UKMT January '15 - We're gonna party like it's 1985

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT January '15 - We're gonna party like it's 1985

«‹›74 »

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

Guavanaut posted:

Isn't the singularity just when computers become good enough that they can design better computers faster than humans, and so AI and systems development accelerates and then maybe some computers are smarter than people?

Pretty much. It's been pretty hilarious/depressing recently watching a bunch of my childhood influences like Hawking and Sinclair pull a reverse Dorkins by utterly misunderstanding evolution in order to claim that such an event would be the downfall of humanity. (Machines are faster, so they'd evolve faster and out compete us for resources. Do not ask me why they would have the same desires, needs, or evolutionary criteria as us. My opinion on this is valid because I have a robot voice.)

# ? Jan 31, 2015 09:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:14

Party Boat: Nov 1, 2007; where did that other dog come from

who is he

Of course you'd want to downplay the Terminator-esque future that lies in wait for us, Renaissance Robot.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 09:49

Communist Thoughts: Jan 7, 2008; Our war against free speech cannot end until we silence this bronze beast!

Larry_Mullet posted:

Why? Do you think we're gonna stop making computers more powerful or something?

My thinking is either the environment or nuclear war sets us back. That or it turns out increasing the processing speed and memory of an intelligence doesn't actually make it superintelligent and either way it'll almost certainly take a hell of a lot longer for us to do it than all these "The singularity is near! iPhones!" people think.

If you're solely talking about the singularity as an event where AI outstrips human intelligence rather than humans amplifying their own intelligence through technology thousands of fold and becoming digital gods, then yeah I can see us being stupid enough to build a machine that makes us useless. I just think we're a longass way from creating a god-machine and theres a hell of a lot of things that can happen in that time.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 09:50

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

e/ ^^ can I take a moment to point out that we still don't even have a model or measure of intelligence that's adequate for comparing humans to other humans? Let alone humans to, say, crows, which are running moderately similar hardware at least.

Right now we couldn't tell if a machine is "more intelligent" because we're still figuring out what we want that to mean.

e2/ machines that make us useless? We're already useless, unless you're talking from a Darwinian perspective :roboluv:

Larry_Mullet posted:

Why? Do you think we're gonna stop making computers more powerful or something?

It certainly won't go down as advertised, because no amount of computing power is going to change universal constants such as the speed of light, the difficulty of getting off the planet, or the fact that most of us are dicks to each other.

The fedoras like to imagine that it will though, somehow, and then we'll get star trek or something.

Here, rationalwiki has some good quotes:

Mitch Kapor on Ray Kurzweil posted:

It's intelligent design for the IQ 140 people. This proposition that we're heading to this point at which everything is going to be just unimaginably different - it's fundamentally, in my view, driven by a religious impulse. And all of the frantic arm-waving can't obscure that fact for me, no matter what numbers he marshals in favor of it. He's very good at having a lot of curves that point up to the right.

Renaissance Robot fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Jan 31, 2015

# ? Jan 31, 2015 09:56

Communist Thoughts: Jan 7, 2008; Our war against free speech cannot end until we silence this bronze beast!

Renaissance Robot posted:

e2/ machines that make us useless? We're already useless, unless you're talking from a Darwinian perspective

I just meant as in our pretty much only fancy characteristic is being pretty smart.

On a more crazy tangent we could have a use, we could basically act as guardians of the only viable environment for life we are aware of and maybe terraform other planets because, while there isn't a "point" to it in the fullness of time, life is pretty neat I think. Hell, you could even look after your fellow man and sentient too. We won't ever do this, in fact we're more likely to go Permian on the place but its a possible practical use for humanity. :shrug:

e: grammar

Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Jan 31, 2015

# ? Jan 31, 2015 10:27

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

Anyone who has an interest in AI might enjoy this article: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

I *think* it may have come up in the thread before (not sure how I came across it), but the LessWrong community is ripe for a Weekend Web, especially with poo poo like that.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 10:31

Angepain: Jul 13, 2012; what keeps happening to my clothes

I remember there being a LessWrong mock thread on the forums somewhere, not sure if it's still around.

edit: oh yeah here it is

# ? Jan 31, 2015 11:02

thehustler: Apr 17, 2004; I am very curious about this little crescendo

So... PIP appeals process. How does that all work out, then?

Despite being iller than she's ever been my wife didn't qualify after being on DLA no problem for years.

Pretty high chance of winning appeals, isn't there?

Edit: the scores they've given her bear no relation to the things she actually said in the interview, it's like things have been recorded incorrectly

thehustler fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Jan 31, 2015

# ? Jan 31, 2015 11:32

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

Larry_Mullet posted:

Why? Do you think we're gonna stop making computers more powerful or something?

