yonkshi

Unfortunately any AI systems will encounter the verification dilemma, the more powerful an AI system becomes, the less verifiable it would be.

I agree. I think a big part of this problem is that smaller companies usually cannot afford AI research. I would even go as far as to say there are more AI companies than capable AI researchers, and this causes a large number of faux-AI companies poisoning the AI branding.

AGI is a gradient, not an arbitrary threshold.

We are not capable of recreating human level intelligence yet, but our modern algorithms had become magnitudes better at generalization and sample efficiency. And this trend is not showing any signs of slowing down.

Take PPO for example (powers the OpenAI 5 dota agent), the same algorithms can be used for robotic arms as it does with video games. Two completely different domains of tasks now generalizable under one algorithm. That to me is a solid step towards more general AI.

My guess is to prevent ad-fraud by website owners. It's a lot harder to detect fraudulent clicks/impressions if all data are routed through website.

The cost of potentially blocked by ad blockers is finite (A percentage of total revenue), but the cost of ad-fraud is not bounded.

Not only dupe, Forbes also has the most click baity title amongst them all. Forbes is like buzzfeed now

This is such a cool concept, I really wish these guys would succeed. Though last time I heard they gave up developing their own rocket (as a second stage to space). Anyone who's in the loop, does Stratolaunch currently have any potential rockets lined up?

Elaborate? We are discussing event probability, not logical inference, so how can there be fallacy in the first place.

Occam's razor applies here. Your theory is that she had 1. intended to assassinate Assange, 2. attempted to cover it as a joke and then 3. further covering it up by implying she doesn't remember this statement.

Let me offer you another theory: she's almost certain that she didn't say it, but she couldn't remember every word she's said.

Which theory do you think is more likely?

Now I am not saying you are wrong, but you'd need external evidence to support your theory, until then, Occam's rule apply. If you agree that my theory is more probable but do not like it, then it's possible your current belief is skewed by your prior belief.

My friend Gibbs invented this really efficient way to learn.

More specifically Markov chain with monte carlo method (MCMC)

Sure theoretical advances may be evolutionary, but they resulted in exponential reduction of parameter space and sample complexity. These advances outpace Moore's law by a large margin.

Hardware served as a catalyst, but it was not a necessity.

Less than four years ago our state-of-the-art RL system (DQN) could only beat some Atari games. Now we can almost beat best human player in SC. That to me is very impressive.

Currently visiting China for Chinese New Year, and can't help but to notice the anti-US anti-Apple sentiment that arose recently. Although anecdotal, I think the nationalistic sentiment has a lot to do with the dip in sales.

To put in perspective, most Chinese netizens are generally pretty critical of the Chinese gov. Chinese with higher educations usually look up to western culture and products. However after the Huawei arrest incident, the Chinese netizens were pissed at the American government, I've never seen such anger towards the US gov, and huge waves of boycotts began. They think that American gov is bullying a Chinese company into obeying US law even outside US, and their response is to boycott American products.

During my two weeks here I've talked to a dozen random people at bars, friends gatherings and on the plane. Normally US-China politics never come up, but it has come up in almost every single conversation this trip. Most of these people mention that they recent switched to a Chinese phone or their next phone will be a domestic phone.