Strong AI will not happen this century

Imagine a world where things look the same twenty years later. Did things look very different twenty years earlier? You could fool me. Strong AI is a 22nd century problem at the earliest. Worrying about a world with Strong AI is a waste of time. You are thinking about science fiction.

 

I watched a video where by 2035, the speaker claimed we would have AI as smart as us. I remember Back to the Future where they predicted flying cars and hover boards by 2015. Don’t expect technology to improve because others say it will. The amount of effort to realize strong AI, it’s dismal. We are not even close. I don’t think we can have progress. What does your confirmation bias say?

The Vision problem is more complicated than previously realized. Sixty years ago, we knew we could make machines capable of moving in a natural environment. That is an easy thing to do because the world is made up of simple objects. But when we see things, how do we act in accordance? What does that mean?

There is almost an infinite amount of ways to look at a finite set of objects. Just knowing that fact is Devastating. Vision is a profoundly complicated problem. You can’t approach the vision problem without first figuring out the embodiment problem. If you don’t have a body, you can’t actually see. How else would you map something from the world unto actions? Looking at things and figuring out how to map your action onto it, is what seeing means. Seeing is mapping the world unto action.

To illustrate, a set of phenomenon can be seen an infinite number of ways. I see a book in front of me, I can open it up and read it. I see the function. I see the purpose. A beanie bag is a chair not because it has four legs and a seat, but because you can sit in it. Most of what we see in the world, we see it functionally. We see how we can use the object. That process limits our interpretation, but there are an infinite amount of interpretations. You can decompose objects into tiny details, you do this when you attempt to draw realistically.

AI people ran into this problem and they are working on it right now like mad. Looking at the world turned out to be exceptionally complex. The post modernists realized this. Say you take Shakespeare. There is an infinite number of interpretations you can derive from it. Hamlet is so complex and sophisticated. The individual words, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph, and a chapter each are infinite in interpretations. There is an infinite amount of ways to interpret a text and therefore, the world.

Yes the world is super complicated, but you have to work out a game that you can play. It’s terribly un-useful to interpret from Hamlet that you should kill yourself and your family. We look at the world for useful tools to navigate, cooperate, compete, and continue our existence in a maintainable way.

 

There is an infinite set of interpretations; we have a tremendous number of constraints imposed to figure out how to live and thrive over multiple periods of time and multiple environments together. Figuring out these constraints are a mystery rather than a very hard problem. Constraints change and are unique. It may be hubristic to think we can understand the constraints for any given situation. That is why the vision problem is a very complex one.

 

I’d go far and say figuring out these constraints are a, ‘we don’t know problem and this kind of thing may be beyond our comprehension like how a refrigerator is beyond the comprehension of a dog.’ Wow, so dismal. Even with superb computational power, we don’t have the programs written out of what to even do for those constraints. People are going to disagree on the constraints. The Atheists think we are rational beings. Hmm, I don’t think so, and the scientific literature doesn’t agree either [1]. Just take a proper psychology course.

It’s a mystery why people do anything. Maybe you think you are a good person because you have running water, electricity, food, air condition, and you pay taxes. It’s mystery why people pay taxes. In Greece, they pretend to pay taxes. If everybody decided to stop paying taxes, the government wouldn’t have the ability to do anything. This isn’t easy.

Don’t be scared of technology, there’s not going to be a skynet. Here’s a contrary thought, technology isn’t going to get better because you expect it to. In the 1980s they thought technology was going to get so much better because just because. I have a feeling that hover boards and flying cars are simple compared to AI.

Technology won’t get better if you don’t build it.

 

[1] reading the book, Influence just makes that so clear.

Podcast With Hunter

Here’s a Juicy one,

———————————————————————————————–

———————————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————————–

———————————————————————————————–

———————————————————————————————-

You folks are curious because hunter is curious.

Your problems are linked to this one thing you have control over, it’s Ego

All of your problems come from this one source than you can control.

 

Let’s say there is this alien object that no one has seen.

Would you please describe this alien object?

 

Is it big or is it small?

 

To answer that question, you would compare its size to you. If it’s bigger than you, it’s big. This comes reflexively because you have this thing called an EGO.

Your ego tells you that you are the most important thing in the world. Everything is compared to you.

This ego is the source of all your problems and it’s holding you back. Now here’s a list of people who have a certain thing in common.