The Singularity is religion for Nerds. Processing power isn't some magic wand that will magically create the singularity. It would require huge, huge technological breakthroughs in AI and other fields. Considering we don't really have a working model of human intelligence or even truly understand how our own brain works it's a huge leap forward to make anything of that scale.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 11:39

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

Yeah I don't see why processing power has anything to do with it really. AI software would run on a supercomputer today, it would just be relatively slow to do the things that an AI would do. But where is this AI software? Nobody's developed any because nobody has a loving clue how to, and more processing power isn't going to change that. You can't just load up Solitaire on a Infinity-GHz computer and expect it to become self-aware.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 12:01

Seaside Loafer: Feb 7, 2012; Waiting for a train, I needed a shit. You won't bee-lieve what happened next

Look up some papers from this woman http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/276

She along with most of the pioneers in AI think true AI will happen but probably not in our lifetimes. Boring I know but it seems to be the consensus.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 12:24

Pesky Splinter: Feb 16, 2011; A worried pug.

All Coppers etc

"'Tasers for all front-line officers' - Police Federation posted:

All front-line police in England and Wales should be offered Tasers in light of the increased terrorism threat, the head of the Police Federation says.

Steve White said the devices would help protect against "dangerous people" who could be preparing to attack officers.
"We've got to show our officers that we're taking the threat seriously," he told Radio 4's Today.

Chief Constables' lead expert on armed policing said extended use of Tasers should be linked to risk assessment.
Simon Chesterman, deputy head of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, is the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on armed policing.

"I support extended roll out of Taser if; linked to threat and risk assessment, standards not diluted, volunteers only," he tweeted.

Mr White told The Guardian that terrorists seeking to attract attention could attack at any time, anywhere in the UK.
The federation is to vote on the proposal to offer all frontline officers Taser training next month. Some officers may choose not to carry one, it says.

It has been shown that Tasers could keep officers and the public safe, Mr White told Today.

And he said police officers should be able to "respond to the current threat environment".
"We've got to make sure that we give them every opportunity to respond to the threat," he said.

"Because it's not just their personal safety, it's the safety of the public as well."

He told the programme he was making the call after seeing the "usefulness" of Tasers.

Mr White made a similar call when vice-chair of the federation, following the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby.

Tasers were introduced into British policing in 2003 as a non-lethal alternative for firearms officers facing potentially dangerous suspects.

Officers are required to take a training course before being allowed to use a Taser and they are told only to deploy them when threatened with violence.
'Use sparingly'

In 2013, Tasers were deployed 10,380 times across England and Wales and there were 154 complaints about their use.

There have been a number of deaths related to the use of the stun guns.

Amnesty International UK's arms programme director Oliver Sprague said: "We've always said that Tasers can have a part to play in policing operations where there's a clear risk of death or serious injury to police officers or members of the public - but Tasers should be used sparingly and only by highly-trained officers."

He also queried if there was evidence that a terrorist would be deterred by knowing police officers were armed with Tasers.

Nonce Politician cover-up (my face is twisted in utter disgust while reading this)

"Diplomat's 'sexual perversion' provoked security fears, says Thatcher adviser posted:

A senior British diplomat who recorded sexual fantasies involving children was seen primarily as a security risk, a former top civil servant has revealed.

A previously secret file from the 1980s briefed Margaret Thatcher on Sir Peter Hayman's "sexual perversion".

Ex-Cabinet Secretary Lord Armstrong told the BBC his priority had been national security implications, rather than whether he should be prosecuted.
But the file said foreign intelligence did not know of his "vulnerabilities".

The newly released file notes that he kept "explicit records of his sexual activities and fantasies", some of which related to children, but these had not been acted on.
Lord Armstrong, who as cabinet secretary briefed the then prime minister, said in a BBC interview: "I was not concerned with the personal aspect of it or whether he should or should not be prosecuted or pursued.

"That was something for the police and the prosecuting authorities to consider and if they thought that he should be cross-questioned and prosecuted, then he should be.
"My concern with it was with possible implications for national security and international relations."

Sir Peter Hayman, who served as High Commissioner to Canada, died in 1992. He also worked for MI6 and has often been described as an intelligence services "operative".
He was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, the security briefing said.
But it found "no evidence" he had sought to "approach children for sexual purposes".

Despite the fear his "vulnerabilities" might be used to blackmail him, foreign security services had not been aware of his history, the file, made public for the first time on Friday, concluded.

In 1978, he left a package containing paedophilic literature on a bus and was investigated by the police.
Geoffrey Dickens MP In 1981, MP Geoffrey Dickens exposed Hayman using parliamentary privilege

They found similar material when they raided his flat.

