Theme: AI

  • Don’t know who you are but Oversing is what I envisioned and more. Did I build 2

    Don’t know who you are but Oversing is what I envisioned and more. Did I build 20M of software for 1M? Yes. Is it internal code quality vs commercial at the moment? Yes. It’s that much again to refactor to commercial? Yes. Is the market now (finally) ready for that platform? Yes.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 20:43:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253786655162540039

    Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253778425501736960

  • A Journey: A Reflection:

    Apr 17, 2020, 5:52 PM A JOURNEY: A REFLECTION: I STARTED ON WHAT WOULD BECOME P IN 1990 – JUST A FEW YEARS AFTER GIVING UP ON AI. Interesting. Memory was off. Thought it was 92. But notes. I started working on a universal language of ethics and politics in the summer of 1990 as the prelude to the iraq war. I was frustrated by the inability of conservatives and libertarians to speak in rational and scientific rather than moral language. During the next few years the democratic party fully abandoned pretense and resorted to using an Alinsky technique of just getting on the television and repeating talking points without ever answering questions. This is what generated demand for fox news to evolve into a full time opponent to full time left wing media. This is how Bill O’Reilly made his reputation. He wouldn’t put up with it and the entire news media edifice followed his strategy. This afternoon I was trying to figure out when I gave up on AI, and it was in 86/87. I’d sold a biz. Was taking classes trying to figure out what I wanted to do next. And so I spent the next few years on my new relationship, moving us, and working on a legal research automation startup that consumed all my time. But I didn’t realize how quickly I’d gone back to researching in my part time. What I realized later is that I succeeded in business because it was my emotional substitute for warfare, and to pay for a wife, our travel, and my intellectual pursuits. So in retrospect, I can see the logical progression of my thought from study of military weapons, to study of the american revolution and constitution (very young), to science fiction, to study of military history, to writing conservative propaganda, to writing games and game ai, to ai solving the problem of ai in general, to legal automation, to wanting to solve the problem of conservative and libertarian thought, to economics, to the ‘aha’ moment when I heard hoppe reduce social science to property rights, and from there to constitutions, to solving the problem of lying in public and law, to solving the question of truth, to re-solving the question of the foundations of mathematics, and then to all the rest, including the failure of the operational movement, to psychology as acquisition, sociology as the combination of reciprocity and tripartism, the grammars, and finally markets in everything, group strategy, market government, trifunctionalism and finally religion. Some people do understand what I’ve done, which is the formal operational logic of human sciences: metaphysicas, psychology, sociology, group strategy, and politics. Most have no idea what i’ve done here. Or what it means for man. That’s ok. I’m pretty confident that in the future students will learn P just like they learn every other science. It’s an interesting project that’s consumed most of my life, or put differently, has been the somewhat deterministic totally involuntary process of combining an accident of being born in a time period of invasion by hostiles, a very unpleasant childhood, a touch of autism, a touch of ocd-thinking from autism, a bit too much dominance expression, resulting love of competition and working hard, and the relentless desire to create. I can’t figure out if I should have forgotten the pursuits of women and success and just focused on my intuitions, but I would not have accumulated the life experiences necessary to understand the vast differences in humans across the spectrum of ability from ordinary workers, to adequate professionals, to fortune ceo’s to politicians, to intellectuals, to the financial puppet masters that are the most evil demons of all. I just know that sitting in church at the age of twelve I had two ideas: first that I must remember into adulthood that at such an age children are able to have their own ideas and must be listened to even if it is effort. And second that if god would help me create the wealth necessary, I would build him a church. And as a proper autistic I set that as my mission in life and never varied. It wasn’t until late adulthood I understood that while I’d envisioned a building, it was a very different god, who wanted a very different church, in a very different religion, that united all our people, whether scientific, rational, or spiritual, and that ‘religion’ would amount to little more than truth in the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, and the debt to nature, ancestors, heroes who got us here. When we ask whether we have free will, the question is rather ridiculous. The question is how much choice do we have given our genes, our family condition, or local circumstances, our civilizational age, and the indoctrination, education, and skills we ‘suffer’ as we navigate with a few pounds of gelatinous mass in our skulls through a few productive decades of life, before that time is lost to us, our faculties are lost to us and we add ourselves to the creditors we call ancestors, civilization, and history. The answer to our degree of choice? I’m not sure. It’s more than none, more than some, but less than we wish. And the answer as in all things is to choose what is compatible with physical natural and evolutionary law, and to make as few bad choices as possible, because we rarely know the good once until late. Note to self: Be cautious what deal you make with gods.

