Glau partner

Izumi3682 Archives

2018.05.25 21:58 izumi3682 Izumi3682 Archives

Building A.I. That Can Build A.I. by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 6 months ago
Well!--You don't gotta be a rocket scientist to understand that the end result of this is replacing all human intellects. This is exactly what Ray Kurzweil and Vernor Vinge prophesied when they said that AI development would become 'recursive'.
Oh also here is an interesting thing I'd like to share. The concept of the "technological singularity" actually has embryonic roots that date from the mid 19th century. Now of course in the 1850's, people could not envision or even conceive of AI, but they clearly already understood the concept of cumulative technological development. Wherein one technology improves the next, improves the next and so on until some kind of, well they did not use the term "singularity" but, well here is the quote. They clearly noticed that something new was happening in just the last 100 years, compared to the last 4000 years.
“…such machines, by which the scholar may, by turning a crank, grind out the solution of a problem without the fatigue of mental application, would by its introduction into schools, do incalculable injury. But who knows that such machines when brought to greater perfection, may not think of a plan to remedy all their own defects and then grind out ideas beyond the ken of mortal mind!” --R. Thornton, editor of the "Primitive Expounder" (1847)
And...
“There is no security against the ultimate development of mechanical consciousness, in the fact of machines possessing little consciousness now. A mollusc has not much consciousness. Reflect upon the extraordinary advance which machines have made during the last few hundred years, and note how slowly the animal and vegetable kingdoms are advancing. The more highly organized machines are creatures not so much of yesterday, as of the last five minutes, so to speak, in comparison with past time.” --Samuel Butler (1872) http://www.singularitysymposium.com/samuel-butler.html
Here is the link for this information.
https://www.singularityweblog.com/17-definitions-of-the-technological-singularity/
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
Experts Assert All Are Entitled to "Universal Basic Infrastructure" by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 6 months ago
(I actually proposed all of this back in Feb 2017.)
Why not just cut through all the red tape and make most things free? You say, diamonds for free? No way! The thing is, we can now easily (which means cheap) make an artificial diamond that is utterly indistinguishable from a "naturally" formed diamond that is found or mined. I think our technology has reached a state where we can make a lot of things for very little money now. No, I think the fundamental problem with instituting UBI (or worse, making everything free) is a psychological issue. Specifically, morality. Through all recorded human history the belief is that one must "earn" ones riches, status and choice of desirable sexual partner(s), by hook or by crook. You can do it honestly or you can do it dishonestly (If you can get away with it and avoid moral opprobrium, which can often result in loss of riches, status and desirable sexual partner(s). So cheating like that is a bit of a calculated gamble.) Mental acuity and cleverness, strength and fortitude, successful equivocation and successful deviousness have been rewarded. Alas it's also only been male dominated as well, with vanishingly few exceptions, until about the 20th century.
