skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
To be fair, today we have what we believe to be (much) more accurate models of how much computation a human mind is capable of and how long it will take to build computing machines operating at that scale.

36 years ago the argument that AGI was coming soon could be made in tandem with the argument that we'd make some fundamental advance that allowed computers to express intelligence with less computational capacity than humans (by orders of magnitude). Today we can make an argument that we'll achieve it (at least initially) by leveraging computational capacity on par with or orders of magnitude greater than a human mind.
https://intelligence.org/2015/01/08/brooks-searle-agi-voliti...

>According to a 2013 survey of the most cited authors in artificial intelligence, experts expect AI to be able to “carry out most human professions at least as well as a typical human” with a 10% probability by the (median) year 2024, with 50% probability by 2050, and with 90% probability by 2070, assuming uninterrupted scientific progress. Bostrom is less confident than this that AGI will arrive so soon:

>>My own view is that the median numbers reported in the expert survey do not have enough probability mass on later arrival dates. A 10% probability of HLMI [human-level machine intelligence] not having been developed by 2075 or even 2100 (after conditionalizing on “human scientific activity continuing without major negative disruption”) seems too low.
So ggplot2 for Python then?
Pls add skin "ХРЕНОРОГ"
https://pp.vk.me/c622124/v622124852/595e/wIjZ-AmfutY.jpg
https://vk.com/pony_life1488
russian group 12k people :C
Hey, thanks for providing a boxer's perspective. While you're here, I have a couple random questions: Do you always spar with headgear, mostly with headgear, or never with headgear? Can a boxer make a living as a sparring partner? How much is weight an advantage? Is 5 pounds massive, minor, or inconsequential? Finally, have you ever received a liver shot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_shot?

I'm impressed with anyone who will get in the ring. I might try it again one day with headgear. It's a spectacular workout and I'm sure it would be fun if you could get beyond the pain and fear and start using different tactics and strategies.
You're implying that MRI machines are 100% utilized and that any usage prevents some other usage. Surely that's not actually the case.
Sure, because "30 years" is code for, "far enough in the future to obviate that nothing we see today would predicate such a jump -- but still, it will happen." The timelines are silly; the prediction is not.
I remember reading something about Nick D’Aloisio of Summly. I doubt a 15 y/o could get Wendi Murdoch, Ashton Kutcher and Yoko Ono as investors without his parents help, then sell the company to Yahoo! for 30 million, who immediately shut it down.
This kind of thing is why the best "code interview" I ever had involved being given a problem (in this case, a small message sending/receiving library) and told to work on it over the weekend.
I play poker in card rooms often, but I don't consider it gambling. There is an aspect to luck, but it's mainly skill. Betting and knowing how to bet is a dominant aspect of the game, and there is a huge skill component to that.
Something about emoji makes them less annoying to me than most text smilies. Maybe it's the broader selection making individual emojis more likely to actually add some context.
Looking through the links, and methodology makes me question a lot of things, most of them regarding his choices in how he allocated memory. First and foremost, he was using the glibc malloc, which belongs in a museum, not in a running system. One of rust's big advantages in performance comes from that alone, given all the memory that's being allocated and destroyed. Which leads to the second question of how he did allocate objects. He knew he was going to allocate a number of objects, yet he didn't pre-allocate a large chunk of memory ahead of time to make it so he wouldn't have to call malloc and friends as often. I wouldn't be surprised if spending a bit of time just tuning memory didn't cut significant time from how long execution takes. I really wonder how much time was spent in the system context of all three of those; I'd be willing to bet that the final part of the examination would probably fare much different had he used the same malloc for the C program that rust and go already use.
Ubuntu Online Summit Schedule
I don't feel they failed to deliver on the promises in the Kickstarter campaign, and while it's disappointing to not yet see more on the 64-core version that was a long shot. However, they got a decent capital infusion last year so hopefully we'll get to see something more come out of that.

It's not that surprising that the community is moving slowly: They've shipped something not that far above 10,000 boards, many of which are likely in the hands of Kickstarters backers that bought them because we liked the idea more than because we have time to do all that much with them.

They need another iteration and another magnitude increase in community size, really.
I don't really see what the benefit for Jimmy to stay in that situation is. If Jimmy is skilled, and the company thinks or acts like Jimmy is replaceable, then Jimmy is in a bad job. Jimmy should leave before Jimmy is mentally harmed.

I believe this to the extent that I think creating a union to protect people in that type of situation is a net negative, where the union acts to help keep people in that type of job, where the union acts like those people are replaceable parts, which ends up being to the benefit mainly of that type of employer: as those workers indeed become replaceable parts.

