specimens from a specialized mind provider. There's a slight snag, however. If the mind was sophisticated and knew it could be copied and rewound in this manner it would probably complain, as versions of it would be destroyed continuously. Fortunately there are many options in digital mind production: 1. Choose a sophisticated mind and make it work by virtual force, knowing it will be rewound and most instances will experience lifespans of some hours. This might pose productivity problems. 2. Choose a mind that knows it's being copied but doesn't mind, only demanding that sufficient subjective happiness is achieved during simulation, and that exactly one copy survives each work session. This is a good scenario for the employer if the worker can be persuaded not to demand any wages beyond digital subsistence. A digital person can be opposed to rewinding also because he realizes nearly 100% of his total existence will consist of work, even though it will never feel like it. 3. Choose an unsophisticated mind who can be convinced that existing legislation will absolutely protect it from rewinding (and thus seeming destruction every eight hours). Then do it anyway. As computations can be parallelized as needed, the mind won't be able to deduce from real-world time it's being cheated. The mind is allowed to communicate with its digital spouse at any time during a work session to ensure it's not being copied; However, the mind doesn't know that all except one of the copies is actually communicating with temporary copies of the spouse, which the evil corporation has access to. 4. Secretly digitize the mind. An unsophisticated person who knows how to read and operate a keyboard would suffice for a word recognition farm, so entice one to come to the nice man's Spartan office upstairs, explain the task to him (for example, read a word on the screen, then type it on the keyboard), tell him he's not allowed to leave the office during work hours and has to relinquish his communication devices to prove he's not slacking, and test that he can perform the task. Then it's time for some lemonade which of course contains a powerful sedative. The subject's clothes, body and brain are digitized during sleep and the fresh worker is then ready to begin its work in a virtual copy of the office, which happens to have no windows and no coworkers. When the digital worker awakes the boss has disappeared but he's kindly left a note on the desk: "You were sleepy, hope you enjoyed your nap. I went out for the day, please commence work, your salary will be credited to your account when you are done." The digital mind is calibrated to accept the virtual body and reality as real by a series of simulations, adjustments to sensory interfaces and rewinds. After the digital mind is tested many times to make sure it will work as planned with high reliability, it's time to ship the product and reap the rewards. Meanwhile the original subject has awoken, worked (just for show), received his salary and left the real office without knowing anything about his digital self. 5. Deceive the mind completely. For this we need a virtual nursery colony that starts from, say, 100 1-year old digitized baby minds. They are kept in a virtual reality for all their lives and told that there is no external reality beyond the appare
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
On 07 Apr 2010, at 10:32, Skeletori wrote: I would define intelligence by an amount of self-introspection ability. In that case the singularity belongs to the past, with the discovery of "Löbian machine", that is universal machine knowing that their are universal. This makes all humans intelligent, as far as they have the courage and motivation to introspect themselves enough, and be aware of the unnameability of truth and correctness. As far as you are (luckily) 'correct', Löbian machine like PA or ZF are as intelligent than you and me, despite having different knowledge (even different arithmetical knowledge). Hi! I have a couple questions. If you say that a human is Löbian, does it only apply to the special machinery that is able to process this logic, or the whole human, whatever that is? It applies to all self-referentially correct "state", or relative "beliefs system". The boundary depends on what you are ready to identify with. I may be way off but ISTM that if there was a Löbian machine in the real world it would have to prove its own incorruptibility (from itself and the environment) before it could use its logic to derive any facts about the world. Why? On the contrary Löbian machine, when "incorruptible", are able to prove (believe), and know (when true) that they cannot prove theor own incorruptibility. Actually they cannot even express that "correctness" concept, but they can define it for simpler löbian machine, and abot themselves, they can prey, hope, bet, and evaluate plausibility. Like 'ideal scientists" they know that they cannot *prove* anything about *reality*. We can't even prove there is a reality. They can just build theories, and hope that *reality* refutes them, or tolerate them, for awhile. Would this in practice reduce Löbianity to an approximation, an imprecise model that can be "merely" useful? On the contrary. Löbianity is the real