singularity – Page 10 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Plusquote: Your organisational environment

If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee – that will do them in.

Just putting it out there — from Bradley’s Bromide yes. And very true, of …, well, whatever environment you find yourself in. And, as a ‘solution’ to the ever-growing power of ASI, leapfrogging past AlphaGo-or-was-it-DeepMind and Watson. If those (sic) in the latter category don’t see the stupidity of our common ways and do away with it altogether even when (not if) that would mean doing away with humans as minor collateral damage.
Hopeful, eh?

[Strange Quine: The artwork is High Humanity, the depicted, not so much (or is it??); Stedelijk, Amsterdam]

Right. Explain.

Well, well, there we were, having almost swallowed all of the new EU General Data Protection Regulation to the … hardly letter, yet, and seeing that there’s still much interpretation as to how the principles will play out let alone the long-term (I mean, you’re capable of discussing 10+ years ahead, aren’t you or take a walk on the wild side), and then there’s this:

Late last week, though, academic researchers laid out some potentially exciting news when it comes to algorithmic transparency: citizens of EU member states might soon have a way to demand explanations of the decisions algorithms about them. … In a new paper, sexily titled “EU regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a ‘right to explanation,’” Bryce Goodman of the Oxford Internet Institute and Seth Flaxman at Oxford’s Department of Statistics explain how a couple of subsections of the new law, which govern computer programs making decisions on their own, could create this new right. … These sections of the GDPR do a couple of things: they ban decisions “based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces an adverse legal effect concerning the data subject or significantly affects him or her.” In other words, algorithms and other programs aren’t allowed to make negative decisions about people on their own.

The notice article being here, the original being tucked away here.
Including the serious, as yet very serious, caveats. But also offering glimpses of a better future (contra the title and some parts of the content of this). So, let’s all start the lobbies, there and elsewhere. And:

[The classical way to protect one’s independence and privvecy; Muiderslot]

Plusquote, again

Well yes, another episode in the Plusquote saga:

Now you’re accusing me of optimism”

Which works well in these times of stale bureaucracies; is sought after for disruptive value and renewal. And, in general, is something one might aim for, in a way of Summer motto — weather be nice, weather be rain spells, one can attach a positive edge, mode, conclusion.

Also, for the latter:

[Unedited phone pic; giving light in a Larking building style (not -referenced!) atrium; Gemeentemuseum Den Haag]

There’s Waldo for you; just some

Slightly annotated, and not aiming for completeness, as many worthwhile (sometimes quasi- or semi–Quined!) quotes of Ralph Waldo E. have been posted elsewhere; this just my picks because of their profundity. And personal liking…

A cripple in the right way will beat a racer in the wrong; … Vinegar is the son of wine; … Long-lived trees make roots first; …
Yes indeed, when ‘managers’ may be in either, both, or (vast majority) neither situation …
And, one close to heart but one to remember in many a circumstance, like waiting for vindication of one’s insights.
Fast re-pivot, anyone ..?

The same good office is performed by Property and its filial systems of debt and credit. Debt; grinding debt, whose iron face the widow, the orphan, and the sons of genius fear and hate; — debt, which consumes so much time, which so cripples and disheartens a great spirit with cares that seem so base, is a preceptor whose lessons cannot be foregone, and it is needed most by those who suffer from it most.
Clearly, this a summary and precursor to Graeber and, moreover, Piketty.
Moreover, property, which has been well compared with snow, — “if it fall level to-day, it will be blown into drifts to-morrow,” …
Similar, in particular with regard to the latter mentioned author…

Words are finite organs of the infinite mind.
Indeed; I’ve repeated over and over that short sentences not clarity make — or if, then to the simpleton mind.

“The things that are seen, are temporal; the things that are unseen, are eternal.”
Contra the not-giving one-percenters of course.

Empirical science is apt to cloud the sight, and by the very knowledge of functions and processes to bereave the student of the manly contemplation of the whole. The savant becomes unpoetic.
Indeed, the (induction-oriented) Big Data analysts will succumb to dumb conclusions. The manly (note that of course rigour and courage; Aristotelian Virtue is meant here!) contemplation, the deductive parts of True science, should lead naturally.
And the savant… is there a better label for Big Data analysts on average? Note that indeed, some may be on the upper side of the average (as these go), but may be few and far off.

