nopassrecover

We are only about 30 years into the age of software, about 20 years into the age of the internet, and about 2 years into the age of artificial intelligence

Which innovations over the last 2 years most indicate a new age of artificial intelligence?

I undertook some research, and noticed:

  3 Months Ago: Google Translate AI had a breakthrough
  5 Months Ago: Amazon/Facebook/Google/IBM/Microsoft launch an AI Partnership
  1 Year Ago: AlphaGo has a big win and OpenAI is founded
  2 Years Ago: Google (now Waymo) performs its first public driverless ride
  3 Years Ago: Google acquires DeepMind and interest in Deep Learning takes off
  6 Years Ago: IBM Watson wins Jeopardy

All indications suggest increased interest and investment in AI, but from an external perspective I'm interested to know whether quantitative changes (big data, cloud infrastructure, GPU processing speed etc.) and increased interest have genuinely spurred a qualitative new era of AI free of the pattern of "AI Winters" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter).

I'm sure I'm missing something simple here, but couldn't we combine electronic voting with a physical print-out that the voter receives immediately, including their vote and a unique (but anonymous) identifier.

The voter checks this print-out is correct and submits it to an audit box as they leave the voting booth.

If it is incorrect, they file an immediate complaint, and the data is later corrected based on their unique vote identifier (this could be recorded in the audit box with a vote correction audit form for that identifier).

The physical audit counts can then be retained, and spot-verified against the electronic counts if/as needed.

This assumes (as I think we must) integrity of the voting officers and of chain of custody of the physical audit voting boxes.

The original comment suggested that this should be illegal, and the reply, as I interpreted it, asked on what grounds. I can see on reflection we're discussing different issues (i.e. I've taken the comment trail as a normative discussion, rather than a technical one).

Sustainability concerns seem like a valid ethical reason to create laws and attempt to minimise things like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12742974

Sustainability concerns?

You're right that it doesn't necessarily rescue free will. That's why I said, selective pop-sci wave-collapse (as in some imaginary mechanism for free will that leverages a quantum avenue).

Determinism (in most accounts) precludes free will. Therefore randomness is necessary but not sufficient for free will. Quantum mechanics is the only avenue we have for randomness/non-determinism, so if free will does exist, it's going to have to involve some sort of quantum "magic".

It's certainly possible to imagine consciousness based on quantum mechanics (ala Penrose) that facilitates some level of choice by selectively collapsing wave-forms (not just randomly collapsing them) and is still compatible with a macro-deterministic universe.

Interesting insight on olfaction. Quantum involvement (e.g. selective wave-form collapse) is about the only viable possibility I can see for escaping determinism and allowing free will (and even then we're pushing current physics firmly into pop-sci fiction).

You seem to be pricing risk at $0.

As a simple and relevant example, would you rather invest in a company that has a 10% chance at a 1000% return (but otherwise returns 0%), or take the 2.56% bond?

The EV of the first option is 100% return (with high risk), whereas the other is 231% compounded (guaranteed).

The counter would be that technology has created and is continuing to create significant economic changes that make investment predictions more difficult.

Improved transport and communications for a start have had, and will continue to have, massive impacts on both labour and assets by facilitating a more distributed workforce and changing the value of real estate (currently 60% of global assets). Those changes will definitely decrease the ROI of real estate investment, but don't necessarily reflect a decrease in production.

Meanwhile, disruptive technologies challenge traditional protected market sectors as regulatory barriers fail to catch-up with new threats to existing businesses (e.g. Uber, Airbnb). Again, those changes will decrease ROI in traditional sectors, and due to efficiencies in the new model the overall money spent in these sectors may decrease.

In effect we could be revisiting the arguments around Marx's "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...).

The flip side to these impacts is that the rapid change to the economy hasn't yet been fully appreciated or addressed by current government policy.

For example, improvements in health technology have extended the age to which the Baby Boomer generation has been able to remain in the workforce, as well as overall life expectancy, placing far greater strain on social services and health planning than expected.

At the same time, "entry" jobs have far greater expectations than 30 years ago as automation has reduced the need for unskilled/entry labour, while increasing the demand for highly-skilled specialisations. This has delayed the entry of Gen Y into the workplace (with many workplaces unwilling to invest in training entry-level workers and at best offering unpaid internships) which has meant far reduced consumption and tax revenue than might otherwise be expected demographically. This has created a bit of a "chicken and egg" problem as reduced consumption doesn't justify increased hiring, but the lack of jobs prevents consumption (and experience required to add greater wealth).

Finally, effects on the value of labour have increased inequality (for better or worse as the pg essay controversy demonstrates). In effect, if there is less value for unskilled labour there is the potential for increased demand on social services (see the whole Basic Income debate). Meanwhile the scarcity of high-demand labour increases the wealth accumulated by the educated and talented. How this plays out over time is an interesting question.

This problem has been exacerbated in recent times by monetary policy that has seen far more money flow into the economy only to be captured by well-placed rent-seekers (see Occupy Wall Street etc.).

Add in the historical increases in global debt and recent geopolitical pressure on energy production and you have a perfect recipe for current economic troubles.

Isn't it the case that a central bank primarily lends? In this case aren't they effectively paying banks to borrow?

Given 0% interest rates haven't led to desired economic investment and stimulus the approach of the ECB and BOJ seems like wishful thinking that "more of the same" will somehow create different results.

