Robot arms and computer vision, at the level necessary for playing a game of go, are I think a sufficiently solved problem that there's no particular reason why AI researchers working on making a strong go-playing program would bother hooking them up. On its own I don't think doing that would add anything interesting; in particular, I don't think there's any sense in which it would make the program's thinking more human-like.
I don't know about the Alphas, but my laptop running KataGo uses an amount of power that's in the same ballpark as Ke Jie (more than ... (read more)
OK. I'm not sure to what extent I'm supposed to take the last comment as an insult ("you're very good at emitting sophistical bullshit" or whatever), but no matter :-).
I don't know that I was feeling optimistic, but I had had some hopes that you might be persuaded to engage with what seem like key criticisms rather than just dismissing them. But you certainly should feel obliged to engage with someone you aren't finding it worthwhile arguing with.
By the way, I see that at least one earlier comment of yours in this thread has been downvoted; it wasn't by me.
Definitions aren't generally arbitrary in communication for reasons similar to why they aren't arbitrary in cognition; if I define "woman" to mean "adult female human" (for some possibly-contentious definition of female" I will communicate more effectively than if I define it to mean "adult female human who is not called Jane, OR 4x2 lego brick" (same definition of "female"), even if everyone knows what definitions I am using. I think the distinction that's doing the actual work isn't between communication and cognition, but between proper nouns (where the... (read more)
I too am not sure whence cometh our disagreement, but I know the point at which I first thought we had one. There was some discussion of CNN-based go programs looking at "local patterns" and you said:
Does AlphaGo rely on local patterns? Possibly, but AlphaGoZero? Where humans see a 3 phase game with maybe 320 moves, which gets broken down into opening, middle and end game, ko's, threats, exchanges, and so on, it seems likely AlphaGoZero sees the whole game as one 'thing' (and in fact sees that one game as just one variation in the likely billions of millio
As I said elsewhere in the thread, by "local" I mean "looking only at a smallish region of the board". A "local pattern" is one defined by reference to a small part of the board. A group is "locally alive" if there's nothing in the part of the board it occupies that would make it not-alive. A move is "the best move locally" if when you look at a given smallish region of the board it's the best move so far as you can judge from the configuration there. Etc. (There are uses of "local" that don't quite match that; e.g., a "local ko threat" is one that affects... (read more)
Perhaps you would like to clarify how you are intending to use the word "local"?
My usage here is as follows: a "local pattern" is something whose presence or absence you can evaluate by looking at a small region of the board. (The smaller, the more local; locality comes in degrees. Presence or absence of a pattern might do, too.) So e.g. an empty triangle is an extremely local pattern; you can tell whether it is present by looking at a very small region of the board. A ponnuki is slightly less local, a table-shape slightly less local again, but these are a... (read more)
The examples seem relevant to me because they illustrate that language is not used only to predict, that the merits of a particular language-using strategy are not determined only by its impact on predictive accuracy. If language in general has proper goals other than predictive accuracy, why should I think that category-boundary drawing has no proper goal other than predictive accuracy?
I'm not sure exactly what distinction you're appealing to, by the way. In particular, you say "the communicative function of proper names ... the cognitive function of cate... (read more)
Last I heard, Leela Zero still tended to play slack moves in highly unbalanced late-game situations.
I think that at least some of the time you are using "local" and "global" temporally whereas I am using them spatially. (For short-term versus long-term I would tend to use distinctions like "tactics" versus "strategy" rather than "local" versus "global".) Aside from that, I cannot think of anything more local than wincing at an empty triangle.
If by "lowest levels" you mean the earliest layers of the network in a KataGo-like bot, they literally cannot take global position into account (except to whatever extent the non-neural-network bits of the program feed the network with more-global information, like "how many liberties does the group containing this stone have?").
I believe what DanielFilan is mostly interested in here is the general project of understanding what neural networks "know" or "understand" or "want".
(Because one day we may have AIs that are much much smarter than we are, and being much smarter than us may make them much more powerful than us in various senses, and in that case it could be tremendously important that we be able to avoid having them use that power in ways that would be disastrous for us. At present, the most impressive and most human-intelligence-like AI systems are neural networks, so getting a deep understanding of neural networks might turn out to be not just very interesting for its own sake but vital for the survival of the human race.)
I agree with you that Zvi and Eliezer are both correct, but I am unconvinced by your analysis of why. I don't think "no evidence" is vague. I think it's false.
"There is no evidence of Bigfoot" is simply untrue. There are people who claim to have seen things-that-maybe-could-be-Bigfoot. There are people who claim to have found footprints and the like. All these things are evidence. Crappy evidence, which is why it doesn't do much to change my opinion that Bigfoot is almost certainly not real, but still evidence.
