Deepmind Plans for Rat-Level AI
Demis Hassabis gives a great presentation on the state of Deepmind's work as of April 20, 2016. Skip to 23:12 for the statement of the goal of creating a rat-level AI -- "An AI that can do everything a rat can do," in his words. From his tone, it sounds like this is more a short-term, not a long-term goal.
I don't think Hassabis is prone to making unrealistic plans or stating overly bold predictions. I strongly encourage you to scan through Deepmind's publication list to get a sense of how quickly they're making progress. (In fact, I encourage you to bookmark that page, because it seems like they add a new paper about twice a month.) The outfit seems to be systematically knocking down all the "Holy Grail" milestones on the way to GAI, and this is just Deepmind. The papers they've put out in just the last year or so concern successful one-shot learning, continuous control, actor-critic architectures, novel memory architectures, policy learning, and bootstrapped gradient learning, and these are just the most stand-out achievements. There's even a paper co-authored by Stuart Armstrong concerning Friendliness concepts on that list.
If we really do have a genuinely rat-level AI within the next couple of years, I think that would justify radically moving forward expectations of AI development timetables. Speaking very naively, if we can go from "sub-nematode" to "mammal that can solve puzzles" in that timeframe, I would view it as a form of proof that "general" intelligence does not require some mysterious ingredient that we haven't discovered yet.
An EPub of Eliezer's blog posts
Update 2015-03-21: I would now strongly recommend reading Rationality: From AI to Zombies over this. Though the blog posts I collected here are the starting point for that book, considerable work has gone into selecting and arranging the essays as well as adding thoughtful new material and useful material not in this collection. Only if you've already read that should you consider starting on this; you can always skip the essays you've already read.
This is all Eliezer's posts to Less Wrong up to the end of 2010 as an EPub. Can be read with Aldiko and other eBook readers, though you might have to jump through some hoops on the Kindle (haven't tried it). I shared it privately with a few friends in the past, but I thought it might be more generally useful. Highlights include that all the screwed-up Unicode is fixed AFAIK.
Update: have now made a MOBI for the Kindle too.
Updated 2011-08-13 17:20 BST: Now with images!
The Library of Scott Alexandria
I've put together a list of what I think are the best Yvain (Scott Alexander) posts for new readers, drawing from SlateStarCodex, LessWrong, raikoth.net, and Scott's LiveJournal.
The list should make the most sense to people who start from the top and read through it in order, though skipping around is encouraged too. Rather than making a chronological list, I’ve tried to order things by a mix of "where do I think most people should start reading?" plus "sorting related posts together."
This is a work in progress; you’re invited to suggest things you’d add, remove, or shuffle around. Since many of the titles are a bit cryptic, I'm adding short descriptions. See my blog for a version without the descriptions.
I. Rationality and Rationalization
- Blue- and Yellow-Tinted Choices ····· An introduction to context-sensitive biases.
- The Apologist and the Revolutionary ····· Do separate brain processes rationalize and question ideas?
- Historical Realism ····· When reality is unrealistic.
- Simultaneously Right and Wrong ····· On self-handicapping and self-deception.
- You May Already Be A Sinner ····· Self-deception in cases where your decisions make no difference.
- Beware the Man of One Study ····· On minimum wage laws and cherry-picked evidence.
- Debunked and Well-Refuted ····· When should we say that a study has been "debunked"?
- How to Not Lose an Argument ····· How to be more persuasive in entrenched arguments.
- The Least Convenient Possible World ····· Why it's useful to strengthen arguments you disagree with.
- Bayes for Schizophrenics: Reasoning in Delusional Disorders ····· Hypotheses about the role of perception, evidence integration, and priors in delusions.
- Generalizing from One Example ····· On the typical mind fallacy: assuming other people are like you.
- Typical Mind and Politics ····· Do political disagreements stem from neurological disagreements?
II. Probabilism
- Confidence Levels Inside and Outside an Argument ····· Should you believe your own conclusions, when they're extreme?
- Schizophrenia and Geomagnetic Storms ····· When bizarre ideas turn out to be true.
- Talking Snakes: A Cautionary Tale ····· Should we dismiss all absurd claims?
- Arguments from My Opponent Believes Something ····· Ten fully general arguments.
