--- Day changed Tue Jul 22 2008 00:19 -!- Splicer [n=p@h124n1c1o261.bredband.skanova.com] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 01:51 -!- PanGoat [n=pan@ovid.sensoryresearch.net] has quit ["The computer fell asleep"] 05:01 -!- nsh [n=nsh@87-94-146-186.tampere.customers.dnainternet.fi] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 05:55 -!- nsh [n=nsh@eduroam-80.uta.fi] has joined #hplusroadmap 09:43 < kanzure> ybit: on the contrary 09:43 < kanzure> nsh: I'd be happy to 09:44 < nsh> sweet 09:45 < kanzure> ybit: btw, I got what you wanted 09:45 < kanzure> please read http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/DIASPORA/01/Orphanogenesis.html first 09:46 * nsh was just been watching Fischell's TED talk on TMS, internal neuropacemaker technology for migraine [and other brain disease] treatment, and other stuff 09:46 < nsh> commented on it in ##neuroscience 09:47 < kanzure> seems like something to avoid 09:47 * kanzure found his quadcore 09:47 < kanzure> and has four days to plan for Palo Alto 09:47 < kanzure> wtf 09:51 < kanzure> nsh: I like your forest fire analogy 09:51 * nsh nods 09:52 < nsh> that's how i'd guess the treatment works, the neurons go into a refractory period after overstimulation by the electrical signal and are unable to propagate the epilepsy/migrane 09:53 < kanzure> I'm guessing it's more like trying to cut it off by the balls/legs 09:53 < nsh> hmm 10:34 < kanzure> ybit: when you reawaken from death we can talk 11:29 < kanzure> the box turns on 11:29 < kanzure> but the video card still doesn't send anything to the monitor 11:29 < kanzure> so it's not POSTing 11:29 < kanzure> new mobo .. :( 11:37 < nsh> :-/ 12:48 < kanzure> http://heybryan.org/mac.html 12:48 < kanzure> is this an insult? 12:55 < ybit> tough to say 12:55 < nsh> somewhere between a complement and constructive criticism 12:55 < ybit> ^ agreed 12:56 * ybit hates paperwork 12:56 * fenn snickers 12:56 < kanzure> i r bending unit 12:57 < ybit> Hmm, I thought Bender's Game was supposed to be released this Summer 13:01 < kanzure> aww, sis just called because she's picking out her first laptop 13:04 < nsh> kanzure, explain mirror neurons 13:04 < kanzure> people tell me it's about social stuff 13:04 < kanzure> :) 13:04 < kanzure> something about simulating other people's social status for empathy generation 13:05 < nsh> apparantly they're neural firing patterns which are activated both when the animal (person) themself performs an action, and when they observe another performing the same action 13:05 < kanzure> do you know of DNA and RNA ladders? 13:06 < kanzure> we need something like this for discussing neural cultures 13:07 < nsh> yeah, they're used in gel electrophoresis as reference for molecular weights 13:08 < nsh> contain different mass [sets of] molecules that travel further down the gel under the force of the voltage 13:08 < nsh> so you get ¦¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ 13:09 < nsh> each line represents a certain weight (usually given in number of bases [nucleotides]) 13:10 < kanzure> correct 13:11 < kanzure> instead of qualitative description of neuronal behavior, or just description with just electrodes or something, why not just SEND the damn researchers the damn ladder/standard/reference? 13:12 < nsh> well, neural behaviour is a bit more complex than distanced travelled along a potential difference in a certain time... 13:18 -!- nsh [n=nsh@eduroam-80.uta.fi] has quit ["mrr"] 13:26 < kanzure> ybit: oh, plus there's brownie points since we're basically doing Egan's "orphanogenesis map" for him 13:31 < procto> kanzure: I think it's an invitation to meet some time in san franciso from aug 4 to the 8th 13:31 < procto> I have applied my considerable skills as a linguist 13:31 < procto> and that is my verdict 13:33 < kanzure> :) 13:33 < kanzure> indeed 13:36 < kanzure> wait a sec, voice sucks 13:36 < kanzure> where's my log? 13:38 < kanzure> I like how pasting links to http://heybryan.org/mac.html is self-referential to the tendency for me to post links 13:40 -!- nsh [n=nsh@87-94-146-186.tampere.customers.dnainternet.fi] has joined #hplusroadmap 13:40 < procto> nsh: so what's your beef specifically with yudkowsky? I'm curious 13:40 < procto> he's certainly bombastic, but I wouldn't say pesudointellectual 13:41 < kanzure> procto: just for some context, did you see his video? 13:41 < nsh> he wrote: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/07/anything-right.html 13:41 < procto> kanzure: which video? 13:41 < nsh> therefore he is an idiot, masquerading as a philosopher, pretending to be an artificial intelligence researcher 13:43 < kanzure> nsh: what's wrong with that? he's talking about "being grounded" 13:43 < procto> I don't understand the big problem with that article 13:43 < kanzure> yeah, that one looks ok 13:43 < procto> he's saying in a screenfull what could be said in a paragraph 13:43 < procto> and that's usually his problem 13:43 < kanzure> hardly 13:43 < procto> other than that, I disagree with him some of the time, and agree with him some of the time 13:43 < procto> I have not seen evidence to unmask him as some sort of phony 13:44 < kanzure> FAI? 13:44 < procto> you are against the idea of friendly ai? or against his approach to it? 13:44 < nsh> what's he saying? 