If you're deviant and you know it, clap your hands! The sub-fact I liked, which might be in the Daxxy paper, is that people are very good at evaluating their certainty with respect to facts about the physical environment, but that same feeling of certainty is all over the place respecting the metaphysical environment. I guess we've known that for a while.
-- rec -- On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:45 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ha! "There's a fun sub-result, which is, if you have a very deviant > concept ... if you have a very weirdo concept that other people don't > share, you're actually much more likely to be aware that you have a deviant > concept." > > At least I *know* I'm a deviant. > > > On 12/29/19 8:43 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > > I thought she was arguing that very mechanisms that google, facebook, > twitter, etc. are using right now to engage people's interest online are > already engendering and entrenching all sorts of weird beliefs. 6-9 > minutes of activated charcoal advocacy videos and you're probably certain > that black smoothies are okay, maybe even good for you. There are no > neutral platforms, because the order in which content is presented is never > neutral, and it is especially biased if its goal is to keep you clicking. > Whether this allows focused election manipulation seems dubious, but it > does allow for thousands of bizarre theories to be injected into the public > consciousness at low cost, and some of them even make money. Hey, some of > them, bizarre as they are, might turn out to be correct, not that the > platforms have any interest in that aspect, because that wouldn't be > neutral. > > [...] > > > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:23 AM Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com > <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote: > > > > REC - > > > > Good find! > > > > I am not closely following the development and results of GAN work, > but it seems like this kind of study explicates at least ONE GOOD REASON > for worrying about AI changing the nature of the world as we know it (even > if it isn't a precise existential threat). Convolved with Carl's offering > around "weaponizing complexity", it feels more and more believable > (recursion unintended) that the wielders of strong AI/ML will have the > upper hand in any tactical and possibly strategic domain (warfare, public > opinion, markets, etc.). > > [...] > > > > On 12/27/19 8:21 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > >> This talk was mentioned on hacker news this week and inspired my > babbling at Saveur this morning. > https://slideslive.com/38921495/how-to-know. The talk was delivered at > Neural IPS on December 9 and discusses recent research on how people come > to believe they know something. > >> > >> This paper > https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/opmi_a_00017 describes > the Amazon Mechanical Turk experiment on people becoming certain they > understood the boolean rule they were being taught by examples. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