- Statistical Literacy Among Doctors Now Lower Than Chance ····· Common errors in probabilistic reasoning.
- Techniques for Probability Estimates ····· Six methods for quantifying uncertainty.
- On First Looking into Chapman’s “Pop Bayesianism” ····· Reasons Bayesian epistemology may not be trivial.
- Utilitarianism for Engineers ····· Are there good-enough heuristics for comparing people's preferences?
- If It’s Worth Doing, It’s Worth Doing with Made-Up Statistics ····· The practical value of probabilities.
- Marijuana: Much More Than You Wanted to Know ····· Assessing marijuana's costs and benefits.
- Are You a Solar Deity? ····· On confirmation bias in the comparative study of religions.
- The "Spot the Fakes" Test ····· An approach to testing humanities hypotheses.
- Epistemic Learned Helplessness ····· What should we do when bad arguments sound convincing?
III. Science and Doubt
- Google Correlate Does Not Imply Google Causation ····· Peculiar correlations between Google search terms.
- Stop Confounding Yourself! Stop Confounding Yourself! ····· A correlational study on the effects of bullying.
- Effects of Vertical Acceleration on Wrongness ····· On evidence-based medicine.
- 90% Of All Claims About The Problems With Medical Studies Are Wrong ····· Is it the case that "90% of medical research is false"?
- Prisons are Built with Bricks of Law and Brothels with Bricks of Religion, But That Doesn’t Prove a Causal Relationship ····· Do psychiatric interventions increase suicide risk?
- Noisy Poll Results and the Reptilian Muslim Climatologists from Mars ····· Skepticism about poll results.
- Two Dark Side Statistics Papers ····· Statistical tricks for creating effects out of nothing.
- Alcoholics Anonymous: Much More Than You Wanted to Know ····· Is AA effective for treating alcohol abuse?
- The Control Group Is Out Of Control ····· Parapsychology as the "control group" for all of psychology.
- The Cowpox of Doubt ····· Focusing on easy questions inoculates against uncertainty.
- The Skeptic's Trilemma ····· Explaining mysteries, vs. worshiping them, vs. dismissing them.
- If You Can't Make Predictions, You're Still in a Crisis ····· On psychology studies' replication failures.
IV. Medicine, Therapy, and Human Enhancement
- Scientific Freud ····· How does psychoanalysis compare to cognitive behavioral therapy?
- Sleep – Now by Prescription ····· On melatonin.
- In Defense of Psych Treatment for Attempted Suicide ····· Suicide is usually not a rational, informed decision.
- Who By Very Slow Decay ····· On old age and death in the medical system.
- Medicine, As Not Seen on TV ····· What is it actually like to be a doctor?
- Searching for One-Sided Tradeoffs ····· How can we find good ideas that others haven't found first?
- Do Life Hacks Ever Reach Fixation? ····· Why aren't there more good ideas that everyone has adopted?
- Polyamory is Boring ····· Deromanticizing multi-partner romance.
- Can You Condition Yourself? ····· On shaping new habits by rewarding oneself.
- Wirehead Gods on Lotus Thrones ····· Is the future boring? Transcendently blissful? Boringly blissful?
- Don’t Fear the Filter ····· Does the Fermi Paradox mean that our species is doomed?
- Transhumanist Fables ····· Six futurist fairy tales.
V. Introduction to Game Theory
- Backward Reasoning Over Decision Trees ····· Sequential games, and why adding options can hurt you.
- Nash Equilibria and Schelling Points ····· Simultaneous games, mixed strategies, and coordination.
- Introduction to Prisoners' Dilemma ····· Why Nash equilibria are sometimes bad for everyone.
- Real-World Solutions to Prisoners' Dilemmas ····· How society and evolution ensure mutual cooperation.
- Interlude for Behavioral Economics ····· Fairness, superrationality, and self-image in real-world games.
- What is Signaling, Really? ····· Actions that convey information, sometimes at great cost.
- Bargaining and Auctions ····· Idealized models of correct bidding.
- Imperfect Voting Systems ····· Strengths and weaknesses of different voting systems.
- Game Theory as a Dark Art ····· Ways to exploit seemingly "economically rational" behavior.
VI. Promises and Principles
- Beware Trivial Inconveniences ····· Small obstacles can have a huge effect on behavior.