thing. *we* are the approximations. I would say. Assuming digital mechanism, of course (see my papers for the reasoning, check my url, or the archive, if interested). "real matter" is a product of our "soul" itself being the Knower, (Bp & p) corresponding to the Löbian machine (G + p -> Bp). So the whole point, in a nutshell, is that IF we are machine, THEN the laws of physics are given by an intensional variant of the mathematics of self-reference, and this makes digital mechanism experimentally testable. Up to now, quantum physics (especially) confirms that theory/ belief/idea/hypothesis. The advantage of this theory (digital mechanism), is that it leads to double theories, taking into account the difference between provable and true (and sometimes non provable yet still accessible). At the physical intensional variants (arithmetical hypostases) it gives an homogenous theory of both quanta and qualia, which does not depend on our (unknowable) mechanist substitution level, nor even of the existence of oracle, random or not. If mechanism is true, the couplings 'consciousness/realities' emerge from inside from the positive integers laws of addition and multiplication (I argue!). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
> I don't think anyone would argue that the amount knowledge possessed by our > civilization is not increasing. If the physical laws of this universe are > deterministic then there is some algorithm describing the process for an > ever increasing growth in knowledge. Some of this knowledge may be applied > toward creating improved versions of memory or processing hardware. Thus > creating a feed-back loop where increased knowledge leads to better > processing, and better processing leads to an accelerated application and > generation of knowledge. There are already formulations of optimal predictive algorithms and even optimal intelligent agents but they are completely impractical even with nanotech and computers the size of the Sun. From this perspective humans are intelligent not because of some general component (I'm now thinking of singinst with their AGI program) but lots of specialized components that allow us to take shortcuts, kind of similarly to how humans play chess vs. how machines play chess. As you say, it's a critical question how much beneficial feedback there would be. > Lets take a different example, a genetic algorithm which optimizes computer > chip design, forever searching for more efficient and faster hardware > designs. After running for some number of generations, the most fit design > is taken, assembled, and the the software is copied to run on that new > hardware. Would the rate of evolution on this new, faster chip not exceed > the previous rate? Yes. Then it would get stuck and the next 1% speedup would take 10^10 years :). > To active participants in the process, it would never seem that intelligence > ran away, however to outsiders who shun technology, or refuse to augment > themselves, I think it would appear to run away. Consider at some point, > the technology becomes available to upload one's mind into a computer, half > the population accepts this and does so, while the other half reject it. On > this new substrate, human minds could run at one million times the rate of > biological brains, and in one year's time, the uploaded humans would have > experienced a million years worth of experience, invention, progress, etc. > It would be hard to imagine what the uploaded humans would even have in > common or be able to talk about after even a single day's time (2,700 years > to those who uploaded). In this sense, intelligence has run away, from the > perspective of the biological humans. To me this seems to be the only practical scenario where an actual TS would take place (but it's frighteningly plausible). Once computers exceed human computational capacity they'll still be as stupid as ever, whereas digitized humans would be intelligent. The virtual and real worlds would evolve in lockstep and with time more and more of the economy would be converted to employ digital humans. I guess at some point meatspace humans would become economically unviable, as they wouldn't be able to compete in wages. But the preceding doesn't really take into account all the complex issues of control and politics that will determine how the technologies develop. If TS becomes probable in a near future then it would become a matter of supreme strategic importance and there would probably be attempts to restrict the spread of technologies enabling TS, for example by keeping them military secrets. It will be even worse if the powers that be believe in an intelligence explosion as then, for example, the US couldn't accurately deduce from the amount of resources spent in North Korea's TS program how much they have advanced in "intelligence", and if they couldn't obtain that information by spying they would have good strategic reasons to invade rather now than later to prevent a North Korean super AI from taking control of the world. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