While it's clear the stock market benefits from the increased investment, it's not clear that this addresses the lack of aggregate demand in the economy (which as mentioned seems highly influenced by demographics).

Then again this is probably more about lowering currency value than stimulating domestic demand.

The church next door might have an influence: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1dfc9a53402155b7687767caf6f8...

FTL Travel?

> [0] I think you still can refuse to give a password if I'm not wrong

Can't speak for the US, but in the UK and Australia at least it's a crime to withhold a password. Seems the US varies depending on jurisdiction. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law

There's a public domain copy for Australians from The University of Adelaide: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/

I'm not familiar with US law, or generally litigious, but surely you could sue for damages, particularly so given the public statements on top of the false positive.

It's on Cydia.

Yep American chocolate is terrible. Which is weird as everything is sweet in the US (even the bread...) so you'd think sweet things would be great.

Interestingly the "clear within a turn" rule would mean that you could only rent a port from the player who's turn it is (unless you allow all players to use their ports at any time).

I also assume by paying you mean making an undesirable trade, unless you allow gifting through another house rule.

In some games I've seen the following: Player A (current turn) wants to trade wheat for a brick through Player B's port. Player A will trade 2 wheat and a bonus resource to Player B for x arbitrary resource. On Player B's turn they move the wheat through their harbour for a brick and trade this back to Player A for their x arbitrary resource back. Player B keeps the bonus resource as payment, and Player A gets usage of Player B's harbour. This couldn't happen in one turn as only the current player can use their harbour.

I'm only referring to this article where they make that claim and a brief google of other news articles where they make the same claim. It's quite possible the journalists have all made factual errors - I can't find the indictment either but I just assumed indictments aren't usually public.

In terms of practicality "shut up and don't ask questions" is certainly going to be minimum hassle. But when the police threatened additional punishments for not having his ID he was perfectly justified in questioning them on the legitimacy of that claim. Acting within your rights shouldn't be punished because it's inconvenient.

How is this in any way related to the parent comment? He did not contest the traffic offence at any point. He did contest the requirement to carry ID and was then punished for raising his rights.

> Until that point, his only brush with the law was a temporary restraining order two years earlier.

> "He started threatening me, saying that he would kill me. ... I told the school officers, [and] they started watching him really closely. He would say that he would shoot up the school."

So I'll start by playing Devil's Advocate very briefly. It's interesting how facts can be shaped with different language ("his only brush with the law"): it appears the restraining order from two years prior related to similar threats to those alleged in the Facebook comments (although in a remarkably different context).

Now that notwithstanding, it seems there are many glaring issues, both ethical and legal, with the way this has been handled.

Based on a screenshot of a Facebook comment without context or verification from Facebook an 18 year-old was detained for months without trial, including his 19th birthday, and offered a plea bargain of 8 years jail (!). An unaffordable bail of $500k was set, and if not for media attention, pro bono counsel, and a generous anonymous donor he would still be detained. During his detention he was repeatedly sexually assaulted, withheld legal counsel, and coerced to confess with false promises of freedom. After media focus an offer of 10 years (!) probation was put forward.

On a technical note, the original warrant included false testimony (matching of the Facebook profile picture to a driver's licence when the accused did not have a licence) and the indictment misquoted the original Facebook comment.

How does anyone think this is reasonable?

Surely that depends on your definition of voluntary, the value functions of the individuals involved, and the impact of any externalities.

As I understand it (based only on internet resources and the anecdotal experience of friends) the E-3 has many benefits beyond a H1B.

It's cheaper, easier to apply for, processed faster, allows heterosexual married spouses to work, is renewable indefinitely, and has a separate annual quota from H1B's (that to my knowledge has so far never been exhausted).

There are a few catches, some technical and quite specific (e.g. limits on international travel). The main one seems to be you will need to leave the country (possibly overseas) every 2 years to apply for an extension.

It is not a dual-intent visa, but there seems to be some contradictions about that and some people seem to have made the transition to a green card. I imagine you'd need to talk to a lawyer about that - having a green card application in progress when it comes times for an E-3 extension would potentially be an issue.

Tangent, but I've found it a bit odd to see Out of Service messages on billboards. Why not display a default ad (e.g. "Your Ad Here")?

Actually on that note I'm surprised I don't see more community/charitable notices in the mix for digital boards (these could serve as "defaults"). Having non-commercial and regularly changing ads in the mix would actually get me watching, and is potentially even tax-deductible.

Physical laws don't necessarily have to be deterministic.

Where are you a citizen of?

Australians can get the E-3 visa for example, though I'm pretty sure that's sponsored which you seem to not be looking for.

I don't know whether costs are reduced for PayPass (tap to pay), but it seems anecdotally that any place supporting PayPass has removed credit card minimums.

Isn't it "nickel and diming" to charge for that 2 minute call at all in the first place?

With a certain reading of Marx you could make the argument that startups and the freelancer movement embody Marxist ideals.

Technology empowers and magnifies the productive ability of creators while decoupling their dependence on and/or displacing traditional economic structures (e.g. companies and markets). As an added bonus technology prices have historically fallen over time which further reduces the value of (demand for) capital.

These aspects enable individuals to minimise "Marxist alienation" by creating goods without needing (much) capital, owning the output of their labour, and increasing their share of the surplus value of their goods (PG's "100x multiplier").

The history lesson is good context, but the "pampered Westerner" reference seems unnecessary, particularly when the article is discussing young Latvians rather than the war generation.