  • A Journey: A Reflection:

    Apr 17, 2020, 5:52 PM A JOURNEY: A REFLECTION: I STARTED ON WHAT WOULD BECOME P IN 1990 – JUST A FEW YEARS AFTER GIVING UP ON AI. Interesting. Memory was off. Thought it was 92. But notes. I started working on a universal language of ethics and politics in the summer of 1990 as the prelude to the iraq war. I was frustrated by the inability of conservatives and libertarians to speak in rational and scientific rather than moral language. During the next few years the democratic party fully abandoned pretense and resorted to using an Alinsky technique of just getting on the television and repeating talking points without ever answering questions. This is what generated demand for fox news to evolve into a full time opponent to full time left wing media. This is how Bill O’Reilly made his reputation. He wouldn’t put up with it and the entire news media edifice followed his strategy. This afternoon I was trying to figure out when I gave up on AI, and it was in 86/87. I’d sold a biz. Was taking classes trying to figure out what I wanted to do next. And so I spent the next few years on my new relationship, moving us, and working on a legal research automation startup that consumed all my time. But I didn’t realize how quickly I’d gone back to researching in my part time. What I realized later is that I succeeded in business because it was my emotional substitute for warfare, and to pay for a wife, our travel, and my intellectual pursuits. So in retrospect, I can see the logical progression of my thought from study of military weapons, to study of the american revolution and constitution (very young), to science fiction, to study of military history, to writing conservative propaganda, to writing games and game ai, to ai solving the problem of ai in general, to legal automation, to wanting to solve the problem of conservative and libertarian thought, to economics, to the ‘aha’ moment when I heard hoppe reduce social science to property rights, and from there to constitutions, to solving the problem of lying in public and law, to solving the question of truth, to re-solving the question of the foundations of mathematics, and then to all the rest, including the failure of the operational movement, to psychology as acquisition, sociology as the combination of reciprocity and tripartism, the grammars, and finally markets in everything, group strategy, market government, trifunctionalism and finally religion. Some people do understand what I’ve done, which is the formal operational logic of human sciences: metaphysicas, psychology, sociology, group strategy, and politics. Most have no idea what i’ve done here. Or what it means for man. That’s ok. I’m pretty confident that in the future students will learn P just like they learn every other science. It’s an interesting project that’s consumed most of my life, or put differently, has been the somewhat deterministic totally involuntary process of combining an accident of being born in a time period of invasion by hostiles, a very unpleasant childhood, a touch of autism, a touch of ocd-thinking from autism, a bit too much dominance expression, resulting love of competition and working hard, and the relentless desire to create. I can’t figure out if I should have forgotten the pursuits of women and success and just focused on my intuitions, but I would not have accumulated the life experiences necessary to understand the vast differences in humans across the spectrum of ability from ordinary workers, to adequate professionals, to fortune ceo’s to politicians, to intellectuals, to the financial puppet masters that are the most evil demons of all. I just know that sitting in church at the age of twelve I had two ideas: first that I must remember into adulthood that at such an age children are able to have their own ideas and must be listened to even if it is effort. And second that if god would help me create the wealth necessary, I would build him a church. And as a proper autistic I set that as my mission in life and never varied. It wasn’t until late adulthood I understood that while I’d envisioned a building, it was a very different god, who wanted a very different church, in a very different religion, that united all our people, whether scientific, rational, or spiritual, and that ‘religion’ would amount to little more than truth in the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, and the debt to nature, ancestors, heroes who got us here. When we ask whether we have free will, the question is rather ridiculous. The question is how much choice do we have given our genes, our family condition, or local circumstances, our civilizational age, and the indoctrination, education, and skills we ‘suffer’ as we navigate with a few pounds of gelatinous mass in our skulls through a few productive decades of life, before that time is lost to us, our faculties are lost to us and we add ourselves to the creditors we call ancestors, civilization, and history. The answer to our degree of choice? I’m not sure. It’s more than none, more than some, but less than we wish. And the answer as in all things is to choose what is compatible with physical natural and evolutionary law, and to make as few bad choices as possible, because we rarely know the good once until late. Note to self: Be cautious what deal you make with gods.