  •      Mark Zuckerburg
  •      Warren Buffet
  •      Bill Gates
  •      Steve Jobs
  •      Richard Branson

What do they have in common?

All of these people have good control of their egos. Jobs was not extravagant in his spending money and his clothing choice was modest.

Ego is the source of all your problems. Isn’t that incredible? Just one thing. And the process of making problems go away, your ego, is doable. It’s not necessarily easy but it’s simple to think about it. You can’t avoid tragedies, but controlling your ego will make these a lot more manageable.

 

Here’s the big deal, if you only take one thing away from this blog, be it this, all of your problems in your life like your anxiety, stress, worries, and all of those things are bothering you because of your ego. You think you are important and that makes all your problems more important too. If you are not important, then all those problems that are bothering you are not important either.

 

But that’s not easy to do. We are designed by evolution for the individual to think he/she is the most important. We are designed to take care of ourselves first.

Let’s see an example. Think about an argument you have had with a friend, boyfriend/Girlfriend, or spouse. It’s all ego. Your ego is making you angry or sad. But you don’t see that because you are caught up in all the details. “I’m so mad at that person. He/She did not treat me with the respect I deserve. Dammit, the person I love isn’t treating me right in the ways I think are important.”

When you are in that situation, say to yourself, “I’m not that important. Maybe this person is acting and doing things for reasons that have nothing to do with me. I don’t know, but I’m not that important. ” You can apply this method to more than arguments. You can use this in the office or traffic or in stressful situations.

There is a Dale Carnegie course where you do embarrassing things until you just don’t care anymore. This will help you control your ego. You can also do a lot of things that fail. As long as some of them are successful, you can have a set of failures and successes to keep you humble. Here’s an idea, think of your ego as a tool.

 

Don’t get rid of your ego. Use it for confidence when you need to feel good about something. Lose it when it gets in the way and causes you stress, it makes you think you are more important than you are. Your ego is a tool. You control your ego, it does not control you.

 

Imagine there’s a nip in the air and it’s trash day but you woke up late and you are responsible for the trash. You quickly run outside to take care of it. A dozen joggers come by and see you completely in your underwear. And you feel all embarrassed and cold, and you don’t wanna see anybody. Well think about this. “I’m not that important. All of these things are bothering something that’s not important.” If you take that to heart, you won’t be embarrassed. Sure, maybe those joggers will judge you, but they have egos that tell them they are the most important person. They’ll forget about you. You go to an open mic and you see someone who embarrasses himself, sure you might chuckle. You won’t remember because you are busy with your life.

Think about the president. He has the most insults coming his way than anyone else in the whole universe. Could you take the abuse he gets? Doesn’t bother him. He didn’t even get a haircut. But at the same time, he has a giant ego.

Remember this when you get angry or upset, maybe even sad, your ego is a tool that should not get in your way. This is not necessarily easy but it is simple. You can be a more powerful person dealing with tough situations.

Two Scoops Journalism

Is David Fahrenthold an excellent journalist? It’s so sad. This guy won a Pulitzer, and is this what Pulitzer winning journalists do? They want to find out about some Photo shopped picture some employee hung.  Is Fahrenthold able to see how petty that is? Is he in some cognitive dissonance or something? “Wow, we really got him this time!” Did you really?

I read his article and think, “Man, is this what journalism is? Is this what you guys are doing? Little stuff like this?” I don’t, no offense, but this is the kind of thing I expect to see from buzzfeed. David Fahrenthold, a Pulitzer, is worried about a fake photoshopped magazine picture in some golf club.

 

A lot of these journalists, they complain about being Harassed on the internet. This internet stuff, the cyberbullying and harassment these journalists complain about. That’s a privilege. If your biggest complaint is people being mean to you on the internet, that’s a privilege. You never had a hard life, right? Go out in the sun all day and bend over backwards doing manual labor. You sweat and the sunscreen comes off and you get a sunburn on your neck. That’s why they are called rednecks. Oh, I’m so sorry I work outside and do manual labor instead of complain about people on the internet. I’m not Brian Steltar who makes 800k a year and cries because people call him fat. Sorry Jim Acosta. Makes 400k. I’m Jim Acosta and I cry because the whitehouse is so mean to me. They are so mean to me, these people are so evil. Will someone not think of the over paid Journalists? We are such victims.

