Proving a program to be secure down from applying Schrödinger’s equation on the quarks and electrons the computer is made of is way beyond our current abilities, and will remain so for a very long time.
Challenge accepted! We can do this, we just need some help from a provably friendly artificial superintelligence! Oh wait...
I’ve written a post on my blog covering some aspects of AGI and FAI.
It probably has nothing new for most people here, but could still be interesting.
I’ll be happy for feedback—in particular, I can’t remember if my analogy with flight is something I came up with or heard here long ago. Will be happy to hear if it’s novel, and if it’s any good.
How many hardware engineers does it take to develop an artificial general intelligence?
The perverse incentive to become alcoholic or obese can be easily countered with a simple rule—a person chosen in the lottery is sacrificed no matter what, even if he doesn’t actually have viable organs.
To be truly effective, the system needs to consider the fact that some people are exceptional and can contribute to saving lives much more effectively than by scrapping and harvesting for spare parts. Hence, there should actually be an offer to anyone who loses the lottery, either pay $X or be harvested.
A further optimization is a monetary compensation to (the inheritors of) people who are selected, proportional to the value of the harvested organs. This reduces the overall individual risk, and gives people a reason to stay healthy even more than normally.
All of this is in the LCPW, of course. In the real world, I’m not sure there is enough demand for organs that the system would be effective in scale. Also, note that a key piece of the original dilemma is that the traveler has no family—in this case, the cost of sacrifice is trivial compared to someone who has people that care about him.
Of course. I’m not recommending to any genes to have their host go celibate. I just disagree with the deduction “if you’re ceilbate you can’t have children, so there’s no way your genes could benefit from it, QED”.
If your own celibacy somehow helps your relatives (who have a partial copy of your genes) reproduce, then the needs of your genes have been served. In general, genes have ways to pursue their agenda other than have their host reproduce. Sometimes genes even kill their host in an attempt to help copies of themselves in other hosts.
Is the link to “Logical disjunction” intentional?
I was born in May, and I approve this message.
Ouch, I completely forgot about this (or maybe I never knew about it?), and that’s a talk I wanted to hear...
Is it possible perhaps to get it in text form?
It’s worth mentioning that EFF has resumed accepting Bitcoin donations a while ago.
I don’t suppose it’s possible to view the version history of the post, so can you state for posterity what “DOCI” used to stand for?
I think some factor for decreasing votes over time should be included. Exponentially decaying rates seem reasonable, and the decay time constant can be calibrated with the overall data in the domain (assuming we have data on voting times available).
I think it’s reasonable to model this as a Poisson process. There are many people who could in theory vote, only few of them do, at random times.
Given that a and b are arbitrary, I think the differences can be large. Whether they actually are large for typical datasets I can’t readily answer.
In any case the advantages are:
Simplicity. Tuning the parameters is a bit involved, but once you do the formula to apply for each item is very simple. In many (not all) cases, a complicated formula reflects insufficient understanding of the problem.
Motivation. Taking the lower bound of a confidence/credible interval makes some sense but it’s not that obvious. The need for it arises because we don’t model the prior mean, so we don’t want to take risk on unproven items. A posterior mean of the quality is more natural, and won’t cause much problems because items default to the true population mean.
Parametrization. The interval methods has a parameter for the probability to take for the size of the interval, but it’s not at all clear how to choose it. My method has parameters for mean and variance which are based on the data.
Generalization. This framework makes it easier to clearly think about what we want, and replace the posterior mean of p with a posterior mean of some other quantity of interest. e.g., the suggested “explore vs. exploit” tends to give something closer to an interval upper bound than lower bound, and other methods have been suggested.
True. This is a problem since the current net vote count is mutable, while an individual vote, once cast, is not. You could try fitting a much more complicated model that can reproduce this behavior, calibrate it with A/B testing, etc. Or maybe try to prevent it by sorting according to quality, but not actually displaying the metrics.
But I fear that it would cause irreparable damage if the world settles on this solution.
This is probably vastly exaggerating the possible consequences; it’s just a method of sorting, and either the Wilson’s interval method and a Bayesian method are definitely far better than the naive methods.
I just feel that it will place this low-hanging fruit out of reach. e.g.,
Me: Hey Reddit, I have this cool new sorting method for you to try!
Reddit: What do you mean? We’ve already moved beyond the naive methods into the correct method. Here, see Miller’s paper. No further changes are needed.
Maybe I’m exaggerating—I mean, things can be improved again after being improved once—but I just feel that if the world had a “naive rating method” itch to scratch, and something like Miller’s method became the go-to method, something is wrong.
It means that the model used per item doesn’t have enough parameters to encode what we know about the specific domain (where domain is “Reddit comments”, “Urban dictionary definitions”, etc.)
The formulas discussed define a certain mapping between pairs (positive votes, negative votes) to a quality score. In Miller’s model, the same mapping is used everywhere without consideration of the characteristics of the specific domain. In my model, there are parameters a and b (or alternatively, a/(a+b) and a+b) that we first train per-domain, and then apply per item.
For example, let’s say you want to decide the order of a (5, 0) item and a (40, 10) item. Miller’s model just gives one answer. My model gives different answers depending on:
The average quality—if the overall item quality is high (say, most items have 100% positive votes), the (5,0) item should be higher because it’s likely one of those 100% items, while (40,10) has proven itself to be of lower quality. If, however, most items have low quality, (40,10) will be higher because it has proven itself to be one of the rare high-quality items, while (5,0) is more likely to be a low-quality item which lucked out.
The variance in quality—say the average quality is 50%. If the variance in quality is low, (5,0) will be lower because it is likely to be an average item which lucked out, while (40, 10) has proven to be of high quality. If the variance is high (with most items being either 100% or 0%), (5,0) will be higher because in all likelihood it is one of the 100% items, while (40, 10) has proven to be only 80%.
In short, using a cookie-cutter model without any domain-specific parameters doesn’t make the most efficient use of the data possible.
This is interesting, especially considering that it favors low-data items, as opposed to both the confidence-interval-lower-bound and the notability adjustment factor, which penalize low-data items.
You can try to optimize it in an explore-vs-exploit framework, but there would be a lot of modeling parameters, and additional kinds of data will need to be considered. Specifically, a measure of how many of those who viewed the item bothered to vote at all. Some comments will not get any votes simply because they are not that interesting; so if you keep placing them on top hoping to learn more about them, you’ll end up with very few total votes because you show people things they don’t care about.
The beta distribution is a conjugate prior for Bernoulli trials, so if you start with such a prior the posterior is also beta, which greatly simplifies the calculations. It also converges to normal for large alpha and beta, and in any case can be fit into any mean and variance, so it’s a good choice.
Whatever your target function is, you’ll want the item with the greatest posterior mean for this target. To do this generally you’ll need the posterior distribution of p rather than the mean of p itself. But the distribution just describes what you know about p, it doesn’t itself encode properties such as “controversial”.
Well, I think there is some sense of Bayesianism as a meta-approach, without regard to specific methods, which most of us would consider healthier than the frequentist mindset.
There are surely papers showing the superiority of frequentism over Bayesianism, and papers showing the differences between various flavors of Bayesianism and various flavors of frequentism. But that’s not what I’m after right now (with the understanding that a paper can be on the “Bayesian” side and be correct).
The web game greatly suffers from the network effect. There’s just very little chance you’ll get >=3 people to log on simultaneously, and of course, because of this people will give up on trying, worsening the effect.
Maybe we can designate, say, 12:00 AM and PM, UTC, as hours at which people should log on? This will make it easier to reach critical mass.