Well, anyways that's the way the world was for the last we'll say 8,000 years (before that it's kinda hard to tell. Pre-history and all.). Bartering, trade and economy arose. Economies are in my opinion inextricably tied to these psychological and moral factors. You must pull your weight if you want rewards. And if you want the nicest things, you must exceed your fellows substantially, however you may define that. People who "fail out" in society for whatever reason, do not deserve the nice things. In fact for most of history they were simply killed or starved to death. (Yes that even includes women, children, the elderly and the disabled, who were blameless, helpless and vulnerable. That's why so many religions pleaded that men help the widow, the orphan and the aged. It was that bad of a problem.)
Today we do flash stock trading by computer. A billion transactions in less than a second. There are still plenty of ways for cleverness and successful deviousness to continue to be rewarded. But I don't think that the basic rules of economics has changed much since the middle ages. If you want something, you must earn it. Various factors have also evolved into play such as the "work ethic". This all reflects social and religious morality.
Oh also UBI--who is going to pay for all of this? The (employed, for now...) taxpayer? The 1%? Good luck with that. Shall we just print up more money? Shall corporations give back? What about the CEO's golden gated mansion? You can't get one of those if you are just giving your money away. After all the CEO worked hard to make that corporation successful and profitable. Including generous dollops of cleverness, ingenuity and deviousness. Didn't that corporation provide a vital product or service for such a minor remuneration from paying, grateful customers? Well, there is another part of this "UBI" problem. Where is the money to pay everyone a basic income going to come from?
Here is my question then. Are humans at a given point entitled to have what they desire for free? Simply for being human and alive? Let's start with basics. Food, water, shelter, electricity, medical, computers, smart phones, the internet (Oh you don't think those aren't all basics?). I think I'll add VR to that. Yes, I also understand that work is essential for an economy to help everyone, even if that only means a truly hardworking someone gets a reward of the meanest bone. But are we to the point that we can move beyond paying for some of these basics? And of course the big catalyst today is the exponentially, yes EXPONENTIALLY improving AI and automation.
What would happen to the USA economy if those basics I mentioned were suddenly to be free? I bet lots of people would get up in arms about that. I bet that 'tiers" of freeness would develop. I bet that lots of people (read: me) would just sit around and play "World of Warcraft", and not do a thing. That seems kind of immoral doesn't it? You are not pulling your weight! Well are humans entitled to that if everyone is made happy by it?
Perhaps it is high time we had a sea change in our societal perspectives and attitudes. UBI seems a sort of a poorly designed bridge to the ultimate goal, a utopian civilization where anyone may do anything they please (That's within the law as defined by society. You can't just kill people I mean) and no one has the slightest worry about personal resources.
(This permalink is for my own use)
https://www.reddit.com/Futurology/comments/6ajuhf/there_is_a_solution_to_our_broken_economy_besides/dhf9if8/
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
A New Chart Conclusively Proves That Automation is a Serious Threat by 2noame in Futurology