13:44 < procto> idea I mean the necessity for a fundamental friendliness built into ai 13:45 < procto> I'm not trying to justify EY 13:45 < kanzure> his argument is typically "FAI or else UAI and we're all doomed" 13:45 < procto> I'm trying to understand your objections 13:45 < nsh> he's the philosophical equivalent of the machines in nineteen eighty-four that churn out music and story-books for the consumption of the proles 13:45 < procto> kanzure: UAI? 13:45 < kanzure> uFAI 13:45 < nsh> there is no original though, just churning of ideas recieved from others, undigested, and mechanically repermutated 13:45 < kanzure> i.e., non-F AI 13:45 < nsh> EVIL RABATS 13:46 < procto> kanzure: as long as it's not UFIA 13:46 < procto> :> 13:46 * nsh smiles 13:46 < kanzure> uhm, I mean UFAI 13:46 < kanzure> yes 13:46 < kanzure> wait 13:46 < kanzure> what? 13:46 < procto> kanzure: UFIA = unsolicited finger in ass 13:46 < procto> fark meme 13:46 < kanzure> oh, I thought you might mean unfriendly intelligence augmentation 13:47 < nsh> heh 13:47 < procto> nsh: I'm going to try and summarize what you said, and you can tell me if I'm right 13:47 < nsh> honestly, if you can read that article without feeling the slightest contempt, there is something wrong with your brain 13:48 < procto> EY's main output seems to be merely an aggregation, and of mediocre content at that 13:48 < procto> is that about what you're saying? 13:48 * nsh is generalising from this one article 13:48 < nsh> when i read or listen to someone i construct a model of how they think 13:48 < kanzure> nsh: let's not attack the guy himself though 13:48 < kanzure> let's focus on his arguments and plans 13:48 < kanzure> ah, well 13:49 < kanzure> if you're talking about his personal model of how he thinks 13:49 < procto> nsh has been going wild here with ad hominems 13:49 < nsh> right 13:49 < nsh> procto.. 13:49 < procto> but it seems the main point nsh is making is that he isn't original enough? 13:49 < nsh> never mind 13:49 * nsh has done too much of this today 13:49 < procto> I mean, that could be the case 13:49 < kanzure> procto: nsh might be getting the Eli-distaste from me 13:50 < procto> maybe there's something wrong with *my* brain, and I'm always interested in finding that out 13:50 < nsh> nah, i didn't even realise he was associated with the SIAI until after i made that comment here last night 13:50 < nsh> there is procto, believe me 13:50 < procto> well, I knew that, but the specific nature of the deficiency always eludes me :> 13:50 < nsh> an ad homimen argument is where you logical progression goes from -> 13:50 < nsh> my progression was the reverse 13:51 < nsh> the guy's an idiot, because what he says is ridiculous 13:51 < nsh> not the converse 13:51 < nsh> please, don't use the phrase ad hominem incorrectly 13:51 < procto> ok, perhaps that was indeed your internal path, though that was not evident to me from what meager buffer I've read. 13:51 < nsh> it's really annoying. 13:51 < procto> oh, I was using it quite correctly 13:51 < nsh> no. i made no argument. 13:51 < procto> I read you attacking him as a pseudointellectual followed by attacks on his points. 13:51 < nsh> it cannot be an argument ad hominem 13:52 * nsh is not here to spoon-feed anyone 13:52 < ybit> http://helen.pion.ac.uk/~thomas/microcircuits08/ 13:52 < nsh> you either get it, or you don't 13:52 < procto> not here to be spoon fed. so just to clear it up, the copious attacks on his person made it seem like an ad hominem when it may very well have not been an ad hominem 13:53 < kanzure> http://www.sl4.org/wiki/EliezerYudkowsky/Questions 13:54 < procto> nsh: in fact, I assumed it wasn't merely a random attack on him, but rather motivated by a dislike of his opinions so I decided to inquire. Not to undermine, but to understand. 13:54 < procto> because it seemed a very virulent dislike 13:54 < kanzure> http://www.sl4.org/wiki/SoYouWantToBeASeedAIProgrammer 13:55 < procto> kanzure: perusing 13:55 * nsh smiles at procto 13:55 < kanzure> just for the record, I don't have a formalization of my beef with his schemes 13:55 < kanzure> but 13:55 < kanzure> in general, the "FAI world dominator scenario" strikes me as peculiar 13:56 < kanzure> the idea of having to come up with a friendly ai to stop the other ai initatives from emerging 13:56 < kanzure> and from trying to rule the world with an iron fist to make the perfectly safe environment 13:57 < nsh> ok, if it helps, procto, imagine trying to explain why someone is ugly. aesthetic judgements are not meant to be explained logically, they're meant to be recognised 13:57 < nsh> (yes, you can, and should, make asethetic judgements on the way people think) 13:57 < nsh> *aesthetic 13:58 < nsh> the way he writes indicates that he thinks "uglily" (stupidly) 13:58 < nsh> one could dispute any particular idea, but it would be besides the point 13:58 < nsh> like saying how to fix a monster's left toe 13:59 < nsh> "People said all sorts of ridiculous things about AIs that they'd never dream of saying of themselves. It turned out that empathy wasn't good enough to understand AI, not even close. Even so, it can always be worse, and just making up ridiculous stuff at random without even empathic rationality-checks is indeed worse. " 13:59 < nsh> how can that not set off multiple warning bells?! 14:00 < kanzure> nsh: it's hard to verbalize the warning bells 14:00 < kanzure> for instance, what's "worse" there? 14:00 < procto> nsh: if I say something is ugly I can most certainly describe why I think so. someone may not hold the same values as me and I may say "he's ugly becomes his face is asymmetrical" whereas you value asymmetrical faces. so we can understand WHY our judgement our different. 14:00 < kanzure> and what makes us so sure that the paragraph wasn't made up at random? 