"Nobody looked for Bigfoot and nobody found hi... (read more)
I don't entirely agree. I think vague language is sometimes bullshit but sometimes honesty.
I am a human being rather than an idealized superintelligence. Sometimes my own knowledge and understanding are vague. E.g., to take one of the examples in the OP, I may say "you probably shouldn't try for a career in theoretical physics unless you are very smart"; I'm not giving an "IQ threshold" (or a mapping from IQ to probability of success, or whatever) because I don't have one to give. I could be more concrete: "you probably shouldn't try for a career in theore... (read more)
Yes, KataGo trains entirely through self-play.
It's not "100% pure Zero" in that it doesn't only play entire games from the start. So e.g. it gets supplied with some starting positions that are ones in which some version of KataGo was known to have blindspots (in the hope that this helps it understand those positions better and lose the blindspots) or ones that occur in human games but not in KataGo self-play games (in the hope that this helps it play better against humans and makes it more useful for analysing human games). But I believe all its training i... (read more)
KataGo was not trained on human games.
I wonder whether we are interpreting "local patterns" in different ways. What I mean is the sort of thing whose crudest and most elementary versions are things like "it's good to make table shapes" and "empty triangles are bad".
The earlier layers of a CNN-based go-playing network are necessarily identifying local patterns in some sense. (Though KataGo's network isn't a pure CNN and does some global things too; I forget the details.)
If you can predict the winner of a go game after two moves then it's because (1) one of ... (read more)
In case it wasn't clear, that sentence beginning "Stronger players do better" was not purporting to describe all the things that make stronger go players stronger, but to describe specifically how I think they are stronger in joseki.
I don't think joseki are the main reason why professional go players spend so much time studying, unless you define "studying" more narrowly than I would. But that's pure guesswork; I haven't actually talked to any go professionals and asked how much time they spend studying joseki.
(Professional chess players spend a lot of tim... (read more)
I have the same sense that strong go bots play more "globally" than strong humans.
(Though I think what they do is in some useful sense a generalization of spotting local patterns; after all, in some sense that's what a convolutional neural network does. But as you add more layers the patterns that can be represented become more subtle and larger, and the networks of top bots are plenty deep enough that "larger" grows sufficiently to encompass the whole board.)
I think what's going on with different joseki choices between amateurs and very strong humans isn'... (read more)
It might be worth mentioning that the specific bot mentioned in the OP, David Wu's KataGo, doesn't make random-looking slack moves in the endgame because the figure of merit it's trying to maximize involves both win probability and (with a very small coefficient) final score.
This doesn't entirely negate Christian's point; some other strong bot might still have that behaviour, and KataGo itself may well have other features with similar implications.
On the other hand, there's at least one respect in which arguably chess bots are harder to learn from than go ... (read more)
[The following is rather long; I'd offer the usual Pascal quotation but actually I'm not sure how much shorter it could actually be. I hope it isn't too tedious to read. It is quite a bit shorter than "Unnatural Categories are Optimized for Deception".]
I don't really understand what in what I wrote you're interpreting as condescension, but for what it's worth none was intended.
No, I don't think I ever read UCAOFD in any detail. The "did you read ...?" seems, on the face of it, to be assuming a principle along the lines of "you should not say that someone i... (read more)
(I am not one of the people who have expressed skepticism, but I find myself with what I take to be feelings somewhat similar to theirs.)
I agree with 1 if it success is defined rather strictly (e.g., requiring that one human brain contain all the information in a form that actually enables the person whose brain it is to play like the bot does) but not necessarily if it is defined more laxly (e.g., it's enough if for any given decision the bot makes we have a procedure that pretty much always gives us a human-comprehensible explanation of why it made that ... (read more)
You keep saying this (and other roughly-equivalent things) but I think it's just wrong.
If you pick a measure on your concept-space, you can use it to define a notion of entropy, and then you can ask what clusterings permit maximally efficient communication. It's not clear that communication efficiency is the thing we want to maximize, and if you permit approximate transmission of information then you may actually want to minimize something like cost of errors + cost of communication, and for that you need not merely a measure but a metric. Anyway, the poin... (read more)
No such thing as a tree, phylogenetically?
So the trouble seems to be in liststyleediting.js, function upcastListItemStyle, which has a line
const listStyle = listParent.getStyle( 'list-style-type' ) || DEFAULT_LIST_TYPE
and at this point listParent is null. (It's called H after minification.) This is a list that isn't inside another list, so maybe it's correct that listParent is null (in which case the code should say something more like listParent && listParent.getStyle(...) || ... or, to be more modern about it, listParent?.getStyle?.(...) || ...); or maybe listParent is meant to be the wh... (read more)
listParent && listParent.getStyle(...) || ...
listParent?.getStyle?.(...) || ...
I have definitely encountered them in the last week or two.
