vumgl

Computer-played chess or go games are already more interesting than the human-played ones. If you get computer-written novels indistinguishable from the best human-written novels, or even better, would you read them? There will be 1 million of them generated every day, all better than Harry Potter, or by taste, War and Peace.

Achieving Strong AI makes no sense because we don't understand the human brain and how it works. Even if a non-biological AGI passes the hardest imaginable Turing test, there will be arguments against it because "it is still not like us".

This post may be immoral if it hopes for the next big thing. I wonder if it does more harm than good for the world. If someone is to indeed invent the next big thing after the Mobile Phone, for sure they don't need this kind of motivational post. For "smaller" ideas, yes, read ahead. But think it is immoral to encourage a wide audience to shoot for the stars, and try big ideas that have a 0% chance of succeeding and 100% chance of causing lost time and effort, and even financial, social and personal hardship.

Software/knowledge/information is interpretation of either energy or matter. David Chalmers describes it well.

Good points. The problem with asking the same coding question makes my brain lazy until I get an interesting response that wakes me up (~10% of the time). I am toying with the idea of asking coding problems for which I do not know the answer (I did not try to solve it yet) so I can get engaged. This has obvious risks of course...

YouTube is really silly to ban PragerU. Although I disagree with maybe 70% of PragerU's content (I listen to their podcast), I find it very informative of the conservative POV. It also exposes me to ideas that makes me do my own further research. I listen to them regularly; there is much worse content on other places in YouTube.

Depression is common among highly successful and/or popular figures. I read that depression was common among astronauts after they completed their missions. Virtually nothing that they (can) do later in life compares with the scope of their past missions, and that leads to depression or worse. These days, part of the astronaut training includes planning for their post-mission goals.

commit the crime, but describe it with politically correct words.

Also, this used to cause trouble with phone operators connecting phone calls between USA and England: "are you through?" could mean either "are you connected?" or "are you done with the conversation?"

Vultures can fly over the border but their nests and young offsprings can't. Maybe this small restriction got some influence over their flight patterns over time.

The devil is in the details: what happens when a company is approaching the $25B mark? - would it slow/stop its growth? - will it fight the law with endless court battles? - will it break up and see revenues slow down, then re-merge?

The housing crisis, high prices, and even homelessness is inevitable in such a great place (climate, nature, jobs). The corrupt political system and some people's attitude is just another indirect consequence. You can't fight the laws of supply and demand.

(no/less functional) C --> Java --> C# --> Scala --> F# ---> Haskell (more/all functional) - form a talk by Martin Odersky

+1 I find that a good rule to follow is to avoid "interesting" subject/articles/posts. If it is not also deep, insightful and genuinely educational, avoid spending time on "interesting".

I worked at a company that was acquired by Ticketmaster, and I have a change to talk to one of the executives in casual way. They are not as bad as the may seem, but the business model is definitely intriguing. They go to a venue that hosts, say U2 for a concert. Say a U2 wants to sell a certain ticket for $100. Ticketmaster says: Look, If I get exclusive rights to sell your tickets, you will get not 95%, nor 100%, but you get 105% of the price of ticket, because I can charge whatever fees I want. So when you complain about Ticketmaster's high fees, hate then just slightly less, and hate U2 a bit more because they are ripping you off by pretending that Ticketmaster is the only bad guy.

Can suffering be observed and quantified using religion? I would still use science for that.

Not only wasted time, but also wasted intellectual energy. Many theologians and apologetics are often smart people that could use their intellect to more useful (i.e. right direction) domains.

Generally it's such a shame that society is made to ridicule anyone who is wearing or behaving in a way that is out of fashion. Anything between just-recently out-of-fashion to grandma-old-style is seen as either bad taste or says something not-so-nice about the person wearing or doing it. I would love to see people feeling more free to wear that thing that was in fashion 2, 10 or 20 years ago. The world is strange, let's keep it that way.

It's always fascinating to think about how few people realize the near miss (better called lucky approximation) of 2^7/12 ~ 3/2, which is the basis of the equal-temperament musical system, i.e. music as we know it.

As horrible as the regime was, you would not get arrested for having a walkie-talkie. And anyone could get a phone line, except there was a looong wait (years). And most likely you will end up on a "coupled" line, meaning that you and your neighbor will share the same line - you can listen in to your neighbor's conversation simply by picking up the phone.

Probably for the sum, or weighted average of happiness of all conscious entities on the planet. This may include ants, dogs, humans, and non-biological consciousness/beings.

It may take a very long time to find an impartial jury if the Trump impeachment goes to trial.

I find theology and alchemy very similar. Both go to great lengths to prove something that is highly desirable for a human (afterlife and cheap gold) but very unlikely if judged with a clear mind.

Searle was never able to explain what exactly makes a human brain conscious, other than repeating that it is based on biological processes, rather than mechanical or electrical processes (which he says cannot be conscious). He just explains a mystery (consciousness) with another mystery (why is biology superior - in his view - to mechanics as a way of "doing" consciousness)

Even though I appreciate the quality of the new translation, on the translation example on the image with the 2 phones, I find the old translation more insightful (even if not grammatically correct) than the new one. I.e. I prefer: "No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that they have arisen" to "Problems can never be solved with the same way of thinking that caused them"