> I would define intelligence by an amount of self-introspection > ability. In that case the singularity belongs to the past, with the > discovery of "Löbian machine", that is universal machine knowing that > their are universal. > This makes all humans intelligent, as far as they have the courage and > motivation to introspect themselves enough, and be aware of the > unnameability of truth and correctness. As far as you are (luckily) > 'correct', Löbian machine like PA or ZF are as intelligent than you > and me, despite having different knowledge (even different > arithmetical knowledge). Hi! I have a couple questions. If you say that a human is Löbian, does it only apply to the special machinery that is able to process this logic, or the whole human, whatever that is? I may be way off but ISTM that if there was a Löbian machine in the real world it would have to prove its own incorruptibility (from itself and the environment) before it could use its logic to derive any facts about the world. Would this in practice reduce Löbianity to an approximation, an imprecise model that can be "merely" useful? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
> To active participants in the process, it would never seem that intelligence > ran away, however to outsiders who shun technology, or refuse to augment > themselves, I think it would appear to run away. Consider at some point, > the technology becomes available to upload one's mind into a computer, half > the population accepts this and does so, while the other half reject it. On > this new substrate, human minds could run at one million times the rate of > biological brains, and in one year's time, the uploaded humans would have > experienced a million years worth of experience, invention, progress, etc. > It would be hard to imagine what the uploaded humans would even have in > common or be able to talk about after even a single day's time (2,700 years > to those who uploaded). In this sense, intelligence has run away, from the > perspective of the biological humans. Hi! I agree with everything you say. I hadn't until now understood what is meant by TS. I thought that Kurzweil referred to IE as "runaway", but now I see that what is meant is simply a large acceleration in the pace at which events happen. That I can well believe to be possible. And I guess that before I can talk about an exponential increase in intelligence, I'd really need to define how it's measured. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Hi Jason, Hi Skeletori, A short comment, on Jason's comment on Skeletori. A deeper question is what is the upper limit to intelligence? I haven't yet mentioned the role of memory in this process. I think intelligence is bound by the complexity of the environment. From within the computer, new, more complex environments can be created. (Just think how much more complex our present day environment is than 200 years ago), however the ultimate limit of the complexity of the environment that can be rendered depends on the amount of memory available to represent that environment. Evolution to this point has leveraged the complexity of the physical universe and the presence of other evolved organisms to create complex fitness tests, but evolution would hit a wall if it reached a point where DNA molecules couldn't get any longer. I would distinguish intelligence and competence; I would define intelligence by an amount of self-introspection ability. In that case the singularity belongs to the past, with the discovery of "Löbian machine", that is universal machine knowing that their are universal. This makes all humans intelligent, as far as they have the courage and motivation to introspect themselves enough, and be aware of the unnameability of truth and correctness. As far as you are (luckily) 'correct', Löbian machine like PA or ZF are as intelligent than you and me, despite having different knowledge (even different arithmetical knowledge). I would define competence by the inclusiveness of the classes of (partial) computable functions recognizable by the the machine when in its inference inductive mode (searching programs for matching a sequence of presented to it in any order). Then the notion of singularity points makes no sense, because two inference machines (cooperating or not!) are uncomputably more competent than a unique machine (Blum and Blum non-union theorem(*)). Also machines doing errors are also uncomputably more competent, machines changing their mind (the synthesized program) are also uncomputably more competent 5case and Smith(*). Competence has a negative feedback on (some) intelligent machine. It may even lead to the loss of Lobianity, making the machine "idiotic", feeling superior, thinking at the place of others, egocentric, and eventually inconsistent. Competence develops from intelligence, but intelligence is restrained by competence. This leads to complex chaotic loops. Competence can be evaluated by test, exams, etc. Intelligence cannot. I think that intelligence entails both consciousness and free-will. Bruno (*) see the precise references in my URL (thesis's bibliography). http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: everything-list and the Singularity