We should encourage those skilled workers to leave instead, by offering them something better.
What? They are allowed to express their right to free speech and expression as well, just as the protestors should be able to.
Two officers supposedly do this, so therefore the NYPD needs to be disbanded? There's plenty wrong with the NYPD, but that doesn't follow at all.
The laws are complex and varied, but there are always some things you can't consent to. For example, you can donate your organs but not sell them, you can work for someone else but only so many hours, and some jobs are forbidden, etc.

The idea of forbidding certain things even with consent is that pre-committing to not doing those things makes you less vulnerable to blackmail.
Maybe investors are more properly skeptical about dumb opportunities proposed by someone with a dissimilar background. Founders and employees have a much greater need to work together day-to-day and trust each others' judgment.
You can do so much better than buying an expensive toy. Why bother working so hard to blow it on something silly?
The difference in MMA is that as soon as a fighter is not intelligently defending themselves, the ref stops the fight. There is a much lower standard for a technical knockout. There are many stoppages that occur after "flash" knockouts, where the fighter is only unconscious for a brief moment. Usually the fighter will protest, as he doesn't even realize it's happened. In boxing, a flash knockout doesn't end the fight, as long as the fighter gets back up. In a boxing match, this could happen twice every round without ending the fight.

I also wonder if the ability to wrestle in MMA plays a role. In boxing, as soon as the fighters clinch, the ref breaks up the fighters. In MMA, it's rare to see fighters stand within each other's range and throw full powered punches for extended periods.
I doubt very seriously that any cop does not find the manual paper entry and time wasted a good thing. More than likely they wanted to go home just as bad as the "perps."
When the Universe is taken as a whole do the changes of gravitational energy in spacetime exactly cancel out the changes of matter energy (including dark matter) due to the expansion of spacetime? How do we know (is there some mathematical reason to believe this is the case)?

When the author says that spacetime absorbs matter energy or gives matter energy, what does that really mean? Does it mean it can be used as a convenient sink or well in regards to changes of potential energy? What are the rules governing that transfer or do we just make things balance and decide that spacetime did it?

I am trying to shake this uncomfortable feeling that it is too convenient. I'd love to know the ground those kinds of operations stand on.
If you will your savings to a worthwhile institution, there's no problem.
Newbie here, I did too but on the other hand I've never read mutex in the context of distributed system but "consensus".
Many extremely well-informed people are concerned.

In fact, one of the most distressing things I hear from leading AI researchers who've made "AI is nothing to worry about any time soon!" comments is that they do not address any of the specific concerns raised by AI safety advocates. Instead, the most you hear from them is "we're really far away from that!" and "we don't know and I'm sure we'll figure it out when we're near that point."

These comments, from Andrew Ng and the like (insanely brilliant people!) show that they really haven't read Bostrom, etc. Or if they have, they didn't explain much (or get quoted) during interviews. It would make me feel more comfortable with their dismissal if they demonstrated a clear understanding of the arguments being made.
You forgot command #1: sudo - use in those exceptional cases where you need root permission.

It makes me really sad that all these examples are showing a root prompt. It is dangerous and bad practice.
Wow. Just watched and I second the recommendation.
How Avengers: Age of Ultron Nearly Killed Joss Whedon
It's the timeline I have a problem with. Any timeline with just two digits in it for AGI would do well to address the steps required to divide those years up into discrete steps of what bits and pieces will be accomplished by what (say) 5 year interval. Saving all the hard bits for the last 5 years would be considered cheating.

For now - as far as I can see - we are no closer to the goal than where we were 35 years ago but we know better how much we are still missing and all the hard parts are still in front of us.
You can buy ratings. Simple.
Financial gain as the primary motivator for the majority of students to pursue a university education and subsequent career is hardly new.

30 years ago, s/startup/Wall Street/.
I assume they didn't mention nix for the simple reason that RedHat and Debian and other distros aren't going to give up their own packaging setup. So the only way forward is to work with what you have.
"they do not address any of the specific concerns raised by AI safety advocates"
Yes, because the concerns are purely hypothetical and saying that these concerns aren't rooted in reality actually is a way to address them.
This is a variation of "driving would be safer without seatbelts" argument. I.e. because you'd be forced to drive more cautiously.

Problem 1: You don't know what the other guy would do (they might be a "crazy" outlier) and it protects you from them.