[–]izumi3682 1 point 6 months ago
The USA government is fully aware of the threat of AI, automation and robotics. Here is the report from Dec 2016. It makes alarming reading. The US government doesn't want to institute UBI and hopes that retraining will suffice. You can intuit the worry between the lines. Anyways here is the report...
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Artificial-Intelligence-Automation-Economy.PDF
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
Humans Are Still Better Than AI at StarCraft—for Now: A StarCraft gamer won 4-0 in the world’s first contest between AI systems and professional human players. by mvea in Futurology


[–]izumi3682 0 points 6 months ago
I think it will take a little under 2 years for this AI to defeat any human in "StarCraft 2". But consider how much closer we shall be to developing a true AGI when this milestone is met. To succeed in "StarCraft 2" you must not only "intuit" such as occurred in the game of "Go", you must also be agile on your mental feet to outfox your opponent in a game that has astronomically more variables than "Go".
permalinksavecontextfull comments (24)editdelete
Sci-Fi Has Been Warning Us About Virtual Reality Addiction Since the 1990s by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 6 months ago
My point is that the VR we shall experience in the next 10 years or so will be absolutely mindboggling amazing. People may never, ever want to leave VR. We may well engineer our biology around this technology. The potential is that profound.
You will start to see homes designed with dedicated VR rooms in the next few years I bet. It will be a hot selling point!
Before you dismiss my concerns out of hand. Consider that even as I write this, newer iterations of VR hmds are in development that have massively improved resolution, FOV, comfort and freedom of movement. A bit earlier I described what I think will come to pass in VR worlds. A good bit of it I have already personally experienced.
https://www.reddit.com/Futurology/comments/6h7xtt/gamers_arent_buying_the_vr_hype_and_game_makers/diw60gy/
permalinksavecontextfull comments (11)editdelete
Most People Don't Even Realize What's Coming by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 6 months ago
No, I think we are going to have some big fish to fry...
https://www.reddit.com/Futurology/comments/7aksxs/blackrock_cofounder_artificial_intelligence_wont/
permalinksavecontextfull comments (3)editdelete
BlackRock cofounder: Artificial intelligence won't replace humans by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 3 points 6 months ago
Baloney. Not only will artificial intelligence replace all humans in the producing economy where it will become necessary to figure out a way for humans to have a pleasant existence without the need for employment or even money for that matter, it is mathematically inevitable it will replace humans as a species, as the primary sentience on Earth.
I will give you perspective. In the year 2013 there was virtually zero narrow AI anywhere. It is no coincidence that AI has exploded as a "buzzword" in the last two years. Seriously, just in the last 2 years. Once we began to understand that GPUs functioned better than CPUs to enable so-called "neural networks" the die was cast. A neural network is in my soon to be picked up "IPhone X". In addition we are at most 3 years away from a general purpose quantum computer--a quantum computer that can solve problems that we use binary computers to solve today. One of the problems we will use quantum computers to solve is AI and making AI as effective and comprehensive as possible. Somewhere along the line in the next 10 years we shall succeed in developing an AGI. Then you take and extrapolate our advances in making human looking robots. We are making fairly good progress so far. But they (the human robots), shall be entities as agile and quick as any youthful human (at a dead minimum, more likely they shall resemble that Summer Glau terminator girl in strength and agility), but with the intelligence capability of well, the gods. The AI doesn't even have to be within the robots and automation. It can be massively decentralized and just as effective.
Don't take my word for it. This guy gave a presentation at TEDx not too long ago. I agree with him that the only, only hope for humanity is to somehow figure out how to place the AI within each one of us, yet still retain our individuality, autonomy and free will. Even the best outcome for humans, will likely change humans so profoundly that they will not be recognizable to us in less than 50 years. But truthfully this is a failure to understand exponential thinking. I think this is all less than 20 years away. Well within all of our lifetimes. Oh and don't think you are going to get out of this by simply "dying" of old age. If you are under 90 you have a good chance of making "scientific immortality". A person turning 100 years old today has a fairly good chance of living for the next 20 years. And just imagine the things we are going to turn up in the next 20 years. So this matters to all of us.
Anyway here is that guy. Smart scientist I'm given to understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg
submitted by izumi3682 to u/izumi3682 [link] [comments]


2018.04.05 10:42 hailcrest Discussion & statistics regarding the past 8 seasons' grandmaster leaderboards

WARNING: VERY LONG

Hey everyone. It's been a hot topic lately to shit on the current situation of hero league. But uniquely, for this season alone, the people at the top of the food chain have themselves been reducing their playtime and stream time of hero league in general. Chu8 recently played a couple of games of League of Legends, mewnfare has said he's done with hero league, Grubby himself has been playing a lot more qm as of late, and many of the pro players have given up toying with the matchmaking system trying to queue-snipe each other for "good games" and just flat out left hero league for Fortnite.
If this season was particularly horrendous, it stands to reason there'd be evidence somewhere in the numbers. So I thought I'd dig around for a bit and see what I could find.

Methodology

If you look at the URL of the grandmaster leaderboards:
https://us.battle.net/heroes/en/leaderboards/hero/8/americas
The number "8" can be replaced with any smaller number to get a snapshot of the previous seasons' grandmaster leaderboards as the season ended. I basically copy-pasted the whole of 200 grandmasters for all 8 seasons, removed the 4 columns regarding the classes played, and added two new columns for two new statistics:
WL - Win-loss difference: 2 * wins, less the number of games played WR - Winrate: Wins / No. games played 
I then calculated the correlation coefficients between the rank-points of the 200 grandmasters, and each of the statistics (games played, WL, WR).

What should we expect to see?