Oh my gosh, there are people in this country with real problems. Like try dealing with customer service. The abuse you get on the internet is nothing compared to that. Try dealing with a pissed off customer trying to get you fired.

That really sucks. Some angry entitled person who had a bad day is dressing you down. You have to be nice or they will call your manager, they won’t let it go, they will write letters to corporate office, and you might not get fired. They want you to get fired. Now you are going to worry about losing some $12 per hour job. You need that job because you are struggling financially. Now you have to deal with that piece of garbage, oh did I say that? I’m so sorry, the customer is always right! No. They are completely wrong. And Now you are worried about losing some terrible job you can barely pay the bill with.  That is harassment, that is hard. People that complain on the internet, they live privileged lives.

Go work somewhere where people yell at you and treat you badly and insult you and denigrate you. They call your manager to complain and are looking for freebies.

OMG, someone called CNN isis! A multibillion dollar corporation. You poor little babies, you poor little six figure salary earning babies.

You Journalists are the victims here? Someone has the job of cleaning up your filth. And you are somehow struggling? That’s so sad.

The Wapo chasing down that fake magazine article with Trump on it. That’s not a real story. People got pissed off because Trump had two scoops of Icecream when other people had 1. With my horrible $12 an hour job, I am really going to care about that. If you are a regular, people know what you want. Don’t forget, Mike Pence had a fruit salad. Let’s call this one Two scoops Journalism.

David Fahrenthold does Two Scoops Journalism. His stories are so important that they are not only one scoop but two scoops.

Remember, guys, I love you because I get enough sun.

CNN vs 4chan #BlackMail #CNNBlackMail

Don’t Dox me Bro.

 

IT’s a business agreement because ‘CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change’ will be the most interesting thing a defunct company said.

How many times have you apologized for making an internet meme?

The Paris Climate Agreement, it’s not good

I thought it did something. I thought it would lower the temperature. It doesn’t do that. It’s just an expensive way to virtue signal. That’s a vice. This agreement is not a plan to solve climate change, because it doesn’t do anything.

 

I was duped, I thought this would have done something. No one on either side should support this agreement. If you look at the document, and read it, you wouldn’t agree to it. I almost can’t believe how hard it was to find some information about this agreement. I wanted to look at the core goal, forget the details of who pays for what, does it lower the temperature? Does it do anything good? Almost every country agreed in some way to this plan, so it’s going to do something, right?

 

When President Trump said that if every nation follow the commitments of the agreement the temperature would be reduced by 0.2 Celsius. Now obviously that means 0.2 degrees below the expected increase. I want to know, is that a lot? Does it make a difference? Compared to temperatures in 1880, if by 2100, the temperature increases 4 degrees with no agreement but 3.8 with agreement, is that good? If it’s past 2 degrees in increases, are we done for anyway? How much of that is natural increase versus human activity? I’m not a climate scientist so I don’t know what 0.2 degrees mean. And the last question, I don’t think even scientists can answer that in satisfaction.

 

In my futile attempts to make sense of this, I searched how 0.2 degrees ended up in his speech. I haven’t found anything that says that is wrong. Trump referred to some MIT study as said by the Washington Post, the Guardian, and Politifact.

I wanted an expert’s opinion about the 0.2 degrees, so I found Dr. Bjorn Lomborg explaining the thing to me. Now I know his bias, but what I want is not his opinion but the facts of his research where his credibility is on the line.

 

There are these things called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) that governments outlined in the build up to December’s meeting that outline their post 2020 climate commitments.  If every nation fulfills their INDC promises by 2030 and retains that for 70 years up to 2100, it will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17 degrees Celsius [1]. This is like academic stuff that I don’t really understand how they did their methodology and that kind of thing, this isn’t my field.

The deal is that the Kyoto agreement thing fell apart and I have suspicion that other nations will not keep their INDCs. Point is, this paris agreement will not prevent the temperature rising above the 2 degree mark.

 

Here’s an understandable version of Dr. Lomborg’s graph, there is a version in his original paper that has weird names that make sense to knowledgeable people of that discipline.