  • A JOURNEY: A REFLECTION: I STARTED ON WHAT WOULD BECOME P IN 1990 – JUST A FEW Y

    A JOURNEY: A REFLECTION: I STARTED ON WHAT WOULD BECOME P IN 1990 – JUST A FEW YEARS AFTER GIVING UP ON AI.

    Interesting. Memory was off. Thought it was 92. But notes. I started working on a universal language of ethics and politics in the summer of 1990 as the prelude to the iraq war. I was frustrated by the inability of conservatives and libertarians to speak in rational and scientific rather than moral language. During the next few years the democratic party fully abandoned pretense and resorted to using an Alinsky technique of just getting on the television and repeating talking points without ever answering questions. This is what generated demand for fox news to evolve into a full time opponent to full time left wing media. This is how Bill O’Reilly made his reputation. He wouldn’t put up with it and the entire news media edifice followed his strategy.

    This afternoon I was trying to figure out when I gave up on AI, and it was in 86/87. I’d sold a biz. Was taking classes trying to figure out what I wanted to do next. And so I spent the next few years on my new relationship, moving us, and working on a legal research automation startup that consumed all my time. But I didn’t realize how quickly I’d gone back to researching in my part time. What I realized later is that I succeeded in business because it was my emotional substitute for warfare, and to pay for a wife, our travel, and my intellectual pursuits.

    So in retrospect, I can see the logical progression of my thought from study of military weapons, to study of the american revolution and constitution (very young), to science fiction, to study of military history, to writing conservative propaganda, to writing games and game ai, to ai solving the problem of ai in general, to legal automation, to wanting to solve the problem of conservative and libertarian thought, to economics, to the ‘aha’ moment when I heard hoppe reduce social science to property rights, and from there to constitutions, to solving the problem of lying in public and law, to solving the question of truth, to re-solving the question of the foundations of mathematics, and then to all the rest, including the failure of the operational movement, to psychology as acquisition, sociology as the combination of reciprocity and tripartism, the grammars, and finally markets in everything, group strategy, market government, trifunctionalism and finally religion.

    Some people do understand what I’ve done, which is the formal operational logic of human sciences: metaphysicas, psychology, sociology, group strategy, and politics. Most have no idea what i’ve done here. Or what it means for man. That’s ok. I’m pretty confident that in the future students will learn P just like they learn every other science.

    It’s an interesting project that’s consumed most of my life, or put differently, has been the somewhat deterministic totally involuntary process of combining an accident of being born in a time period of invasion by hostiles, a very unpleasant childhood, a touch of autism, a touch of ocd-thinking from autism, a bit too much dominance expression, resulting love of competition and working hard, and the relentless desire to create.

    I can’t figure out if I should have forgotten the pursuits of women and success and just focused on my intuitions, but I would not have accumulated the life experiences necessary to understand the vast differences in humans across the spectrum of ability from ordinary workers, to adequate professionals, to fortune ceo’s to politicians, to intellectuals, to the financial puppet masters that are the most evil demons of all.

    I just know that sitting in church at the age of twelve I had two ideas: first that I must remember into adulthood that at such an age children are able to have their own ideas and must be listened to even if it is effort. And second that if god would help me create the wealth necessary, I would build him a church. And as a proper autistic I set that as my mission in life and never varied. It wasn’t until late adulthood I understood that while I’d envisioned a building, it was a very different god, who wanted a very different church, in a very different religion, that united all our people, whether scientific, rational, or spiritual, and that ‘religion’ would amount to little more than truth in the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, and the debt to nature, ancestors, heroes who got us here.

