Archive for the ‘subculture’ Category

eliezer yudkowsky | singularity institute

Eliezer Yudkowsky – Singularity Institute
11:24 - 4 years ago
Eliezer Yudkowsky is one of the world’s foremost researchers on Friendly AI and recursive self-improvement. He created the Friendly AI approach to AGI, which emphasizes the importance of the structure of an ethical optimization process and its supergoal, in contrast to the common trend of seeking the right fixed enumeration of ethical rules a moral agent should follow. In 2001, he published the first technical analysis of motivationally stable goal systems, with his book-length Creating Friendly AI: The Analysis and Design of Benevolent Goal Architectures. In 2002, he wrote “Levels of Organization in General Intelligence,” a paper on the evolutionary psychology of human general intelligence, published in the edited volume Artificial General Intelligence (Springer, 2006). He has two papers forthcoming in the edited volume Global Catastrophic Risks (Oxford, 2007), “Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgment of Global Risks” and “Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.”

swedish house mafia | absolut | greyhound

inside out – a global art project by jr

Sites

http://www.insideoutproject.net

http://jr-art.net/

Trailer

Full Ted Talk


Filming of Inside Out in Tunisia

prometheus fake ad video

what curiosity looks like | lukeprog

By Luke Muehlhauser on Less Wrong

What Curiosity Looks Like

27lukeprog06 January 2012 09:28PM

See also: Twelve Virtues of RationalityThe Meditation on CuriosityUse Curiosity

What would it look like if someone was truly curious — if they actually wanted true beliefs? Not someone who wanted tofeel like they sought the truth, or to feel their beliefs were justified. Not someone who wanted to signal a desire for true beliefs. No: someone who really wanted true beliefs. What would that look like?

A truly curious person would seek to understand the world as broadly and deeply as possible. They would study the humanities but especially math and the sciences. They would study logic, probability theory, argument, scientific method, and other core tools of truth-seeking. They would inquire into epistemology, the study of knowing. They wouldstudy artificial intelligence to learn the algorithms, the math, the laws of how an ideal agent would acquire true beliefs. They would study modern psychology and neuroscience to learn how their brain acquires beliefs, and how those processes depart from ideal truth-seeking processes. And they would study how to minimize their thinking errors.

They would practice truth-seeking skills as a musician practices playing her instrument. They would practice “debiasing” techniques for reducing common thinking errors. They would seek out contexts known to make truth-seeking more successful. They would ask others to help them on their journey. They would ask to be held accountable.

They would cultivate that burning itch to know. They would admit their ignorance but seek to destroy it.

They would be precise, not vague. They would be clear, not obscurantist.

They would not flinch away from experiences that might destroy their beliefs. They would train their emotions to fit the facts.

They would update their beliefs quickly. They would resist the human impulse to rationalize.

But even all this could merely be a signaling game to increase their status in a group that rewards the appearance of curiosity. Thus, the final test for genuine curiosity is behavioral change. You would find a genuinely curious person studying and learning. You would find them practicing the skills of truth-seeking. You wouldn’t merely find them saying, “Okay, I’m updating my belief about that” — you would also find them making decisions consistent with their new belief and inconsistent with their former belief.

Every week I talk to people who say they are trying to figure out the truth about something. When I ask them a few questions about it, I often learn that they know almost nothing of logic, probability theory, argument, scientific method, epistemology, artificial intelligence, human cognitive science, or debiasing techniques. They do not regularly practice the skills of truth-seeking. They don’t seem to say “oops” very often, and they change their behavior even less often. I conclude that they probably want to feel they are truth-seeking, or they want to signal a desire for truth-seeking, or they might even self-deceivingly “believe” that they place a high value on knowing the truth. But their actions show that they aren’t trying very hard to have true beliefs.

Dare I say it? Few people look like they really want true beliefs.

peter diamandis: abundance is our future

rebellion is a path

“Rebellion is not a single act, or a pose, a phase that you go through where you listen to slightly louder music and dress in colors that clash slightly more than normal.  Rebellion is a path.  It demands that you question everything–how you’ve been educated, the social structures around you, the government, the media, gender relations, what’s been expected of you by others, what you’ve expected of yourself, how you spend your time, what you consume, where you’ve been and, most of all, where you’re going.  For me, rebellion that is content only with political radicalism is missing a large part of the picture.  Any true radicalism has to extend itself to the way that reality itself is constructed.  Rebellion has to take itself all the way to to the scheme of manifestation itself, to the writing on the walls of eternity.  Anything else is missing the forest for the trees.
A true rebel has to be an artist, somebody who can not only point out the weak points and contradictions in the system, but can also propose something better, and then guard its passage into manifestation.  That, to me, means magic.  There is no I.  Slough off the skin of the self and become something greater:  I knew I could do it.”
Christian Sedman
Generation Hex p 38

wolfram on “computation and the future of mankind” at singularity summit 2011

Start at 1:30 and end at 44:00:

transcript

terse notes

  • mining the computational universe
  • rule 30
  • seething universe of computational creativity
  • universal computation
  • rule 110 is universal
    • turing
  • computational irreducibility
    • 18:30 – free will vs determinism
  • computational equivalence
    • 19:30 – the weather has a mind of its own – animism – pattern of neurons firing in our brains
  • 28:00 – delivering alien artifacts
  • 29:00 – new interface – deliver knowledge to us preemptively based on personal data – personal analytics
  • 31:37 – universal mechanical object – turn robotics into a software problem – bizarre collection of tiny little identical objects as cellular automan

random thought

Don’t worry about teetering on the brink.  Insanity is a sign of intelligence.  It’s simply a side effect of almost being out of disk space.

building gods | hugo de garis


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_de_Garis
http://www.kurzweilai.net/hugo-de-garis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1079797626827646234

Return top