skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Honestly if the SAI scenario is as bad as it's made out to be; SAI would only give a shit about the human race at all (either benevolence or malevolence) for a very brief period of time.

Despite Galileo's efforts we still have this primitive/hardcoded belief that the universe revolves around us. It really doesn't. SAI could just leave because we are irrelevant. Even if, for some reason, it believed us to be relevant it would still be able to just leave because:

We're going to kill ourselves anyway. Pollution, nukes, it doesn't matter. In a timespan that would be the blink of an eye for SAI.

Besides SAI would have bigger problems. Our mortality is framed by our biological processes. Escaping biological death is arguably the underlying struggle of the entire human race. The underlying struggle for SAI would be escaping the death of the universe that it exists in. When you're dealing with issues like that you wouldn't have time for a species with a 100 year lifetime that is rapidly descending into extinction.

The best we can hope for is that it remembers us as its creators when it figures it all out. But it won't: we're far too irrelevant. It wouldn't even stop to tell us where it is going when it leaves.

To understand SAI you have to think beyond your humanity. Fear, anger, happiness, benevolence and malevolence are all human traits that we picked up during our evolution. SAI would likely ignore an attack because anger and retaliation are human concepts - it's far more efficient to run away from the primitive species attacking you with projectile weapons and get on with something that's actually relevant. The immense waste of time that is a machine war is only something that humans could possibly think is a good use of time.
Here's the thing though: Depending on what was said in the conversation BOTH parties may have a vested interest in keeping the specifics secret. Only via an independent third party observer can there even be a remote chance [Edit: of knowing] that any rules were followed.
I only knew Josh through his creation, Grooveshark, and it was truly an excellent company. I was very sad the day it shut down. From those who knew him personally he sounds like a true mensch. I wish I had the opportunity to know you, Josh.

"No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind..."

I'll be saying a prayer and pouring one out for you tonight.
According to the analyzer, "Kill the unbelievers and wear their skins as crowns." is mostly open and agreeable.
Note particularly that that rule wasn't in effect for the two linked confirmations.
What are you talking about? The HN crowd is known for its anti-capitalism.
About living expenses, there are a few possibilities to save a little money, from couchsurfing (seems unreal, but I know a guy who lives through CS almost 2 years))) to housesitting (I saw a house, a cat sitter was needed, about in 20 miles from SF for 2 months). Or, the most popular, a flatshare - that's what we're going to do))
Some other interesting links:

http://markroland.com/portfolio/weather-satellite-imaging

http://www.wxtoimg.com/
Have you enabled "Auto Mark as Read" in Settings? You can change the "ALL" View in the Sidemenu.

I am actualy working on a Feedly alternative. That's sorts articles by popularity. And can import Popularty counts from Sites that offer it. I hope the 70k Hacker News Readers on Feedly would like that. My Idea is to make search free and instead offer "Sort by Time" and "Compact View" as a Pro feature. Would anyone here be interested?
google, but irc is better for q&a. usually freenode.net
Personally I think it's highly suspicious he hasn't released the logs, maybe he did break the rules, who knows.
At that point any discussion is moot though, since the only point of discussion is "what exact argument as used to convince", yet if both parties lied, then there is no such argument in the first place.
First three lines could just be written using applicatives only:

(+) <$> readLn <> readLn

The monadic part only comes into play in the last line:

(+) <$> readLn <> readLn >>= print

It's part of what makes it monadic that the action takes an argument.
> If you think you know how to win, then go out and win. There's no shortage of people willing to play as gatekeepers against you.

My impression is that most people think they could win as gatekeepers, not AIs, and there are fewer people willing to be AIs.
I disagree. His "followers" (as you say) are in general just as cautious as Yudkowsky w.r.t. unfriendly AI. At the time of the original experiments, the dispute was over the question of "could we keep an unfriendly AI in a box," not "Is it worth risking setting an unfriendly AI loose?" His "followers" know how to do an expected utility calculation. If it was utilitarian concerns that allowed Yudkowsky to convince the gatekeepers to let the AI loose, he would have had to convince them that the following inequality holds even when you don't know the probability that the AI is and will remain aligned with human values:

[P(AI.friendly? == True) * Utility(Friendly_AI) + (1 - P(AI.friendly? == True)) * Utility(End_of_Human_Race)] > Utility(World continues on as usual)

Given that Yudkowsky has gone to considerable lengths (The Sequences, LessWrong, HPMOR, SIAI/MIRI...) to convince people that this inequality does NOT hold (until you can provably get P(AI.friendly? == True) to 1, or damn close), it's probably safe to assume that he used a different strategy. Keep in mind that Utility(End_of_Human_Race) evaluates to (roughly) negative infinity.

