Comment author: OrphanWilde 09 March 2016 07:12:24PM 1 point [-]

Capitalism/The Market.

Comment author: kgalias 09 March 2016 09:37:43PM -1 points [-]
Comment author: kgalias 06 February 2016 03:58:14PM 1 point [-]

Does anyone know if and where can I find "IB Mathematics Standard Level Course Book: Oxford IB Diploma Programme" (I need this one specifically)?

https://global.oup.com/education/product/9780198390114/?region=uk

In response to MIRI Research Guide
Comment author: kgalias 08 November 2014 01:45:20AM 2 points [-]

Thanks! This will be helpful.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 08 October 2014 12:58:47PM 4 points [-]

No, I have this in mind:

The results indicate that children's performance declines throughout the morning and that this decline can be significantly reduced following the intake of a low GI cereal as compared with a high GI cereal on measures of accuracy of attention (M=-6.742 and -13.510, respectively, p<0.05) and secondary memory (M=-30.675 and -47.183, respectively, p<0.05).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17224202

Comment author: kgalias 08 October 2014 05:35:57PM 2 points [-]

I don't have time to evaluate which view is less wrong.

Still, I was somewhat surprised when I saw your first comment.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 08 October 2014 12:06:16PM 1 point [-]

I mean, if you are oscillating between sugar highs and crashes, it is difficult to concentrate, plus it causes diabetes etc..

Comment author: kgalias 08 October 2014 12:13:42PM *  3 points [-]

Is this what you have in mind?

Sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children.[230][231] Double-blind trials have shown no difference in behavior between children given sugar-full or sugar-free diets, even in studies specifically looking at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or those considered sensitive to sugar.[232]

wikipedia

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 07 October 2014 07:16:36AM 1 point [-]

With diet, modafinil, etc this might already be the case. Sugar alone makes it more difficult to concentrate for many people, as well as having many other deleterious effects. Yet all many people do is say "you can have your chocolate, but only after you take your ritalin"

Comment author: kgalias 08 October 2014 11:07:25AM 1 point [-]

Sugar alone makes it more difficult to concentrate for many people, as well as having many other deleterious effects.

What do you mean?

Comment author: [deleted] 03 October 2014 07:04:39PM *  1 point [-]

We have the technical means to produce brain emulations. It requires just very straightforward advances in imaging and larger supercomputers. There are various smaller-scale brain emulation projects that have already proved the concept. It's just that doing that at a larger scale and finer resolution requires a lot of person-years just to get it done.

EDIT: In Rumsfeld speak, whole-brain emulation is a series of known-knowns: lots of work that we know needs to be done, and someone just has to do it. Whereas AGI involves known-unknowns: we don't know precisely what has to be done, so we can't quantify exactly how long it will take. We could guess, but it remains possible that clever insight might find a better, faster, cheaper path.

Comment author: kgalias 07 October 2014 06:24:06PM 0 points [-]

Sorry for the pause, internet problems at my place.

Anyways, it seems you're right. Technically, it might be more plausible for AI to be coded faster (higher variance), even though I think it'll take more time than emulation (on average).

Comment author: [deleted] 03 October 2014 03:02:17PM *  1 point [-]

Because the scope of the problems involved, e.g. searchspace over programs, can be calculated and compared with other similarly structured but solved problems (e.g. narrow AI). And in a very abstract theoretical sense today's desktop computers are probably sufficient for running a fully optimized human-level AGI. And this is a sensible and consistent result -- it should not be surprising that it takes many orders of magnitude more computational power to emulate a computing substrate running a general intelligence (the brain simulated by a supercomputer) than to run a natively coded AGI. Designing the program which implements the native, non-emulative AGI is basically a "clever insight" problem, or perhaps more accurately a large series of clever insights.

Comment author: kgalias 03 October 2014 03:46:42PM *  1 point [-]

I agree.

Why does this make it more plausible that a person can sit down and invent a human-level artificial intelligence than that they can sit down and invent the technical means to produce brain emulations?

Comment author: [deleted] 03 October 2014 08:51:00AM *  1 point [-]

Making a brain emulation machine requires (1) the ability to image a brain at sufficient resolution, and (2) computing power in excess of the largest supercomputers available today. Both of these tasks are things which require a long engineering lead time and commitment of resources, and are not things which we expect to solved by some clever insight. Clever insight alone won't ever enable you construct record-setting supercomputers out of leftover hobbyist computer parts, toothpicks, and superglue.

Comment author: kgalias 03 October 2014 09:49:15AM 3 points [-]

Why do we assume that all that is needed for AI is a clever insight, not the insight-equivalent of a long engineering time and commitment of resources?

Comment author: [deleted] 02 October 2014 02:44:02PM 2 points [-]

Can you elaborate?

Comment author: kgalias 03 October 2014 08:25:20AM *  2 points [-]

How is theoretical progress different from engineering progress?

Is the following an example of valid inference?

We haven't solved many related (and seemingly easier) (sub)problems, so the Riemann Hypothesis is unlikely to be proven in the next couple of years.

In principle, it is also conceivable (but not probable), that someone will sit down and make a brain emulation machine.

View more: Next