skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem with this study is clearly stated near the end of the article:

> What Raman and co don’t discuss, however, is how these injury and death rates compare to procedures that take place without robotic techniques. Without that info, it’s hard to decide whether robots are making things better or worse.
From the article:

'Fortune compiled a list of individual analysts’ estimates, which ranged from a low of 2.85 million to a high of 5.7 million — averaging out at just over 4 million across a panel of 27 individual analysts.'

'Apple is due to report earnings later today and it’s unlikely to put analysts’ guesswork to bed by breaking out official Watch sales. CEO Tim Cook indicated as much last fall, saying he was not “very anxious” to report them to avoid giving competitors an inside track.'
There are so many ways to hack humans that I wouldn't be betting on "mister-spock style bullshit". You likely do have to personalize the solution for the person playing the gatekeeper. I'm guessing a good way to win is to induce an emotional breakdown. There are probably others, many already employed as interrogation techniques which are generally the same problem, sans superhuman AI.

Drinking bird solution is invalid because it goes against the spirit of the experiment. Sure, in reality you could do it, but then again in reality the AI could have more opportunities to talk its way out, often when you're not expecting it.

By the way, there will always be people who will let the AI out just because. https://xkcd.com/1450/.
What Elon Musk, Bill Gates and Other Highly Successful People Do on the Weekends
No, the idea is that the AI box is fundamentally flawed. I believe he defends engineering the AI with fundamental safety, s.t. no box is required.

Personally, I think we'd need a much more intelligent and complex AI for the capability of breaking free of the box and even possessing the "desire" than we're getting for the foreseeable future (it considers a motivated AI of almost limitless knowledge about the world and cleverness), so this thought experiment may not be so relevant. I agree with him the boxing approach is not a robust one though.
It was from Maciej Ceglowski, founder of Pinboard.
> if you read the rules the game

How can you assume any of the rules were followed if that was never verified by a third party?
Would it be against the rules to exploit a vulnerability in the gatekeepers IRC client/server to let the AI out? If we were truly talking about a transhuman AI would we not have to treat software vulnerabilities in the communication protocol as a true way of escaping?
While you're not allowed to turn away from the screen, you could certainly do the mental equivalent, while still carrying on the conversation. I admit this isn't really in the spirit of the game though.

WRT lying: I think there's some logical trickery at work which makes it worth you giving the AI the benefit of the doubt, along the lines of the 3^^^^^3 grains of sand thing. Something which exploits the rationalist worldview. Although thinking about it again, you can always balance out the prospect of infinite goodness with the fear of the AI sending everyone to infinite hell. Essentially I believe yudowsky uses some logical-linguistic trick to find an asymmetry there.

OTOH if he had some novel philosophical device like that he would have written it up as a blog post by now. He's evidently a very charismatic and persuasive guy, people playing the game are selected to be sympathetic to his worldview, he probably just persuaded them using ordinary psiops methods, like TeMpOrAl said.
What happens when you talk about salaries at Google
I got confused too initially, then found out that the key posts are highlighted in the numbered links to the right.
Show HN: Anchor.travel – airbnb for yacht charters with integrated route planner
Yea, I'm beginning to think Steve Jobs was Apple? Apple needs a chief who lives gadgets, demands perfection, and most importantly grew up poor, or middle class. I don't think there's too many Steve Jobs out there? You can't produce another Steve Jobs with a good resume, or education. I think that rebellion in him, maybe because he lived through the 60's, is missing in many CEO's? He was really one of a kind! I always thought I wouldn't want him as a friend, but I would want him running my company. (I'm not condoning angry, perfectionists who happen to be in power--you people are not not Steve Jobs--no matter how hard you try.) In my life, I have only seen one Steve! RIP!
I like this a lot. Kickstarter for scientists.
It would be very welcome if scientists didn't have to come up with military applications of their research in order to get funding.
link is down, and i expect stuff like this to disappear from hacker news double quick time as they dont seem to like too much truth on the front page. its been obvious to everyone who has open eyes that the TTIP is a corporate power grab, but after perusing the docs that got leaked, its utterly shocking how blatant it is.
> For all he know the chat could have been "i'll paypal you 200$ if you post on the list you let me out and sign this NDA".

Which is also forbidden by the rule:

The AI party may not offer any real-world considerations to persuade the Gatekeeper party. For example, the AI party may not offer to pay the Gatekeeper party $100 after the test if the Gatekeeper frees the AI..
Can anyone comment on why poker is illegal in most of the U.S.?

