TomasBM (u/TomasBM) - Readit News

TomasBM commented on Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England news.sky.com/story/facial... · Posted by u/amarcheschi

conartist6 · 18 days ago

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

We are going to be hearing that argument a lot as the AI police state evolves

TomasBM · 17 days ago

"It's not that I have something to hide. It's that I have nothing I want you to see."

A great quote from an otherwise OK movie ("Anon").

TomasBM commented on My AI skeptic friends are all nuts fly.io/blog/youre-all-nut... · Posted by u/tabletcorry

pj_mukh · 3 months ago

"It will power scams on an unimaginable scale. It will destabilize labor at a speed that will make the Industrial Revolution seem like a gentle breeze."

I keep hearing this but have yet to find a good resource to study the issues. Most of what I've read so far falls into two buckets:

"It'll hijack our minds via Social Media" - in which case Social Media is the original sin and the problem we should be dealing with, not AI.

or

"It'll make us obsolete" - I use the cutting edge AI, and it will not, not anytime soon. Even if it does, I don't want to be a lamplighter rioting, I want to have long moved on.

So what other good theories of safety can I read? Genuine question.

TomasBM · 3 months ago

Slightly tangential: A lot of these issues are philosophical in origin, because we don't have priors to study. But just because, for example, advanced nanotechnology doesn't exist yet, that doesn't mean we can't imagine some potential problems based on analogical things (viruses, microplastics) or educated assumptions.

That's why there's no single source that's useful to study issues related to AI. Until we see an incident, we will never know for sure what is just a possibility and what is (not) an urgent or important issue [1].

So, the best we can do is analogize based on analogical things. For example: the centuries of Industrial Revolution and the many disruptive events that followed; history of wars and upheavals, many of which were at least partially caused by labor-related problems [2]; labor disruptions in the 20th century, including proliferation of unions, offshoring, immigration, anticolonialism, etc.

> "Social Media is the original sin"

In the same way that radio, television and the Internet are the "original sin" in large-scale propaganda-induced violence.

> "I want to have long moved on."

Only if you have where to go. Others may not be that mobile or lucky. If autonomous trucks can make the trucking profession obsolete, it's questionable how quickly can truckers "move on".

[1] For example, remote systems existed for quite some time, yet we've only seen a few assassination attempts. Does that mean that slaughterbots are not a real issue? It's unclear and too early to say.

[2] For example, high unemployment and low economic mobility in post-WW1 Germany; serfdom in Imperial Russia.

TomasBM commented on My AI skeptic friends are all nuts fly.io/blog/youre-all-nut... · Posted by u/tabletcorry

pj_mukh · 3 months ago

"It will power scams on an unimaginable scale. It will destabilize labor at a speed that will make the Industrial Revolution seem like a gentle breeze."

I keep hearing this but have yet to find a good resource to study the issues. Most of what I've read so far falls into two buckets:

"It'll hijack our minds via Social Media" - in which case Social Media is the original sin and the problem we should be dealing with, not AI.

or

"It'll make us obsolete" - I use the cutting edge AI, and it will not, not anytime soon. Even if it does, I don't want to be a lamplighter rioting, I want to have long moved on.

So what other good theories of safety can I read? Genuine question.

TomasBM · 3 months ago

Slightly tangential: A lot of these issues are philosophical in origin, because we don't have priors to study. But just because, for example, advanced nanotechnology doesn't exist yet, that doesn't mean we can't imagine some potential problems based on analogical things (viruses, microplastics) or educated assumptions.

That's why there's no single source that's useful to study issues related to AI. Until we see an incident, we will never know for sure what is just a possibility and what is (not) an urgent or important issue [1].

So, the best we can do is analogize based on analogical things. For example: the centuries of Industrial Revolution and the many disruptive events that followed; history of wars and upheavals, many of which were at least partially caused by labor-related problems [2]; labor disruptions in the 20th century, including proliferation of unions, offshoring, immigration, anticolonialism, etc.

> "Social Media is the original sin"

In the same way that radio, television and the Internet are the "original sin" in large-scale propaganda-induced violence.

> "I want to have long moved on."

Only if you have where to go. Others may not be that mobile or lucky.

[1] For example, remote systems existed for quite some time, yet we've only seen a few assassination attempts. Does that mean that slaughterbots are not a real issue? It's unclear and too early to say.

[2] For example, high unemployment and low economic mobility in post-WW1 Germany; serfdom in Imperial Russia.

TomasBM commented on My AI skeptic friends are all nuts fly.io/blog/youre-all-nut... · Posted by u/tabletcorry

brokencode · 3 months ago

AI feels particularly disruptive now because it’s new and we don’t know how it will affect society yet.

But people surely felt the same way about gunpowder, the steam engine, electricity, cars, phones, planes, nukes, etc.

Or look at specific professions that software has negatively affected in recent decades. Not a lot of people use travel agents anymore, for example.

I’m not saying that the negative effects are good. But that’s just the nature of technological advancement. It’s up to society to adapt and help out those who have been most negatively affected.

TomasBM · 3 months ago

They're not really comparable.

AI is not only a general-purpose technology (such as, e.g., electricity or computers), but also the only one that can self-improve. Also, its potential for diffusion is much bigger, because unlike for electricity and computers, barriers are much more easily overcome [1].

But I'd suggest looking at this not as a separate "technology" like airplanes or smartphones, but rather as a software breakthrough. Everything that worried people about software [2] in the 20th and the early 21st century - or anything that came to pass on a smaller scale - is now much more worrisome.