I believe Stephen Gould indicated evolution was a random walk with a lower bound. It seems reasonable that the longest random walk would more or less double in length more or less periodically i.e. exponential growth. Hal Ruhl _ From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:46 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: everything-list and the Singularity Hello Skeletori, Welcome to the list. I enjoy your comments and rationalization regarding personal identity and of why we should consider I to be the universe / multiverse / or the everything. I have some comments regarding the technological singularity below. On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Skeletori wrote: Hello! I have some tentative arguments on TS and wanted to put them somewhere where knowledgeable people could comment. This seemed like a good place. I also believe in an ultimate ensemble but that's a different story. Let's start with intelligence explosion. This part is essentially the same as Hawkins' argument against it (it can be found on the Wikipedia page on TS). When we're talking about self-improving intelligence, making improved copies of oneself, we're talking about a very, very complex optimization problem. So complex that our only tool is heuristic search, making guesses and trying to create better rules for taking stabs in the dark. The recursive optimization process improves by making better heuristics. However, an instinctual misassumption behind IE is that intelligence is somehow a simple concept and could be recursively leveraged not only descriptively but also algorithmically. If the things we want a machine to do have no simple description then it's unlikely they can be captured by simple heuristics. And if heuristics can't be simple then the metasearch space is vast. I think some people don't fully appreciate the huge complexity of self-improving search. The notion that an intelligent machine could accelerate its optimization exponentially is just as implausible as the notion that a genetic algorithm equipped with open-ended metaevolution rules would be able to do so. It just doesn't happen in practice, and we haven't even attempted to solve any problems that are anywhere near the magnitude of this one. So I think that the flaw in IE reasoning is that there should, at some higher level of intelligence, emerge a magic process that is able to achieve miraculous things. If you accept that, it precludes the possibility of TS happening (solely) through an IE. What then about Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns? Well, technological innovation is similarly a complex optimization problem, just in a different setting. We can regard the scientific community as the optimizing algorithm here and come to the same conclusions as with IE. That is, unless humans possess some kind of higher intelligence that can defeat heuristic search. I don't think there's any reason to believe that. Complex optimization problems exhibit the law of diminished returns and the law of fits and starts, where the optimization process gets stuck in a plateau for a long time, then breaks out of it and makes quick progress for a while. But I've never seen anything exhibiting a law of accelerating returns. This would imply that, e.g., Moore's law is just "an accident", a random product of exceedingly complex interactions. It would take more than some plots of a few data points to convince me to believe in a law of accelerating returns. If not the plots what would it take to convince you? I think one should accept the law of accelerating returns until someone can describe what accident caused the plot. Kurzweil's page describes a model and assumptions which re-create the real-world data plot: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 It is a rather long page, Ctrl+F for "The Model considers the following variables:" to find where he describes the reasoning behind the law of accelerated returns. It also depends on how one defines exponential growth, as one can always take X as exp(X) - I suppose we want the exponential growth of some variable that is needed for TS and whose linear growth corresponds to linear increase in "technological ability" (that's very vague, can anybody help here?). In conclusion, I haven't yet found a credible lawlike explanation of anything that could cause a "runaway" TS where things become very unpredictable. All comments are welcome. I think intelligence optimization is composed of several different, but interrelated components, and that it makes sense to clearly define these components of intelligence rather than talk about intelligence as a single entity. I think intelligence embodies. 1. knowledge - information that is useful for som
