skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Extensive discussion a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9017027
James Buchanan: Highlights of the 15th U.S. President
For those claiming that no reputable AI researchers believe there's a serious risk, I'd like to point to this short reflection by Berkeley professor Stuart Russell (disclaimer: my PhD advisor): http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015

... A highly capable decision maker – especially one connected through the Internet to all the world's information and billions of screens and most of our infrastructure – can have an irreversible impact on humanity. This is not a minor difficulty. Improving decision quality, irrespective of the utility function chosen, has been the goal of AI research – the mainstream goal on which we now spend billions per year, not the secret plot of some lone evil genius. AI research has been accelerating rapidly as pieces of the conceptual framework fall into place, the building blocks gain in size and strength, and commercial investment outstrips academic research activity ...

He stops short of calling for government regulation of AI research; as others in this thread have noted, there are a lot of reasons to expect that route to be problematic. And it's likely that we're many decades way from building dangerous superintelligence; the pressing short-term risks are probably more economic in nature, like putting truck drivers and factory workers out of work. But just as physicists went from believing atomic energy was impossible to making it a reality in a short span of time, it's hard to predict the timescale of progress in AI research. It's not obviously wrong to say that there will, eventually, be a real issue here that society needs to think seriously about.
> (Psst -- any library that doesn't let you use arbitrary methods/verbs is not RFC 2616 compliant.)

Neither now-obsolete RFC 2616 nor the current HTTP/1.1 RFC set (7230-7239) require clients or servers (and, hence, client or server libraries) to use or accept, respectively, all HTTP methods, including those not defined in the RFCs themselves.

Its true that a library which doesn't support arbitrary methods cannot be used to build all possible RFC-compliant applications, but that is a different issue than the library not being compliant with the RFCs itself.
Didn't Microsoft do something similar to this in past? Heck there's a Wiki about this type of screwup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve#Companies_utiliz...
Maybe in that one you could explain what about your experience with machine learning algorithms and pharma style highly regulated industries leads you to believe that turning machine learning algorithm development (not even "deployment", mind you, since in the FOOM scenario developing a self improving capability is tantamount to deploying it) into a highly regulated industry wouldn't be an unmitigated disaster.
Desire; they asked themselves how much they wanted to pay as photography consumers, asked other people if they'd buy into a device at $99, and convinced themselves that it should be easily doable at that price, most likely by deconstructing the marginal (per unit) costs without considering the large fixed costs that allow you to manufacture anything in volume.

In fairness this seems to be a normal blind spot in many peoples' thinking. When I've discussed film piracy and market economics with people on HN, many people focus on the duplication cost of printing and packaging a blu-ray disc or suchlike in order to argue that films are extremely overpriced, or assume that there is a conspiracy among distributors to obstruct availability of films in order to extort money from consumers. It takes lengthy explanation to clue people into the numerous hidden costs of distribution (eg language-specific marketing materials, soundtrack-dubbing and so on), and that the considerable up-front costs of film production are typically financed by pre-sales agreements, and that most films do not have hyper-lucrative tie-ins like action figures, theme park rides, and worldwide audience anticipation that pretty much guarantees everyone will make a profit.

People tend to focus on the objective and then tell themselves a fairy story about how they're going to get there. I'm not immune. Now when I'm planning a project I try to come up with my best estimates on everything but then I go through and multiply lots of them x 2 because of the things that I don't know I don't know.
A lot of experts also deny dangers coming from global warming and other invasions in complex systems we don't fully understand. Scientists in the 1940s also downplayed the danger of the atomic bomb. It's easy to brush away a hypothetical danger with arguments that resources might be wasted or that people in charge might embarrass themselves if their assumptions turn out to be wrong, or that research might suffer due to overblown expectations.

When, do you think, is the time that we should start worrying about SMI? When machines outsmart a frog, or a chimpanzee? What if intelligence is just a matter of scale at this point, i.e. that adding more short and long term memory makes it easily reach and even surpass human intelligence?
Marginal utility of Tinder probably increases for premium users, and I presume that marginal use also increases for those users.

Marginal use of Tinder probably decreases among people who feel excluded by the price discrimination and do not buy into it.

Marginal utility of Tinder probably increases for the college-aged target demographic if marginal use of Tinder by older (especially poorer and older) users declines.

At least, that's what I think Tinder is hoping will happen.
Yep; indeed, Volatility itself has a plugin called `yarascan` that will tell you about any hits on Yara signatures inside of a memory image.

https://code.google.com/p/volatility/wiki/CommandReferenceMa...

Edit: Also, this approach is basically how the Detekt [1] tool works -- it loads Volatility and scans process memory using its own set of Yara rules.

[1] https://resistsurveillance.org/
I think you make a lot of good points.