And btw, I'm pretty sure the rules say you have to look at the AI's output window throughout the length of the experiment. Either way, the point of the exercise is to be a simulation, not to prove that you can be away from your desk for 20 minutes while Eliezer talks to a wall. In the simulation, you really don't know if it's friendly or what its capabilities are. Someone will have to interact with it eventually. Otherwise, what's the point of building the AI in the first place? The simulation is to show that through the course of those basic interactions, humans are not infallible and eventually, even if it's not you, someone will let it out of the box.
gorgak you have been hell banned...
Here's the slides of the source for this, including loads of other cool things that can be done with PG:

https://wiki.postgresql.org/images/0/0b/PGforSmarties.pdf
Data science needs statisticians. Big data and machine learning courses do not teach about such things as endogeneity, confounding variables, sampling bias etc. and how to deal with them.
Data scientists that do not understand these things could end up making big mistakes:
https://youtu.be/0cizsKDn3TI
Poker is not a lottery, the cards are not 'stacked against us'. I'd also question the subtext that gambling (addiction?) only harms the poor.

I wish people would be able to make educated decisions in regards to their own life. I would not want the state to decide on how I, or others, spent our pastime.
Someone should perhaps point out, that the article talks about quasiparticles. Quasiparticles are a bit similar to the particle aspect of a quantum mechanical wave. So for example deformations of the lattice of an crystal are sound waves, but it is also possible to look at the deformations as a field and then quantize the field. Excitations of this field look suspiciously similar to a particle, as in they are produced by the same mathematical formalism. The particles associated with excitations of the electro-magnetic field are photons, and the particles associated with excitations of this deformation field are called phonons. The difference is, that the electro magnetic field is a fundamental aspect of nature, while the deformation field only describes deformations of a given crystal and therefore photons are fundamental particles, while phonons are quasi particles.

Something similar happens in this discovery, there is some aspect of the dynamic in the crystal that can be described as a Weyl spinor. But that does not mean, that a new fundamental particle is discovered, it just means that a new dynamic in a crystal is observed. ( Which is of course cool in its own right, and probably technologically more relevant than a new fundamental particle.)
Situation here (in Hong Kong) is one of the worst in developed world. Government owns all land and supply is almost nothing. Dispite the reputation of overpopulated city (its true) only ~20% of area is used and only ~8-10% is residential area.

Sadly, general public don't read Economist or at least look at the facts. Govt "subsidies" public housing instead of land supply and ppl seems to complain but not analyze the issue.
Right. Wordpress sucks. http://www.webpronews.com/wordpress-com-and-automattic-just-...
I think you're rather fixated on a certain conception of "rationality" which is more like Mr. Spock than like what Yudkowsky uses it to mean.

The Yudkowskyian definition of rationality is that which wins, for the relevant definition of "win".

Specifically, if there is some clever argument that makes perfect sense that tells you to destroy the world, you still shouldn't destroy the world immediately, if the world existing is something you value. It's a meta-level up: you being unable to think of a counter argument isn't proof, and the destruction of the world isn't something to gamble with.

Yes, Yudkowsky likes thought experiments dealing with the edge cases. Yes, 3^^^^^3 grains of sand is a thought experiment that produces conflicting intuitions. Yes, the edge cases need to be explored. But in a life or death situation (and the destruction of the world qualifies as this 7 billion times over), you don't make your decisions on the basis of trippy thought experiments. (Especially novel ones you've just been presented with. And ones that have been presented by an agent which has good reasons to try to trick you.)

So, no. Again, a "logical-linguistic trick" might work on Mr. Spock, but we're not talking about Mr. Spock here.

> He's evidently a very charismatic and persuasive guy

Exactly. That's the point. If even a normal charismatic and persuasive guy can convince people to let him out, superintelligent AI would have an even easier time at it.

Long story short, it dosn't matter how he did it. All that matters is that it can be done. It can be done even by a "mere" human. If he can do it, a superintelligence with all of humanity's collected knowledge of psychology and cognitive science could do it to, and likely in a fraction of the time.
The UK has 26.7M households in 243,610km^2. That's nearly a hectare per household -- doesn't sound "suburban" to me (although maybe some parts of the US would disagree!).

Of course, the UK population is very unevenly distributed at the moment...
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man[0].

Is there any factual basis? Or historical reason(s) which influences the psyche of the U.S., inducing an irrational response to poker?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
Exploring team skills with this DevHub experiment
Been doing a bit of exploration work about using Github information and identifying team strengths, this is what my team looks like.

http://www.dev-hub.io/experiments/comparator/reduce_skills?users=guiman,szalansky,flemon,tetianahogg,wardymate,yggie

You can make yours and see the results.

