5 ms·

I think I understand your sentiment, but I'd object to the phrasing of "trivial pursuits". If history teaches us anything, it's that humanity advances by peopl

by Radim 9y ago

I think I understand your sentiment, but I'd object to the phrasing of "trivial pursuits". If history teaches us anything, it's that humanity advances by people following their "trivial interests", rather than being herded onto the "major problems of our complex world". What is or isn't trivial vs important is only obvious in hindsight, unfortunately. That moment might still happen for advertising and the art of capturing the human attention (or whatever you meant by this turn of phrase).

taneq 9y ago
> What is or isn't trivial vs important is only obvious in hindsight, unfortunately. Amongst things of similar nature, sure, but surely you're not arguing that being very good at chess is just as likely advance humanity in some important way as directly tackling current existential dangers?
- Radim 9y ago
  Actually, you're not far off! Where else would the next major advance come from, if not from raising our collective consciousness through games (cheap focused simulations) and articulate story-telling (social alignment and morality correction)? We're not robots, to somehow perceive objective reality independently and logically. I certainly believe story-tellers and players are absolutely critical if humanity is to pull through. In the "standing on the shoulders of giants" kind of way: incremental digging at what really matters. And the free market seems to agree, as people who are good at this are among the highest valued individuals, however you choose to measure value (money, social status, attention...). What makes you think you could assign value better? Just curious -- what do you see as the "current existential dangers"?
  - taneq 9y ago
    > Where else would the next major advance come from? Probably from sustained and detailed study of the universe around us and the way it works. That's how we figure out most things. Not that (board) games can't be useful as training but IMO they're a form of navel-gazing. (Games based on high fidelity simulations are definitely useful - look at the AI research using GTA5 as a simulator for self-driving cars, for instance.) > I certainly believe story-tellers and players are absolutely critical if humanity is to pull through. In the sense of us dealing with our own demons and learning how to handle the general awfulness of reality (ie. psychology / philosophy), I completely agree. In the sense of us dealing with outside challenges, though, not so much. > Just curious -- what do you see as the "current existential dangers"? Right now? Our current economic system is close to its limits, with a growing percentage of humans permanently unemployed and that percentage is growing rapidly with new tech. Various ecological systems are collapsing. (eg. pollinators like bees being wiped out by insecticides - have you ever read John Christopher's "Death of Grass"?) Runaway climate change is a real possibility (ocean warming causing methane clathrates to release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere). Higher human populations and population densities increasing the evolution rate of diseases beyond what our immune systems can handle. And all that on a backdrop of a looming AI singularity which even in the best case will make the world weird and confusing beyond the comprehension of baseline humans. There's a lot going on.
    - Radim 9y ago
      Again, agreed for the most part. I just think you're underestimating the power of (board or otherwise) games, how they capture and reflect patterns of reality that are not immediately apparent or not directly useful (or even verbalizable). There's this deep connection between curiosity, idle fun and problem solving. The idea of driving people to "sustained and detailed scientific studies" to tackle "existential threats"... that is just not how the world works. Innovation doesn't happen by committee. It happens by making weird connections in unexpected places. To be honest, I don't think you're giving enough credit to the evolutionary process that gave us our propensity to admire "games and stories". Dismissing it as "just navel-gazing", or just philosophy, in favour of rigorous science, sounds extremely perilous -- as if killing something fundamental to humanity.
nopinsight 9y ago
In principle we do not know the long-term impact in advance, but we can often make a probabilistic estimate. Choosing career as an AI researcher vs a Go player, for example. * Note: If you want to make an impact, whichever your career inclination is, this website provides some great guides: https://80000hours.org/ https://80000hours.org/ I think trying to capture more of the world's resources for Google, Facebook, etc. do have a large impact in aggregation, so it's not a trivial pursuit. DeepMind itself and many other techs to come are being funded by these companies. Personal impact may not be extremely large since there are many other brilliant people working on the same thing but some with a leading role could make a contribution there. (For example if you work for Google, which I believe is a major force for long-term innovation.) What I had in mind was people who spend careers on games, puzzles, or gambling. I once watched a Ke Jie interview after his loss to AlphaGo and could tell that he is brilliant and would likely be successful in other careers that require sharp thinking. Some like Christopher Lagan needed to live a double life and is still unlikely to make any real impact on the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
- panic 9y ago
  In principle we do not know the long-term impact in advance, but we can often make a probabilistic estimate. I'm not sure this is true. We can't make a probabilistic estimate without a model. And to design an accurate model, you need to describe precisely what it means to ask, "is this activity worth pursuing?" Is there a way to do this without involving all of human society in your model?
  - nopinsight 9y ago
    As a first approximation, a simple model could be: The number of people impacted * How greatly their lives are impacted given your existence
- 659087 9y ago
  > I think trying to capture more of the world's resources for Google, Facebook, etc. do have a large impact in aggregation, Capturing more of the world's resources for a small number of massive advertising corporations is not beneficial to society in any way. The "innovation" happening at those companies is mostly detrimental, and focused on finding new ways to surveil and manipulate people for profit.

by Radim 9y ago

taneq 9y ago

> What is or isn't trivial vs important is only obvious in hindsight, unfortunately. Amongst things of similar nature, sure, but surely you're not arguing that being very good at chess is just as likely advance humanity in some important way as directly tackling current existential dangers?