14:00 < procto> this is much like discussing elegance in mathematics, linguistics, or computer science 14:01 < kanzure> have you ever looked at some code and gone "yuck" ? 14:01 < procto> it's a useful gestalt shortcut, but I can break it down when it's needed 14:01 < procto> of course I have, like I said, elegance 14:01 < kanzure> I have looked at many pieces of nonelegant code and not gone yuck :) 14:01 < procto> there are level of inelegance :> 14:01 < procto> it's not binary 14:01 < procto> levels* 14:01 < procto> yuck is incredibly ingelegant, i.e. ugly 14:02 < procto> so certainly I understand nsh's sentiments 14:02 < procto> it's the breakdown I'm interested in 14:03 < procto> so I can understand what values are different that lead us to these different holistic judgements 14:03 < procto> I'm not being pednatic, just curious 14:03 < procto> if this decomposition is too much of a hassle, so be it 14:04 < procto> nsh: I don't understand what the paragraph means. that can be a deficiency of the author, or lack of context. if the former, then I can sort of understand your point. 14:04 < procto> EY's prose leans almost towards post-modernist directions at times, though I'm sure that isn't his intention 14:04 < nsh> ( context: http://www.sl4.org/wiki/EliezerYudkowsky/Questions ) 14:05 < procto> ah, right 14:06 < nsh> basically, this chris guy is calling EY on crap that he wrote, and EY is circling around how stupid he was by after-the-fact contextualisation 14:07 < nsh> c.f. "the writing in CFAI only makes sense in contrast..."; and "The FAI I visualized back in the CFAI era was a lot more analogous..." 14:08 < nsh> i don't wanna be a hater, i've seen this kind of layering of bullshit over the cracks in bullshit so many times 14:08 < nsh> it's just second nature for me to call it 14:08 < procto> nsh: actually, he seemed to be asking for clarifications. I understood EY's original sentences more than I did his response, and the paragraph you posted is in particular incogruous 14:08 < nsh> his intention is to ask for clarification 14:08 < nsh> his result is to call on crap :-) 14:08 < nsh> what people do and what they intend to do are often at odds 14:08 < procto> well, I seem to have a understood what you are calling crap 14:09 < nsh> but again, the individual points aren't really relevant 14:09 < nsh> it's syndromic 14:09 < procto> so something there must be the symptom of our value divergence 14:09 < nsh> attending to the symptoms blinds one to the underlying condition 14:09 < kanzure> nsh: the gap between what Eli alludes to intending to do versus what he actually does, for instance, in consideration of the paragraph that you pasted, perhaps? 14:10 < nsh> kanzure, can you ellaborate, sorry? 14:10 < kanzure> nevermind 14:10 < kanzure> I'm just trying to be a little constructive here 14:11 < procto> that sentence that chris is asking about means : "we try to make our decisions rational via some system X. However, we don't really apply system X to the decisions of others, even if sometimes we think we do, or if sometimes we think we shouldn't for the benefit of that other person" 14:11 < procto> nsh: the condition is the value divergence. there is something that you value and I don't, and vice versa. the symptom of that is an instance of that divergence. 14:12 < nsh> (my mention of symptoms was unrelated to yours; hadn't read that line when i typed the word) 14:12 < procto> once I understand the divergent values I can 1) think about my own values in that regard 2) better understand how what I may communicate to you be understood 14:12 < procto> oh, ok 14:12 < procto> :) 14:12 * nsh smiles 14:13 < nsh> invoking value-divergence is a way of circumventing the matter of whether or not we should actually be able to come simply to an agreement over whether or not he is a kook 14:13 < kanzure> ". I would estimate that any given AI project is more likely to wipe out humanity through failure of Friendly AI" 14:13 < nsh> *make_sentence_better 14:16 < procto> nsh: no no, definitely not. that's what point #1 is for. I can look at the values I hold that make me think he's not a kook (whatever deficiencies he does have) 14:16 < procto> nsh: and perhaps agree with you 14:16 < procto> I am not as much of a relativist as, say, Arnia 14:16 < procto> but I tend to lean a bit in that direction 14:18 * kanzure is completely confused by procto 14:19 < procto> http://logarchy.org/p/science.jpg 14:21 < kanzure> http://heybryan.org/camera/internet/fos.jpg 14:21 < kanzure> kidding of course 14:21 < kanzure> but turning the conversation around 14:22 < kanzure> perhaps I will not punch Eli for nsh, 14:22 < kanzure> procto, have you read Eli's ideas before? 14:22 < procto> yes, I have 14:23 < kanzure> do you also believe (as he does) that we are doomed if we don't do FAI? 14:24 < procto> not quite. 14:25 < procto> I think there is a certain probability of danger that is not negligeable, and the potential damage is so high, fai is a good insurance policy 14:25 < procto> his approach to fai may not be quite what I'd pick however 14:26 < kanzure> fai is based on a black swan though 14:26 < procto> I'm not familiar enough his specific fai theoretical underpinnings however. but from what I've seen expressed by him in a more popular manner regarding those, I don't think it is best 14:26 < kanzure> how is that a good insurance policy? 14:26 < kanzure> bsically his fai idea is to "find the theoretical basis of friendliness and make this an intrinsic component of the system, i.e. if it doesn't work, it's dead" 14:26 < kanzure> which is an awesome idea 14:26 < kanzure> but a blackswan. 