But the old oracle said, “All things have two handles: beware of the wrong one.”
Yes, true even when the thing is bonus incentives. Beware of bankers’ (et al !!) grip on those. But then, this saying may be applied against all of your un-agreeing fellow meeting members.

But genius looks forward: the eyes of the man are set in his forehead, not in his hindhead: man hopes: genius creates.
I couldn’t agree more; that has delivered all the posts you have read (all) on this blog for sure. And again, this is against ‘data scientists’ that only do ‘evidence based’ decision-making: There is nothing more hindheadedness than that. Shove the results in the hind section where the respective feel happy about that.

Only so much do I know, as I have lived.
One that stands out. In The American Scholar but in general, too. Fitting with the whoso shall be a man, shall be a nonconformist elsewhere [Frank Lloyd Wright’s motto — somewhat by necessity one suspects] but Truest of True. A call to arms of the Virtuous (as above).

The man on whom the soul descends, through whom the soul speaks, alone can teach. Courage, piety, love, wisdom, can teach; and every man can open his door to the angels, and they shall bring him the gift of tongues. But the man who aims to speaks as books enable, as synods use, as the fashion guides, and as interest commands, babbles. Let him hush.
One thinks here of the popular among the ‘visionaries’ [e.g., the Dutch Yuri’s calling out bits, no more, of what fashion guides, in a manner that ‘babble’ is positive] that might be capable of delivering or discussing things on smaller-G’s hype cycles but have no hope to ever achieve anything more than upfront vagaries and Calimero’s claims to hindsight correctness.

Whenever the pulpit is usurped by a formalist, then is the worshipped defrauded and disconsolate.
Just fill in the flavour-of-the-day politician(s) for ‘formalist’ as that is about the same thing these days, and you’ll see it’s true.

The vision of genius comes by renouncing the too officious activity of the understanding, and giving leave and ample privilege to te spontaneous sentiment. … Men grind and grind in the mill of a truism, and nothing comes out but what was put in. But the moment they desert the tradition for a spontaneous thought, then poetry, wit, hope, virtue, learning, anecdote, all flock to their aid.
I would agree. In full, quite. Think the PhD thesis with at least three footnote literature references for every ‘the’, ‘it’ and ‘possibly’ etc. My reason not to pursue a PhD..!

The vulgar call good fortune that which really is produced by the calculations of genius. But Napoleon, thus faithful to facts, had also his crowning merit, that whilst he believed in numbers and weight, and omitted no part of prudence, he believed also in the freedom and quite incalculable force of the soul. A man of infinite caution, he neglected never the least particular of preparation, of patient adaptation; yet nevertheless he had a sublime confidence, as in his all, in the sallies of the courage, and the faith in his destiny, which, at the right moment, repaired all losses, and demolished cavalry, infantry, king, and kaisar, as with irresistible thunderbolts.
I am said to have enjoyed good fortune on occasion. But lean more to the second part; though not a fan of said ’emperor’, one would be hard-pressed to not agree with his dictae (as supported by the true sayings of, e.g., Von Moltke the Elder.

Where there is no vision, the people perish.
Which could be a factual quote just like that. But could also be, the need for a lead. A Leader. How dangerous …

… the luck of one is the hope of thousands, and the bribe acts like the neighborhood of a gold mine to impoverish the farm, the school, the church, the house, and the very body and feature of man.
Thus, the 1%-ers lead the underprivileged masses astray at the hand of demagogues. ’nuff said.

… against that frequent misfortune of men of genius, — the taste for luxury. This is the tragedy of genius; — attempting to drive along the ecliptic [as a Prometheus with the Sun ..? ed.] with one horse of the heavens and one horse of the earth, there is only discord and ruin and downfall of chariot and charioteer.
A sure warning for the ‘visionaries’ … Their mortgage doesn’t get paid by being Right. Mortal life is unescapable.

Why needs any man be rich? Why must he have horses, fine garments, handsome apartments [obviously, for one’s mistresses! ed.], access to public houses and places of amusement [one things La Grange; ed.]? Only for want of thought.
Oh how this reflects on the previous, and on the 1%-ers…

Those who are urging with most ardor what are called the greatest benefits to mankind, are narrow, self-pleasing, conceited men, and affect us like the insane do. They bite us, and we run mad also.
What a concise, and very precise, description of regulator, supervisors, oversight boards, et al..!