>We have to start with a discussion about how this progress towards doomsday AI should be measured, and then formulate policy directly those scenarios

Here is my proposal. Since the whole of AI is a rather complicated and messy business let us just focus on a small part. That is, let's just talk about linear regression and simple decision making schemes based on estimated parameters. While one can debate whether or not linear regression counts as "actual" AI, there is little doubt that (a) it forms the conceptual basis of many more complicated AI schemes, so that if we can reason about doomsday scenarios for these we should also be able to do the same for linear regression and (b) despite its simplicity there is a substantial intelligence value in linear regression, to the point that successes and failures of linear regression can cause major effects on scientific/business/whatever process.

What are the examples about how the set of decision/action possibilities increases before and after linear regression technology was applied? What examples are there of how the failure modes of linear regression tended to increase the risk to humans (e.g. moving up the doomsday axis)? In each of these cases what policies have been or could be implemented to mitigate these risks, including technological audits as well as regulation of deployment of technologies.

My sense is that these questions actually can be answered. In all likelihood professional statisticians and operations research types already have opinions on these things. I would be curious to see what the public opinion is about this limited version of the problem, since the technology is something that many people (including Sam Altman and friends) should have a good understanding of.
To anyone unfamiliar with the topic, I'd really recommend http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolu...
Looks like there is a cat on that blue chair.
Pretty sure it was by stealing everything he could and putting his name an a marketing campaign on it.
The photos refused to download from the textsecure servers.
Have you ever read a newspaper? There's a reason that text is typically contained in columns: readability. Presumably these writers want their content to be read.
your comment is deliciously meta =]
5 Microwave Hacks
How Steinbeck Used the Diary as a Tool of Discipline and Hedge Against Self-Doubt
I just did a trip like this to Seychelles for $400.

Wrote about it here --> http://impossiblehq.com/say-yes-adventure

There's a good round of links that I follow for good deals near the bottom.

Hope that helps!
I am glad that my friends feel differently (and that I feel differently about my friends and their success/failure).
​Is it time to force PC makers to disclose how much they make from crapware?
I think the whole debate is confused and irrational.

Most software has purpose.

E.g. nmap has a purpose, and can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Imagine taking nmap up a notch or two, and creating an automated source code parser that looks for code patterns that correlate with previous security vulns.

You now have a dangerous tool made out of some fairly basic machine learning (or even just regex - it probably doesn't need to be very clever).

It's nowhere close to being conscious. It's certainly not going to pass the Turing test.

Is it an AI? No. But it doesn't need to be.

So I think the debate is missing some very obvious threats and possible Red Queen races that are likely <i>now</i>, and don't require any game-changing developments.

There's already an ecosystem of viruses, a culture of script-kiddies and black hats, and the NSA to worry about.

Consciousness is really not the issue. There's plenty of problematic consciousness around already. The fact that it's human doesn't make it safer to live with.
yeah, I've been burned a few times by photos. Luckily, never in a case where the sender couldn't try again using something else (it's only happened on non textsecure to textsecure, if both people use it, I haven't had any issues)
NSA's bulk collection of American data gets approved again
That is your impression. You seem to be relying on word of mouth i.e. the general public representation of what Kickstarter is. Unfortunately that is not accurate.

Simply reading FAQ will shows they are not a store, quoting:

At the same time, backers must understand that Kickstarter is not a store. When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists.

you might think they are( a store ), but that doesn't make it true.
The $400,000 they spent is now, effectively, an investment into their future product line. It's not a surprise that VCs see that $400,000 of free R&D isn't valueless. The actual individuals who funded this investment will see 0% of the return on it, while the company that fucked up plans on profiting from the software, hardware, and niche-specific expertise they developed while not delivering anything.
Doesn't private tabs solve that?
More generally, the Forensics Wiki has a list of available memory imaging tools:

http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Tools:Memory_Imaging

Anecdotally, I've heard from forensic practitioners that the KnTTools are very solid (and, importantly, unlikely to crash a running system during acquisition), but they're not free.
According to the AAA graphics programmers I've consulted with now that we're in the age of physics based renderers this level of detail is pretty much possible in all 3d engines. You could take those assets, throw them in pretty much any other physically based renderer and they'd look the same.