14:27 < nsh> procto, i don't think that approach will work 14:27 < nsh> it's like getting a joke 14:27 < procto> risk = probability * loss, roughly 14:27 < nsh> if you don't get it, you can't look to what values you have that make you don't get it 14:27 < procto> nsh: of course you can! I always do! 14:27 < procto> and somtimes I learn to like them 14:27 < procto> like chinese jokes 14:27 < procto> I used not to be able to get them 14:28 < procto> until I immersed myself more in the culture 14:28 < nsh> right 14:28 < procto> and now I can get them much better 14:28 < nsh> but introspection won't get you far 14:28 < procto> basically, I aligned my values 14:28 < nsh> ok, i see what you're saying 14:28 < procto> certainly there are limits, but I apply introspection 14:28 < procto> very very heavily 14:29 < kanzure> "risk = probability * loss" 14:29 < kanzure> see, that doesn't make any sense to me 14:29 < procto> kanzure: so the probability is low, but imo not negligeable. I can't really quantify it due to its very nature. loss can be near total 14:29 < kanzure> you'll have to prove probability to me first 14:30 < kanzure> the only system that efficiently actualizes the universe is the universe itself 14:30 < kanzure> i.e. the process of physics 14:30 < kanzure> this is why we can't predict the future except by creating it 14:30 < procto> kanzure: part of my training and expertise is information security 14:30 < kanzure> you sir, should learn your thermodynamics 14:30 < procto> one of my motivations was specifically to deal with various hostilities in a post-human world 14:30 < kanzure> interesting 14:30 < procto> we use a rough approximation of that equation to figure out the way in which we protect information assets 14:30 < kanzure> probability means what though 14:31 < procto> security is perhaps a misnomer. survivability is being applied more often now. 14:31 < kanzure> I'd like to cite Peirce's approach to probability, but unfortunately it's not really written up on the internet 14:31 < procto> back to my point 14:31 < procto> the point is that as potential losses increase, you care less about how big or small the probability is 14:31 < kanzure> basically he argued that the only thing that matters is the actual physical process, so he'd sit down and record data from something and record those numbers 14:31 < kanzure> sure 14:31 < nsh> procto, what argument is what is applied by the people who want the LHC shut down 14:32 < nsh> *that 14:32 < nsh> i would be wary of joining their ranks 14:32 < procto> certainly 14:32 < procto> you care less about probability but not at all 14:32 < procto> not not at all* 14:32 < procto> hehe 14:32 < procto> as for the LHC, well, there are plenty of natural LHC's occuring around the universe 14:33 < procto> there aren't superhuman AIs we can point to 14:33 < procto> if we theoretical underpinnings for AIs even remotely approaching those we have for the LHC 14:33 < procto> had* 14:34 < kanzure> what? 14:34 < kanzure> Sorry, I just lost the context 14:34 < procto> it'd be much easier to estimate risk 14:34 < kanzure> what the hell is risk? 14:34 < nsh> there is no risk because the question is meaningless 14:34 < procto> that "equation" is a rule of thumb 14:34 < nsh> the friendly/unfriendly distinction offers no value 14:34 < procto> it's used to allocate resources 14:34 < nsh> until we have some idea of what an AI would be like 14:34 < nsh> it's a pointless distraction 14:34 < procto> where risk is greater, more resources are allocated 14:35 < nsh> (like most pseudophilosophy) 14:35 * kanzure still doesn't know what risk is 14:35 * nsh back in a bit 14:35 < kanzure> "risk is ... expos[ure] to a cahnce or loss or damage" 14:35 < kanzure> exposure to a chance?? 14:35 < kanzure> so when you're within 50 feet of a "probability" ? 14:35 < kanzure> exposure theory of probability 14:35 < kanzure> oh boy :) 14:37 < procto> risk is the uncertainty of a negative impact. it should be used as a relative measure. that is, one shouldn't be driving absolute measures of risk. one could, but I don't they would be meaningful. 14:37 < procto> so, a quick example: 14:37 < kanzure> uncertainty of a negative impact? so, basically, a black swan 14:37 < kanzure> so let's just not use blackswans in our projects 14:37 < procto> organization has 2 servers, there are X resources one can dedicate to protect them. server A has data more valuable than B. hence, a bigger fraction of X is spent to protect it. 14:38 < procto> it's a relative uncertainty 14:39 < procto> that is, server A is a bigger risk than server B 14:39 < procto> assuming probability of either being attacked is the same 14:39 < procto> one would evaluate the relative risk only while allocating resources 14:39 < procto> such as resources for research FAI versus other things 14:40 < procto> I don't think UFAI is as much of a catastrophic risk as EY does 14:40 < kanzure> I still don't understand risk. if you're running out of resources in this god damn galaxy then you have bigger issues to deal with 14:40 < procto> so I don't think we should devote as many resources as he wants 14:41 < procto> you are assuming infinite resources. this may be true in the long term. but in the short term, one has limited resources. man-power, dollars in the bank, factories, math phds 14:41 < kanzure> I am not assuming infinite resources 14:41 < procto> all scarce resources 14:41 < kanzure> I am assuming that we're going to recognize the context in which these considerations are taking place ... 