Additional Suggestion 1: Regular reminders of places to send suggestions could be helpful. I occasionally come up with additional ones and usually just post them on whatever recent suggestion-related thread is new
Additional Suggestion 2: The search function would be massively improved if it ignored and didn't search the text in the sidebar. This was referenced and I was reminded of this by gjm from his comment here in the latest Open Thread.
Finding comments on LW is more painful than it should be because sometimes this happens:
Here's a typical example; it happens to use only Z (I picked one of my comments from a couple of weeks ago) but including X and Y seldom helps.
I just tried the equivalent search in Bing and the results were more satisfactory, but only because the comment in question happened to appear fairly near the top of the overview page for the user I was replying to. I would guess that Bing isn't actually systematically better for these searches, but I haven't tested.
Does anyone know a good workaround for this problem?
Is there a way to make the dynamically-generated sidebar stuff on LW pages invisible to Google's crawler? It looks like there is. Should I file an issue on GitHub?
I've run into this problem several times before. It would be very helpful if the search feature ignored the text in the sidebar.
Modest proposal for Friendly AI research:
Create a moral framework that incentivizes assholes to cooperate.
Specifically, create a set of laws for a "community", with the laws applying only to members, that would attract finance guys, successful "unicorn" startup owners, politicians, drug dealers at the "regional manager" level, and other assholes.
Win condition: a "trust app" that everyone uses, that tells users how trustworthy every single person they meet is.
Lose condition: startup fund assholes end up with majority ownership of the first smarter-than-human-level general AI, and no one's given smart people an incentive not to hurt dumb people.
If you can't incentivize smart selfish people to "cooperate" instead of "defect", then why do you think you can incentivize an AI to be friendly? What's to stop a troll from deleting the "Friendly" part the second the AI source code hits the Internet? Keep in mind that the 4chan community has a similar ethos to LW: namely "anything that can be destroyed by a basement dweller should be".
A trust app is going to end up with all the same issues credit ratings have.
Is it possible for Main posts to also be listed on Discussion but have an added highlight effect around their title or something? Then people can tell they're Main while now having to check a rarely used side subreddit.
Why did the hug feel 100% fake to you? Do you think the other Japanese people give less fake hugs?
I generally know that Japan isn't too big on hugging as a culture, so I wonder whether very many Japanese people would be very skilled at this.
How commonly do you think other groups do this and what ways would you suggest at stopping it? Your article seems fairly innocuous as far as spotlight stealing goes, but I'm sure other people's attempts might be far more harmful for the original news story obtaining appropriate attention.
I'm not sure what the corresponding figure would be for chess.
You can actually calculate this now. Regan has noted that for computer chess, they're getting to the point where they are effectively perfect and equivalent; so whatever that gap between them and the best human player ever is can be turned into a piece advantage. (Not that I know how to do this, but I assume anyone already somewhat familiar with ELO and chess engines can take the ELO difference and figure out the corresponding material advantage. Regan thinks it's probably somewhere ~3600 ELO. Apparently chess AIs can now offer at least "pawn and move, pawn, exchange, and four-move odds." and still beat US champions & grandmasters like Hikaru Nakamura.)
But maybe that was a little hard to answer, so let me put the question the other way: has there ever been a case where a strategy game played seriously & competitively (ie. not tic-tac-toe or blackjack) by adult humans was solved to perfect or superhuman play levels by AI researchers, and the perfect or superhuman play turned out to be identical or so close to the top human's play level that human could win regularly?
A game like that could occur between humans and A.I. with online collectible card games. (I'm specifying online because the rules are streamlined and mass competition is far more available.)
For me the most interesting part of this match was the part where one of the DeepMind team confirmed that because AlphaGo optimizes for probability of winning rather than expected score difference, games where it has the advantage will look close. It changes how you should interpret the apparent closeness of a game
Qiaochu Yuan, or him quoting someone.
I was worried about something like this after the first game. I wasn't sure if expert Go players could discern the difference between AlphaGo playing slightly better than a 9dan versus playing massively better than a 9dan due to how the AI was set up and how difficult it might be to look at players better than the ones already at the top.
Does anyone know the current odds being given of Lee Sedol winning any of the three remaining games against AlphaGo? I'm curious if at this point is AlphaGo likely possible to beat by a human player better than Sedol (assuming there are any) or if we're looking at an AI player that is better than a human can be.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Did they delete posts?
They deleted the worst ones. Screenshots can be found on other websites.