Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity | Hacker News Reader

Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

medium.com

161 pointswhiddershins82 comments

Missing the biggest triumph of 2016 by far: the victory by DeepMind's machine learning algorith at Go over the greatest living human player.

At this time last year it was highly questionable if humans would ever lose to algorithms at games as complex as Go.

Now we have reason to be optimistic that an entire class of problems are amenable to solution through computation, and more evidence super-human synthetic intelligence is indeed possible.

...and hundreds of millions worldwide who have been saved from malaria or lifted out of extreme poverty would likely disagree with you: what good is super-human synthetic intelligence several decades from now (assuming that's even a tractable generalization of largely task-specific ML models) if you're not sure where your next meal comes from?

Well, I founded a startup that's using ML to help turn satellite data into credit risk profiles for the world's poorest farmers so we can sell them fertilizer and seed.

So... I think tensor flow is going to be pretty great for the 1K farmers we're working with this year and ~50k we're going to try and reach next year.

This is one of those ideas where I think...how on earth did you come up with the idea of building such a company? Sidenote: sounds absolutely amazing! Congrats!

> help turn satellite data into credit risk profiles for the world's poorest farmers so we can sell them fertilizer and seed

Not sure if satire or serious :].

Completely serious, we're alumni of The Climate Corporation.

Satellite data is cheap or in many cases free, and the cost of sending a trained loan officer out to the field is far too high to justify.

Shoot me an email at earl@apolloagriculture.com and I'd be happy to chat more.

> if you're not sure where your next meal comes from?

This is certainly work in progress, but:

"31. In 1990, more than 60% of people in East Asia lived in extreme poverty. As of 2016, that proportion has dropped to 3.5%."

I'm calling BS. East Asia basically just means China, because it dwarfs other populations. IMHO >60% of Chinese were certainly not living in extreme poverty in 1990, unless economically defined via free market rhetoric and bad statistics. The reality is that people used to grow more of their own food and buy less, so the need for free-market capital was limited. Perhaps this is the source of the mistake.

There was and still is far more extreme poverty in South Asia.

This actually sounds interesting as a fact but I would like to see some evidence/links.

Just look for photos of any place in China in the 1990s, or ask someone who lived there.

Pretty much exactly this. Global reductions in poverty equate to reductions in $2/day income threshold in two countries: China and India.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/china-i...

Accomplished at the cost of tremendously increasing resource consumption, particularly energy:

China: https://m.imgur.com/Vj5VwS9?r

India: https://m.imgur.com/elFJjGP?r

So in your opinion what percentage of Chinese were living in extreme poverty in 1990?

Even in the best of circumstances, with unlimited food for all, those people will be dust in a century. Even incremental improvements in technology will help hundreds of generations of humans going forward.

Not all uses of technology ore a positive influence. HFT, NSA's surveillance are two that come to mind straight away.

I don't want this to come across as if I support these particular programs, but I would imagine some tech comes out through veterans and takes on consumer applications.

Does the NSA file patents? If not, usage of tech is probably enforced by the honor code

"Does the NSA file patents?"

They do actually. They also get defense contractors like SAIC's holding company to do it for them then sue groups doing things like encrypted messaging. They can also slap secrecy orders on patents & block those from coming to market with that sort of thing going up since Bush-Cheney.

"usage of tech is probably enforced by the honor code"

See Snowden leaks. Defense contracting debacles. PROMIS scandal. So on and so forth.

Is it? I mean, a lot of hard work was put into it. And, it's a step that needs to be taken. And people can work on what they want to work on. But how can a machine beating the best human at a game really be the biggest triumph of 2016?

Whenever I think about this stuff, I have a similar nagging question. E.g. if there are entire classes of problems that we now "know" are solvable, and have an actual benefit to mankind, why didn't they spend time on that rather than a game?

This is like asking, "why didn't they just build a new dam instead of spending so much time drawing up blueprints?" Games can be useful abstractions and guides that advance our understanding of the same decision making processes that allow people to create real, effective changes in the world. The balance is shifting to the point in the near future where most of the best solutions to real world problems won't come directly from unaugmented human minds.