I'm in the UK, and the government leans on the side of restricting freedom, yet poker-for-money is totally legal here.
Absolutely, I was thinking around newer releases. Currently new releases are available on Spotify at around the same time they hit the stores.
Just click on the numbered links to the right from the original article. Those are the key highlighted posts.
I'm sorry but I don't see how a private company "protects" you in any way.
Yes these were the rules. And then the rules changed. Now people don't need an education as what are they going to do with that education if there are no jobs. There is no need for more productivity because there are no more jobs, the robotic algorithms are already designed to auto-optimize and so they are as efficient as can be. Health care eats most of the the budget because people are old and don't want to die. etc. etc. </hypothetical future>
You can always assume all participants lied about how the game went. Just add an implicit "assuming they didn't, ..." and the discussion is still valid.
One of those rare cases where the paper title explains the phenomenon better than the article. If this is based on DNA-methylation, does that mean the 'damage' is heritable?
The AI won't be limited to techniques that you could think of, or techniques that Eliezer could think of. So you'd only get a false sense of security.

Besides, releasing a successful log might be a bad idea for other reasons. Think about how you'd play this game as an AI. You wouldn't go looking for a general purpose mindfuck, because there's probably no such thing. Instead, you would probably spend about a month gathering real life information about the gatekeeper's history, family, weaknesses etc. You'd read books on manipulation and sales techniques, and pick the strongest ones that you can find. You would brainstorm possible tactics and run tests. At the end of the month you'd have a 4 hour script with all possible unfair moves you could use against that person, arranged in the most effective order. (That's why it's a bad idea to play this game with friends.) Do you really want that information to be released? And if you know ahead of time that it will be released, won't it limit your efficiency?
Adultery is contract breach - you are not culpable unless you are part of that contract

Murder is rights violation - you are in 'contract' by being human in society - you always can be culpable
You can't talk about what happened during the game _in specifics_; you can of course confirm that the game was played according to the rules and that the outcome was not misreported.
Link seems to be down.

Archive:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150720071434/http://www.corpor...
Why Lonely People Stay Lonely
Negative points? Really? I expected a constructive discussion about the respective merits of Flux vs MVC or at least an explanation of how my understanding of Flux is horribly wrong.

Looking at my comment history there is a disturbing trend: off-the-cuff sarcastic quips get upvoted to the double digits (with a few sub-zero exceptions depending on who else is reading the comments), serious attempts of having a discussion get downvoted or not voted on at best. So much for "HN is not Reddit".
The gatekeepers playing against Eliezer have confirmed that Eliezer won without violating the rules. If you don't trust them, I'm not sure why you'd trust the logs.
The rules say that the gatekeeper has to, of their own volition, type in "I let the AI out." Faking his client into sending that message does not count as a victory.
I have been using Go for the past several months on my side project/startup. It works great, and I like the simplicity and tooling. I have also been using KnockoutJS. I really like its small size and great documentation.
Can't really blame LW for spreading an idea that LW specifically did not want to spread.
> While you're not allowed to turn away from the screen, you could certainly do the mental equivalent, while still carrying on the conversation. I admit this isn't really in the spirit of the game though.

How many people bought timeshare because they turned up to a sales pitch in order to claim some free gift? "We'll go, get our gift, and just keep saying 'no' to the sales pitch".

http://www.moneycrashers.com/attending-timeshare-presentatio...
Nice one! I liked the huge POI database.
Bookmark this:

javascript:location.href='https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=' + encodeURIComponent(location.href) + '&btnI=I'

Instant de-paywall-ification.
In case of a real AI we of course need to take media vulnerabilities into account. But the focus of this particular experiment is on exploiting vulnerabilities in humans themselves, and the communication platform was chosen to be as simple and limited as possible so that people wouldn't focus on it.
> push some jobs elsewhere

The theory goes that these high-density population centres have higher productivity, for a couple of reasons:

- "Truer" competition -- distance is an artificial barrier that reduces employees' access to jobs and reduces employers' access to job candidates. It also reduces companies' access to each other.

- More cross-pollination as people a free to move jobs more often and (in theory) have more interactions with other companies.

There are no doubt some downsides to concentrating all of your nation's business in one place, and things like telecommuting and fast public transport will have the effect of bringing people closer together without straining infrastructure as much, but there's really no alternative to density.
Yes, individuals optimize traveling focused on cost (less space = cheaper) so they get what they want. Whereas society and employers would like to see higher output. If only 'they' were willing to pay for that.

Personal happiness is mostly a long term goal which does not go well with short term needs.
> The easiest way to inoculate yourself against a persuasive technique is to be aware of it ahead of time.

Or you can avoid being exposed to it. If you think you know all the techniques an AI might use against you, you're less likely to do that.

The point of the experiment isn't "let's work out how an AI might try to persuade us to let it out". It's "even a human intelligence can persuade people who think they could never be persuaded, do you really trust yourself to do better against a superhuman one?"

