tmosley

Karma: 8

tmosley 24 Sep 2014 4:35 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: KatjaGrace’s comment on: Superintelligence Reading Group 2: Forecasting AI
Sometime after the Singularity. We already have AI that surpasses humans in several areas of human endeavor, such as chess and trivia. What do you define as “human level”? The AIs we have now are like extremely autistic savants, exceptional in some areas where most people are deficient, but deficient to the point of not even trying in the thousands of others. Eventually, there will (in theory) be AIs that are like that with most aspects of human existence, yet remain far inferior in others, and perhaps shortly after that point is reached, AIs will surpass humans in everything.

Trying to predict “when” seems like trying to predict which snowflake will trigger an avalanche. I really don’t think it can be done without a time machine or an already operational superintelligent AI to do the analysis for us, but the snow seems to be piling up pretty fast.

tmosley 24 Sep 2014 4:12 UTC
3 points
in reply to: KatjaGrace’s comment on: Superintelligence Reading Group 2: Forecasting AI
I don’t understand this question. The best time for the emergence of a great optimizer would be shortly after you were born (earlier if your existence were assured somehow).

If an AI is a friendly optimizer, then you want it as soon as possible. If it is randomly friendly or unfriendly, then you don’t want it at all (the quandary we all face). Seems like asking “when” is a lot less relevant than asking “what”. “What” I want is a friendly AI. “When” I get it is of little relevance, so long as it is long enough before my death to grant me “immortality” while maximally (or sufficiently) fulfilling my values.

tmosley 18 Sep 2014 0:39 UTC
3 points
on: Superintelligence Reading Group—Section 1: Past Developments and Present Capabilities
With respect to “Growth of Growth”, wouldn’t the chart ALWAYS look like that, with the near end trailing downwards? The sampling time is decreasing logarithmically, so unless you are sitting right on top of the singularity/production revolution, it should always look like that.

Just got thinking about what happened around 1950 specifically and couldn’t find any real reason for it to drop off right there. WWII was well over, and the gold exchange standard remained for another 21 years, and those are the two primary framing events for that timeframe, so far as I can tell.

tmosley 27 Jul 2012 15:21 UTC
1 point
on: What are the boundaries?
The more we ignore the cognitive barriers we have placed upon the world, the greater our ability to problem solve. My own lab group (chemists and materials scientists) recently collaborated with microbiologists, civil engineers, and industrial engineers to produce a feed spacer which blocks biofouling in RO membranes using technology originally developed for use in medical devices using a catalytic process discovered by a nutritionist. It reduces biofouling by 3-5 logs, which is unprecedented, using a process that engineers never could have come up with had they remained focused on their own narrow field.

There is a reason that most universities are now encouraging collaboration between different departments.

It is useful to have specialized knowledge, of course, but we mustn’t limit ourselves to our respective fields. Honestly, I think I would be against the creation of new fields of study at this point. Rather, people should be encouraged to work together with people of diverse backgrounds so we can apply what we have learned in one field to others.

As to the question, to pull a Rumsfeld, we have known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I could only guess at where the trend toward broad-based collaboration will lead us.

tmosley 21 Jul 2012 2:01 UTC
8 points
on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (July 2012)
So I recently found LessWrong after seeing a link to the Harry Patter fanfiction, and I have been enthralled with the concept of rationalism since. The concepts are not foreign to me as I am a chemist by training, but the systematization and focus on psychology keep me interested. I am working my way through the sequences now.

As for my biography, I am a 29 year old laboratory manager trained as a chemist. My lab develops and tests antimicrobial materials and drugs based on selenium’s oxygen radical producing catalysis. It is rewarding work if you can get it, which you can’t, because our group is the only one doing it ;)

Besides my primary field of work, I am generally interested in science, technology, economics, and history.

I am looking at retirement from the 9-5 life in the next year or so, and am interested in learning the methods of rationality, which I feel would allow me to excel in other endeavors in the future. I already find myself linking to articles from here to explain and predict human behavior.

This place is overwhelming with its content. I don’t think I have ever seen a website with a comment section so worth reading. I fear that I could spend the remainder of my life reading and never have the time to DO anything.

In the realm of politics, I would be considered an anarcho-capitalist, though I value any and all types of values between there and where the USA’s politics currently lay. I am an atheist to the extent that I don’t believe in an anthropomorphic god, though reading the “an alien god” (not quite sure how to post links here yet) sequence certainly made me realize that certain pervasive and extremely powerful processes do exist, so I am reexamining some of my long-held assumptions in that arena.