I can see games being an impetus, but are they really the blueprint, as opposed to just another application, but one that the public at large can appreciate?

The game itself isn't the blueprint. The source code of the application used to play the game is a blueprint for learning and pattern recognition that can be applied to other things. For example, the DeepMind AI used to play Go has been adapted to diagnose kidney injury by reusing much of the same code which was developed for the game.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/22/nhs-deepmind-ai-app/

To me, the biggest events of the year are probably Trump, Brexit, and AlphaGo.

Author seemed to be going to great lengths to get things that were very positive, or at least very difficult to argue as a negative.

Depending on one's political leanings, Trump, Brexit and AlphaGo are all positive things.

There's a difference between those, and the eradication of diseases/increased nature preservation/reduced world hunger/increased literacy.

Basically the post is going way out of its way to show a selection of the good stuff (based on what the author usually covers) that is difficult for the Media to get lots of angry shares based on a polarizing title.

There is no reason to think this is a positive development for humanity. Could very likely be a step on the road to our extinction.

So much of this list was about conservation and environmental issues that it was almost frustrating to filter it out.

I have nothing against these topics, but when you dominate your list with one theme and don't address that theme in the lede, I reflexively assume the author is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes. There is almost certainly some sampling bias going on, at least.

Did you read it from start to end? By order of subjects: nature conservation, global health, political and economic progress, climat change response, less violence, sustainable economy and agriculture, endangered animals, charity.

The conservation of our planet is probably the biggest challenge facing humanity, and everything else sort of ties in with it. You cannot really separate economic progress, political stability and public health from the state of the environment.

" and everything else sort of ties in with it. "

No it doesn't. I can talk about problems and solutions on most of the list you cited without ever mentioning conservation. Conservation is a big talking point if the author is heavily biased for or against it with a personal mission to push it into people's minds. As we see in the article.

I'd have probably led with global health or less violence followed by economy, political progress, agriculture, and/or charity. These are what people relate to easiest. Then, I hit them with thing that are more long-term or that they just might not care about. This setup is what I create when the audience of people in general is my priority rather than my personal, political mission.

> Did you read it from start to end?

Yes, I did.

> The conservation of our planet is probably the biggest challenge facing humanity, and everything else sort of ties in with it.

Okay, you just conceded a point that negates any reasonable premise for your question that I can imagine at this time.

If everything is sort of tied in with environmental concerns, then why did you think I didn't read the article from start to end? If you didn't think that, then why did you feel the need to ask if I had?

I may be missing something obvious. I'd appreciate if someone could fill me in on what I missed.

I didn't downvote you, but I can only assume you're being downvoted because you ignored this:

    By order of subjects: nature conservation, global health,
    political and economic progress, climate change response,
    less violence, sustainable economy and agriculture,
    endangered animals, charity.

It's pretty clear that this was the main point to counter your claim that the list was dominated by a single theme, yet you ignored it and focused on something else.

Nature conservation, climate change response, sustainable agriculture, endangered animals.

That's all under the same theme I was talking about in my comment. It's half of your list.

Not saying you're wrong, just saying you should have said that in your response to the parent, otherwise it comes off as you dodging his point.

How would you propose making a list of "99 reasons 2016 was a good year" without "sampling bias"? The entire premise of the article depends on your definition of the word "good".

I agree this article is viewed through a liberal lens. A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences!

> How would you propose making a list of "99 reasons 2016 was a good year" without "sampling bias"?

If I were to write this article, I'd attempt to hit as many different interests as possible, including things I find silly or inconsequential (i.e. sports teams' accomplishments).

> A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences!

That's an interesting take on conservatism. Most of the self-proclaimed conservatives I know wouldn't agree with that, but maybe they're mislabeling themselves?

Many conservatives would agree with much in this list. It's hard to consider things like eradication of Ebola infections as negative.

and that's why liberals lose elections - one of these years we'll skip the caricatures

How is that a caricature? That's the Republican platform

You ignore the last two elections. We'd all do well to avoid succumbing to recent-ism.

