dncrane

This is an unfair characterization of the the most prominent figures in this area. This article by Allan Dafoe and Stuart Russell from 2016 refutes it: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602776/yes-we-are-worried...

This is a myth. It was arguably true 5-10 years ago, but concern with AI safety is not a fringe position even among the highest levels of AI researchers now.

Stuart Russel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_J._Russell) is the co-author of one of the most popular AI textbooks in the world and he has repeatedly said that he thinks the alignment problem is important and that AI presents an existential risk: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602776/yes-we-are-worried... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvmeTaFc_Qw

Marcus Hutter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Hutter) is another respected AI researcher who, along with, Tom Everitt (http://www.tomeveritt.se/) (a researcher at DeepMind, one of the most advanced AI companies in the world), is also working on the alignment problem: http://www.tomeveritt.se/papers/alignment.pdf

You can read through list of grants granted by the Future of Life institute for AI Safety research, almost all of which are to researchers associated with respected universities, not laymen, here: https://futureoflife.org/ai-safety-research/

The new music theory exercises use vexflow (https://github.com/0xfe/vexflow ) for drawing the staff in addition to midi.js for the sound. The teacher-account backend uses Django.

One of them is already implemented: Keyboard shortcuts are available in the advanced options for most exercises.

Full-stack web developer. I'd especially like to help you build your MVP.

Primary skills are Python/Django, HTML/CSS, Javascript, and learning whatever needs to be learned to build your project.

http://dncrane.github.io/

[email protected]

Full-stack web developer. I'd especially like to help you build your MVP.

Primary skills are Python/Django, HTML/CSS, Javascript, and learning whatever needs to be learned to build your project.

http://dncrane.github.io/

[email protected]

If you go to your downloads list you can right click and do "copy link address" (at least on chrome and firefox)

More info:

http://morehappy.me/2013/07/06/to-boost-happiness-imagine-ho...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746912/

Most interested in python/django work.

See my CV here: http://symbolhound.com/cv.php

contact: [email protected]

Could you have separate input boxes for each segment of the phone number? (as in #2 here: http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1015 )

Does this mean that, for example, the green button was A/B tested against the blue?

From those I personally recommend "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" and "Gödel, Escher, Bach". SICP might not make it through, but GEB definitely would (although its direct relevance to day-to-day work in web development may be questionable, it should do a lot to spark an interest in computer science).

Yudkowsky (2008), "AI as a Negative and Positive Factor in Global Risk" http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf addresses this in section 7 (though it's really worth it to read the whole paper): "The first moral is that confusing the speed of AI research with the speed of a real AI once built is like confusing the speed of physics research with the speed of nuclear reactions. It mixes up the map with the territory."

===============

"in (2) how do we define the "upper limits of intelligence", when even defining intelligence is problematic."

Given the huge number of reproducible cognitive biases humans are known to exhibit (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bias), it seems very unlikely that humans are optimally intelligent (one way to define intelligence, from the Omohundro paper below: 'We define “intelligent systems” to be those which choose their own actions to achieve specified goals using limited resources' so "more intelligent" means better at achieving those goals using limited resources)

===============

"(3), I don't know what sort of "economic arguments" are meant but as we all know becoming "more intelligent" is not a simple hill climbing process, in fact it's not clear how to go about it."

Omohundro (2011), "Rationally Shaped Artificial Intelligence" Makes the case for #3: http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/rational... (summary: by "more intelligent" we mean "more capable of achieving goals." So any AI which has goals will act to become more intelligent so that it can more effectively achieve those goals)

"Sure a human level computer AI gets 'free' speed doubling every 18 months, but so does the intelligence that surrounds an augmented human. Just look at how much more intelligence we have available to us now as compared to 20 years ago."

A motivated human-level AI could get free speed doubling a lot more quickly than every 18 months -- it could acquire more resources that already exist, it could increase the speed of progress in hardware improvements, and, perhaps most importantly, it might be able to improve itself to achieve a qualitatively superhuman intelligence rather than just quantitatively. Sections 3: "Underestimating the power of intelligence" and 7: "Rates of intelligence increase" of the Yudkowsky paper I linked before, "AI as a Negative and Positive Factor in Global Risk", address this well. http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf

I think it's a mistake to compare an AI superintelligence to anything on earth currently, like market forces. An AI superintelligence could probably improve itself a lot faster than any market could.