Now putting this into perspective, 4.5 degrees above pre industrial age is pretty bad. Being 4.3 degrees above is still pretty bad. I am skeptical of these models that predict the future. Anyone who thinks they can make that long term of a forecast with that kind of accuracy, from the MIT study, I can’t agree. But if we accept this, it’s pretty bad. And This agreement doesn’t help. I thought it would do more. That is very expensive, but it does nothing. It does nothing. It doesn’t solve the problem.

 

I was sure this agreement was about changing the temperature, and since it was explained to me, if everything in the agreement was followed, if it’s followed, if everybody did the best they could, it would make such a small difference to the temperature that it’s pointless to spend those trillions.

 

When your cognitive dissonance kicks in, you are going to say, “Oh my God! I’ve been saying this is a good thing for like two years. I can’t just change it so suddenly. I’ve been ridiculous for two years, yup. Everything I said was totally wrong.”

 

For the people that still support it, what do they say? Are they going to say climate change is real and you have to support it because of that? The Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, has said that the decision has focused on the economics of climate change. Not the science. This wasn’t about the science of climate change. This was about the economics. He said, “I’m not a scientist, but the debate over the Paris Accord is not a debate over scientists. The debate over Paris accord is an economic Debate.” If you retreat to Pascal’s wager, you can’t even do that because the temperature doesn’t change.

 

Another person could say it has some kind of leadership, psychological, communication kind of persuasion to it. It’s about getting people on board, it’s about raising its importance. We gotta treat it seriously. I think that’s pretty important, but not why we signed it. Obama didn’t say that this was symbolic.

 

“Our argument is A. WE like A. A.” Now proof positive and written on a paper saying we are going to this and the scientists all say, “yeah, that’s not going to change things.” Plan A will not work and it’s ridiculous. You can’t say, “A is dumb, I was wrong and I got fooled. I am dumb, you’re smart. You guys on the otherside, you are the smart ones. I assumed you were dumb, but you are smart.” The Normal human brain can’t do that. “I think A was the reason, but now that I look at it, B is the reason. It’s all about B, I sure love B.” That’s what I think about the psychological leadership argument. Cognitive dissonance.

IF you think that this new reason, or any other new reason, is just as good as the old reason, reasons where never a part of it. It means you wanted to join a side. You want identity. You guys wanted to be in a club of virtue signaling.

 

That’s not good enough.

 

References:

[1]    B. Lomborg, Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) [Online]. Available FTP:  http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

[2]   B. Lomborg, Impact of Current Climate Proposals, Global Policy, Dunham Univ., [Online] Available FTP: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

[3]   G. Kessler and M. Ye Hee Lee, Fact-checking President Trump’s claims on the Paris climate change deal, The Wastington Post., [Online] Available FTP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/?utm_term=.d3beca8fb4ce

[4]   O. Milman, Fact check: Trump’s Paris climate speech claims analyzed, The Guardian., [Online] Available FTP:  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/presidents-paris-climate-speech-annotated-trumps-claims-analysed

[5]   J. Greenberg, Fact-checking Donald Trump’s statement withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, Politifact., [Online] Available FTP:  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/

How to make a Decision

How to make a decision.

 

It’s more unintuitive than you think.

 

At one point in your life, you probably thought something like; I’m so so smart but I have made some bad decisions, still smart. Let me tell you why you are not so smart. You probably have, at one point in your life, fooled yourself into some Dunning Kruger kind of way where you believed you were more competent in a particular field or subject or sport than you really were. After the fact, you realize it. Maybe this happened after you learned more about that subject. The thing is, when it’s happening, you don’t know it’s happening to you.

You don’t need to be an expert to make a decision. Here’s the magic. In a complex environment, the magic of making a decision is the ability to reach into that complexity and pull out the things that matter.

Do you think a president needs a certain level of expertise to make a good decision? A president may be able to speak about things in depth, but such topics would describe the way you operate. You wouldn’t need to know the details of the policies.

Recently on Twitter, Mark Cuban asked a question that’s paraphrased as,

“Can anybody name any topic relevant to the presidency that President Trump could talk about in depth? So is there any topic about politics relevant to the presidency that president trump could speak about in depth?”

I think that’s a good question. What if my president doesn’t know the stuff important to the job? If your president doesn’t understand in depth any of the topics of his/her job, that’s a problem. Right?