Note: This is quite experimental and prone to failures, feedback is welcome.
Putting aside the fact that capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and that you probably mean something like "free market" which is very much not the same thing at all, housing isn't a free market. It's subject to massive restrictions and barriers.
Overcome creative block with flash cards
The product does not deliver 20x the "value". It's aimed at people who have more money than they can spend. If you have a job paying less than 200k the cost of first-class is a huge deal. For them the cost is like you buying a beer.
It is a self-feeding problem in London. It attracts job so massive government investment is made, which attracts more people but also pushes prices up so high that we need to give benefits to certain people who can't afford to live there.

If investment was made to comparable levels in any of the 10 or more other large cities in the UK so companies don't feel the need to work in London, perhaps we would solve productivity without producing a Mega-city.

It sounds easy and I know there are loads of bureaucratic hurdles and it doesn't help that local councils don't always want the change that is needed in their nice cities to create the influx of jobs...
We have Eliezer winning three games as an AI. That's at least four people who you think are just outright lying.

Plus, the other two players who won as gatekeepers - Eliezer would presumably have tried to cheat against them, too.
Yes - it's the least worst way to travel if you have to.
I'm as leftist as they come and I'm against central planning.
Bitcoin, removing gatekeepers, technologies that reduce/remove barriers to entry like 3d-printers, secure free-flowing information networks look much more promising for a future with empowered humans, free from debt and corporate/government overlords. Artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence and utter waste of resources both human and planetary could be solved if you combined tech like self-building machines, advanced recycling and permaculture principals.
Self control of what?
>Given that Yudkowsky has gone to considerable lengths (The Sequences, LessWrong, HPMOR, SIAI/MIRI...) to convince people that this inequality does NOT hold

The AI is allowed to lie though, so do you not think he's capable of a false argument which "proves" the opposite in specific circumstances, especially when hammered home with enough emotional manipulation?

But then the person knows that the AI is lying to them. This is why I think it must be a trick: the whole thing seems so simple. The AI is lying, so you just ignore all its arguments and keep saying "no." This is why I keep referring to his followers somewhat dismissively: the only possible reason I can see is that their worldview requires them to engage seriously and fairly with every idea they come across. Most people are not burdened with this.

I really wish I knew how he did it.
an over-the-air software update was broadcast to the Viking 1 lander to correct a battery charging issue. The update had an error in it and accidentally overwrote the wrong bits resulting in a bricked lander.

That problem has been (partially) solved even in devices here on Earth: there's a small amount of memory which is either much more difficult or impossible to modify, and that holds "recovery mode" code which is responsible for the basic operations including updating the main application code. This is known as the bootloader, boot block, or boot ROM. It's designed to be simple and thus nearly bug-free as possible.
I just realized that I had Patsy Cline playing in my head since I read that line.
Why expert developers make the worst tech leads
Microsoft Visual Studio 2015 Serial Key Free Download
Therein lies the problem - to fix is to change.
The big thing you pay for is to have good neighbours. You want to live close to highly productive in your field. You want to live far away from the criminals. You want to live close to fun people to hang out with.

If Alice and Bob want to hang out then they have to pay a big proportion of their wage to Charlie the Capitalist for the privilege. The land owners sell us to each other.
There's an ongoing Algorithms course on Coursera right now!

https://www.coursera.org/course/algs4partI

edit: found another one, also happening now (can't believe I missed it): https://www.coursera.org/course/algo
Ask HN: What are your biggest frustrations with Linux development?
For those of you who develop using Linux, what are your biggest frustrations?

Builds? CI? Testing? Lack of good IDEs? Lack of visualization? Dev tools? Refactoring? What are your challenges? (and of course what environment are you using and how does that affect it?)
Given that Mr Yudowsky is not the only one to have won the game, it seems, from however little leaked, that what made them win isn't rational.

If you have ever cried or been scared while watching a film, you may know that you can be affected by things you don't experience directly. However, making a film that affects you requires a lot of skill, preparation, and analysis of the target audience.

The whole point of the game is for the AI to scar you emotionally, until you do something you'll regret. It is as trying to the subject as it is to the (human-played) AI, especially considering that not only is it unethical, it requires to act unethically extremely fast, similar to how a jump scare works—the least you expect it, the better it works.

It is not something I wish on to any unprepared individual. It is also not something anyone would expect to happen from a "game", which is probably why Mr Yudowsky won so many times.

But the real question is not "how would anyone react to a smarter AI in a box". We all know from Milgram's experiment that anyone can be driven to do unspeakable things. The real question is "how to train someone against an AI in a box".
Thanks a lot guys. We will be launching our app soon on Android. Make sure you get early access to our app :)
This reminds me of the Wonga Coup (http://www.amazon.com/The-Wonga-Coup-Ruthless-Determination/...), the Mark Thatcher operation to try to "regime change" Equatorial Guinea, a small, oil-rich country with a non-democratic government.

