ZhuanXia

10 ms·

31.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
If automation will truly do all jobs, then by definition we have human-level AI. As labour supply enormously limits economic growth, we would have economic growth that is unimaginably large in this scenario. Imagine how quickly a startup co
32.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
It's basically an algorithmic filter for wokism. A lot of innovative people tend to be unswayed by our strange moral fads. Seems like talent is being left on the table. Good news for startups.
33.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
It strikes me that is can still be useful, it just has to produce a good whose value cannot be internalized. It would need to be a perfect public good. Can’t think of any examples though.
34.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Astronomers will have to get used to this. If we ban these for such nonsense reasons, it will be Chinese satellites blocking their view.
35.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
The Doctor's guild does this to themselves by restricting supply to obtain their grotesque salaries. Zero sympathy.
36.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Land value tax.
37.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
See Gwern’s automated poet: https://www.gwern.net/GPT-2
38.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
He did much better than most. This captioning task is extremely hard even for professional cartoonists. Few could have done better. I admire Yang's intelligence, and think it is a shame that we do not filter our leaders more for cognit
39.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Reversal test, how do you “know” they want to live?
40.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
I hope when I get that degraded I will live in a society kind enough to euthanize me, rather than slowly torture, drug and humiliate me, while extending my demented, horror-show 'life' to the maximal possible extent in order milk
41.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Anything we can do to water down the Doctor’s guild is good. Their salaries are absurd and possible only because of regulatory capture.
42.
Rodney Brooks Predictions Scorecard, 2020 January 01(rodneybrooks.com)
1 points by ZhuanXia 7y ago|0 comments
43.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
1. 100 trillion parameter neural net is trained at the very end of the decade. May or may not be useful but I think this is mostly a problem of memory bandwidth and is doable with a minimal number of die shrinks. 2. I will take the under on
44.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Generally a good prior.
45.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Them shunning benchmarks is pretty lame.
46.
Psycholinguists Are Foolish to Dismiss GPT-2 and Bert(lesswrong.com)
3 points by ZhuanXia 7y ago|1 comments
47.
Human Psycholinguists: A Critical Appraisal(nostalgebraist.tumblr.com)
3 points by ZhuanXia 7y ago|0 comments
48.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Read it again. It clearly does.
49.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
>That they are "excited" to account for at best 2.5% of high IQ through genetics suggests that genetics is not a large contributor to high intelligence. Bit of a stretch there mate; that doesn't follow at all.
50.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
I suppose I should have said it does not help much. You are right; it does help.
51.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
>They conclude that high IQ (>170) is mostly not caused by genetic variants. The abstract does not mention that; they claim: "This study shows the utility of extreme trait selection for genetic study of intelligence and suggests
52.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Yes. That is true. It will take hundreds of edits to increase IQ several standard deviations. This is not a problem for embryo selection.
53.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
the enriched population does not help as high IQ is not caused by rare variants. Rather it is the proportion of common variants that increase IQ to common variants that decrease it. This is why we need millions of samples.
54.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
>Polygenic scores for IQ are correlated with other traits that are less desirable (schizophrenia for example). Nope. IQ is negatively correlated with most mental illness. It is certainly not positively correlated with schizophrenia: htt
55.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Yes, do to their large population and slightly higher average quantitative abilities (at least if you trust their PISA scores), they have roughly 20x more 4 sigma people than America. Chinese technological dominance seems likely even ignori
56.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Yes. For polygenic traits like IQ we need millions of samples tagged with IQ. 3000 is a really small sample.
57.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Yes. I am a little worried about genetic engineering in the very very long term, as it seems to make eusocial organization possible, which I find pretty abhorrent. In the short term though, it seems like a good idea. Regardless, in a multip
58.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
We don’t need the causal variants for embryo selection, just the predictive variants. We have this for height now. The only reason we don’t have this for IQ now is everyone doing GWAS studies are too chicken to put an IQ test in with their
59.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
Interesting. I still roll to disbelieve on China shunning human enhancement. The gains are just too great, the fruit too low hanging. Several standard deviation increases in polygenic traits are on the table, including the most important ec
60.
by ZhuanXia 7y ago
To eliminate Mendelian disease. To increase lifespan, health, intellectual ability, and productivity? This is quite possible with minimal technological advancement. Why exactly is this bad? Because we saw a Star Trek episode? Shunning these

More ›