Not really, I guess you mean 2012 and 2008, but looking at 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016; you see a pretty interesting trend in both national elections and state houses.

Isn't that the assumption of any medium article? You're getting an editorial piece, based on the author's views (editorial doesn't necessarily mean all opinion and low fact density).

Maybe the sampling bias is in our own little urban bubbles, where we become oblivious to the mass extinction being driven by people around us. The time to prioritize environmental issues is now. Our culture and infrastructure and code can preserve themselves pretty well, but much of the wildlife around us is gone, and most of it will be gone forever if we don't act.

A great list to read through, when one thinks that there is no hope. Not through any miracles, but through dedicated work, a lot of issues have been improved at least. While there are no magical solutions, it shows that a lot is achievable and being achieved, by just working at the problems.

Pessimistically (I know, I know), it seems to me that recent events put many of these advances under threat. Science funding cuts and rollbacks of environmental protections can take out half the list or more. How great can these accomplishments really be if they can be so easily undone?

I think the thing to keep in mind here is that tons of this is unrelated to the US and its politics (what I presume you are somewhat getting at). Other countries are realizing the strength they can have and working for improvement. Whether or not the US unravels remains to be seen, but at least many of these great things are becoming a global effort.

You're really asking whether anything can be an accomplishment if it can be later ruined or undone.

There's a fine line between it being possibile and probable.

A fundamental problem is that it's much easier to break things than build or maintain them. In many cases, gains accomplished over years or even decades can potentially be erased almost overnight (certainly in the environmental, political and economic spheres).

First: Yay. At least something.

Nitpick: There are still many parts "announced" and the half-life of announcements is about one election cycle, so ... hoping that at least a few of these announcements will be replaced with actions by Dec. 2017.

Some of these are objectively good, such as world literacy increasing, less pollution in the atmosphere or survival rates increasing for endangered species.

Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good"

Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.

At this point drilling is objectively evil. Climate scientists have been saying for a while that we can't afford to burn our existing reserves, let alone burn what comes out of new wells, if we're to have any chance of averting catastrophic climate change.

Smoking bans are probably debatable.

But to be fair, it wouldn't be political neutral even if it weren't for those particular statements. There are plenty of people in the world (and the US in particular) who think it's a debatable political statement to say that anthropogenic climate change is real, or that evolution and the big bang are science fact. In fact there are people in the US who would think that whole article is a perfect example of everything wrong with the "evil liberal agenda".

There's no such thing, really, as a politically neutral statement.

Your characterization of climate science is incorrect. If you read the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they understand that there are trade offs to carbon controls. These controls are expensive and those costs harm humanity.

Drilling for oil and gas greatly increased human well-being by improving transportation options. You can argue about carbon restrictions and where to draw the line, but saying that drilling is objectively evil is not a statement based on science.

For example, some scientists argue some moderate warming is net beneficial. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-economic-imp...

"Some of these are objectively good"??? I skimmed the list and these are all good unless you're employed an oil or tobacco company. If you are it's time to make a career change.

Supposedly unbiased "both sides" journalism is a sham anyway. Better to read a couple biased articles and make up your own mind.

Less smoking is very good for the population health.

While population increases are not good by themselves, all reduction in mortality is very good for everyone who has not to die. Interestingly this seems to have the consequence that the birth rates decline strongly as observed in many places.

Drilling is not bad because of "evil corporations", but because it regularly is accompanied by harming the environment, be it through the drilling, building roads through natural forests or oil spills.

> Less smoking is very good for the population health.

But what is population health good for if not enjoying life? Including (for some people) things like smoking a cigarette.

An interesting question. With many things we have to balance the fun of the moment with the long term consequences, even with plain food. But with smoking, especially cigarettes, this is a quite one-sided balance. Even without the risk of cancer, every single cigarette will do considerable, irrevocable harm to your lungs. And I know few people wo smoke lightly, Nikotin is extremely addictive. Finally, there is the impact on other people, if one smokes in their presence.