Intuitively, the rank points should have a positive correlation with winrate; your winrate is a reflection of your mmr, and people of higher mmr should be of higher grandmaster rank.
At the same time, rank points should also have a more direct correlation with WL; if every game was either win 200 or lose 200, then rank points should simply be 200 times WL.
Is it desirable for grandmaster rank to purely be determined by winrate (and hence mmr)? It's tempting to close your mind up and think that this should obviously be the case, but if we call back to the preseason leaderboards, which were the rankings of the top 200 players by internal MMR, it was quickly apparent that whoever made the list was pretty much always the same people, perhaps shuffled around by a few ranks.
Of course, you may think to yourself, skill doesn't change much, so why should rankings? That pretty much comes down to the question of what the purpose of hero league is.
Blizzard has openly stated that rank points are meant to give a sense of reward for having "climbed" the ladder, while MMR is used for making fair games. They've also stated that showing MMR is a tricky business because once people start chasing MMR, they eventually get disappointed if after going 55w-45l in hero league, their MMRs hasn't changed much; because skill doesn't change quickly.
So some small amount of mobility and variation in ranks across seasons is desirable, because otherwise PerfectIsSht and Ungoliant would just be sitting on top of the ladder for seasons and seasons even if they haven't been playing many games and the tier 2 hero leaguers who are not-quite-pro-level but willing to put in the game time to play hero league will eventually find themselves chasing a Sisyphean goal. Up to a certain extent, having people who aren't-quite-top-tier show up on top 200 once in a while gives people a reason to play hero league more (and over time improve at the game!)

The Numbers

Season cor(RP,WR) cor(RP,GAMES) cor(RP,WL)
1 0.4964474 -0.1109653 0.7299437
2 0.2868793 0.009484793 0.6936215
3 -0.05011986 0.2240358 0.4355825
4 0.06479276 0.1668328 0.4761562
5 0.1379955 0.1442255 0.5126226
6 0.194831 0.1081088 0.7746295
7 0.2397035 0.1178054 0.5825134
8 0.0260978 0.5867441 0.4512059

Discussion

As expected, the correlation between rank points and WL remains moderately positive over seasons, never going below 0.4, showing that not only do people have to have the skill required to maintain a high winrate, they also have to put in the actual game time to get that win-loss difference.
Correlation between rank points and winrate was strongest in the first two seasons. This is a reflection of the fact that the first season was directly seeded in from Preseason which had the longest time to make certain of people's mmrs without any reset or decay, and after the first preseason where MMRs were "centred in" and uncertainty increased for placements, everything went to shit.
Quite ironically, the 3rd highest season for correlation between rank points and WR was last season. The season where placement seedings majorly fucked up and the season that had to be reset, multiple times.
Unexpectedly, correlation between rank points and winrate was lowest in the 3rd season, a particularly unremarkable season where people just played hero league normally and there weren't many major complaints, and the correlation has been on an uptrend since then. None of us really know what Blizzard's been doing behind the scenes, but it seems that up until recently, it had been working.
Correlation between number of games played and rank points has been relatively weak, with season 1 being an outlier where it was actually negative; the more games you played, the more likely you were going to lose ranked points.
This correlation statistic is particularly important because it's a reflection of how well the Personal Rank Adjustment and Favoured/Opponent favoured adjustments are performing. Ideally, we shouldn't be able to get into grandmaster just by mind-numbedly spamming hero league games. But if the PRA+FA+OFA was, on average, giving us 10 points per game, people would eventually break into the revered 5-digit clubTM just by playing 1000 games in a season.
The negative correlation in the first season was a sign that the adjustments were being too harsh, and a mild positive correlation in the next seasons showed that it had become more lenient since then.
Alarmingly, the correlation has jumped to 0.58 in the middle of this season. This is pretty much numerical evidence that the current grandmasters' intuitions that people are getting high ranks just by spamming games isn't entirely invalid.