We do not want actions, but men; not a chemical drop of water, but rain; the spirit that sheds and showers actions, countless, endless actions. … The world leaves no track in space, and the greatest action of man no mark in the vast idea.
So, one should not aim for achievement recognition — as that would undo its very attempt. As so often observed.

The two parties which divide the state, the party of Conservatism and the party of Innovation, are very old, and have disputed the possession of the world ever since it was made.
True, everywhere even when there appear to be more than two parties. Appear, cosmetically.

For as you cannot jump from the ground without using the resistance of the ground, nor put out the boat on sea without shoving from the shore, nor attain liberty without rejecting obligation, so you are under the necessity of using the Actual order of things, in order to disuse it; …
Interesting; “I don’t want to go into politics because you get caught up, will learn to howl” but the only way to change politics is .. to join it. By the way; R. Waldo E. follows on with a discourse on how every progressive turns into a conservative; much worth a study as it paint the picture so inescapably. Even when my ‘soul’ would resist…

Conservatism … always mitigations, never remedies; pardons for sins, funeral honors, — never self-help, renovation, and virtue.
The kick is in the tail…
… a timid cobbler and patcher, it degrades whatever it touches.
Just true, and adding to the insult.

But if I allow myself in dereliction and become idle and dissolute, I quickly come to love the protection of a strong law, because I feel no title in myself to my advantage. To the intemperate and covetous person no love flows; to him mankind would pay no rent, no dividend, if force were once relaxed; nay, if they could give their verdict, they would say that his self-indulgence and oppression deserved punishment from society, and not that rich board and lodging he now enjoys. The law acts then as a screen of his unworthiness, and makes him worse the longer it protects him.
At once, one sees the French revolution brewing. At seconds, one considers modern-day politics…

With this passion for what is great and extraordinary, it cannot be wondered at that they are repelled by the vulgarity and frivolity in people.
Which is why I feel counterforces sometimes / often, against my Good Intent. Right?

Unless the action is necessary, unless it is adequate, I do not wish to perform it.
My motto entirely against Bureaucrats…!
I do not love routine. Once possessed of the principle, it is equally easy to make four or forty thousand applications of it. A great man will be content to have indicated in any the slightest manner his perception of the reigning Idea of his time, and will leave to those who like it the multiplication of examples.
Again, I concur. Fully. Hence, my visionary work does not fall under the header of the abovementioned bumblers. And now for the last one:

… but it has good healthful qualities in spite of them; not least among which a healthy disgust of Cant, and an aptitude to detect her in all the million varieties of her everlasting wardrobre.
Needs no comment I guess. Plus:

[Marker for the End of ~~life~~ reason; Foz]

Walnuts, brain size and you

Combining some recent news, some really old news, and your place in between. Or not.

The recent news: Birds might have tiny brains, but they still may be very intelligent (as animals go). Now, on a related note, discoveries show that the brain cells of birds may be smaller and/or much denser packed than they are in, e.g., humans and family.
The really before-stone-age news: dinosaurs-picture-is-bleak

Combined: Birds have a separate line of descendance from their dinosaur-time quite-close equivalents. Having survived some dino extinction rounds and still remain quite similar in body and operations as before, having kept the same lightweight and small-package brain structure too?
Then, maybe the dinosaurs weren’t so stupid either with their small but possibly also very densely packed neurons and they just had a bad hair day (that’s what you get when a comet strikes your coiffure — footballers beware).
Just a, very,very,very after-the-facts hypothesis… And:

[For wine making; isn’t that obvious !?!?!? Quinta do Vallado; Douro]

Another Q

Yet another, relatively (sic) random, quote with a kicker in the tail:

In support of this distinction, Chalmers introduces a thought experiment involving what he calls zombies. A zombie is an entity that acts just like a person but simply does not have subjective experience — that is, a zombie is not conscious. Chalmers argues that since we can conceive of zombies, they are at least logically possible. If you were at a cocktail party and there were both “normal” humans and zombies, how would you tell the difference? Perhaps this sounds like a cocktail party you have attended.

