The words you guys use, "dystopian", "doomsday", etc. etc. are all from fiction. These are literally categories of genre-fiction. You're seriously trying to make straight faced predictions about the future using what is literally in the book store under "Fiction". Something that is by definition not real, a fabrication, a lie. How can you possibly expect me to take you seriously or grasp what it is that I'm doing? You've taken stories you know are fake and mapped them to the real world. How is that any different from religion? I'm giving you guys mathematical arguments and you're giving me Dr. Seuss.
And you've put words in my mouth to suit your narrative. The story you want to believe. A story that's fake by defintion.
Don't you see how messed up that is? Well, Hitchen's Razor says that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's my razor, "What can be asserted with fiction can be dismissed with fiction". This is a bulwark against those who insist on living in a world of fantasy and superstition. But for the rest of us, those who want to live in reality, I'm giving you the real world.
The words you guys use "dystopian", "doomsday", etc. etc. are all from fiction. These are literally categories of genre-fiction. You're seriously trying to make straight faced predictions about the future using what is literally in the book store under "Fiction". Something that is by definition not real, a fabrication, a lie. How can you possibly expect me to take you seriously or grasp what it is that I'm doing? You've taken stories you know are fake and mapped them to the real world. How is that any different from religion? I'm giving you guys mathematical arguments and you're giving me Dr. Seuss.
And you've put words in my mouth to suit your narrative. The story you want to believe. A story that's fake by defintion.
Don't you see how messed up that is? Well, Hitchen's Razor says that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's my razor, "What can be asserted with fiction can be dismissed with fiction". This is a bulwark against those who insist on living in a world of fantasy and superstition. But for the rest of us, those who want to live in reality, I'm giving you the real world.
You're looking at something and calling it 'surveillance' because you don't yet have a word to describe the entire thing. It's too new so you see it through your 'old eyes'. You noticed there was a camera involved and you knew what that was so you ran with it.
It's the proverbial blind man whose hand has happened to land on the tusk and he tells his companions, "It's a spear!". You're not seeing the whole elephant because you've never seen one.
It benefits you when other people have knowledge about the world. It benefits you if other people have the knowledge to drive safely. It benefits you that your neighbours have a basic knowledge of germ theory and don't throw their sewage in the streets like medieval peasants. It benefits you that your fellow voters have at least a basic education and can make somewhat informed decisions. It benefits you that medical knowledge isn't locked away in some vault in Alexandria but it's in the mind of the doctor whose preventing an outbreak of some disease you happen to be susceptible to.
Did you not read the things I was able to learn just from my first node? We can give so many people free access to information that would push back darkness, fear and superstition just a little further. And these people would do and build things that would make your life better.
So instead of channelling the Archbishop of Canterbury telling Bible translator John Wycliffe that too much knowledge will corrupt the commoners, open your eyes.
Exactly. The real world is comprised of data, and the more we restrict it to private interest, private interest gets to reap more benefits.
Information is only leverage against you if it's not public.
It's funny that the words they use, "dystopian", "doomsdayish" etc. etc. ... are all from fiction. these are literally categories of genre-fiction. They're trying to make straight faced predictions about the future using what is literally in the book store under "Fiction". Something that is by definition not real, a fabrication, a lie. How can they possibly expect me to take them seriously or grasp what it is that I'm doing? They've taken stories they know are fake and mapped them to the real world. How is that any different from religion? I'm giving them mathematical arguments and they're giving me Dr. Seuss.
That's messed up. Well, Hitchen's Razor says that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's my razor, "What can be asserted with fiction can be dismissed with fiction". This is a bulwark against those who insist on living in a world of fantasy and superstition. But for the rest of us, those who want to live in reality, I'm giving you the real world.
Yes, this is what I mean on the site in postulate '3. Data Symmetry' by a "scorched earth policy". Someone can't use it unilaterally as exclusive leverage if everyone else knows it too.
From wikipedia: "A scorched-earth policy is a military strategy that aims to destroy anything that might be useful to the enemy while it is advancing through or withdrawing from a location".
There's no unilateral benefit to hording valuable data about the natural world because Grassland's AI independently causes information inflation.
(I responded to your other question in a different reply)
> And can you talk about how your group theory link relates to the project?