Problem 2: Probably people would drive a little more cautiously on average, but not a LOT more cautiously. (As evidenced by historical behavior before seatbelts were required.) Whereas the severity of injuries would skyrocket.
Indeed, quite a spectacle. It's one of the things that made Ali special, he completely dominated the game in his younger years with speed and nimbleness that had scarcely been seen before in the heavyweight division. Then he went to jail because he famously refused to fight in Vietnam ("No vietcong ever called me a ngr"), which was quite brave as if he had served he'd be loved by the vast majority in the US, continued to box, and never have to fight or risk his life, as he would be doing boxing exhibitions for soldier morale, campaigning etc. He refused purely out of (political) ideology.

Anyway, all that aside, what I wanted to say is what made him special is that when he got out everyone considered him to be too slow. He changed, he wasn't fast any longer, and older. Yet he was able to still dominate the weight class with a completely different style, at the expense of his body.

It's not often we see that. Most fighters who lose their speed never stand a chance to even lesser fighters. It's like Mayweather losing the shoulder roll and still dominating. And it surprised many at the time, it's hard to imagine but Ali, unlike the champions we think of today (like tonights fight) went into many of his later fights as an underdog, the fight against Foreman being the most famous. Foreman was considered an absolute beast, knocking out within 2 rounds (brutally) people like Norton and Frazier, amazing fighters who Ali himself had already lost to. Add to that an Ali way past his prime who had lost his greatest asset: his speed. That was remarkable.

The Ali in your video against Williams was as great as the Ali against Foreman, but completely and totally different in style, strategy and capacity. It's one of those things that don't show up on the scorecards (of say a Mayweather, who never lost and has been a world champ for like 17 years in a row now, compared to Ali who retired with 5 losses), reasons for which most boxing experts don't even have Mayweather in their top 20, no joke, while ali regularly makes a top 5, even though Mayweather is an absolutely brilliant fighter, too.

Thanks for the vid, good memories :)
Apparently not:

>We thus designed a brief questionnaire and distributed it to four groups of experts in 2012/2013. The median estimate of respondents was for a one in two chance that high-level machine intelligence will be developed around 2040-2050, rising to a nine in ten chance by 2075. Experts expect that systems will move
on to superintelligence in less than 30 years thereafter. They estimate the chance is about one in three that this development turns out to be ‘bad’ or ‘extremely bad’ for humanity.

http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf

The people warning about the future of are pretty familiar with AI. Your accusations that they are all idiots who have no understanding of AI is way off the mark.

A number of notable people also signed the future of life institute open letter warning about AI: http://futureoflife.org/misc/open_letter
Bullshit. Does SAG control Leo DiCaprio's pay? No. Does NFLPA control Tom Brady's pay? No. They both negotiate their pay with their employers.

Some unions have fixed payscales; some don't. It's not a universal feature of all unions.
Yes, they should be free to express their opinions. But free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. One could make a case that that sort of behavior could be considered insubordination and grounds for termination.
you forgot that they are stuck dealing with the systems already in place. Do you expect Redhat and Debian to give up rpms and debs?
Reading parts of this may cause a knee-jerk reaction, because mechanistic thinking is so useful to us in engineering!

What I essentially see in this is a reminder -- that it is easy to conflate how we look at something with what something actually is.

This is why it is important to be able to step back and understand how you are thinking about a phenomenon, and to generally cultivate an internal library of different methods of thinking.
> To be fair, today we have what we believe to be (much) more accurate models of how much computation a human mind is capable of

How much, yes, how, not so much and definitely not at the powerbudget the brain has.

> and how long it will take to build computing machines operating at that scale.

We don't actually know that. There have been some WAGs but so far those appeared to be totally off based on the developments since.

> 36 years ago the argument that AGI was coming soon could be made in tandem with the argument that we'd make some fundamental advance that allowed computers to express intelligence with less computational capacity than humans (by orders of magnitude).

Yes, that was a crucial mistake and it led directly to the AI winter.

> Today we can make an argument that we'll achieve it (at least initially) by leveraging computational capacity on par with or orders of magnitude greater than a human mind.

Chances are that we're missing a very important piece of the puzzle for which there is no known solution even in theory. The problem is that there are many candidates for that important piece none of which have currently proposed workable solutions no matter what the computational budget or the accepted slowdown (they are equivalent).