Conclusions

While I'd love to be able to play with the data of all users instead of just 200 people per season, that data simply isn't available to me, so the scope of the discussion is only limited to the top ranks.
There are also some things that numbers can't really convey. For this we turn to the human factor; streams pretty much put on display what some of the high grandmasters feel about hero league as of late.
The simple fact is that they aren't having fun in HL. The extremely unusual numbers regarding this season, coupled with the current imbalance (interestingly, having 9-10 heroes being dominantly strong in the meta feels much, much worse than if only 1-2 are), coupled with possible burnout just for having played this game for 3 years are drawing many high-level players from hero league.
The result is a possible brain drain happening to our community. Here's a chilling thought experiment; if so many diamond-level players are unfairly being placed in masters, where are all the master-level players bring unfairly placed in diamond? Blizzard has released the charts showing the proportion of players in each rank before, and they don't look lopsided in any way.
A possible reason for this is that the diamond-level players have graduated to being Masters simply because many Masters and grandmasters have simply stopped playing hero league, and they're just filling in the vacuum. Pro players have little time for hero league between scrims, analysis and coaching ever since the official HGC format was put into place.
Other grandmaster-level players were initially united behind the desire for solo-queue hero league because they thought it would give better matched games without boosting duos, but over time have realised that hero league is still the shitshow it's always been and now they don't have a duo queue partner to have any fun with in the shitshow, and the only "alternative" isn't an alternative due to the vastly inferior match quality.
One possible reason is the change in philosophy of hero design. Many new heroes are designed with the idea of filling in a niche; they hard-counter some heroes and are weak against others. This reduces the potential for a generally high-skilled player to simply out-play his opponents with mechanics regardless of draft. Notable examples include chu's #1 player killer hero, HORSEPANTS reaching #65 in preseason leaderboards playing only Rexxar (release Rexxar at that), and Fan/Glau spamming Zeratul. With things like physical/spell armour, it's become much harder to win against disadvantageous drafts just by general skills like stutterstepping and landing spells.
Whatever may be the reasons behind this decline in Hero League quality, one can only hope that the "big news" coming up at the PAX east panel in about 8 hours will help the less-than-desirable trend.
submitted by hailcrest to heroesofthestorm [link] [comments]


2016.07.26 13:24 WCBauers **Hi, Redditeers! I’m Science Fiction author W. C. Bauers. AMA!**

Thanks for letting a science fiction author crash the fantasy page. Feel free to call me William, or HEY BAUERS. Though I write military SF and space opera, I can hang with fantasy. My nerdist teeth were cut on C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Anne McCaffrey, and WOW. Currently, my favorite fantasy writer is Brian Staveley.
I’m the author of two novels from Tor Books, UNBREAKABLE and INDOMITABLE (on sale today!). Both are part of the Chronicles of Promise Paen. Yeah? Ask me about that. My protagonist, Promise, is a kick-butt Marine who’s been compared to Katee Sackhoff’s Starbuck meets STARSHIP TROOPERS with a dash of FIREFLY. (Summer Glau + Jayne’s arsenal = viewing bliss) wcbauers.com has more on the books.
For fun, I howl and break stuff. My third degree black belt in Taekwondo is about a year away. Nothing relaxes like hitting a heavy bag (or your sparring partner). I’m the father of three guys (10, 8, 5). The alpha unit, Heather, is a knitting wonder woman (just need to convince her to cosplay it). We live in the Rocky Mountains with the best rescue in the world, Bailey - Pit, Ridgeback, Boxer mix; she could tear you a new one but wouldn’t hurt a soul. Except for that guy we buried behind the old…er…
I’ll be back at 7PM EST to answer your questions. Talk soon!
submitted by WCBauers to Fantasy [link] [comments]


2014.11.17 21:07 numindan Charity auction - Items donated by ARROW cast (& more).