    When we ask whether we have free will, the question is rather ridiculous. The question is how much choice do we have given our genes, our family condition, or local circumstances, our civilizational age, and the indoctrination, education, and skills we ‘suffer’ as we navigate with a few pounds of gelatinous mass in our skulls through a few productive decades of life, before that time is lost to us, our faculties are lost to us and we add ourselves to the creditors we call ancestors, civilization, and history.

    The answer to our degree of choice? I’m not sure. It’s more than none, more than some, but less than we wish. And the answer as in all things is to choose what is compatible with physical natural and evolutionary law, and to make as few bad choices as possible, because we rarely know the good once until late.

    Note to self: Be cautious what deal you make with gods. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 17:52:00 UTC

  • Brandon Hayes sorry to bother you with this but do you have a collection that ag

    Brandon Hayes sorry to bother you with this but do you have a collection that aggregates my anti-philoosphy or anti-theology posts? (Doing that one. Doing Math. Doing AI.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 11:50:00 UTC

  • This is why asians shouldn have western technology. 😉

    This is why asians shouldn have western technology. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 07:32:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250326013025767425

    Reply addressees: @sunkiisss

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250317516645138438

  • I mean, if I didn’t already have so much work to do I’d automate it myself. Hope

    I mean, if I didn’t already have so much work to do I’d automate it myself. Hopefully someone else will solve it so Idon’t have to.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-10 00:07:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1248402227288371212

    Reply addressees: @agent8698 @DSchrooner

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1248401927089442819


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @agent8698 @DSchrooner fking facebook has stopped allowing auto posting to twitter. And we can’t find a bot that will do it for us. The only solution is to post to the site and auto-post to twitter. The problem is that reduces the number of people who engage in the conversation threads on fb. 🙁

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1248401927089442819

  • THREE CUTTING EDGE THINKING CLUSTERS by Giego Caleiro There are three cutting ed

    THREE CUTTING EDGE THINKING CLUSTERS

    by Giego Caleiro

    There are three cutting edge thinking clusters I believe we should unite

    1) The Incentive Tensors:

    Bostrom, Daniel Schmachtenberger (closer to the blade), David Sloan Wilson, Brett Weinstein, Joon Yun, Thiel, Eric Weinstein (trailing).

    Trying to find the basins and attractors that might stabilize future evolution (cultural, technological and memetic) away from Moloch (bad incentive structures), Azhathoth (evolutionary constraints).

    Related keywords: X-risks, Catastrophic Risks, incentive alignment, basins of attraction, exponential tech, differential progress, Singleton, transhumanism, multipolar equelibriae.

    2) The G Must Rise Clan:

    Michael Anthony Woodley of Menia, @Edward Dutton, Curt Doolittlele, Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Alexander Kruel, etc…

    They caught up with the research on correlations between intelligence and genes to the point where they can use the genome of ancient populations to calculate their G, and the mechanisms that produce intelligence in populations, and see we are falling 1 point per decade and want to make G rise.

    Keywords: Social Epistasis Models, Intelligence decline, Woodley Effect, Anti-Flynn effect, Differential reproduction.

    3) The Individual x Group Differentiators:

    Ellen Clarke, Sloan David Sloan Wilson again, Price equation, Coase’s theory of the firm, Stuart Armstrong Anthropic Decision Theory, Eros Szathmary, Deacon, Tononi

    They try in different disciplines, from economics, to corporations, to biological organisms to artificial agents differentiatiate what is an individual versus what is a group. When do many individuals become a group through loss of autonomy and degeneration for instance, or to what extent is functional identity or similarity sufficient for something to be one versus a member of a group, or a copy etc….

    Keywords: Major Evolutionary Transition, Type 1 Type 2 object (in Clarke’s), Autonomy loss, degeneration, differentiation, autopoiesis, autocatalysis, synergy, merger.

    ———————————

    The reason I think these people should try to think together and understand each other’s fields is basically that we lack the appropriate tools to steer the future if any foot of this triad is ignored.