- Time and Effort Discounting ····· On inconsistencies in our revealed preferences.
- Applied Picoeconomics ····· Binding your future self to your present goals.
- Schelling Fences on Slippery Slopes ····· Using arbitrary thresholds to improve coordination.
- Democracy is the Worst Form of Government Except for All the Others Except Possibly Futarchy ····· Like democracy, futarchy (rule by prediction markets) has the advantage of appearing impartial.
- Eight Short Studies on Excuses ····· When should we allow exceptions to our rules?
- Revenge as Charitable Act ····· Revenge can be a personally costly way to disincentivize misdeeds.
- Would Your Real Preferences Please Stand Up? ····· Are we hypocrites, or just weak-willed?
- Are Wireheads Happy? ····· Distinguishing "wanting" something from "liking" it.
- Guilt: Another Gift Nobody Wants ····· An evolutionary, signaling-based explanation of guilt.
VII. Cognition and Association
- Diseased Thinking: Dissolving Questions about Disease ····· On verbal disagreements.
- The Noncentral Fallacy — The Worst Argument in the World? ····· Judging an entire category by an emotional association that only applies to typical category members.
- The Power of Positivist Thinking ····· Focus on statements' empirical content.
- When Truth Isn't Enough ····· It's possible to agree denotationally while disagreeing connotationally.
- Ambijectivity ····· When a question is both subjective and objective.
- The Blue-Minimizing Robot ····· A parable on agency.
- Basics of Animal Reinforcement ····· A primer on classical and operant conditioning.
- Wanting vs. Liking Revisited ····· Distinguishing motivation to act from reinforcement.
- Physical and Mental Behavior ····· Behaviorism meets thinking.
- Trivers on Self-Deception ····· The conscious mind as a self-serving social narrative.
- Ego-Syntonic Thoughts and Values ····· On endorsed vs. non-endorsed mental behavior.
- Approving Reinforces Low-Effort Behaviors ····· Using your self-image to blackmail yourself.
- To What Degree Do We Have Goals? ····· Are our unconscious drives like an agent?
- The Limits of Introspection ····· Are we good at directly perceiving our cognition?
- Secrets of the Eliminati ····· Reducing phenomena to simpler parts, vs. eliminating them.
- Tendencies in Reflective Equilibrium ····· Aspiring to become more consistent.
- Hansonian Optimism ····· If ego-syntonic goals are about signaling, is goodness a lie?
VIII. Doing Good
- Newtonian Ethics ····· Satirizing moral parochialism and sloppy systematizations of ethics.
- Efficient Charity: Do Unto Others... ····· How should we act when our decisions matter most?
- The Economics of Art and the Art of Economics ····· Should Detroit sell its publicly owned artwork?
- A Modest Proposal ····· Using dead babies as a unit of currency.
- The Life Issue ····· What are the consequences of drone warfare?
- What if Drone Warfare Had Come First? ····· A thought experiment.
- Nefarious Nefazodone and Flashy Rare Side-Effects ····· On choosing between drug side-effects.
- The Consequentialism FAQ ····· Argues for assessing actions based on how they help or harm people.
- Doing Your Good Deed for the Day ····· Doing some good can reduce people's willingness to do more good.
- I Myself Am A Scientismist ····· Why apply scientific methods to non-scientific domains?
- Whose Utilitarianism? ····· Questioning the objectivity and uniqueness of utilitarianism.
- Book Review: After Virtue ····· On virtue ethics, a reaction against modern moral philosophy.
- Read History of Philosophy Backwards ····· Historical texts reveal our implicit assumptions.
- Virtue Ethics: Not Practically Useful Either ····· Is virtue ethics useful prescriptively or descriptively?
- Last Thoughts on Virtue Ethics ····· What claims do virtue ethicists make?
- Proving Too Much ····· If an argument sometimes proves falsehoods, it can't be valid.