I spend quite a lot of my time in the online “Fight Club” that is Zerohedge’s comment section, so apologies in advance if I come off as sharp in some of my remarks. I prefer appeals to logic and reason as a rule, but sometimes I resort to pathos and personal attack, especially when I feel that I am being personally attacked. This impulse has been greatly curbed by what I have read here, however, and I find that I am able to pierce through inflammatory arguments much more cool-ly, which I count as a positive result for all involved.

In any event, I generally try not to comment when I feel ill-informed on a subject, but when I think I have something to contribute, I will. I am really enjoying the site so far.

Now, back to reading. So much to read, so little time.

tmosley 20 Jul 2012 0:39 UTC
−6 points
on: [SEQ RERUN] Humans in Funny Suits
It seems like one could spend some time thinking about how humans developed intelligence in order to find potential rules for that process.

As such, it seems that any intelligent beings we are likely to ever encounter will have been a result of runaway self-referential modeling resulting in procreation (ie plotting to gain power over others of the same species). For them to become a technological species, they would need to find a way to communicate ideas beyond simply showing or teaching. This means some form of language. Sound is a convenient method, but there are others. Sign language, light emission, chemical communication, even something wild like manipulation of magnetic fields are all possibilities.

One must go further to think about how such aliens would act. In my experience, most human interaction boils down to a few specific rules and a few specific goals. The rules as I see them are:
1. A person owns their own body.
2. A person can own things, and places.
To own something means to have exclusive use of and authority over. Use and authority can be transferred to others if the owner agrees to do so, which he will do if he sees a benefit to his goals in such a transfer.

The goals are probably universal:
1. Live long enough to
2. Reproduce
3. Ensure progeny reproduces as well.
These seem simple enough to be universal, which leads me to think that alien psychology won’t be that alien, absent physiological differences. That is, unless they have developed the technology necessary to push them through more Singularities than we have been through, perhaps to the point of negating one or more of the above goals. If they are immortal, and no longer seek to reproduce, then they will be utterly foreign to us. I would suspect that a human that has lived for 250 million years would probably be just as foreign, though. Maybe that just means that we have to catch up.

tmosley 11 Jul 2012 22:21 UTC
0 points
on: Steam Greenlight
Who is the audience and what are the desired outcomes from playing the game?

I can guess, but it is better to outline these things explicitly at the start, lest you wind up with something that no-one wants to play.

As for genre, I immediately think of something like a role playing game. I think back to FFVIII, which allowed you gain, increasing your salary when you took in-game tests. More recent RPGs that have huge volumes of information in in-game encyclopedias (games like KOTOR 1 and 2, Mass Effect, Xenosaga, etc).

I would consider using a plot similar to the Harry Potter fanfic, such that your character starts off in a non-rational place, and advances using these techniques. Techniques and studies are mentioned in the dialogue, and full references become available in the encyclopedia as they are mentioned.

This sounds like a really interesting idea. I have always wanted to design a game. Sadly, I just don’t have the time (or the knowledge).

tmosley 11 Jul 2012 21:59 UTC
0 points
in reply to: TraderJoe’s comment on: Cultural norms in choice of mate
Perhaps it is because they actually married them when they were young, but at any given time your average “trophy wife” will by in her 30′s?

This is a complex problem. I’m not sure the answer can be found without some in-depth statistical analysis.

Also, Rubix seems to be looking at things from the wrong perspective. It’s not that women don’t get with older men, it is likely the case that all the older men, and the men of status are taken. The younger men are not. Looking at it from the older men’s point of view: what is the likelihood of an older, successful, single man getting together with women of a given age? I would guess it is much higher for younger women.

tmosley 8 Jul 2012 0:56 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: The Futility of Emergence
It seems to me that emergence is the opposite of rigorous structure. Take human brain function (similar to your intelligence comment in the article). Claiming that brain function is emergent versus rigorously ordered allows you to make a prediction, namely that a child who has a portion of their brain removed will retain all or a large portion of the functionality of the removed portion, or they will not. A child with half of their brain missing would be expected to be extraordinarily impaired. A simple search of the literature should prove it one way or another.

Thus, when one says that some property is emergent, it means that it is not limited by the macro form, but by the conditions effecting the micro components from which the property emerges. This should allow for all manner of predictive ability. Of course, there are plenty of people who latch on to the word, just like there are plenty of people who latch on to the word “evolution”, and don’t think or use it to make predictions, and in that, your point is well taken.

Sorry for commenting 5 years after the fact, but this place seems to have at least some ongoing discussion.