You mean GLn(F)? That's a really, really cheesy kind of math joke that doesn't really work well. It's the symbol for 'The general linear group of degree n over any field F'.
But if you stay up too long writing code, well then you might realize it can also be used as a pun/pseudo-acronym on the word 'Grassland'. Take the first three letters, GLN and what do you get? ...GrassLaNd. I know, right. Keep your shirt on. This party ain't over yet.
And the 'F', well that's a 'field', right. like grass in a field. Ooohhh... Yeah... get it?... Oh Yeah, I bet you're impressed now.
And Bonus! The transformations of that group are 'symmetries'...
'Symmetry' as in the opposite of 'asymmetry'... You know... like how Grassland tries to promote symmetry... uh-huh... yep. That's right. I bet you're rolling on the floor with laughter now.
...So yeah, it's not at all a good joke. And yes, I am really fun at parties.
As I stated to the parent comment, I didn't mean to offend. My choice of words could use some improvement. Here's further explanation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19537047
Your licensing terms are less offensive, and more invalid from incoherency and encouraging of illegal actions as well as showing a deep misunderstanding of what valid licensing and contract terms even are.
At least he is making it open, governments won't. While this is worrying, it is inevitable (satellite surveillance, road cameras etc - everything is in place, it's just about time), so I'm happy we're getting it this way and start working on learning to live with it. I'd hate to have to learn how to live under an oppressive government again (I'm from a former eastern bloc country), so this is definitely welcomed by me - this way I can keep track of the secret police.
It's funny that the words they use, "dystopian", "doomsdayish" etc. etc. ... are all from fiction. These are literally categories of genre-fiction. They're trying to make straight faced predictions about the future using what is literally in the book store under "Fiction". Something that is by definition not real, a fabrication, a lie. How can they possibly expect me to take them seriously or grasp what it is that I'm doing? They've taken stories they know are fake and mapped them to the real world. How is that any different from religion? I'm giving them mathematical arguments and they're giving me Dr. Seuss.
That's messed up. Well, Hitchen's Razor says that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's my razor, "What can be asserted with fiction can be dismissed with fiction". This is a bulwark against those who insist on living in a world of fantasy and superstition. But for the rest of us, those who want to live in reality, I'm giving you the real world.
Yes, frankly I see the current strong tendency to use metaphors and labeling as one of the greatest diseases of this age. IMHO it simplifies and degrades any topic it touches to the point of nonsense, which of course means that any subsequent discussion is nonsense. Metaphors and labels also carry emotions that are very complex AND totally individual, which makes them even worse for discussions.
The TL;DR of the linked comment/explanation above is:
* OP built a neural network (Deep Paranoia) similar to GPT-2 + DeepDream that can generate text for any narrative, and identified that anyone could use such a system to reinforce any (false or not) narrative they want
* OP then built a symmetric surveillance system (Grassland) focused on "truths" (derived from proof of work from IRL video feeds) to help protect humanity against a future in which auto-generated false narratives are widespread, intending to provide common people with something closer to omniscience such that they can see more (spatially and temporally) to be able to verify fact against potentially false narratives
It's doomsday-ish, but seems like a natural evolution of tech in this space. And understandable why building the former (Deep Paranoia) would prompt someone to build the latter (Grassland).
Obviously you can't have a "we have the right to harass you" clause in a copyright agreement, though. Threatening to do so is quite extreme.
The words people throw around here, "dystopian", "doomsday", etc. etc. are all from fiction. These are literally categories of genre-fiction. They're seriously trying to make straight faced predictions about the future using what is literally in the book store under "Fiction". Something that is by definition not real, a fabrication, a lie. How can people possibly expect me to take them seriously or grasp what it is that I'm doing? You can't take stories you know are fake and map them to the real world. How is that any different from religion? I'm giving people mathematical arguments and they're giving me Dr. Seuss.
And here you've put words in my mouth to suit your narrative. The story you want to believe. A story that's fake by defintion.
Don't you see how messed up that is? Well, Hitchen's Razor says that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's my razor, "What can be asserted with fiction can be dismissed with fiction". My software is a bulwark against those who insist on living in a world of fantasy and superstition. But for the rest of us, those who want to live in reality, I'm giving you the real world.
And it's not 'deep paranoia'. It's 'Deep Schizophrenia'