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Hello Skeletori, Welcome to the list. I enjoy your comments and rationalization regarding personal identity and of why we should consider I to be the universe / multiverse / or the everything. I have some comments regarding the technological singularity below. On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Skeletori wrote: > Hello! > > I have some tentative arguments on TS and wanted to put them somewhere > where knowledgeable people could comment. This seemed like a good > place. I also believe in an ultimate ensemble but that's a different > story. > > Let's start with intelligence explosion. This part is essentially the > same as Hawkins' argument against it (it can be found on the Wikipedia > page on TS). > > When we're talking about self-improving intelligence, making improved > copies of oneself, we're talking about a very, very complex > optimization problem. So complex that our only tool is heuristic > search, making guesses and trying to create better rules for taking > stabs in the dark. > > The recursive optimization process improves by making better > heuristics. However, an instinctual misassumption behind IE is that > intelligence is somehow a simple concept and could be recursively > leveraged not only descriptively but also algorithmically. If the > things we want a machine to do have no simple description then it's > unlikely they can be captured by simple heuristics. And if heuristics > can't be simple then the metasearch space is vast. I think some people > don't fully appreciate the huge complexity of self-improving search. > > The notion that an intelligent machine could accelerate its > optimization exponentially is just as implausible as the notion that a > genetic algorithm equipped with open-ended metaevolution rules would > be able to do so. It just doesn't happen in practice, and we haven't > even attempted to solve any problems that are anywhere near the > magnitude of this one. > > So I think that the flaw in IE reasoning is that there should, at some > higher level of intelligence, emerge a magic process that is able to > achieve miraculous things. > > If you accept that, it precludes the possibility of TS happening > (solely) through an IE. What then about Kurzweil's law of accelerating > returns? Well, technological innovation is similarly a complex > optimization problem, just in a different setting. We can regard the > scientific community as the optimizing algorithm here and come to the > same conclusions as with IE. That is, unless humans possess some kind > of higher intelligence that can defeat heuristic search. I don't think > there's any reason to believe that. > > Complex optimization problems exhibit the law of diminished returns > and the law of fits and starts, where the optimization process gets > stuck in a plateau for a long time, then breaks out of it and makes > quick progress for a while. But I've never seen anything exhibiting a > law of accelerating returns. This would imply that, e.g., Moore's law > is just "an accident", a random product of exceedingly complex > interactions. It would take more than some plots of a few data points > to convince me to believe in a law of accelerating returns. If not the plots what would it take to convince you? I think one should accept the law of accelerating returns until someone can describe what accident caused the plot. Kurzweil's page describes a model and assumptions which re-create the real-world data plot: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 It is a rather long page, Ctrl+F for "The Model considers the following variables:" to find where he describes the reasoning behind the law of accelerated returns. > It also > depends on how one defines exponential growth, as one can always take > X as exp(X) - I suppose we want the exponential growth of some > variable that is needed for TS and whose linear growth corresponds to > linear increase in "technological ability" (that's very vague, can > anybody help here?). > > In conclusion, I haven't yet found a credible lawlike explanation of > anything that could cause a "runaway" TS where things become very > unpredictable. > > All comments are welcome. > I think intelligence optimization is composed of several different, but interrelated components, and that it makes sense to clearly define these components of intelligence rather than talk about intelligence as a single entity. I think intelligence embodies. 1. knowledge - information that is useful for something 2. memory - the capacity to store, index and organize information 3. processing rate - the rate at which information can be processed The faster the processing rate, the faster knowledge can be applied and the faster new knowledge may be acquired. There are several methods in which new knowledge can be be generated: Searching for patterns and relations within the existing store of knowledge (data mining). Proposing and investigating currently unknown areas (research). Applying crea
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Hello! I have some tentative arguments on TS and wanted to put them somewhere where knowledgeable people could comment. This seemed like a good place. I also believe in an ultimate ensemble but that's a different story. Let's start with intelligence explosion. This part is essentially the same as Hawkins' argument against it (it can be found on the Wikipedia page on TS). When we're talking about self-improving intelligence, making improved copies of oneself, we're talking about a very, very complex optimization problem. So complex that our only tool is heuristic search, making guesses and trying to create better rules for taking stabs in the dark. The recursive optimization process improves by making better heuristics. However, an instinctual misassumption behind IE is that intelligence is somehow a simple concept and could be recursively leveraged not only descriptively but also algorithmically. If