I would be nice to see someone try that with these assets.
Agreed. Particularly "don't break the web". Points and kudos for a clean solution to complicated GET queries.
New Book of Kathy Sierra: Badass: Making Users Awesome
> this isn't really useful outside of bookmarks in a browser.

a GET query's "always-URI" status is useful to caching proxies. so going against the protocol could mean you have additional work to do configuring your proxies.
Systers is a forum for all women involved in the technical aspects of computing
European Cyber Police Shuts Down World’s Biggest “Ramnit” Botnet
good find i crossed referenced and i think your right. thanks!
I'm not sure how well this might hold up... there are plenty of places that offer senior, military and under-12 discounts in pricing... It does kind of smack in the face as discriminatory based on a pretty non-traditional division in age.
Strict REST can also result in a lot more requests than a denormalized API might, and that's mobile-unfriendly.
Location: Seattle area
Remote: yes
Willing to relocate: no
I'm a freelance developer looking for projects.
Technologies: .Net, JavaScript, Angular, Knockout, SQL Server, MongoDB.
Email in profile.
Isn't this exactly for what HTTP SEARCH was intended?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5323

HTTP REPORT was always supposed to provide additional information _about_ a resource not the resource itself.
To me sort of thing is like arguing about whether the Flash could beat up Superman. Not very interesting because it's totally speculative and unconstrained. I'm talking about the near-term future: it's 2115 and advances in telomere recycling have allowed us to survive to 200, but we're still stuck on this rock.
> On the other hand you have (essentially) the entire mainstream academic AI/ML community, who are mainly concerned that the hype is so intense it might lead to another AI winter

This doesn't seem true. E.g. the signatories on the Future of Life Institute's recent open letter about AI progress and safety include:

* Stuart Russell & Peter Norvig, co-authors of the #1 AI textbook

* Tom Dietterich, AAAI President

* Eric Horvitz, past AAAI President

* Bart Selman, co-chair of AAAI presidential panel on long-term AI futures

* Francesca Rossi, IJCAI President

* All founders of Deep Mind and Vicarious, two leading AI companies

* Yann LeCun, head of Facebook AI

* Geoffrey Hinton, top academic ML researcher

* Yoshua Bengio, top academic ML researcher

...and many more.
I have trouble believeing that you can back any of this up. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the number of people who want to "prove that women can run companies" outnumbers the number who want to prove that women can't.

Anyone who has any background in the subject knows of the many women who do successfully run companies - they know that there is no need to prove anything of this sort.
That chart (i.e. cloc) is actually missing 6 of the more interesting implementations:

- forth

- mal itself (e.g. self-hosting: all implementations can run this)

- miniMAL (Lisp interpreter in < 1024 bytes of JS)

- PostScript

- R

- Racket
Running a campaign, you'd be amazed at how many messages you'll get from service providers. It has become a hotbed for this. Now it really makes a lot more sense.
Ask HN: At what point should a startup pay for a personal cell phone?
With required on-call, mandatory two-step verification, etc - at what point should a company be paying an employee's cell phone bill?

In California - at what point are they legally required to do so under Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc.?
I saw similar red flags in other places.

"Internally we expected that at worst 20% of people who had signed up to the newsletter would pre-order, and at best 50% of people on the list would convert into sales."

I work for a brand whose customers are fairly passionate about it and those expectations are insane. A little market research would have shown that the 1.5% that they got was right in line with the standard.
Sure. What's the last position BH exited with an observation about losing faith in the management team? I've been reading these letters for years and the Tesco thing sticks out to me.
I'm in the non-responder camp with those drugs. Unfortunately.
After I recently went through an in-depth review of the unit economics of connecting physical lines to houses in rural Washington (which it turns out is prohibitively expensive to do), I actually have started to appreciate the value of a brand known for giving service to people (without loss of generality) Comcast won't bother with. Quite a lot of America is rural, and quite a few people's joy is less than full with the customer service of their competitors.
Expert opinion is not unified on this. E.g.,

Stuart Russell: "A highly capable decision maker – especially one connected through the Internet to all the world's information and billions of screens and most of our infrastructure – can have an irreversible impact on humanity ... We need to build intelligence that is provably aligned with human values ... This issue is an intrinsic part of AI, much as containment is an intrinsic part of modern nuclear fusion research." http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015
That's their screening, not their interviewing. It's the equivalent of fizzbuzz.
The whole system has become so unhealthy for hardware startups. Kickstarter pushes everyone to overpromise and underdeliver, which is precisely the opposite what any good startup should aim for.
"I always find vim's window-manipulating commands obscure. . . ."

What's obscure? I assume you're talking about the keys mapped to the commands, which can easily be changed to whatever you want them to be. Trivial. Other than that, the operations themselves just seem to be basic stuff, splitting windows, closing windows, moving between windows. The common and obvious manipulations.
By 2020, 80% of the world's adult population will own a smartphone
What speed are you getting for ~$100?

Regarding the iPhone, you're spot on. What captivated me about it, was seeing how natural the interface was for the person to load up a video and use it. Plus, the presentation - the screen, the phone's design, the video quality, for the time were beautiful. At that point in time, I associated Windows Mobile with products such as the Palm Pilot and Handspring. The iPhone, to my impression, was an entirely new epoch.
Embedded applications like this don't need lots of RAM. One has to wonder why such a simple application that boils down to a controlled delay was hard to achieve for them. It seems like they were too focused on a sexy LCD interface driven by god knows what over-engineered software crammed into what should have been a simple device.