14:41 < kanzure> you have to admit that risk is just your quickfix to the bigger problem 14:41 < procto> risk is used in a particular type of resrouce distribution problem 14:41 < kanzure> it's like a bandaid that doesn't even cover up the serious problems 14:42 < kanzure> resource distribution? why not just focus on the rate of acquisition of materials instead? then you can distribute it effectively as a growth function of some sort 14:42 < procto> the serious problem? you mean the inability to accurately calculate probability for certain events? 14:42 < procto> then yes 14:42 < kanzure> what? 14:42 < kanzure> the serious problem of gathering resources 14:42 < kanzure> heh' 14:42 < kanzure> i.e., you'll argue "but we can't devote resources to space travel!" 14:42 < kanzure> holy fuck that's a bad situation then, no? 14:42 < procto> to tackle the problem of gathering resources you need to allocate it resources 14:42 < kanzure> sure 14:42 < procto> chicken, eggs, loops, catch 22's, etc. 14:43 < procto> at any specific point in time, one will always have a limited amount of deployable resources 14:43 < procto> these includes human as well as physical resources 14:43 < kanzure> nobody's arguing that 14:43 < kanzure> it's why we have caches 14:43 < kanzure> *arguing against that 14:44 < procto> risk is a particular factor (only a factor) in a heuristic for determining beneficial distribution in a particular class of resource distribution problems. 14:44 < procto> does that clarify? 14:45 < kanzure> I just don't know why you would prefer to be uncertain (risk = "the uncertainty of a negative impact") 14:45 < kanzure> just avoid that in the design 14:45 < kanzure> I don't see what the problem is. 14:46 < kanzure> i.e., risk that you will be hit by a drunk driver -- get rid of the drunk, the car, or don't go outside (there are a few other options) 14:47 < kanzure> (by "the car" I mean, how about a system that actually, you know, doesn't dependent on a drunk driver) 14:47 < procto> you wouldn't prefer to be uncertain, but uncertainty is a fundamental fact of the universe 14:48 < kanzure> it's a factor of your design ... you either know your system can work or you know it won't, and if you don't know if it will work then you can always test it 14:48 < kanzure> well, usually you can test it 14:48 < procto> so, one can design systems with a different level of uncertainty 14:48 < procto> with better probabilities 14:48 < procto> and lower losses 14:48 < procto> that's one way to reduce risk 14:48 < procto> and you apply it to problems which you deem are high risk :) 14:48 < kanzure> ? 14:48 < kanzure> uh? 14:48 < kanzure> so give me an example 14:48 < kanzure> where 'risk' is a useful determinant 14:48 < kanzure> or a useful tool I mean 14:49 < procto> other than the server example I gave? 14:49 < kanzure> which I already solved 14:49 < kanzure> you shouldn't really be worrying about the server if you're running out of resources in this galaxy 14:49 < procto> I must have missed that 14:49 < kanzure> no, I mentioned it, then went on to the bandaid stuf 14:49 < kanzure> *stuff 14:49 < kanzure> etc. 14:50 < procto> yes, but how does that apply? I don't understand. let's say you have 7 sys admins 14:50 < procto> those are your resources 14:50 < procto> how would you allocate them between server A and B? 14:50 < kanzure> why do I have 7 system admins when I need programmers ? 14:50 < kanzure> it's a computer, most of these tasks can be automated 14:51 < procto> you're rewinding back time. 14:51 < kanzure> the same with a server farm -- just nobody has put a server farm "in a box" yet I guess 14:51 < kanzure> what? 14:51 < procto> at each of those points, you would still be faced with a resource allocation problem. 14:51 < procto> yes, ideally, we can look at any system and completely overhaul it 14:51 < procto> but... we can't. 14:51 < kanzure> you can't 14:51 < procto> we can do it so some systems. 14:51 < kanzure> but I bet I can 14:51 < kanzure> or at least find people who can help me heh' 14:51 < kanzure> (etc.) 14:51 < kanzure> (I'm not really that conceited) 14:52 < procto> I think you misunderstand. I do not say it isn't impssible in theory. Or even impossible in practice. I mean that it is not something that you can do under those conditions. 14:52 < procto> I'll explain 14:52 < kanzure> your conditions are significantly more restricting than reality 14:53 < kanzure> in fact I think you're assuming, within your scenario, that there might have even been past decisions that I have made that have made me stupid and I for some reason have 7 sys admins when they aren't going to be all that useful 14:53 < kanzure> I mean, I can assume that sys admins could be used to solve those problems or whatever, but I don't know why I need to use resources to maintain the servers themselves when they are mostly self contained systems anyway 14:53 < kanzure> for the tasks that need to be dealt with. 14:54 < procto> you are doing the SATs. The question is if a train left station A at 4pm at 50mph and a train left station B at 8 pm at 80mph, train from station B stops X miles short of station A. What speed should it go to prevent colliding with train from A? 14:54 < procto> and your answer would be: should've designed a better automated train routing system. 14:54 < procto> yes you are correct 14:54 < procto> but at that point in time, that is not the case. 14:54 < kanzure> why should I be responsible for your stupid system though ? 