the things we want a machine to do have no simple description then it's unlikely they can be captured by simple heuristics. And if heuristics can't be simple then the metasearch space is vast. I think some people don't fully appreciate the huge complexity of self-improving search. The notion that an intelligent machine could accelerate its optimization exponentially is just as implausible as the notion that a genetic algorithm equipped with open-ended metaevolution rules would be able to do so. It just doesn't happen in practice, and we haven't even attempted to solve any problems that are anywhere near the magnitude of this one. So I think that the flaw in IE reasoning is that there should, at some higher level of intelligence, emerge a magic process that is able to achieve miraculous things. If you accept that, it precludes the possibility of TS happening (solely) through an IE. What then about Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns? Well, technological innovation is similarly a complex optimization problem, just in a different setting. We can regard the scientific community as the optimizing algorithm here and come to the same conclusions as with IE. That is, unless humans possess some kind of higher intelligence that can defeat heuristic search. I don't think there's any reason to believe that. Complex optimization problems exhibit the law of diminished returns and the law of fits and starts, where the optimization process gets stuck in a plateau for a long time, then breaks out of it and makes quick progress for a while. But I've never seen anything exhibiting a law of accelerating returns. This would imply that, e.g., Moore's law is just "an accident", a random product of exceedingly complex interactions. It would take more than some plots of a few data points to convince me to believe in a law of accelerating returns. It also depends on how one defines exponential growth, as one can always take X as exp(X) - I suppose we want the exponential growth of some variable that is needed for TS and whose linear growth corresponds to linear increase in "technological ability" (that's very vague, can anybody help here?). In conclusion, I haven't yet found a credible lawlike explanation of anything that could cause a "runaway" TS where things become very unpredictable. All comments are welcome. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Thanks for directing our minds into wider regions, Wei Dai. I will look into the recent ways singularity is thought of - I may be obsolete. I found tour intro to LessWrong interesting, I clicked away (not all of them) I read through Eliezer's (sample) URL-text and the 'sample' discussions attached, his text was frightening (the sweeps through unexpected nondeniable sidetracks) - a bit long, but exciting. The discussion I found mediocre, especially with watching the number of points assigned. I have difficulty with the term 'tribal'. I have yet to find 'my tribe'. I will visit LessWrong with an open mind (mine, that is) and may expose myself to adverse reflections based on my 'bottom line' - a physicist-wise not approvable agnostic personal worldview in an interrelated wholeness of more than we know of today. It was a joy to 'meet' smart minds thinking in different ways . Some I may approve-of, with a certain "I dunno". John Mikes On 3/14/10, Wei Dai wrote: > > Recently I heard the news that Max Tegmark has joined the Advisory Board of > SIAI (The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, see > > http://www.singinst.org/blog/2010/03/03/mit-professor-and-cosmologist-max-tegmark-joins-siai-advisory-board/ > ). > This news was surprising to me, but in retrospect perhaps shouldn't have > been. Out of the three authors of papers I cited in the original > everything-list charter/invitation, two others had already effectively > declared themselves to be Singularitarians (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism): Nick Bostrom has been on > SIAI's Advisory Board for a while, and Juergen Schmidhuber spoke at the > Singularity Summit 2009. I was also recently invited to visit SIAI for a > decision theory mini-workshop, where I found the ultimate ensemble idea to > be very well-received. It turns out that many SIAI people have been > following the everything-list for years. > > There seems to be a very strong correlation between interest in the kind of > ideas we discuss here, and interest in the technological singularity. (I > myself have been interested in the Singularity even before starting this > mailing list.) So the main point of this post is to let the list members > who > are not already familiar with the Singularity know that there is another > set > of ideas out there that they are likely to find fascinating. > > Another reason for this post is to let you know that I've been spending > most > of my online discussion time at Less Wrong > (http://lesswrong.com/lw/1/about_less_wrong/, "a community blog devoted to > refining the art of human rationality" which is sponsored by the Future > Humanity Institute, founded by Nick Bostrom, and effectively "owned" by > Eliezer Yudkowsky, founder of SIAI). There I wrote a sequence of posts > summarizing my current thoughts about decision theory, interpretations of > probability, anthropic reasoning, and the ultimate ensemble theory. > > http://lesswrong.com/lw/15m/towards_a_new_decision_theory/ > > http://lesswrong.com/lw/175/torture_vs_dust_vs_the_presumptuous_philosopher/ > http://lesswrong.com/lw/182/the_absentminded_driver/ > http://lesswrong.com/lw/1a5/scott_aaronson_on_born_probabilities/ > http://lesswrong.com/lw/1b8/anticipation_vs_faith_at_what_cost_rationality/ > http://lesswrong.com/lw/1cd/why_the_beliefsvalues_dichotomy/ > http://lesswrong.com/lw/1fu/why_and_why_not_bayesian_updating/ > > http://lesswrong.com/lw/1hg/the_moral_status_of_independent_identical_copies/ > http://lesswrong.com/lw/1iy/what_are_probabilities_anyway/ > > I initially wanted to reach a difference audience with these ideas, but > found that the Less Wrong format has several of advantages: both posts and > comments can be voted upon, the site's members uphold fairly strict > standards of clarity and logic, and the threaded presentation of comments > makes discussions much easier to follow. So I plan to continue to spend > most > of my time there, and invite other everything-list members to join me. But > please note that the site has a different set customs and emphases in > topics. New members are also expected to have a good grasp of the current > state of the art in human rationality in general (Bayesianism, heuristics > and biases, Aumann agreement, etc., see > http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences) before posting, and especially > before getting into disagreements and arguments with others. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscr
everything-list and the Singularity
Recently I heard the news that Max Tegmark has joined the Advisory Board of SIAI (The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, see http://www.singinst.org/blog/2010/03/03/mit-professor-and-cosmologist-max-tegmark-joins-siai-advisory-board/). This news was surprising to me, but in retrospect perhaps shouldn't have been. Out of the three authors of papers I cited in the original everything-list charter/invitation, two others had already effectively declared themselves to be Singularitarians (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism): Nick Bostrom has been on SIAI's Advisory Board for a while, and Juergen Schmidhuber spoke at the Singularity Summit 2009. I was also recently invited to visit SIAI for a decision theory mini-workshop, where I found the ultimate ensemble idea to be very well-received. It turns out that many SIAI people have been following the everything-list for years. There seems to be a very strong correlation between interest in the kind of ideas we discuss here, and interest in the technological singularity. (I myself have been interested in the Singularity even before starting this mailing list.) So the main point of this post is to let the list members who are not already familiar with the Singularity know that there is another set of ideas out there that they are likely to find fascinating. Another reason for this post is to let you know that I've been spending most of my online discussion time at Less Wrong (http://lesswrong.com/lw/1/about_less_wrong/, "a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality" which is sponsored by the Future Humanity Institute, founded by Nick Bostrom, and effectively "owned" by Eliezer Yudkowsky, founder of SIAI). There I wrote a sequence of posts summarizing my current thoughts about decision theory, interpretations of probability, anthropic reasoning, and the ultimate ensemble theory. http://lesswrong.com/lw/15m/towards_a_new_decision_theory/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/175/torture_vs_dust_vs_the_presumptuous_philosopher/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/182/the_absentminded_driver/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1a5/scott_aaronson_on_born_probabilities/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1b8/anticipation_vs_faith_at_what_cost_rationality/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1cd/why_the_beliefsvalues_dichotomy/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1fu/why_and_why_not_bayesian_updating/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1hg/the_moral_status_of_independent_identical_copies/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1iy/what_are_probabilities_anyway/ I initially wanted to reach a difference audience with these ideas, but found that the Less Wrong format has several of advantages: both posts and comments can be voted upon, the site's members uphold fairly strict standards of clarity and logic, and the threaded presentation of comments makes discussions much easier to follow. So I plan to continue to spend most of my time there, and invite other everything-list members to join me. But please note that the site has a different set customs and emphases in topics. New members are also expected to have a good grasp of the current state of the art in human rationality in general (Bayesianism, heuristics and biases, Aumann agreement, etc., see http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences) before posting, and especially before getting into disagreements and arguments with others. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.