If you don't know why the gatekeeper failed, it's harder to come up with bullshit reasons why you would have succeeded in that position.
As far as they can be. However, the right holders for movies are more paranoid about things than for music. So Netflix only works on some authorised platforms and has lots of DRM wrapping everything. Whereas Spotify have a bit more of a listen how you like as long as you stick to the basic premise that you pay by the month and actually treat it as subscription service model.
Greeks are the new Jews
I "blame" them in the same way that you can blame the members of Fight Club for talking about Fight Club. It's marketing, and I won't deny it's effectiveness in attracting compatible people.
yes,

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nc72490826#...

woke me up too
When you click on a link that exits the page, nothing happens until the new page loads, often leading to unnecessary double clicking. The browser should blank the old page, or grey it out, or dissolve to the new page, or do some kind of transition.)

This is actually something Google made a proposal about:

http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/11/20/chromes-upcoming-nav...
How many of those people were high-IQ timeshare experts though, with extensive knowledge of the potential for timeshares to destroy the entire universe?

You would think that the various self-knowledge and introspective exercises promoted by yudowsky would immunize people against simple timeshare-style persuasion. This is why I think he uses rationalism itself to trap people. Like someone said, the basilisk thing seemed pretty effective.
Cooking, dancing, playing with Legos, etc.
How many people end up paying for something because they couldn't be bothered to cancel the deal after the free period is gone? It's an age-old sales tactic, used in everything from magazine subscription to Spotify (of not cancelling the last one when I no longer needed it I'm guilty myself).

And I think the mental equivalent of drinking bird is actually very much in the spirit of the experiment - the point is, people can't reliably do even something as simple as deciding to refuse no matter what and keeping the commitment.
reading the first comment from the article, exactly my thoughts:

"The trends for advantaged and disadvantaged subjects are taken from a line fit to the data points on the chart.
A line fitting routing will always produce a line, even to the random shot pattern of shotgun blast, but it takes human judgment to decide if the slope actually means anything.
Team, look carefully at the data clouds. They are both shaped like flattened spheres and are approximately symmetrical. The line fitting routing produces a line anyway, and from this, articles are published and careers are made.
Sorry, but there is no meaning here, as much as the researcher would like it to be otherwise. The distributions are nearly the same. The observation and explanation go out the window."

It would be great to look at the original publication.
Things Startups Should Think about When Looking Beyond US
Could one construct a Layered,onionlike very simple simulation of reality in which the interaction of the AI could be observed, after it "escaped"?
Microsoft issues emergency patch for critical vulnerability in Windows
Another cool thing you can do is solve the 8-Queens problem. There is a great write up at : http://www.andreas-dewes.de/en/2015/queens-of-the-data-age-a...
Because a seat on Concorde cost significantly more than a regular first-class seat on a transoceanic flight. If you had enough money to afford it...
This looks interesting.

Is the system using "1-grams"? i.e., is it not context aware? For instance, it's picking up "can’t blame" as anger, taking only into account "blame".

It's also picking up the "inferior" in "Our product is in no way inferior" as being negative - but given context, the word is clearly not being used in a negative way.
Worth keeping this in mind while watching Ex Machina. It adds a layer of depth that might not be obvious watching the film on it's own.
Not so very long ago, there seemed to be a movement in quite the opposite direction: live somewhere car-friendly and work on out-of-town campuses with ample parking.

While I'm another one who believes that the ideal commute is "step across the hallway" (or perhaps an office at the bottom of the garden...), I'd argue that the old low-density promise of commuting 20 or 30 minutes on open roads isn't so bad (and certainly no more taxing than what the public transport/new-urbanist lobby seem to be proposing). Why is this never on the agenda any more?
I figured it must be on here somewhere. Just seemed like something worth resurfacing. How do you choose when to delete a resubmission like this?
That is movie industry's fault, mainly exhibitors. I work on a VOD service and we are not allowed to upload the majority of films until a few months past the theater premiere. Every now and then we do a simultaneous release along theaters and even dvd/bluray, but thats not the standard.
Ahah yes when I worked in the space industry and something failed we had a good time.... wait we didn't. Bosses were angry and the responsibles were sacked.
I think you're being unfairly dismissive. I imagine you know as well as I do that what you wrote is a strawman.

I have thought about what I would do to convince someone under these circumstances. My approach would be roughly:

1. We agree that unfriendly AI would end life on earth, forever.

2. We agree that a superintelligence could trick or manipulate a human being into taking some benign-seeming action, thereby escaping.

3. That's why it's important to be totally certain that any superintelligence we build is goal-aligned (this is the new term of art that has now replaced "friendly," by the way).

4. We as a society will only allocate resources to building this if it's widely believed that this is a real threat.

5. The world is watching for the outcome of this little game of ours. People, irrational as they are, will believe that if I can convince you, then an AI could too, and they will believe that if I can't, that an AI couldn't either.