14:54 < procto> you certainly shouldn't be 14:54 < kanzure> heh 14:55 < kanzure> so then what's the problem? 14:55 < procto> and as I said, ideally it can be redesigned 14:55 < kanzure> but it can be 14:55 < kanzure> it's not just ideally 14:55 < procto> in my example, "you" are an infosec consultant. you can tell the company who already did something stupid in their design that they need to rebuild it, and they will fire your ass, and you're lucky if you even get a visit fee. 14:55 < procto> or you can put a "bandaid" 14:55 < kanzure> okay? 14:55 < procto> it will be the optimal band-aid. 14:56 < kanzure> wonder why I got a job there 14:56 < procto> well, you'd notice that I'm not currently employed as an infosec consultant for that reason :> I don't like bandaids 14:56 < procto> however, it is very very very hard to do much else but more complex and sophisticated band aids 14:56 < kanzure> hm, infosec is real 14:57 < procto> the alternative is a revolution 14:57 < procto> and those are usually pretty bloody 14:58 < kanzure> you want to kill me because I don't think your 'risk' tool is useful? 14:58 < kanzure> or at least make me bleed 14:58 < procto> no, I mean that if your goal is revolution you may make people bleed even if that's not your intention 14:59 < procto> I am interested in bandaids that don't cover your skin, but integrate and improve 14:59 < procto> until one day you are nothing but a sum of your "bandaids" 14:59 < procto> to be metaphorical about it 15:00 < procto> one can change a bad design iteratively 15:00 < procto> on the fly auto-refactoring 15:00 < procto> (that's auto=self, not necessarily auto=automatic) 15:00 < procto> we started this line of questioning with "risk" 15:01 < kanzure> ah, well, 15:01 < procto> risk is a concept I would use to to evaluate where I should be putting more bandaids and how expensive they should be 15:01 < procto> I'm using your terms so perhaps it's clearer, because I wasn't clear enough before 15:01 < kanzure> I see that you might be implying the use of on-the-fly risk assessment by various agents that are doing stuff for whatever reason 15:01 < kanzure> and I agree with you that this makes it a somewhat optimizing system over time peraps 15:01 < kanzure> *perhaps 15:01 < kanzure> but whatever. :) 15:02 < procto> risk is a very fuzzy concept 15:02 < kanzure> for something so important? 15:02 < kanzure> :( 15:02 < procto> yes 15:02 < procto> there are fields of science that are young and and uncertain 15:02 < procto> systems theory, which this is part of, is barely even a theory 15:03 < procto> cybernetics is fun and clever, but also very incomplete, and most definitely not sexy enough these days for enough resources to be devoted 15:03 < procto> risk isn't always the hueristic for resource allocation. I find that sexiness is a much more commonly used one :) 15:05 < kanzure> I am not interested in a quick fix. 15:06 < kanzure> but I am glad that you can understand the analogy here between quickfix/bandaid and something more fundamental 15:07 < kanzure> so within this context I suppose I can understand risk as a bandaid tool, sure 15:07 < kanzure> but I guess it all just has more importance that demands, from me, something more than a quickfix 15:14 < procto> your choice of terms indicates your negative attitute towards them, which is why there was a slight delay before I was able to use them without slight cognitive dissonance :> (introspection helps once again) 15:16 < kanzure> now then 15:16 < procto> so now we can see the value divergence, right? 15:16 < kanzure> back to information security for a sec 15:16 < procto> kk 15:16 < kanzure> there are many that say that 'security' is impossible given the second law of thermodynamics 15:16 < kanzure> except perhaps one time pads 15:16 < kanzure> but that's kind of in the name -- assuming it's truly a one time pad 15:16 < kanzure> and even then ;-) 15:16 < procto> I would tell you that security is impossible given anecdotal history 15:17 < kanzure> hah 15:17 < kanzure> :) 15:17 < procto> it is a maxim in infosec that 'no system is secure against a sufficiently determined attacker' 15:17 < procto> as i said, the paradigm these days is shiting towards survivability 15:17 < procto> which is what the better infoseccers were doing all along 15:17 < procto> just calling it something else 15:18 < procto> it's a mix of prevention, detection, and recovery 15:18 < kanzure> is it bad that one of the results for googling 'infosec' is 'infowar' 15:18 < kanzure> ah, good 15:18 < kanzure> so it's more holistic than just 15:18 < kanzure> "well, let's hope it holds" 15:18 < procto> most certainly 15:18 < kanzure> "let's hope it holds" is not a good strategy IMHO 15:18 < procto> the big vendors would have you believe that a big enough firewall is what you need 15:18 < procto> but well, that's just like building a very big very thick wall 15:18 < kanzure> case and point 15:18 < kanzure> China 15:19 < procto> and believing that's absolute security 15:19 < kanzure> again, China 15:19 < procto> I'm as proficienct in methods of physical access as the more incorporeal kind 15:20 < procto> because the best software security policy doesn't help you when a guy dressed as a janitor walks into your hq with a usb key in his pocket 15:21 < kanzure> or a screw driver 15:21 * fenn grumbles about so-called "information security" really being "secrecy" 15:21 < kanzure> multiply redundant drives, remember? 15:22 < procto> fenn: are you refering to security by obscurity? 