dsfsdfd

1 and 2 were a gotcha for me for many years...

How do you know? I know a lot about brains, I like brains and I am not certain that I can quantify the degree of suffering likely to be felt by an ant.

This is trivial. It's also borderline inhumane.

And this is different to QE in which way?

Capitalism, the end game.

Dammit you appear to be correct.

It's almost exactly a rubber sheet with balls placed upon the surface. The weight of the balls creates depressions in the sheet. This is it really, except for two extra things:

1:When the balls are removed, the sheet slowly returns to flat.

2: The sheet isn't 2 dimensional but has as many dimensions as the input vector.

Exactly. I'm secretly thinking that some of the reason we have failed so far at general AI is we are coming at the problem from a western philosophical tradition :) Nice to meet you brother

Yay, someone with the sophistication required is working on this! As I've been thinking for a few years, intelligence is more about absorbing pattern from the world than it is about the deliberate process of constructing pattern from scratch within the system. It's is better to create a space where the pattern of the world can live, subject to some measure of objective utility, than it is to deduce some pattern from scratch using that same objective function.

God I would love to work in this field.

Economics similarly suffers.

Economists are the priests of a science twisted into religion.

This is how I reconnected after trauma.

Not so long ago it was stated frequently and with certainty that there was no liquid water on Mars. That there could be no liquid water on Mars. Which having read into the topic I thought was obviously non sense. Now every one is like there's water on mars, we've know for a while - you can see the flows. In fact we deliberately don't go to places likely to be wet for fear of cross contamination. I feel like I have been fed spin. Why don't other people see this and more importantly why aren't other people angry at being mislead? I feel like there is a consistent attempt to manipulate the truth before it is presented for public consumption, in many spheres of life. Who are these people that deem themselves entitled enough to decide what is known and what is unknown?

Hmm, I'm not so sure. For two reasons: If we assume that life naturally arises when light is shone at rocks for long enough then we might assume that life on mars would have an independent origin. However, this does not necessarily mean that life there will have orthogonal biochemistry. It may be that the biochemistry we observe on earth is the biochemistry most likely to emerge in a wide range of environments.

On the other side we should consider the possibility that space is porous to life. That life is able to travel between bodies or on bodies that pass through the vacuum of space. In this case we should expect that while there may be independent origins of life, within relatively short distances a certain kind of biochemistry might come to dominate.

Add to this the quite important role that exogenous organic chemicals likely played in the emergence of life on earth, in the case where life arose here and on mars independently. It is probably more likely that life would emerge through roughly the same processes wherever it emerges, therefore in roughly similar environments and using roughly the same building blocks (organic molecules constructed in space and deposited through impacts) we might expect it to have similar forms. I would say that Titan is likely to have something entirely different to earth life - owing to it's very different environment...

For what it's worth I agree. Just because we understand that morality is relative and that we cannot expect to hold other species to our standards, this by no means invalidates our own stance. We have a right and a duty to pursue that which we consider to be good or right. Within the context of the organism's experience good/bad make perfect sense, outside in the vacuum of the outer world, all bets are off, there can be no one true north.

indeed

I disagree, the structure is inherently centralised. What you are describing is more centralised control as the fix for too much centralisation. Centralisation concentrates power, that power is always going to be manipulated and perverted by those in the right places. You can't fix this with extra layers. You need an entirely new system, tear it down and start again - all of it - it's not fit for purpose. In it's place you need a decentralised systems whose intrinsic dynamics give rise to the properties we desire. Which is exactly what human social structure provides - when operating on the small scale - a balance between selfishness and altruism. Scale it up to it's current size and degrade the role of altruism and you end up in this catastrophic fuck up.

How about we parse the html and css on the server, because, you know the user might have a browser with a slow rendering engine. Then we just ship them the images.

25/26 and I didn't recognise 1/4 of the tunes. It's harder when you don't know the tune, but it's possible to tell where the tune should be going.

It blows my mind how far people will go in order to protect the schema which they use to interpret the world. Take a look at yourself, you are bending over backwards attempting to dispute something which is unbelievably obviously true. Unbelievably Obvious. Blows my mind.

yeah, I remember dasher. Quite effective and pretty fun - agree a mashup of eyetracking and dasher could be worthwhile.

Tip of the iceberg. Beyond a shadow of a doubt my ass.

I agree that there appears to be a qualitative difference. But that does not necessarily mean that there is a difference between the fundamental architecture of the two systems. It may simply be that the objective function operating over the architectures is different. Perhaps if the only goal of a human mind was to classify images into pre defined categories it too would dream of puppy slugs. While I don't think the architectures are very similar, I think we have stumbled across an instance of a broad class of systems which all display these abilities. Ever read George's Marvellous Medicine by Roald Dahl? We are George having discovered magic by mixing random household ingredients together, amazed, joyful, but totally unable to explain the process by which we are achieving our results. I'll say it once, I'll say a million times - we should be looking to thermodynamics in open dissipative systems for our answers.

There is no effective model for society. We cannot describe it in terms that allow us to predict it's behaviour. We are therefore doomed to a stumbling random walk through a phase space littered with nightmare scenarios. We need a tool to slay this beast, to show us how to make a society that can hold itself together.

Totally agree.

But I would add that the amount of research that has gone into this topic is woeful. As far as I can discern there is no consensus among the scientific community as to the pros and cons of each paradigm.

I suspect there is politics at play here. And don't give me any of that non-sense about the current scientific process being impartial. LOL. It's got to the point where you can't trust the conclusions drawn about anything where there are strong vested interests.

Omfg. That argument metaphorically fell of a cliff in the second sentence. I'm lolling.

Dude, you need to have a think about the whole racism thing.

It's amazing how difficult it is to convince people of the ludicrously obvious.

Number Wang!

Because it looks to me like the stock market has a tendency to follow an exponential curve - or at least a high degree polynomial. I also believe that to a certain extent the stock market is bound to the real world and in the real world growth is currently not following an exponential/high degree polynomial curve. The tension between the two is causing an oscillation to develop which overrides the tendency for high disorder in price movements.

In short I think that over long time periods stock markets show some degree of predictability. They are not perfectly disordered because the they are bound to systems operating in the real physical world which display predictable behaviour.

Look at the ftse 100 over a 30 year time frame and tell me you can't make a guess as to what's coming.

Go here and click on 'all' in the zoom menu https://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXFTSE%3AUKX&ei=qlLcVZHi...