However, he was never charged, to the dismay of Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens, who raised the case in Parliament in 1981.
The file contains "lines to take" for government officials when asked questions by the media about Hayman's 1978 arrest.

One of these was that there had been "no cover-up".

BBC home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds said that while much of what was contained in the file had been widely reported in the 1980s, the fact that it had been made public was significant.

"This file has been released after just a week of pressure from media and other people after it was discovered in a Kew public records office database," he said.

"It shows there is a lot of pressure for this sort of material about historical child abuse to be revealed."

The briefing file, covering the end of 1980 and the start of 1981, is entitled "SECURITY. Sir Peter Hayman: allegations against former public official of unnatural sexual proclivities; security aspects".
It was held by the Cabinet Office, but marked "closed" until it was released to The National Archives at Kew, south-west London, on Friday.

The file does not appear to have been uncovered by a review of historical government child abuse records conducted last year by Peter Wanless, the head of the NSPCC.
His report claimed to have made enquiries widely across the government estate and other public services, including the Cabinet Office, where this file was being held.

Home Secretary Theresa May has suggested Mr Wanless may have unearthed a copy but not the original file.

---

Also, any ideas for the Feb thread title?

# ? Jan 31, 2015 13:05

Jedit: Dec 10, 2011; Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

The actual definition of the singularity is a point in human history where technology advances faster than existing society can come to terms with the changes it brings. It has nothing to do with AI, although AI would probably be necessary before it could occur.

Pesky Splinter posted:

Also, any ideas for the Feb thread title?

UKMT Valentine's Day Edition - Labour are red, Tories are blue

Jedit fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Jan 31, 2015

# ? Jan 31, 2015 13:07

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Pesky Splinter posted:

Also, any ideas for the Feb thread title?

UKMT February: Paedos, pigs, and polls

# ? Jan 31, 2015 13:08

Shyrka: Feb 10, 2005; Small Boss likes to spin!

Pesky Splinter posted:

Nonce Politician cover-up (my face is twisted in utter disgust while reading this)

It was great because I was browsing the BBC and I read the BoJo "Terrorists are men who like porn" article and then I clicked that immediately afterwards.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 13:13

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

I'm waiting for the next big shocker: Terrorists are men who breathe oxygen and extract energy from digestion.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 13:18

Gyro Zeppeli: Jul 19, 2012; sure hope no-one throws me off a bridge

Ddraig posted:

I'm waiting for the next big shocker: Terrorists are men who breathe oxygen and extract energy from digestion.

And that's why we're taking food out of the mouths of the poor. Tough on digestion, tough on the causes of digestion.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 13:36

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

OwlFancier posted:

It's called the singularity because a singularity is a point after which existing predictive models are useless.

Essentially, if it really is the singularity, we have absolutely no idea what it would be like afterwards. Which is the worrying thing. It's essentially people wanting to bet the entire world on a spin of a slot machine.

We've done it before though, with the invention of language, agriculture, and industry. The after was equally inconceivable to people living in the before. Just because this time it's new doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, the other step changes were all new at the time too.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 13:57

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Guavanaut posted:

We've done it before though, with the invention of language, agriculture, and industry. The after was equally inconceivable to people living in the before. Just because this time it's new doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, the other step changes were all new at the time too.

Personally I would say it's more something that's inevitable, not something to really be enthusiastic about, given that you could achieve much the same effect by blowing everything up and starting over. Maybe it'll be better, maybe it'll be worse, maybe it'll be more of the same, but being super happy about the coin flip that decides the fate of humanity is a bit weird. It's essentially a futurist form of accelerationism, not really a helpful ideology I think.

# ? Jan 31, 2015 14:10

Hobo: Dec 12, 2007; Forum bum

There's also this view on the singularity from Pictures for Sad Children:

# ? Jan 31, 2015 14:52

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Whig history vs. Tory history I guess. Some people believe that there was a golden age in the past and we've all been going downhill from then, and each new innovation just represents new and creative ways to go downhill. Others believe we're on a constant and inevitable path of improvement.

They're both wrong, but personally I'd say the evidence is far more in favor of improvement. When you start giving the event the same religious significance as the LessWrong guy does, that's weird yeah. But it's okay to be excited about new things.

I'm not sure about the 'rich and white' thing though, one of the common things about past singularities and technological leaps is that they have caused a shakeup in the leadership structure.

(Of course, most of those didn't end up exactly as planned either :anarchists:

)

# ? Jan 31, 2015 15:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:14

Pesky Splinter: Feb 16, 2011; A worried pug.

Sorry to cut the, genuinly interesting, discussion on the technological singularity short, everyone, the new thread can be found here;
February Thread

# ? Jan 31, 2015 15:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT January '15 - We're gonna party like it's 1985

«‹›74 »