IX. Liberty
- The Non-Libertarian FAQ (aka Why I Hate Your Freedom)
- A Blessing in Disguise, Albeit a Very Good Disguise
- Basic Income Guarantees
- Book Review: The Nurture Assumption
- The Death of Wages is Sin
- Thank You For Doing Something Ambiguously Between Smoking And Not Smoking
- Lies, Damned Lies, and Facebook (Part 1 of ∞)
- The Life Cycle of Medical Ideas
- Vote on Values, Outsource Beliefs
- A Something Sort of Like Left-Libertarian-ist Manifesto
- Plutocracy Isn’t About Money
- Against Tulip Subsidies
- SlateStarCodex Gives a Graduation Speech
X. Progress
- Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism
- A Signaling Theory of Class x Politics Interaction
- Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell
- A Thrive/Survive Theory of the Political Spectrum
- We Wrestle Not With Flesh And Blood, But Against Powers And Principalities
- Poor Folks Do Smile… For Now
- Apart from Better Sanitation and Medicine and Education and Irrigation and Public Health and Roads and Public Order, What Has Modernity Done for Us?
- The Wisdom of the Ancients
- Can Atheists Appreciate Chesterton?
- Holocaust Good for You, Research Finds, But Frequent Taunting Causes Cancer in Rats
- Public Awareness Campaigns
- Social Psychology is a Flamethrower
- Nature is Not a Slate. It’s a Series of Levers.
- The Anti-Reactionary FAQ
- The Poor You Will Always Have With You
- Proposed Biological Explanations for Historical Trends in Crime
- Society is Fixed, Biology is Mutable
XI. Social Justice
- Practically-a-Book Review: Dying to be Free
- Drug Testing Welfare Users is a Sham, But Not for the Reasons You Think
- The Meditation on Creepiness
- The Meditation on Superweapons
- The Meditation on the War on Applause Lights
- The Meditation on Superweapons and Bingo
- An Analysis of the Formalist Account of Power Relations in Democratic Societies
- Arguments About Male Violence Prove Too Much
- Social Justice for the Highly-Demanding-of-Rigor
- Against Bravery Debates
- All Debates Are Bravery Debates
- A Comment I Posted on “What Would JT Do?”
- We Are All MsScribe
- The Spirit of the First Amendment
- A Response to Apophemi on Triggers
- Lies, Damned Lies, and Social Media: False Rape Accusations
- In Favor of Niceness, Community, and Civilization
XII. Politicization
- Right is the New Left
- Weak Men are Superweapons
- You Kant Dismiss Universalizability
- I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup
- Five Case Studies on Politicization
- Black People Less Likely
- Nydwracu’s Fnords
- All in All, Another Brick in the Motte
- Ethnic Tension and Meaningless Arguments
- Race and Justice: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
- Framing for Light Instead of Heat
- The Wonderful Thing About Triggers
- Fearful Symmetry
- Archipelago and Atomic Communitarianism
XIII. Competition and Cooperation
- Galactic Core
- Book Review: The Two-Income Trap
- Just for Stealing a Mouthful of Bread
- Meditations on Moloch
- Misperceptions on Moloch
- The Invisible Nation — Reconciling Utilitarianism and Contractualism
- Freedom on the Centralized Web
- Book Review: Singer on Marx
- Does Class Warfare Have a Free Rider Problem?
- Book Review: Red Plenty
If you liked these posts and want more, I suggest browsing the SlateStarCodex archives.
Linkposts now live!

You can now submit links to LW! As the rationality community has grown up, more and more content has moved off LW to other places, and so rather than trying to generate more content here we'll instead try to collect more content here. My hope is that Less Wrong becomes something like "the Rationalist RSS," where people can discover what's new and interesting without necessarily being plugged in to the various diaspora communities.
Some general norms, subject to change:
- It's okay to link someone else's work, unless they specifically ask you not to. It's also okay to link your own work; if you want to get LW karma for things you make off-site, drop a link here as soon as you publish it.
- It's okay to link old stuff, but let's try to keep it to less than 5 old posts a day. The first link that I made is to Yudkowsky's Guide to Writing Intelligent Characters.
- It's okay to link to something that you think rationalists will be interested in, even if it's not directly related to rationality. If it's political, think long and hard before deciding to submit that link.
- It's not okay to post duplicates.
Would Your Real Preferences Please Stand Up?
Related to: Cynicism in Ev Psych and Econ
In Finding the Source, a commenter says:
I have begun wondering whether claiming to be victim of 'akrasia' might just be a way of admitting that your real preferences, as revealed in your actions, don't match the preferences you want to signal (believing what you want to signal, even if untrue, makes the signals more effective).