    We can only design the right incentive structures and alignment by recognizing the on the ground reality of reproduction, the fall in G in the last century and a half, and the expected continuation of this process in the current biogeographical and mating dynamics – both due to the dynamics themselves but also due to the astronomical and thus prohibitive cost of transition to a system where selection bypasses sex, sexual selection etc… e.g. genetic engineering is a dead end.

    Incentive structures and tensoring them on directions also requires understanding to what extent an agent is one or many, and how hard it will protect or help (Steve Omohundro comes to mind) its own survival and reproduction and what it considers part of itself or a larger group or different entity.

    Uniting these three paradigms was, and is, the bulk of my PhD thesis but seeing the stellar conversation between Schmachtenberger and Eric made me realize we’re probably closer to a point where that debate is legible to a wider audience than 5 years ago when I began writing.

    So I’d urge people who understand one of foot of the triad well to teach their foot to those in the other two, and everyone to try to learn the ones they are less familiar with.

    ________________

    In comments I’ll try to outlay examples of the problems of not grasping one foot in those working on a different one.Updated Apr 4, 2020, 2:47 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-04 14:47:00 UTC

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: “YOU CAN’T GET THERE FROM HERE” —“We can’t approach a

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: “YOU CAN’T GET THERE FROM HERE”

    —“We can’t approach anything like intelligence with artificial neural networks … not in their current form.”— Hawkins

    —“All the trickly things we have done over the past seventy years hasn’t mattered – we’ve just taken advantage of moore’s law … it’s all short term gains.”— Rich Sutton (“Bitter Lesson”)

    —“If we scale up the current technology it won’t make any difference.”—

    —“You can’t mathematically model anything as complex as the brain, only mathematically explain why the biology does what it does, but it can’t be analyzed completely… it’s out of the realm of possibility. (we can build )”–

    —“Sparse Representations”–

    The neural networks of excitatory and inhibitory neurons, and preparatory dendrites, compete over time to ‘announce’ a winner that’s passed forward for integration into the current hierarchy of models. Very hard to fool, very robust networks.

    —“Machine learning… the next step has to be orthogonal to what we’re doing, because we’re at its limit.”—

    —“and ANN needs a lot of data. The human brain doesn’t. It’s extremely efficient.”—

    WHY I MOVED ON FROM AI

    This is why I stopped working on AI in the 80’s. Intelligence requires completely different computer architectures. It’s interesting that I got so close with the “before(state) during(change) after(state)” data structure: sequences; and with a hierarchy of geometric representations. But at <5mhz and 64k, even working in assembly language, I could already tell that it couldn’t be done with existing computers. We would need to invert the entire architecture to millions of tiny cores with local durable memory, at low power. If I had instead written and published a paper at the time rather than ‘moving on’ I would have bragging rights today. lol.

    If we had followed turing’s advice and made logical computers rather than numerical, we would be closer. but our emphasis on mathematics (the math trap again!!!) pushed engineering of computers in the wrong direction.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:56:00 UTC

  • HIERARCHY OF NEEDS FOR ARTIFICIAL GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. —Curt, can you clarify

    HIERARCHY OF NEEDS FOR ARTIFICIAL GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

    —Curt, can you clarify on what you mean by making logical computers instead of numerical? what would that look like vs a numerical one?”—Caesar Nguyen

    Undecidable, true, false, not 0,1.

    Logical operations not arithmetic operations.

    Build arithmetic from logical.

    HIERARCHY OF NEEDS FOR ART. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

    Analog (world)

    … Logical (circuits)

    … … Arithmetic (current computers)

    … … … Geometric (current video cards)

    … … … … N-Dimensional Manifolds (future computers)

    … … … … … Competitive Recursive iterations of N-dimensional Manifolds (intelligence)

    … … … … … … Symbolic-Grammatic Competitive Recursive Iterations of References to N-Dimensional Manifolds (General Intelligence)

    … … … … … … … Cooperative symbolic Symbolic-Grammatic Competitive Recursive Iterations of References to marginal indifferences in N-Dimensional Manifolds.

    The weak point in our architecture is the central processing unit.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:55:00 UTC