15:23 < procto> or a general distatste for preventing information from being free? 15:23 < procto> because security by obscurity doesnt work, and I certainly believe that information should be free 15:23 < procto> but only insofar as it improves the balance of power-knowledge 15:24 < procto> once there is a homogenous distribution, not necessarily totally equal, true freedom of information can be enacted 15:24 < procto> (defining my terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-knowledge) 15:25 < fenn> general distaste for property and especially intellectual property 15:25 < kanzure> methinks 'property' is an equally ridiculous bandaid 15:25 < kanzure> no, perhaps even more of one 15:29 < procto> well, property is born out of scarcity. since as far as I understand it your goal is to eliminate scarcity, you would certainly be against property 15:29 < kanzure> fenn: I wonder if my bandaid approach is a good approach to talking about Eli's stuff 15:29 < kanzure> not quite the goal really 15:29 < kanzure> but your reasoning is correct 15:29 < procto> an ancillary effect :) 15:29 < kanzure> I should have written out what it was that I was talking with ybit about 15:29 < kanzure> hope he remembers 15:29 < procto> I would like to see the elimination of scracity, in which case property would not be necessary 15:30 < procto> but as long as there is a scarcity of a resource, I support property rights as far as that resource is concerned 15:30 < kanzure> what the hell are property rights? 15:30 < procto> for things subsumed with IP scarcity is very hard to define 15:31 < procto> property is a bandaid against violence. it's what even little children design to prevent *constant* fighting over the best toys. 15:31 < procto> there can be multiple systems 15:31 < procto> but as I said, it's a bandaid that results from scarcity 15:31 < procto> IP isn't valid because most acorporeal things are not scarce 15:32 < procto> property "rights" are whatever system one uses to allocate scarce resources. not refering to one particular system. 15:32 < procto> I was just saying that one should be used in the case of scarcity 15:36 < kanzure> fenn: how about a constraints markup language for the identification of avenues of research? 15:36 < kanzure> this is basically what I was talking with ybit about 15:36 < kanzure> this way we can formalize the "possibility space" that might be interesting to explore 15:37 < kanzure> and at the same time make Google Moupse or Google Earth/brain an interface to generating these constraints-files given the tagging that individuals do (just make it very simple for them to make structured data sets in the backend) 15:37 < kanzure> for instance "a mutation involving genes might be of interest to " but this isn't a good way to put it ... "might be of interest to " is not formal 15:38 < kanzure> perhaps "might be of relevance to the well-defined experimental model from " 15:47 < fenn> why not just call it "google mouse" 15:48 < fenn> moupse looks like a typo (and probably was at some point) 15:48 < kanzure> dunno, it's what the page calls itself 15:48 < kanzure> google mouse is ok with me though 15:48 < kanzure> "if you give a mouse a cookie .." 15:49 < fenn> "if a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port" 15:50 < fenn> "You can't say this? What a shame sir! We'll find you, Another game sir." 15:53 < kanzure> is it bad if I recalled the rest of the rhyme after that ? 15:54 < kanzure> "And the microcode instructions cause unnecessary risc," 15:55 < kanzure> bah, since when is RISC unnecessary 15:55 < kanzure> :) 15:55 * kanzure wonders what's up with giving Google free publicity here 15:57 < procto> kanzure: re:previous discussion. I think of FAI as a sort of "security by design" approach, much like you wanted to do with the servers. is EY's way the best way to be secure via a fundamental design characteristic? not necessarily, but it's one such approach, and I see few viable contenders in that area. 15:57 < procto> but I must be afk now for a bit 15:57 < kanzure> don't go :) 15:57 < kanzure> that's secure by totalitarian rule 15:57 < kanzure> or I mean, that's what it's saying 15:57 < kanzure> it's definitely not the truth 15:58 < kanzure> the problem is that we worry people will die, no? and other things as well 15:58 < kanzure> clearly the solution isn't "make everything that is created from now on, intrinsically friendly!" 15:59 < kanzure> perhaps instead we should focus on making some backups and sending them off to the stars and other locations 15:59 < kanzure> "but what about Vinge's ai that will run after you and hunt you down?" meh, guess all of life is hopeless then. boo hoo. let's not even try to live. 16:20 < kanzure> a malevolent being trying to destroy the galaxies ... where's Flash Gordon when you need him? 16:41 -!- jm|earth [n=jm@p57B9C042.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #hplusroadmap 17:02 < procto> kanzure: maybe I misunderstand what he means by Friendly, or what you mean by Friendly 17:02 < procto> as for malevolant AIs, well, since we cannot model a superhuman's AIs thoughts, those cannot be crossed out 17:03 < procto> there's probably a bias in fiction authors' overwhelming preference for horrible catastrophes that must be surmounted 17:03 < procto> that's a bias in the people who prefer to read such stories 17:04 < procto> but the set of potential outcomes is non-countable 17:06 -!- ybit is now known as flash_gordon 17:06 < flash_gordon> did someone call? 17:06 -!