I just did the following test. After the line above, I entered [asterisk] [space] (so I'm now in a bullet point), some text, then ctrl-4 to enter the LaTeX editor, entered some mathematics, hit enter to get out of the LaTeX editor, and pressed the space bar.
At that point, in the console I got this:
TDT and FDT don't state any propositions, they prescribe behaviours. So they could only "imply magic is real" in three ways that I can see.
I am not an expert on either TDT or FDT, and my understanding is that neither is actually well enough defined to be very sure about ... (read more)
In your profile settings there's a checkbox that switches between WYSIWYG and Markdown, and another that switches between two different WYSIWYG comment editors, one older and one newer. I am using the "new" WYSIWYG one, and it shows LaTeX just fine while composing. Obviously the pure-Markdown comment editor doesn't do that. I don't remember what the "old" WYSIWYG editor does.
However, the "new" WYSIWYG editor has annoying bugs (or perhaps interactions with quirks of my browser setup?) which mean that every now and then it will decide that hitting the space ... (read more)
In that example I see that the actual format is yyyy/mm/dd rather than yyyymmdd. I definitely don't like the name yyyymmdd in that case; to me it suggests no separators. (I might advocate for switching to yyyy-mm-dd and using a name like currentDate_iso8601, though that's a bit unwieldy.)
I'm not sure inside/outside is what's mostly going on when you're on the fence about whether making a minor name improvement is worth it. It seems to me more like the following things:
I'm aware that the currentDate versus yyyymmdd thing is only an example, but I'm not sure it's a good example because it's not obvious to me that currentDate is necessarily better.
If this thing is a string describing the current date then there are at least two separate pieces of information you might want the name to communicate. One is that it's the current date rather than some other date. The other is that it's in yyyymmdd format rather than some other format.
Whether currentDate or yyyymmdd is more informative depends on (1) which of those two things i... (read more)
I'm not sure that I'm necessarily advocating taking the other chemical names out. After all, they play a necessary role right at the very end, and I don't know how that would work without all the previous use.
I didn't mean to imply that there was any doubt that pollution was a central topic! That would be hard to miss. But it's not so clear what you're trying to say about it. (Or whether you're neutrally refraining from saying anything in particular, and just showing it in its natural habitat, as it were.) Perhaps if I were less ignorant that last parenthesis would tell me a clearer story. (Though I guess googling the chemical names would probably have sufficed.)
Some rather scattered thoughts:
There are some very nice things here; I think the paragraph where you introduce the convention of treating chemical names like biological ones is particularly good, for instance, though the convention isn't as effective after that when the chemical names are no longer pairs of words. Generally, I like your writing style at the word/phrase/sentence level, at least as it manifests in this particular piece of writing.
Many things about this piece leave me puzzled. That may be intentional (leave lots of intriguing dangling threads... (read more)
Fair enough. In "my" version, a contacting attacker, or a defending defender, has to figure out the specific word the clue-making attacker has in mind (or "essentially" the same word; e.g., if what's known is that the defender's word begins GA and a clue is "Eppur si muove", clearly GALILEO and GALILEI and GALILEO GALILEI are all equally good answers).
Again, I think the game works about equally well with any convention for how close you have to be, so long as you apply the same convention to attackers and defender.
What counts as "fitting" the clue? ("My" version permits clues to be literally anything and in actual play they may be very obscure or indirect; in particular, they are very often not straightforward definitions.)
(This was about 14:30 of writing time. I think it would probably fit into a 15-minute chunk of interview time. I deliberately avoided deleting or changing much as I went. I don't think anything in it is in any way original.)
So, first of all, why believe in existential risk? We know that sometimes species, empires, and the like come to an end. The human race is ingenious and adaptable, but there's no reason to think we're magically immune to every catastrophe that could wipe us out. (Which wouldn't necessarily mean killing every single human being; I would ... (read more)
I feel the same way (and viscerally detest ads, and go to very great lengths to avoid exposure to them), but I'm not sure whether I actually agree.
Having an advertiser attempt to manipulate your brain so that you do a thing you otherwise wouldn't have done is, for sure, bad for you. But so is having less money, and at present the only available ways of getting Nice Things On The Internet that no one is choosing to supply out of sheer benevolence are (a) that you pay them money and (b) that someone pays them for showing you ads.
So, how do the harm of bei... (read more)
I also know a word game called Contact, different from both of those (but very similar to Yoav's) and not very suitable for road trips.
Yup, seems OK now.
The link at the start of the post (the one here, not the one at the far end) has for its text the URL of the thing it's pointing to, but its actual link target is ... this post itself.
(At least, so it is for me right now on my browser; I haven't checked whether some peculiarity of my setup is at fault, and of course it may get fixed later.)
