dsacco

14 ms·

61.
by dsacco 9y ago
> See: basically every instance of Goodhart's Law No, I asked for specific examples. This is part of the handwaving I'm talking about. Can you give me something other than the maniacal paperclip optimizer?
62.
by dsacco 9y ago
> recursively self-improving AGI- is the ultimate first-mover advantage: the first company or country to have AGI will very likely be able to leverage that into keeping anyone else from getting it How? This doesn't seem axiomatic.
63.
by dsacco 9y ago
> To "avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power" what does one do with an idea or line of research that could potentially harm humanity or unduly concentrate power? Pursue the research an
64.
by dsacco 9y ago
I don't really understand what you mean.
65.
by dsacco 9y ago
Why don't you just summarize your actual point or at least provide further guidance? You literally posted a link without any further clarification about its relevance. As it stands, you're not giving me any incentive to "stro
66.
by dsacco 9y ago
I'm sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying publishing novel research about strong AI is analogous to releasing a virus, or not taking antibiotics for their full cycle?
67.
by dsacco 9y ago
> No one of the intelligence capable of producing AGI is going to publish the full details This is what I'm talking about when I say "unsubstantiated." Do you recognize that this claim isn't true a priori?
68.
by dsacco 9y ago
What are a few examples of those cases, exactly?
69.
by dsacco 9y ago
No offense intended, but I don't think you and I are actually agreeing on anything. I can't really take your comments in this thread seriously.
70.
by dsacco 9y ago
Could you summarize your point more concisely? As written this seems to be a stream of disconnected thoughts that are basically entirely unsubstantiated.
71.
by dsacco 9y ago
This is performance art, right? Your comments in this thread strain the limits of credulity. Do you actually believe there is an intellectual barrier that will helpfully ensure only the virtuous are capable of doing artificial intelligence
72.
by dsacco 9y ago
> and destroy the world if she makes a mistake How would the world be destroyed? Does an example work without handwaving about recursive self-improvement and an imperative to optimize extremely literally? Can you give me a play by play
73.
by dsacco 9y ago
Yes, it's pretty hard to take that line seriously. At minimum it's very charitable framing, considering there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of
74.
by dsacco 9y ago
> Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future. Oh, why didn't you just say that in the first place? Now that I have your assurance I can obviously agree with you that strong AI is a
75.
by dsacco 9y ago
> No one in their right mind would ever publish significant details about AGI technology. Are you sure? I'd publish technical research details about strong AI. I'd probably even open source one with the papers. I think I&#x
76.
by dsacco 9y ago
> Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels. I'm pretty sure this is false.
77.
by dsacco 9y ago
There are less frivolous ways than satire to criticize Silicon Valley's preoccupation with strong AI, but rehashing that debate wouldn't get us anywhere. At least this is humorous.
78.
by dsacco 9y ago
I didn’t dismiss its small advantages, I put them in context so it would be clear that they’re small.
79.
by dsacco 9y ago
> and in case of popular applications, even if you don't, you can be sure that someone already had and would speak up if they noticed anything off. You can’t be sure of that at all. This isn’t just an epistemological point either
80.
by dsacco 9y ago
First and foremost, I don't think a second Bachelor's degree is rational in any scenario. If you are going to spend the money to augment your education with another degree, make it a Master's degree. I think there's an a
81.
by dsacco 9y ago
I don't recommend a Master's degree unless you'd like one to pursue a research position in academia or an industry lab (Microsoft Research, IBM Research, Google Brain, FAIR, etc). Master's degrees come in two varieties:
82.
by dsacco 9y ago
Unforunately I came back to this long after the edit window, but it occurs to me to clarify #1. One of the reasons we like hash-based signatures despite the fact that hash functions are not versatile for PKE/KEM is because they're
83.
by dsacco 9y ago
The paper you cite is a good one, but it's actually demonstrating that the person you're responding to is correct (and you two are agreeing). In fact, Rogaway and Shrimpton specifically state that their constructions may appear so
84.
by dsacco 9y ago
> Under what assumptions and definitions is this true? For strong collision resistance and provisional preimage resistance. For example, a hash function of the form f: {0, 1}^* -> {0, 1}^n is certainly preimage resistant if
85.
by dsacco 9y ago
You might be pleasantly surprised. There are focused subreddits which are quite ruthless and thorough in their moderation style. For example, the modal discussion on /r/NeutralPolitics is far more productive and informed than on H
86.
by dsacco 9y ago
This is a pretty good primer, and I think Matt Green is generally good at tutorials that reduce the technical complexity to make material more accessible. I'll add a couple of notes: 1. Hash-based cryptography is not capable of providi
87.
by dsacco 9y ago
This article isn't focusing on why signatures are important, it's explaining why hash-based signatures are important. In other words it's not discussing the difference between message confidentiality and message authentic
88.
by dsacco 9y ago
Interesting, do you have more information to read about this?
89.
by dsacco 9y ago
You don't need to ask for consent, because it's typical that a clause will simply state, "Continued use of this service indicates acceptance of these terms", etc. That seems like a non-problem as far as these things go.
90.
by dsacco 9y ago
Call out the third party service providers explicitly.

More ›