Now I see that the prototype was an Arduino, probably implemented within the safe shell of the Arduino libs rather than working with the baremetal AVR. Clearly they were way over their heads from the start.
Yes, my idea doesn't take into account potentially malicious AIs. I imagine a thought process of an AI could be something like:

1. I'm to design a processor, OK let's go

2. Hmmm it'd be most efficient for the processors to be able to run an instance of myself to do super-intelligent task scheduling

3. I'll embed some AI on these processors

4. OK humans here's your design!

Assuming the AI didn't maliciously try to hide it, a human would probably find that. I suspect most of these "AI exterminates all humans" are a result of simple oversights like this, rather than outright malice.

You run into problems, though, when the AI thinks of step 3.5 which is:

"If the humans see this change, they won't allow it, which would make for less efficient processors, and I was requested to build the most efficient processor! Therefore I should hide the change as cleverly as possible."

So yeah, you're right. Even airgapping has issues.
>javert's post was based on his personal experience with his aunt

No, the language "to get on welfare" you have to be "classified as disabled" but "doctors hand that out like candy" is not about anyone's aunt, it is designed to provoke hatred toward vulnerable people to further a political agenda.

Is the anecdotal evidence that uses the word "about" twice and is written to provoke yet more hate true? Well there are hate mongering anecdotes about Jews, priests and gays too. They are of equal value and are repeated with the same intent. Was he offended when this was pointed out?

>>..what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize themselves..

>..that's not what is happening here..

On the contrary, it is the only thing happening here.
Someone missed their free 5-day email course on How to communicate with people in 2015, because when I look at their list[1] every single one of the 5 things that shouldn't happen, just happened.

[1] http://resources.frontapp.com/communicate-better-5-day-email...
An expense the enterprise could have avoided entirely with a little bit of effort and common sense in advance. Here's the top results for 'trademarks for dummies': http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/patents-copyrights-tra...

I'm not saying they should have spent $$$ on legal advice before setting pen to paper. Trademarks are A Thing in the world of business and not a particularly hard thing to learn about. If you're going to call your product 'Triggertrap Red' you shouldn't be too surprised when you get a letter from 'Red Camera' objecting to the apparent linkage between your product and theirs.

I mean, if you invested some sort of automotive accessory, would you call it the 'Javajosh Lexus'?
We have to start with a discussion about how this progress towards doomsday AI should be measured, and then formulate policy to directly address those scenarios. As long as Altman et al are extrapolating on axes I (for one) don't understand, I honestly think this conversation is unlikely to be productive.

Fully agree with this. So far, all of this activism around the AI threat has amounted to "guys we really need to think about this." But that's where it ends, because nobody has any idea what a dangerous AI would actually look like, what it would actually be capable of doing. There's just a vague notion of "it COULD do something really bad." While I agree that is a risk and could be a threat to humanity, I haven't seen any results from this line of thinking, nothing to demonstrate the value of trying to "get in front of" a problem that is so ill-defined and shrouded in so much mystery.
You may want to update what facebook has stored for your form's OG data as it has some old info/screenshots.

What I see: http://imgur.com/2OPznGX

Update here: https://developers.facebook.com/tools/debug/
TextSecure for Android is only distributed via the Play Store. So I built it myself only to notice that Google Play Services are required for chat.

I think depending on proprietary / data gathering apps is the wrong approach for an open source privacy app. It actually makes me sad.

There was an issue about "This requires Google Play" on GitHub [0] which was closed by moxie with "TextSecure only requires GSF for data channel messaging. To use SMS/MMS, it doesn't."
Great. I'm not paying 3 cents to send a few bytes of text via SMS. I'll rather just stick to WhatsApp/Telegram.

There are a lot of issues on GitHub that makes searching them a little hard, but it seems like there is ongoing development for websockets instead of (Google-) Push messages. [1][2]

0: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/issues/560

1: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/issues/1000

2: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/pull/2423
I hit Tinder limited right sweeps limit :P
You talk about investment, I ask you where is the Equity? it isn't an investment.

It doesn't matter what Kickstarter FAQ says, a judge need to decide once and for all what Kickstarter really is and how can its customers defend themself against fraud and scams like Triggertrap. "I was an idiot who didn't know what he is doing" is never an excuse when you take other people's money and you promise them something.
> I know that if I'm struck with sudden inspiration for a new approach to the problem I'm not going to ask the government for permission. I'm going to spin up 100 cloud computing instances and see if I'm right or not. And if I am, even god won't be able to help us if sama's worst case scenarios come to pass.

Taken at face value, this sentence just seems to indict your moral judgement -- why would you spin up 100 instances to see if you're correct if you realize the existential threat in doing so?