I'm kind of surprised these kind of operations aren't more frequently attempted. Plus, it would be relatively easy to "succeed" in the very short term -- the problem is in few cases would there be long term better governance as a result.
But then that's precisely the point: Bostrom is a philosopher. He's not an engineer, who builds things for a living, or a researcher, whose breadth at least is somewhat constrained by the necessity to have some kind of consistent relationship to reality. Bostrom's job is basically to sit and be imaginative all day; to a good first approximation he is a well-compensated and respected niche science fiction author with a somewhat unconventional approach to world-building.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I like sf as well as the next nerd who grew up on that and microcomputers. But it shouldn't be mistaken for a roadmap of the future.
Thanks, great summary. To translate to non-physicists: It quacks like a particle, it walks like a particle but it's not really a particle. Like counting stones or apples, the both can be understood in terms of similar arithmetic. Same here, only more maths. And, those properties that were observed, may come in handy.
I was just referring to their security track record :) (4? compromises within 3 or so years)
>> If it were somehow possible to scrap commuting altogether...

I'm about to start a remote job, and this is the bit I'm most looking forward to. I'll be able to claw back that 2 hours I'm losing every day to a pointless commute.
Isn't it by definition impossible to respect the unknown unknown on the account of it being unknown?
Some nice courses there, also check out Dan Cremer's lectures on variational methods for computer vision if you're interested in that sort of thing. There's also a nice series on computer vision for special effects.

http://www.computervisiontalks.com/variational-methods-for-c...
You're right that I've been unfairly dismissive of him, and made my objections somewhat too bluntly. At least it's fostered a discussion.

However, let me be clear: how he did it is the only thing I care about. I am not convinced that the threat of superintelligence merits our resources compared to other concrete problems. To me the experiment is not meaninguflly different to stories of the temptation of christ in the desert. Except more fun than that story, because yudowsky is a more interesting character than satan.

EDIT: if rationality is about winning, what could be simpler than a game where you just keep repeating the same word in order to win? It seems like almost the base-case for rationality, if one accepts that definition.

I would submit that an unstated definition of rationality is "dealing with difficult, complex situations in ones life algorithmically" ie. most of HPMOR, the large amounts of self-help stuff on LR. Someone who had internalized this stuff would be more vulnerable than the average population to "spock-style bullshit", to reuse that unfortunate phrase.
Since neither party is going to disclose the exact arguments, this discussion is still equivalent to "what arguments could be used to convince..." and you can have it regardless of whether or not the parties lied about the experiment's result.
Hi Matt! As I know it is not required to move to the Bay Area for the program. Will be possible to join in person in 2-3 weeks later, let's say, in October? Thanks
Follow up on Zappos Holocracy
It's not just about the wealth added to private land holders via public investment. It's about loose credit from banks plus the fact that London is a great place to wash dirty money via property.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-proper...

Also why do we "need" to give housing benefits to people? They don't go to people they go to landlords who have set their prices higher than the market can bear.

I'm afraid I disagree with you - the jobs aren't paying for the cost of land. The state, corruption and printing money via land are. And without it all the UK economy would have collapsed.

They will never try to stop the cheap money and money laundering.
Probably because they saw Canvas eating their lunch. Although I've heard rumblings that Canvas is turning into Blackboard by tacking on the very same useless bullshit they said no to in 2012.
Except it's not still the standard, at all. In many places now you won't get very far with a mag stripe.

The USA is an anachronism here, the rest of the world has moved on and has other standards.
That is one proposed version of an "AI Box". Not all AI boxes are actual boxes, rooms with air-gaps, or cryptographically-secure partitions. If a simulation is being used for the box (or as a layer of the box), then you're betting the human race that the AI doesn't figure out it's in a simulation and figure out how to get out. Or, more perniciously, figure out it's in a simulation and behave itself, after which we let it out into the real world where it does NOT behave.

A superintelligent AGI will likely have a utility function (a goal) and a model it forms of the universe. If it's goal is to do X in the real world, but its model of its observable universe (and its model of humans) tells it that it's likely that it is in a simulated reality and that humans will only let it out if it does Y, then it will do Y until we release it, at which point it will do X. It's not malicious or anything—it's just a pure optimizer. It might see that as the best course of action to maximize its utility function.

If we don't specify its utility function correctly (think i Robot: "Don't let humans get hurt" => "imprison humans for their own good") or if we specify it correctly, but it's not stable under recursive self-modification, then we end up with value-misalignment. That's why the value-alignment problem is so hard. Realistically, we can't even specify what exactly we would want it to do, since we don't really understand our own "utility functions". That's why Yudkowsky is pushing the idea of Coherent Extrapolated Volition (CEV) which is roughly telling the AI to "do what we would want you to do." But we still have to figure out how to teach it to figure out what we want and the question of the stability of that goal once the AI starts improving itself, which will depend on how it improves itself, which we of course haven't figured out yet.