I think I've seen Robin put forth something like this argument [EDIT: Something related, but very different], and TGGP points out that Brian Caplan explicitly believes pretty much the same thing1:
I've previously argued that much - perhaps most - talk about "self-control" problems reflects social desirability bias rather than genuine inner conflict.
Part of the reason why people who spend a lot of time and money on socially disapproved behaviors say they "want to change" is that that's what they're supposed to say.
Think of it this way: A guy loses his wife and kids because he's a drunk. Suppose he sincerely prefers alcohol to his wife and kids. He still probably won't admit it, because people judge a sinner even more harshly if he is unrepentent. The drunk who says "I was such a fool!" gets some pity; the drunk who says "I like Jack Daniels better than my wife and kids" gets horrified looks. And either way, he can keep drinking.
I'll call this the Cynic's Theory of Akrasia, as opposed to the Naive Theory. I used to think it was plausible. Now that I think about it a little more, I find it meaningless. Here's what changed my mind.
Special Status Needs Special Support
I just recorded another BHTV with Adam Frank, though it's not out yet, and I had a thought that seems worth recording. At a certain point in the dialogue, Adam Frank was praising the wisdom and poetry in religion. I retorted, "Tolkien's got great poetry, and some parts that are wise and some that are unwise; but you don't see people wearing little rings around their neck in memory of Frodo."
(I don't remember whether this observation is original to me, so if anyone knows a prior source for this exact wording, please comment it!)
The general structure of this critique is that Frank wants to assign a special status to the Book of Job, but he gives a reason that would be equally applicable to The Lord of the Rings (good poetry and some wise parts). So if those are his real reasons, he should feel just the same way about God and Gandalf. Or if not that exact particular book, then some other work of poetic fiction that was always understood to be poetic fiction.
Atheism = Untheism + Antitheism
One occasionally sees such remarks as, "What good does it do to go around being angry about the nonexistence of God?" (on the one hand) or "Babies are natural atheists" (on the other). It seems to me that such remarks, and the rather silly discussions that get started around them, show that the concept "Atheism" is really made up of two distinct components, which one might call "untheism" and "antitheism".
A pure "untheist" would be someone who grew up in a society where the concept of God had simply never been invented - where writing was invented before agriculture, say, and the first plants and animals were domesticated by early scientists. In this world, superstition never got past the hunter-gatherer stage - a world seemingly haunted by mostly amoral spirits - before coming into conflict with Science and getting slapped down.
Hunter-gatherer superstition isn't much like what we think of as "religion". Early Westerners often derided it as not really being religion at all, and they were right, in my opinion. In the hunter-gatherer stage the supernatural agents aren't particularly moral, or charged with enforcing any rules; they may be placated with ceremonies, but not worshipped. But above all - they haven't yet split their epistemology. Hunter-gatherer cultures don't have special rules for reasoning about "supernatural" entities, or indeed an explicit distinction between supernatural entities and natural ones; the thunder spirits are just out there in the world, as evidenced by lightning, and the rain dance is supposed to manipulate them - it may not be perfect but it's the best rain dance developed so far, there was that famous time when it worked...
If you could show hunter-gatherers a raindance that called on a different spirit and worked with perfect reliability, or, equivalently, a desalination plant, they'd probably chuck the old spirit right out the window. Because there are no special rules for reasoning about it - nothing that denies the validity of the Elijah Test that the previous rain-dance just failed. Faith is a post-agricultural concept. Before you have chiefdoms where the priests are a branch of government, the gods aren't good, they don't enforce the chiefdom's rules, and there's no penalty for questioning them.
And so the Untheist culture, when it invents science, simply concludes in a very ordinary way that rain turns out to be caused by condensation in clouds rather than rain spirits; and at once they say "Oops" and chuck the old superstitions out the window; because they only got as far as superstitions, and not as far as anti-epistemology.
The Untheists don't know they're "atheists" because no one has ever told them what they're supposed to not believe in - nobody has invented a "high god" to be chief of the pantheon, let alone monolatry or monotheism.