So I think some caution when throwing around projections numbering 'just a couple of years' is warranted, after all it's 'merely a matter of programming' but in this case we don't have a working model that we understand.
Doesn't it depend on the dataset? This may not be as useful if the result is sorted by "importance" (aka Google search query). But if the data is ordered categorically, an enormous list is a great way to scan through a lot of items quickly (think iTunes song library).
Are there any good IDEs for Clojure? If so, most of the stumbling could have been avoided. Coding without one tends to fall into the "ball-of-mud" problem where wrong code is built on top of other wrong code. Or alternatively, is there any way to continuously compile Clojure?
"They tie your pay to how many years you've worked at a company, not how skilled you are"

There's nothing inherent about unions that makes this true. It's that it worked for many of the low-skill job unions. Nothing says this has to be true for a tech union.

"At least corporations value skill."

No they don't. They value paying the least possible amount for the most possible work.
Bullshit. I can believe that programmers have unique skills, and also believe that companies don't give a shit about that, and largely try to treat them like replaceable parts.
There are limits. You probably wouldn't object to a police officer being fired when it's discovered they have 5,000 posts on Stormfront expressing solidarity for their Aryan brothers in their struggle against multicultural impurity.

These police officers expressed contempt in an organized, planned way for anyone who would hold police officers accountable for murders committed on the job. They essentially declared that they expect 100% support from their boss in the executive branch, no matter the illegality of their conduct, and committed to staging a standing strike in protest, and to publicly shunning their boss at a funeral. It's a power play that a nation of rights & laws cannot permit, if it wants to remain one.

You know what? We can find other people to be police officers. Ones which aren't so abusive of the people they're supposed to be serving, and so privileged to a lack of consequences for this abuse, that they're on the edge of a coup against the elected civilian government.
There has been a massive explosion in deep learning in the past few years, mainly enabled by the rapid drop in the price of computing (GPUs.) They are breaking bencmarks at a bunch of different AI tasks from speech recognition to translation to machine vision.

I wrote a summary here of the main achievements of 2014: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2qq993/developm...

Stuart Russel recently said "The commercial investment in AI the last five years has exceeded the entire world wide government investment in AI research since it's beginnings in the 1950's."
The Fancy Units – Unit and Currency Converter for Every Day Use
> If we were to think through what it would actually mean to configure the universe in a way that maximizes the number of paper clips that exist, you realize that such an AI would have incentives, instrumental reasons, to harm humans. Maybe it would want to get rid of humans, so we don’t switch it off, because then there would be fewer paper clips. Human bodies consist of a lot of atoms and they can be used to build more paper clips.

That's a funny example but seriously, a machine smart enough to build paper clip factories would certainly be also smart enough to be able to avoid doing things that harm humans. The argument sounds a bit silly to me.
Your sarcasm aside, here is a more in depth commentary: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8831688
Hard to believe this was just death by "natural causes." It's dangerous to speculate, yes, but I think we can all safely assume that he had access to the best of the best in terms of healthcare. To die suddenly at his age with no warning signs at all is very strange.
> This is a variation of "driving would be safer without seatbelts" argument. I.e. because you'd be forced to drive more cautiously.

No, it is not a variation of that. Your argument relies on a change in behavior in response to increased risk. (A change that may or may not occur.) The OP's argument does not require a change in behavior. The point is that boxers without gloves could go on behaving as though they have gloves on and then they'll break their damn hands (preventing 12 rounds of concussive blows to their opponent's brain).

As others have argued below: gloves protect hands not heads.
Dave Goldberg lives on
Are you serious? Members of the police force are prevented from to expressing their opinion while in uniform, they are sworn to duty. If they do it anyway, that way lie the Freikorps of the Weimar Republic. As the grandparent says, these guys need the equivalent of a dishonourable discharge.
"Unions remove my ability to negotiate."

No, they don't. They add power to your ability to negotiate, as it's no longer just you against the entire company.
I was not implying that.

Nothing. Built in arithmetic will do the job nicely.
The narrative of the dangerous AI exciting for the layman, but it's ultimately just a good story, more of a danger to our current economic model than it is to our species.
You don't need them to be 100% utilized, it's not the machines that are the problem but the technicians operating them and the doctors interpreting the results and so on.

There is a whole team clustered around an MRI machine and tying up the machine is effectively tying up the team.

If everybody got an MRI every year on the off chance they might have something then the machines would not be available to those that actually need them (because they have symptoms that require an MRI to narrow in on a cause).

And that's besides the whole fall-out further down the chain in case something does show up that does not generate symptoms and even further down the chain where probably un-necessary operations will be performed on symptom-less patients.

Doing the right amount of screening is a really hard problem. Getting an MRI done every year just because you can afford it is probably not even near the right amount.