Radim 9y ago
Actually, you're not far off! Where else would the next major advance come from, if not from raising our collective consciousness through games (cheap focused simulations) and articulate story-telling (social alignment and morality correction)? We're not robots, to somehow perceive objective reality independently and logically. I certainly believe story-tellers and players are absolutely critical if humanity is to pull through. In the "standing on the shoulders of giants" kind of way: incremental digging at what really matters. And the free market seems to agree, as people who are good at this are among the highest valued individuals, however you choose to measure value (money, social status, attention...). What makes you think you could assign value better? Just curious -- what do you see as the "current existential dangers"?
- taneq 9y ago
  > Where else would the next major advance come from? Probably from sustained and detailed study of the universe around us and the way it works. That's how we figure out most things. Not that (board) games can't be useful as training but IMO they're a form of navel-gazing. (Games based on high fidelity simulations are definitely useful - look at the AI research using GTA5 as a simulator for self-driving cars, for instance.) > I certainly believe story-tellers and players are absolutely critical if humanity is to pull through. In the sense of us dealing with our own demons and learning how to handle the general awfulness of reality (ie. psychology / philosophy), I completely agree. In the sense of us dealing with outside challenges, though, not so much. > Just curious -- what do you see as the "current existential dangers"? Right now? Our current economic system is close to its limits, with a growing percentage of humans permanently unemployed and that percentage is growing rapidly with new tech. Various ecological systems are collapsing. (eg. pollinators like bees being wiped out by insecticides - have you ever read John Christopher's "Death of Grass"?) Runaway climate change is a real possibility (ocean warming causing methane clathrates to release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere). Higher human populations and population densities increasing the evolution rate of diseases beyond what our immune systems can handle. And all that on a backdrop of a looming AI singularity which even in the best case will make the world weird and confusing beyond the comprehension of baseline humans. There's a lot going on.
  - Radim 9y ago
    Again, agreed for the most part. I just think you're underestimating the power of (board or otherwise) games, how they capture and reflect patterns of reality that are not immediately apparent or not directly useful (or even verbalizable). There's this deep connection between curiosity, idle fun and problem solving. The idea of driving people to "sustained and detailed scientific studies" to tackle "existential threats"... that is just not how the world works. Innovation doesn't happen by committee. It happens by making weird connections in unexpected places. To be honest, I don't think you're giving enough credit to the evolutionary process that gave us our propensity to admire "games and stories". Dismissing it as "just navel-gazing", or just philosophy, in favour of rigorous science, sounds extremely perilous -- as if killing something fundamental to humanity.

nopinsight 9y ago

In principle we do not know the long-term impact in advance, but we can often make a probabilistic estimate. Choosing career as an AI researcher vs a Go player, for example. * Note: If you want to make an impact, whichever your career inclination is, this website provides some great guides: https://80000hours.org/ https://80000hours.org/ I think trying to capture more of the world's resources for Google, Facebook, etc. do have a large impact in aggregation, so it's not a trivial pursuit. DeepMind itself and many other techs to come are being funded by these companies. Personal impact may not be extremely large since there are many other brilliant people working on the same thing but some with a leading role could make a contribution there. (For example if you work for Google, which I believe is a major force for long-term innovation.) What I had in mind was people who spend careers on games, puzzles, or gambling. I once watched a Ke Jie interview after his loss to AlphaGo and could tell that he is brilliant and would likely be successful in other careers that require sharp thinking. Some like Christopher Lagan needed to live a double life and is still unlikely to make any real impact on the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

panic 9y ago
In principle we do not know the long-term impact in advance, but we can often make a probabilistic estimate. I'm not sure this is true. We can't make a probabilistic estimate without a model. And to design an accurate model, you need to describe precisely what it means to ask, "is this activity worth pursuing?" Is there a way to do this without involving all of human society in your model?
- nopinsight 9y ago
  As a first approximation, a simple model could be: The number of people impacted * How greatly their lives are impacted given your existence
659087 9y ago
> I think trying to capture more of the world's resources for Google, Facebook, etc. do have a large impact in aggregation, Capturing more of the world's resources for a small number of massive advertising corporations is not beneficial to society in any way. The "innovation" happening at those companies is mostly detrimental, and focused on finding new ways to surveil and manipulate people for profit.