Skill: The Map is Not the Territory
Followup to: The Useful Idea of Truth (minor post)
So far as I know, the first piece of rationalist fiction - one of only two explicitly rationalist fictions I know of that didn't descend from HPMOR, the other being "David's Sling" by Marc Stiegler - is the Null-A series by A. E. van Vogt. In Vogt's story, the protagonist, Gilbert Gosseyn, has mostly non-duplicable abilities that you can't pick up and use even if they're supposedly mental - e.g. the ability to use all of his muscular strength in emergencies, thanks to his alleged training. The main explicit-rationalist skill someone could actually pick up from Gosseyn's adventure is embodied in his slogan:
"The map is not the territory."

Sometimes it still amazes me to contemplate that this proverb was invented at some point, and some fellow named Korzybski invented it, and this happened as late as the 20th century. I read Vogt's story and absorbed that lesson when I was rather young, so to me this phrase sounds like a sheer background axiom of existence.
But as the Bayesian Conspiracy enters into its second stage of development, we must all accustom ourselves to translating mere insights into applied techniques. So:
Meditation: Under what circumstances is it helpful to consciously think of the distinction between the map and the territory - to visualize your thought bubble containing a belief, and a reality outside it, rather than just using your map to think about reality directly? How exactly does it help, on what sort of problem?
Rationality: Appreciating Cognitive Algorithms
Followup to: The Useful Idea of Truth
It is an error mode, and indeed an annoyance mode, to go about preaching the importance of the "Truth", especially if the Truth is supposed to be something incredibly lofty instead of some boring, mundane truth about gravity or rainbows or what your coworker said about your manager.
Thus it is a worthwhile exercise to practice deflating the word 'true' out of any sentence in which it appears. (Note that this is a special case of rationalist taboo.) For example, instead of saying, "I believe that the sky is blue, and that's true!" you can just say, "The sky is blue", which conveys essentially the same information about what color you think the sky is. Or if it feels different to say "I believe the Democrats will win the election!" than to say, "The Democrats will win the election", this is an important warning of belief-alief divergence.
Try it with these:
- I believe Jess just wants to win arguments.
- It’s true that you weren’t paying attention.
- I believe I will get better.
- In reality, teachers care a lot about students.
If 'truth' is defined by an infinite family of sentences like 'The sentence "the sky is blue" is true if and only if the sky is blue', then why would we ever need to talk about 'truth' at all?
Well, you can't deflate 'truth' out of the sentence "True beliefs are more likely to make successful experimental predictions" because it states a property of map-territory correspondences in general. You could say 'accurate maps' instead of 'true beliefs', but you would still be invoking the same concept.
It's only because most sentences containing the word 'true' are not talking about map-territory correspondences in general, that most such sentences can be deflated.
Now consider - when are you forced to use the word 'rational'?
The Useful Idea of Truth
(This is the first post of a new Sequence, Highly Advanced Epistemology 101 for Beginners, setting up the Sequence Open Problems in Friendly AI. For experienced readers, this first post may seem somewhat elementary; but it serves as a basis for what follows. And though it may be conventional in standard philosophy, the world at large does not know it, and it is useful to know a compact explanation. Kudos to Alex Altair for helping in the production and editing of this post and Sequence!)
I remember this paper I wrote on existentialism. My teacher gave it back with an F. She’d underlined true and truth wherever it appeared in the essay, probably about twenty times, with a question mark beside each. She wanted to know what I meant by truth.
-- Danielle Egan
I understand what it means for a hypothesis to be elegant, or falsifiable, or compatible with the evidence. It sounds to me like calling a belief ‘true’ or ‘real’ or ‘actual’ is merely the difference between saying you believe something, and saying you really really believe something.
-- Dale Carrico
What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and; anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding.
-- Friedrich Nietzche
The Sally-Anne False-Belief task is an experiment used to tell whether a child understands the difference between belief and reality. It goes as follows:
-
The child sees Sally hide a marble inside a covered basket, as Anne looks on.
-
Sally leaves the room, and Anne takes the marble out of the basket and hides it inside a lidded box.
-
Anne leaves the room, and Sally returns.
-
The experimenter asks the child where Sally will look for her marble.
Children under the age of four say that Sally will look for her marble inside the box. Children over the age of four say that Sally will look for her marble inside the basket.
View more: Next
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)