Again, from Ray Kurtzweil’s How to Create a Mind (p.202).
And, of course:

[Just like that; Aachen]

Not just Q, IQ

Well, yesterday’s post was about just a quote, this one’s about what should be a full cross-post but hey, I’m no wizard I’ll just blockquote it from here because it’s so good (again, qua author):

Society in the Loop Artificial Intelligence

Jun 23, 2016 – 20:37 UTC

Iyad Rahwan was the first person I heard use the term society-in-the-loop machine learning. He was describing his work which was just published in Science, on polling the public through an online test to find out how they felt about various decisions people would want a self-driving car to make – a modern version of what philosophers call “The Trolley Problem.” The idea was that by understanding the priorities and values of the public, we could train machines to behave in ways that the society would consider ethical. We might also make a system to allow people to interact with the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and test the ethics by asking questions or watching it behave.

Society-in-the-loop is a scaled up version of human-in-the-loop machine learning – something that Karthik Dinakar at the Media Lab has been working on and is emerging as an important part of AI research.

Typically, machines are “trained” by AI engineers using huge amounts of data. The engineers tweak what data is used, how it’s weighted, the type of learning algorithm used and a variety of parameters to try to create a model that is accurate and efficient and making the right decisions and providing accurate insights. One of the problems is that because AI, or more specifically, machine learning is still very difficult to do, the people who are training the machines are usually not domain experts. The training is done by machine learning experts and the completed model after the machine is trained is often tested by experts. A significant problem is that any biases or errors in the data will create models that reflect those biases and errors. An example of this would be data from regions that allow stop and frisk – obviously targeted communities will appear to have more crime.

Human-in-the-loop machine learning is work that is trying to create systems to either allow domain experts to do the training or at least be involved in the training by creating machines that learn through interactions with experts. At the heart of human-in-the-loop computation is the idea of building models not just from data, but also from the human perspective of the data. Karthik calls this process ‘lensing’, of extracting the human perspective or lens of a domain expert and fit it to algorithms that learn from both the data and the extracted lens, all during training time. We believe this has implications for making tools for probabilistic programming and for the democratization of machine learning.

At a recent meeting with philosophers, clergy and AI and technology experts, we discussed the possibility of machines taking over the job of judges. We have evidence that machines can make very accurate assessments of things that involve data and it’s quite reasonable to assume that decisions that judges make such as bail amounts or parole could be done much more accurately by machines than by humans. In addition, there is research that shows expert humans are not very good set setting bail or granting parole appropriately. Whether you get a hearing by the parole board before or after their lunch has a significant effect on the outcome, for instance.

In the discussion, some of us proposed the idea of replacing judges for certain kinds of decisions, bail and parole as examples, with machines. The philosopher and several clergy explained that while it might feel right from a utilitarian perspective, that for society, it was important that the judges were human – it was even more important than getting the “correct” answer. Putting aside the argument about whether we should be solving for utility or not, having the buy-in of the public would be important for the acceptance of any machine learning system and it would be essential to address this perspective.

There are two ways that we could address this concern. One way would be to put a “human in the loop” and use machines to assist or extend the capacity of the human judges. It is possible that this would work. On the other hand, experiences in several other fields such as medicine or flying airplanes have shown evidence that humans may overrule machines with the wrong decision enough that it would make sense to prevent humans from overruling machines in some cases. It’s also possible that a human would become complacent or conditioned to trust the results and just let the machine run the system.

The second way would be for the machine to be trained by the public – society in the loop – in a way that the people felt that that the machine reliability represented fairly their, mostly likely, diverse set of values. This isn’t unprecedented – in many ways, the ideal government would be one where the people felt sufficiently informed and engaged that they would allow the government to exercise power and believe that it represented them and that they were also ultimately responsible for the actions of the government. Maybe there is way to design a machine that could garner the support and the proxy of the public by being able to be trained by the public and being transparent enough that the public could trust it. Governments deal with competing and conflicting interests as will machines. There are obvious complex obstacles including the fact that unlike traditional software, where the code is like a series of rules, a machine learning model is more like a brain – it’s impossible to look at the bits and understand exactly what it does or would do. There would need to be a way for the public to test and audit the values and behavior of the machines.

If we were able to figure out how to take the input from and then gain the buy-in of the public as the ultimate creator and controller of this machine, it might solve the other side of this judicial problem – the case of a machine made by humans that commits a crime. If, for instance, the public felt that they had sufficient input into and control over the behavior of a self-driving car, could the public also feel that the public, or the government representing the public, was responsible for the behavior and the potential damage caused by a self-driving car, and help us get around the product liability problem that any company developing self-driving cars will face?

