2011 has been a huge year for Artificial Intelligence. With the IBM computer Watson defeating two top Jeopardy! champions in February, it’s clear that the field is making steady progress.

Do people here generally think that this is true? I don't see much of an intersection between Watson and AI; it seems like a few machine learning algorithms that approach Jeopardy problems in an extremely artificial way, much like chess engines approach playing chess. (Are chess engines artificial intelligence too?)

Michael Vassar sent out an email with more information back in Dec 2009 (shortly after they discovered the theft?). I'm not sure if it was just to donors or also included newsletter subscribers. It basically said, 'we trusted this person and they took advantage of that trust.' It also states that since legal action is still pending, they have to "limit what [they] say", but that you can send further inquiries to Michael.

• In 2009 the SIAI reported $118,802 to theft - "Misappropriation of assets, by a contractor [...]" This is a significant amount when compared to annual revenue or liquid assets. The year's surplus appears to have been eaten up by the theft. No details are provided, other than the fact that suit has been filed to seek restitution.

I'm surprised that no-one's mentioned this -- it's hard to imagine how someone can steal that much money. Can someone at SIAI tell us whether they're allowed to talk about what happened; and if you can't right now, do you have any idea when you might be able to?

Yvain didn't write "considered offensive by women". He wrote "to", which only very weakly implies the idea you criticize and can be charitably read as saying no such thing.

When someone writes a story where all the sympathetic and interesting characters are male, it is considered offensive to women.

I'm sure you don't actually have any confusion here, but I feel compelled to point out that you kind of did that thing where you only expect a member of Minority X to be offended by *ism against Minority X, where in fact everyone should join in sharing the offense caused by it, because that's just part of being a decent person.

(I probably wouldn't have mentioned this but for the fact that we're having a meta-discussion about how offense works!)

From Yelp

"Cosi is a great sandwich chain. The fresh ... Cosi is a great sandwich chain. The fresh bread is yummy. Yes, this one in particular is crowded, and yes it's doesn't have mind blowing atmosphere, but it has free wifi and constant freshness in the bread department. ..."‎ ‎ - Feb 23, 2010

Unfortunately I think that almost any restaurant or coffee shop will be crowded. It would be best if we could get a room at Harvard or MIT, but failing that it is possible to reserve a room at the main branch of the Cambridge Public Library. It would be worth looking into for future meetups, their info can be found here:

http://www.cambridgema.gov/cpl/aboutus/contactinformation.aspx

Interesting article!

I think you're overstating the difficulty of Go to computers. The latest wave of Monte Carlo programs -- when run on fast multicore machines -- are able to beat professionals with a modicum of handicap on 19x19, or at even games on 9x9; they're certainly now better than the average club player.

This post, like many others around this theme, revolves around the rationality of cryonics from the subjective standpoint of a potential cryopatient, and it seems to assume a certain set of circumstances for that patient: relatively young, healthy, functional in society.

I've been wondering for a while about the rationality of cryonics from a societal standpoint, as applied to potential cryopatients in significantly different circumstances; two categories specifically stand out, death row inmates and terminal patients.

This article cites the cost of a death row inmate (over serving a life sentence) to $90K. This is a case where we already allow that society may drastically curtail an individual's right to control their own destiny. It would cost less to place someone in cryonic suspension than to execute him, and in so doing we would provide a chance, however small, that a wrongful conviction could be reversed in the future.

As for terminal patients, this article says:

Aggressive treatments attempting to prolong life in terminally ill people typically continue far too long. Reflecting this overaggressive end-of-life treatment, the Health Care Finance Administration reported that about 25% of Medicare funds are spent in the last 6 months of life (about $68 billion in 2003 or $42,000 per dying patient). Actually, the last 6 months of a Medicare recipient's life consumes about $80,000 for medical services, since Medicare pays only 53% of the bill. Dying cancer patients cost twice the average amount or about $160,000.

These costs are comparable to that charged for cryopreservation. It seems to me that it would be rational (as a cost reduction measure) to offer patients diagnosed with a likely terminal illness the voluntary option of being cryopreserved. At worst, if cryonics doesn't work, this amounts to an "assisted suicide", something that many progressive groups are already lobbying for.

Did you ever get any vaccination shots? Some of these are for diseases that have become quite rare.

Cryonics is comparable to CPR or other emergency medical care, in that it gives you extra life after you might otherwise die. Of course it's selfish, in the sense that you're taking care of yourself first, to spend money on your medical care, but cryonics does relate to your ability to get a paycheck (after your revival).

To be consistent, are you reducing your medical expenses in other ways?