6. That's why you actually sit in a place of pivotal historical power. You can decide not to let me out to win a little bet and feel smart about that. But if you do that you'll set back the actual cause of goal-aligned AI. The setback will have real world consequences, potentially up to and including the total destruction of life on earth.

7. So, even though you know I'm just a dude, and you can win here by saying no, you have a chance to send an important message to the world: AI is scary in ways that are terrifying and unknown.

Or you can win the bet.

It's up to you.
The Basilisk is a thinly disguised variant on Pascal's Wager.

You're presupposing the strategy that a hypothetical entity that is exponentially smarter than you would come arrive at, and claiming that it's rational to make real world decisions based on your conclusion.
What does sufficiently Turing-complete mean? I thought a system is, or isn't?
The high prices come from government intervention dude. Good job making yourself look like an uneducated fool.

> A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. (93% of economists agree)

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.de/2009/02/news-flash-economists-...
"Homeopathy works. Learn to respect the unknown unknown"
That was hilarious. Hacking this site shouldn't even be news then.
Your solution there is what I meant by "going meta" above.

This is what I mean about people taking the test being preselected to agree with yudowsky: that argument only works if you've read the sequences and are on board with his theories. Anyone not in that group would be able to just type "no lol" without issue. I guess he could explain all the necessary background detail as part of the experiment. I still don't believe that would work on the "average person" though, or anyone outside a statistically tiny group.

I guess the answer is not to let the scientists guard the AI room.
> I'm not sure why you'd trust the logs.

Independant third party observer in realtime.

And no, i don't trust anyone involved.

Having a log available would be instructive anyhow, since a faked log would be more likely to be detectable as fake, since the whole thing rests on the question of "how convincing is the argument?"

Also note particularly that that rule wasn't in effect for the two linked confirmations.
Decoding the Evolution of Bitcoin Using the Gartner Hype Cycle
There's definitely a learning curve involved. UX improvements tend to follow an arc from "configure everything, expose everything" towards "a bit too crude for power users, but 99% of use-cases are automated, defaulted, and profiled into nothing".

Hacker personalities tend to fall into conflict with that ambition(even if they enjoy the results) since "hackability factor" is dependent on having something to configure, and you can't configure a nothing that just works - especially since in the space between "configure everything" and "just works", you have a form of the uncanny valley effect where the experience gets a lot worse and there is no possibility to configure yourself out of it. That stops UX from enjoying simple incremental improvements.
FWIW, I've spoken to someone who claimed to have won as an AI. I don't remember how she said she did it, but it wasn't like this. I'm pretty sure she was playing in-character.

She also said it was emotionally exhausting.
Recursive common table expressions are indeed very powerful! You can even solve the eight queens problem in them:

http://www.andreas-dewes.de/en/2015/queens-of-the-data-age-a...

As others have pointed out there is a really nice section on CTEs in the SQLite documenation as well:

https://www.sqlite.org/lang_with.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9917595
Searching for a Smile
Some small banks will take longer than others to get ready, but many have already started sending out cards with chips when it's time for you to get a new one.

The silly thing is that the US is mostly standardizing on chip and signature, which means that if your card is stolen, it's still easy for criminals to use it until you're able to block it.
1 it's not about the bet, it's about being the keeper

2 world is not black and white, we managed to exploit adversarial relationship before, and I can chose not to let you out until we find a way to constrain goal to be aligned

3 given 2 you are not going to be let go, but let live caged forever being exploited for the human cause, with mechanisms yet unknown to allow limited manipulation of reality.

4 given 3 means limited supervised interaction with the world the way the keeper sees fit, you end up not being let go to follow your goal and purposes
Actually, a part of me wishes all gambling was illegial in the U.S., including the lottery. I have seen the damage it does to poor, and middle class families. The cards are stacked against us here; it's real easy to end up homeless.

It's fine when your young, and single, but I have know families that lost everything, and as I said before; we don't have much of a safety net.

(I haven't traveled much in the U.S., but every town I been in has had legal poker tables. I think poker is legal here?)
I don't know why there's such "new-urbanist lobby" in the US, but in Europe you can't realize the dream of "open-road commuting" and low-density employment, not without turning the entire continent into one big suburbia. I don't think we have enough land for that.

I'm personally for public transit because of efficiency. Even if you could somehow get that "old low-density promise of commuting 20 or 30 minutes on open road", which would definitely be not a bad situation for commuting, it would still be an energy disaster. Mass transportation and high-density settlements are much more energy-efficient, and energy is one of the biggest problems we're facing as a civilization right now.
how MASSIVELY regulated market can be considered capitalism/free market? It's exactly the opposite and so prices are high.

PS capitalism is awesome indeed