How machines will take input from and be audited and controlled by the public, may be one of the most important areas that need to be developed in order to deploy artificial intelligence in decision making that might save lives and advance justice. This will most likely require making the tools of machine learning available to everyone, have a very open and inclusive dialog and redistribute the power that will come from advances in artificial intelligence, not just figure out ways to train it to appear ethical.

Credits

•Iyad Rahwan – The phrase “society in the loop” and many ideas.
•Karthik Dinakar – Teaching me about “human in the loop” machine learning and being my AI tutor and many ideas.
•Andrew McAfee – Citation and thinking on parole boards.
•Natalie Saltiel – Editing.

And, of course for your viewing pleasure:

[Would AI recognise this, an aside in the Carnegie Library; Reims]

DAUSA

Maybe we should just push for a swift implementation of the megasystem that will be the Digitally Autonomous USA. No more need for things like a ‘POTUS’, or ‘Congress’ or so. When we already have such fine quality of both and renewal on the way into perfection (right?), and things like personal independence and privacy are a sham anyway, the alternative isn’t even that crazy.

But then, there’s a risk (really?): Not all the world conforms yet to, is yet within, the DAUSA remit. Though geographical mapping starts to make less and less sense, there’s hold-outs (hence: everywhere) that resist even when that is futile. The Galactic Empire hasn’t convinced all to drop ~~the Force~~ irrationality and take the blue pill, though even Elon Musk is suspected of being an alien who warns us we’re living in a mind fantasy [this, true, actually — the story not the content so much].
But do you hope for a Sarah Connor ..? Irrationality again, paining yourself with such pipe dreams.

On the other hand … Fearing the Big Boss seems to be a deep brain psychology trick, sublimating the fear of large predators from the times immemorial (in this case: apparently not) when ‘we’ (huh, maybe you, by the looks of your character and ethics) roamed the plains as hunter-gatherers. So if we drop the fear, we can ‘live’ happily ever after; once the perfect bureaucracy has been established. Which might be quite some time from now you’d say, given the dismal idio…cracy of today’s societal Control, or may be soon, when ASI improves that in a blink, to 100,0% satisfaction. Tons of Kafka’s Prozesses be damned.

Wrapping up, hence, with the always good advice to live fearlessly ..! 😉

[Some Door of Perception! (and entry); De Haar castle]

Print Goodbye World

Somehow, got triggered that there’s a near future where 100 print “Hello world” would meet with Sorry Dave, I can’t compile that not even with warnings (what; no 200 End ..!?) — because one’s not supposed to be able to influence the Machine. No red pills allowed.

Oh the things that keep me awake at night [they don’t]. Soon, baby, soon. Plus:

[Just Lotharingen things; Nancy]

Miss Quote: Dice

Well, not really a misquote straight away, but on this Tuesday Miss Quote day (not), did not Einstein say

The Lord doesn’t play dice.

Which is often interpreted to have him say that the indetermination of the endless but not limitless (or was it the other way around?) number and times of quantum changes aren’t feasible and some deterministic model will eventually be found to be able to actually predict, no chance calculus or Schrödinger’s herd of cats probabilities, all of Nature’s developments as All is predetermined. Where E is made out as a … well, on this point simpleton unbeliever, proven wrong by quantum mechanics / dynamics / what-have-we.

Of course, this is the same E of the Time is that not all things happen at once — demonstrated to be at the core of just any religions’ deepest insights, closest as anyone can get to spiritual return/back-integration/solution (in)to one’s Maker. Even at a mundane level, he was brought to doubt his cosmological constant and then this happened. And this.
Hence, we are reminded that E’s dice game denial was, at the core, not fully original. Emerson’s Nature (ch VI, Idealism, line 37; 1904 edition) has:

God never jests with us, and will not compromise the end of nature by permitting any inconsequence in its procession.

Which I consider to be so similar that comparable interpretation is fully allowed, and the differences may be telling or not (insignificance). And with the disownment (yes that’s a word, since I use it) of the relevance to dunces’ quantum blah.

So, I’ll leave you with:

[Poor (understanding) man’s Infinity; Bergen-Noord]