Posted with permission from the moderators:
The Alberta Browncoats Society are thrilled to announce that we have partnered with the California Browncoats to hold our upcoming online charity auction via their eBay account. The auction began on November 17 at 8am PST and will continue for 10 days.
Complete list of auction listings: http://www.ebay.com/sch/californiabrowncoats/m.html?_nkw&_armrs=1&_ipg&_from
A number of items were donated to the auction by members of the ARROW cast, including:
  1. Stephen Amell “Oliver Queen/Arrow” donated his autograph to Vol 1 and Vol 2 of the ARROW Trade PB comics
  2. Katrina Law donated a "Nyssa al Ghul" autographed photo
  3. Kelly Hu (ARROW's "China White") donated a "Lady Deathstrike" figurine and a "Stacy" (Phineas & Ferb) autographed photo
  4. John Barrowman (ARROW's "Malcolm Merlyn") donated an autographed photo as “Captain Jack Harkness” (Doctor Who/Torchwood)
The proceeds of this auction will be split between Edmonton’s Youth Empowerment and Support Services (a shelter & support program for homeless teens), Kids Need to Read (a US-based children’s literacy charity), Equality Now (an international women’s advocacy organization), and the Edmonton Women’s Emergency Accommodation Centre (Women's shelter).
We welcome bids from all over the world.
We would like to extend a special thanks to our auction donors: Stephen Amell, Katrina Law, Kelly Hu, John Barrowman, Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, Mark Sheppard, Felicia Day, Gina Torres, Alan Tyduk, Morena Baccarin, Summer Glau, Joseph Gatt, Phil Lamarr, Jamie Bamber, Matthew Bryan, Laura Sememiuk, Clinton Ouderkirk, Natalie Dempsey, Semper Family, and the California Browncoats.
Their generosity and support has been amazing. Each donor has been identified on the individual auction listings.
Thanks everyone for letting me spread the word about this auction on your shiny sub.
submitted by numindan to arrow [link] [comments]


2014.11.17 19:46 numindan Shiny Charity Auction - Firefly/Serenity cast signed items (& more)

The Alberta Browncoats Society are thrilled to announce that we have partnered with the California Browncoats to hold our upcoming online charity auction via their eBay account. The auction began on November 17 at 8am PST and will continue for 10 days.
Auction listings: http://www.ebay.com/sch/californiabrowncoats/m.html?_nkw&_armrs=1&_ipg&_from
The proceeds of this auction will be split between Edmonton’s Youth Empowerment and Support Services (a shelter & support program for homeless teens), Kids Need to Read (a US-based children’s literacy charity), Equality Now (an international women’s advocacy organization), and the Edmonton Women’s Emergency Accommodation Centre (Women's shelter).
We welcome bids from all over the world.
We would like to extend a special thanks to our auction donors: John Barrowman, Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, Mark Sheppard, Felicia Day, Gina Torres, Alan Tyduk, Morena Baccarin, Summer Glau, Stephen Amell, Joseph Gatt, Katrina Law, Kelly Hu, Phil Lamarr, Jamie Bamber, Matthew Bryan, Laura Sememiuk, Clinton Ouderkirk, Natalie Dempsey, Semper Family, and the California Browncoats.
Their generosity and support has been amazing. Each donor has been identified on the individual auction listings.
submitted by numindan to firefly [link] [comments]


2013.11.07 14:03 KhalKev Season 2 My (Crackpot?) Theory

So i got to some thinking on Summer Glau's character Isabel Rochev and something clicked thanks to something said on the Quiver Podcast.
Isabel Rochev = Talia Al Ghul
Some possible evidence:
1) In S2.E.5 one of the LOA mentions the child of Ra's Al Ghul, who else but Talia.
2) The women's heels and legs shown in Season one commanding Fyers. maybe she was there and knows about Oliver via Fyers.
3) The podcast claims to think that Isabel knows Ollie is the Arrow and has plans for him and i agree.
4) As a personal opinion Summer Glau is a actress of some Renown and it just dont make sense for her to be the disaporving business partner.
5) The show has be known to pull elements from the Nolan-verse and it would not be out of the realm for them to pull a Miranda Tate, A business women who comes in and takes some control of Wayne Ent. (Sound Familiar?)
6) If Talia is a part of the plan 10 to 1 a Casting would have been announced.
However there is a Isabel Rochev in the DC universe already but the show has messed with chatacters before I.E Sara vs Laurel as BC
These are just some random thoughts, anyone else think this has legs?
submitted by KhalKev to arrow [link] [comments]