Of course what you asked for is information about computer systems for solving this kind of thing, but the particular system of equations you have here isn't so hard to make sense of (but, caution, I make a lot of mistakes, so if you want to make any use of what follows I strongly advise you to check it).
So, let's begin with the quantities z,m,n,b,c. z is known; m,n are constrained by having to add up to z, and z,m,n interact with the other variables only via b,c. Oh, and we also know y=b+c, so we've got two constraints on b,c which means we should expect ... (read more)
I underestimated the crabmonsters and overestimated the (entirely out-of-sample) possibilities of super-water-elementals and super-pirates. Worst mistake was eyeballing the crabmonsters rather than making a serious attempt to model the distribution, which would have made it clear that they actually do quite a lot of sinking.
I searched for <<family of subsets closed under union "more than half">> and the Wikipedia page about the conjecture was the first result :-).
I'm having trouble figuring out what the question actually is. On the face of it (taking, for now, only things that Martha and Marco and their computer actually affirm and ignoring one thing that seems at first like obvious hyperbole) it seems that what we're told is: there's a (presumably finite) set P of pizza-types and a set O of subsets of P ("orders"), whenever two sets are in O so is their union, and O contains no singleton sets. This obviously isn't enough to tell us anything interesting.
But then there's also this stuff about whether there's a... (read more)
There's Figure 3 in this article in the NEJM. It's only a single study, and it concerns only the Pfizer vaccine. You might have seen a crude version of it in this xkcd cartoon. Note that the y-axis is cumulative incidence of Covid-19; to get a measure of its effectiveness at a particular time you should really look at the gradients.
Oh, for sure dysphoria is not the kind of thing that can specifically make someone need to be called "xe". I think it can specifically make someone find it upsetting to be referred to with specifically-male or specifically-female pronouns, though, and my sense is that Jordan Peterson isn't any happier being asked to refer to someone as "they" than as "xe".
If both "he" and "she" give someone feelings of dysphoria, then I think it's rude to require that they pick one of those. Singular "they" works pretty well, it has a long history of use in English, and... (read more)
I agree that almost certainly a lot of suicides among trans people are neither the result of being treated badly nor the result of expecting to be treated badly: as you say, gender dysphoria is apparently extremely horrible for many who suffer it. (My guess is that a substantial part of the distress comes specifically from being treated by other people as being of a gender that feels wrong to you, in which case much of it is "being treated badly" in an extended sense, though not necessarily one that involves any element of malice or anything from the peopl... (read more)
I think you're answering a different question from the one agc is asking. Unless I misunderstood, agc was asking why the UK isn't yet vaccinating people younger than 45. Being able to relax restrictions more in the US wouldn't explain that.
I think the actual answer is that the UK very promptly secured a pretty decent quantity of vaccines (mostly AstraZeneca), enough to vaccinate quite a lot of its population, but that while the US was slower it then got hold of more relative to population size, and now the US has more plentiful supply than the UK.
I concede that it's possible that Jordan Peterson's objections were purely 100% about compelled speech, and didn't arise from any particular wish to behave in ways that trans people find unpleasant. My own impression is that other things he's said -- e.g., that people wanting to be referred to with neopronouns like "xe" are usually making a "narcissistic power grab" -- make that a bit difficult to believe.
I do, in fact, share Peterson's objections to compelled speech, and if I thought he was right that the bill he was complaining about proposed to make it ... (read more)
Oh, whoops. I meant to delete that.
(It had been going to be about Andrew Sabisky, who was one of Cummings's "weirdos and misfits" and resigned after it turned out that he had said a lot of politically very unpalatable things about race, eugenics, and the like. I'd thought I remembered that a lot of the complaints about Sabisky were attacking his weirdness and geekiness as much as his controversial opinions. But when I went back and checked the discussions I was thinking of, that didn't after all seem to be so, so I cut that bit out. Except that I somehow failed to cut all of it out.)
(Separate reply for last paragraph, which is about something entirely different from the rest of your comment.)
If you declare that you're a trans woman and demand to be called "she", then I expect I'll call you "she". If (as I think is actually the case) you're a cis man, I don't see that you're going to get much satisfaction from being referred to that way.
I am not generally in favour of laws that would require me to do that, even if you are in fact not a troll or an asshole but simply a trans woman. Or indeed a cis woman. In my view, misgendering someone... (read more)
I have not claimed that "allowing bathroom bills" are a good thing on balance, or that "forbidding bathroom bills" are a bad thing on balance; only that the former are good for trans people and the latter are bad for trans people.
However, I do on the whole think that FBBs are a bad thing overall and (less confidently) that ABBs are a good thing overall, so let me address your question. What I would actually prefer is for all public toilets to be unisex, and designed in such a way that no one using them need care much who else is using them. Failing that, I... (read more)