 

When considering the decision about what to do with the Paris Accord, should the president be an expert on climate science? Do you guys think you are an expert in climate science? Of the knowledge of what someone could know about the science and politics of climates change, how much do you think a president needs to know to make a decision? He/she will have experts in the room talking about the pros and cons. Does the president need to know as much as a climate scientist? How hard is it to know as much as a climate scientist? Should the president spend time studying this? If the answer is yes, then damn. You guys better do a lot of studying for every decision you make.

What if the experts disagree? Like they do on tax policy. OMG, what do we do if the experts disagree? Would being an expert help in that situation? If the experts disagree, being one won’t help you make a decision.

Okay, here’s the big controversial thing I’m about to say,

 

Most of these decisions that our leaders make, we think those are rational, but they are not. Because we don’t know the future and we never have enough information.

After something is said and done, there can be a million reasons to explain it after the fact. It’s easy to fit your explanation to the past, anyone can do that. But it’s hard to predict the future. Pulling out the things that matter are virtually predictive of the future. “I’m going to use that variable, because I’m telling you, this variable will be the predictive variable.”

 

No president was an expert at economics. Most people are not, but if you know a few things you are in a good position to make a decision. President Trump looked into this big complicated issue of economics and asked, “What’s the variable that matters more than anything else?” He doesn’t try to hide this, it’s jobs. If you get jobs right, you get a stronger economy. And with a stronger economy, you can do lots of things that you might need to do in the future. Like clean the environment. You don’t see poor countries cleaning their environment. There are other important things about economics, but jobs is probably the most important. If you lower taxes and somebody with a job gets their 10k back, that’s pretty good. If a job is created, that’s a lot more than 10k. And don’t forget, government giving welfare is now taking in taxes. Double whammy.

 

Let’s tackle another tough one.

How do you make a decision on what to do about the findings of climate science? That’s real stuff. The models that predict the future are not science. They are unreliable. Even though we do predict the temperature will go up, we’re bad at knowing how much and how quickly. How much of a difference is it going to make? Is it good for some places right now, or is it immediately bad for everything. I don’t know. We do know technology is getting better really fast. Climate science knowledge is improving very fast. Are we already past the point of no return? What does that mean? Does it make sense to wait? Maybe we should wait until we know more and with better tech, then take a better swing.

 

I don’t know if that’s the right decision. There’s no way to know if that’s the right decision. Say we have a real deal scientist, 20 years experience will tons of qualifications, to make a decision. Would he/she make a better decision? I don’t know. But we have the main variables. There’s uncertainty and technology is improving rapidly. You don’t want people to be jobless because an agreement won’t change the temperature. That does not mean the decision is right. These are the two variables, what to do with them?

 

A president needs to know those two variables. Not much else. Forget about the details. Did someone use satellite imagery to measure? Is there something better? Not important.

The Fight against Isis. Do you think the president did a deep dive into the differences of the sunni’s and shias and the centuries old conflict and the Quran and subsidiary texts? I don’t even know what I just said. The world will be better if we kill Isis, yes? Do you think talking to muslim experts about something, blah blah blah. Forget it. You might study too much and fool yourself into the Dunning Kruger thing I mentioned earlier. It would be dangerous to over rule the experts. He gave James Mattis a lot of operating room to annihilate Isis. We’re making progress, what else is there to know?

How did mark Cuban do? He had no experience in owning an NBA team before he did it. By all accounts, he did pretty well. Cuban created a company and sold it for billions. Pretty good with not very much experience. I’m sure he figured out the things that mattered and kept pressing those buttons. The managers and entrepreneurs in these technology fields, they don’t have time to know the details of the stuff. They know just enough to ask the good question, that’s all they need.

 

Now, say you visit the doctor and she tells you that you need surgery. What do you do? I do not recommend that you say, “Okay, sign me up for that surgery.” I recommend that you get more opinions. If you go to a second or third doctor, and they give you different opinions, what do you do? You didn’t go to medical school. OMG, are you going to die because you can’t make a decision? Don’t do that. In this situation, you have incomplete information, but you have to make a decision. Look at their credibility and evaluate the pros and cons. This is what you can do without all of the knowledge. Can you identify the most important predicting variables?

 

If you can figure out the hard part, figuring out the predictive variables, then you can make a decision, which is still hard. But it’s not easy as “sign me up.” If it is, you might be doing it wrong.

 

I made this way too long because I used hyperbole.

 

A thank you to Scott Adams for inspiration and articulation of these ideas.