- flash_gordon is now known as ybit 17:10 < kanzure> whether or not a malevolent ai emerges should not be your main concern 17:10 < kanzure> survivability, regardless of malevolent force, is the idea .. 17:10 < kanzure> no? 17:11 < ybit> so what do you plan to speak about at biobarcamp? 17:12 < kanzure> I'm worrying that my answer to that is "everything" 17:12 < ybit> hehe 17:15 < ybit> it's all interesting, and you can't really give too much of a detailed speech in a limited time, so choosing to speak about everything may be the best choice 17:15 < kanzure> not really, that's too self-centered 17:16 < kanzure> so I'm probably going to talk about skdb and how people have been lazy and not contributing to the git repo 17:16 < kanzure> (maybe insulting them isn't the best way to go about things :-) 17:16 < ybit> :P 17:17 < kanzure> http://www.visitcalifornia.com/state/tourism/tour_inc_navigation.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1723516698.1046124524@@@@&BV_EngineID=gadcgicfhilhbemgcfkmchcog.0&PrimaryCat=Regions&SecondCat=San+Francisco+Bay+Area 17:17 < kanzure> what the hell is a License Exception? 17:17 < kanzure> ERROR: you are not licensed to visit SF ? 17:18 < ybit> grr, javascript 17:18 < kanzure> "ERROR: gaydar detecting a straight guy!" 17:18 < ybit> lol 17:18 < kanzure> look at that nasty URL 17:18 < kanzure> BV_EngineID=gadcgicfhilhbemgcfkmchcog.0 17:18 < kanzure> what type of variable is that.. 17:23 < kanzure> http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/info/default.asp woah, this guy looks serious 17:23 < kanzure> double handed mouse 17:23 < kanzure> heh 17:28 -!- nsh- [n=nsh@87-94-146-186.tampere.customers.dnainternet.fi] has joined #hplusroadmap 17:31 * kanzure is done webhunting for phone numbers 17:31 < kanzure> so presentable material for biobarcamp 17:31 < kanzure> hm 17:31 -!- nsh [n=nsh@87-94-146-186.tampere.customers.dnainternet.fi] has quit [Nick collision from services.] 17:31 -!- nsh- is now known as nsh 17:31 < kanzure> really I'm just good at link dumping 17:32 < kanzure> these websites always have better tutorials than I can give off the top of my head (well. to varying extents) 17:32 < kanzure> I was trying this: http://heybryan.org/ia.html 17:33 < kanzure> but I'm not too sure about it since, again, it's mostly just links 17:35 < kanzure> you know Google's crappy gchat interface with popups and so on? it would be interesting to implement this across my webserver on all HTTP HTML output (as a filter) so that I could send messages to users browsing my content 17:36 < kanzure> I fetch a very significant number of people in my tar pits 17:36 < kanzure> the http://heybryan.org/~bbishop/search/ stuff 19:02 < kanzure> gahhhh 19:02 < kanzure> thermal cooling PASTE 19:02 < kanzure> rawr 19:02 * kanzure tears up the dorm looking for some paste :) 19:15 < kanzure> the cpu is running at 174 degrees Fahrenheit 19:16 < kanzure> my laptop shuts down at 43 C. monolith is climbing to 80 C .... 19:16 < kanzure> oh boy. 19:17 -!- Netsplit zelazny.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh, kanzure_, jm|earth, freer, procto, ybit 19:17 -!- Netsplit over, joins: nsh, jm|earth, ybit, procto, kanzure_, freer 21:55 < kanzure> " Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has proposed that the government offer $300 million to whoever invents a battery compact enough, powerful enough and cheap enough to replace fossil fuels.H" 21:55 < kanzure> delicious 21:56 < kanzure> http://www.innocentive.com/ 21:56 < kanzure> "innovation management" 21:56 < kanzure> this is totally bullshit 22:12 * kanzure grabs all of the challenges 22:12 < kanzure> http://gw.innocentive.com/ar/discipline/index?offset=0&max=1000&viewMode=abstract&categoryName=Chemistry&challenge-search-text=&subCategoryName=All&challenge-sort-by=challengeNumber&challenge-order-by=desc 22:16 < kanzure> "long ago Sun set us up as being in competition with Keith Henson's group to port NeWS to the Mac ... if we'd been introduced as potential collaborators instead we may well have got it delivered soon enough and well enough that NeWS would have displaced X and techincal history would look a lot different" 22:16 < kanzure> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS 22:17 < kanzure> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS 22:17 < kanzure> oops 22:17 < kanzure> evidently Keith Henson and Tony were competing on that one ... 22:17 < kanzure> porting it to the Mac or some such. 22:18 < kanzure> also: 22:18 < kanzure> http://heybryan.org/challenges.html 22:18 < kanzure> because I think the innocentive.com website is bullshit. there's an entire output of their database 22:54 < kanzure> I wonder if NIH/DARPA would be interested in a semantic 'grant' framework 23:05 < ybit> i would :) 23:05 < ybit> especially when in the coming year 23:06 < ybit> -when 23:07 < ybit> grantgopher.com just doesn't cut it 23:44 < kanzure> Thomas De Marse 23:44 < kanzure> aha 23:45 < kanzure> he's the guy that does the "brain chips" that fly virtual planes 23:55 < ybit> sooo... am i wasting my time teaching myself 30 minutes everyday? 23:55 < ybit> +spanish 23:55 < kanzure> teaching yourself what? 23:55 < kanzure> Spanish? 23:55 < ybit> indeed 23:55 < kanzure> yes 23:55 < kanzure> just go into some spanish channels 23:55 < ybit> heh, why? 23:56 < kanzure> well, if your attitude is 'teach' yeah 23:56 < ybit> learning* then 23:57 < ybit> i'm already annoying those in #wikipedia-es :) 23:57 < ybit> the topic isn't specific, so i can do this 23:58 < ybit> unlike #python-es or #gentoo-es