I guess I shortened my point too much to make it sound pretty. The real fun being taken away here is of course not smoking, but making your own choices. I myself kicked a very bad smoking habit for the exact reasons you mention.

Isn't a big part of the enjoyment satiating the addiction? With fewer people smoking (and non-smoke methods of getting a nicotine fix), I still see this as a great thing.

As a former nicotine addict, that's the only part. But what difference does it make? The pleasure is as real as any other.

Of course fewer people smoking is a great thing. It's just not great enough to justify taking away somebody's freedom to choose for themselves.

You assume the majority of smokers are either a) not new smokers and b) aren't actively trying to quit.

> Less smoking is very good for the population health.

No doubt but when smoking bans start to overreach to include things like outdoor places it's getting dangerously close to a form of discrimination. What's next? Banning overweight people from ordering certain items at restaurants?

It's hard to argue against public smoking bans being a huge positive for society. As long as it's legal in your own home, I don't have a problem with regulating it in public areas.

I disagree: telling consenting adults what they may and may not do _in private_ (because 'public smoking bans' have so far almost been bans on smoking in private establishments) is never good for society.

And anyone who thinks that smoking in actual outdoor public spaces is a health threat is simply incorrect.

They were initially called "pubs" because they are public areas, as opposed to fully private areas. See also "saloon" derived from private "salons".

Smoking bans or taxes are good as long as you have socialized medicine or regulations which prohibit private insurance from charging higher premiums for smokers. You're free to harm yourself as long as health-conscious people don't have to pay for it. The same for soda taxes and the like.

Even world literacy increasing can have a dark side. Could just mean more despots are realizing that having a superficially-literate population gets you off the hook for not having further education worth a damn.

The world is great and all, but politics is (and always will be) sinister; politics now owns education.

> Smoking bans are good.

Sorry not sorry. Happy to not be paying for people's lung cancer treatment or dealing with secondhand in bars when I want to listen to live music. The vape bans are pretty preposterous though.

> drilling = evil

If it's in the ground it's not in the air.

That's an argument against tax-subsidized healthcare rather than for a smoking ban. Because otherwise you've just nationalized people's bodies.

Why stop at smoking after all? Anyone not doing an hour of cardio daily is being irresponsible with the body entrusted to them by society and is in need of a visit to a reformation camp.

The linked article is about improved health outcomes due to secondhand smoke bans in public areas:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005992...

You're free to continue smoking in the privacy of your own home.

> You're free to continue smoking in the privacy of your own home.

Not where I live, was banned years ago.

Where is that, and is that in your own house or is it a apartment that is owned by a landlord/collection of tenants?

Apartment.

*For now.

Making it to where people don't have the right to put certain things into their body, healthy or unhealthy, is a stepping stone to a more fascist world. And a bit hypocritical if you're pushing for assisted suicide. Second-hand smoke bans, that's great. But I'd tell someone who vapes to quit peacocking in a bar before I'd tell a cigarette smoker that they're destroying their body in the privacy of their own home.

AFAIK, there are no smoking bans on people in their own homes, and even in that case it might be reasonable in apartments without airtight party walls.

Everything is awesome!

Well, some things are awesome, which is a truly a relief from the normal "Everything sucks." that we get on a daily basis. I was glad to read through these.

when can we go there to junk it up

I'm so sick of the meme that 2016 is a bad year. It's just confirmation bias.

Cons of 2016:

- Brexit

- Trump

- some famous people died

Pros of 2016:

- Brexit

- Trump

- some famous people died

The famous people dying is the stupidest part. Guess what, famous people are going to die every year.

It's a pro and a con.

Pro: Fidel Castro died

Con: Alan Rickman died

> 32. Homelessness in the United States declined by 35% since 2007, and Los Angeles committed to $1.2 billion to help get more people off the street.

You mean the same city which destroyed DIY small houses on wheels made by volunteers for homeless people and left them nothing to endure the cold winter months ? http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/12/09/los-angeles-homeless-t...

That's not a great policy to highlight in 2016. And that's just one point, I'm sure the whole list is filled with false-positive news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com