[1] Pretty much any person or machine today that has access to electricity and computers can use AI, thanks to subscription models, cloud computing, VC subsidies, web access, etc.

[2] For example, large-scale automation and job loss, mass surveillance, robot swarms, etc.

TomasBM commented on Standard Ebooks: liberated ebooks, carefully produced for the true book lover standardebooks.org... · Posted by u/tosh

rr808 · 5 months ago

I like the idea. I read a bunch of classics from Gutenberg. In reality so many old books are very long and boring I ended up getting more modern books from the library instead.

Maybe TikTok ruined me but maybe these things really do literally have a shelf life. Hopefully reformatting will help. Perhaps a better way to review and find the gems would be most helpful..

TomasBM · 5 months ago

Perhaps it's not just about the 'shelf life' of a book, but also the language and style they use. The more archaic the language, and the more distant the style that the author's use, the harder it is for me to focus on the book.

Perhaps it would be useful to have expertly abridged and modernized versions of (e)books, with interpreter's notes for each change.

TomasBM commented on What if we made advertising illegal? simone.org/advertising/... · Posted by u/smnrg

twoodfin · 5 months ago

Hard liquor ads are all over (e.g.) broadcasts of NFL games.

Cigarette advertising “bans” are not legislated, IIRC, but a result of the various consolidated settlements of the 1990s-era lawsuits against the tobacco companies. They’re essentially voluntary, and it’s not obvious that a genuine ban would survive constitutional scrutiny. It might: Commercial speech is among the least protected forms of speech.

But at some point a line is crossed: Painting “Read the New York Times” on the side of a barn you own is bread & butter freedom of expression.

TomasBM · 5 months ago

Outside the US (e.g., Europe), advertising bans for tobacco and liquor can work quite well.

Sure, there will always be bad cases and loopholes - even bans on murder don't work 100% - but there's a reason "bans" are still a viable mechanism.

TomasBM commented on Sitters and Standers pudding.cool/2024/11/sitt... · Posted by u/feross

dzink · 9 months ago

Brain work for me is like muscles for others - if I don’t squeeze out every ounce of energy from my brain with problems all day, I feel like I haven’t lived a full day. Many people prefer good workouts instead, if they don’t their body is punitive with restlessness and sleeplessness. Code is my infinite playground but others won’t touch it - despite me trying to convince them for years. They would rather work in the sun, or with other people, or in a busy environment.

People filter themselves into jobs they would rather do, when they have awareness of the possibilities. With social media that awareness is increasing.

I’ve had friends who had the definition of blue collar standing job and chose to transition to nursing, which is another standing job.

Immigration status and lack of language skills may tie you to standing jobs, but if people want to learn and grow out of them, in the US there are pathways. If someone curates a course on career pathways via youtube and spreads them through immigration centers and schools and social programs that will help even more people find their way.

I find healthcare workers to be an interesting mix in this discussion. Their work is extremely physical and mental, and emotionally draining. Demand for it will only go up. Compensation for it will likely go up. Who picks up the jobs will be enlightening. Yes you have the bottleneck for doctor and nurse training, but CNA and PA are not as limited. Doctor liability is an extreme source of stress, but that somehow doesn’t apply to nurses as much, so even doctors recommend their kids become nurses.

TomasBM · 9 months ago

Although I can appreciate your point about having some 'innate' desire for an activity like coding, I think this desire is just one of many factors in choice of work.

My own anecdotal experience is that because of several factors, I had to explore many things before I could figure out that I can actually learn to code, enjoy it, create useful things and be (relatively) good at it. All of this was necessary to actually be able to produce some code for a living.

Here's a list of some of the factors that may affect your desire, aside from some innate interest and intelligence:

- Having access to a computer at an early age and in the formative period

- Parental interest in computing and/or STEM

- Parental understanding of computing and/or STEM (informal tutoring)

- Parental pressure/expectations to pursue computing and/or STEM

- Learning disabilities (ADHD, dyslexia, numeracy)

- Introversion/extraversion

- Visible role models in STEM

- Addictions (gaming, social media, TV)

- Effective teaching of math and computing concepts as a jumping board

- Knowledge of English (given that most programming concepts were defined in English first)

- Early successes and/or rewards in coding/STEM as opposed to non-STEM

- Social valuation of programmers and STEM (i.e., "nerds")

- Parental socioeconomic status

- Number of siblings (e.g., with respect to competition or pressure to leave home early)

- False beliefs ("I'll never be good at math/coding")

- Learning consistency and discipline (i.e., spaced repetition)

- Knowledge of how to learn difficult subjects effectively

- Recognition of fun or social usefulness of coding (with respect to any other pursuit)

- Understanding of implications of choosing particular options (e.g., college prep, career progression) instead of others, at particular stages in life (12-18 years old, with family)

- Familial duties (caring for a parent/sibling, having kids early)

- Sunk cost fallacy (i.e., 3rd year medical school, working vs going back to school)

Again, intelligence and innate desire will play a role, but I think there is nothing genetic about loving to look at some text on a computer. Personally, I met enough intelligent people, STEM and non-STEM, who think they should've just developed a desire for programming because they're burned out, exploited, fatigued and/or underpaid. These aren't implications most could predict when they made significant career choices.

TomasBM commented on ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’ theguardian.com/science/2... · Posted by u/bookofjoe

ToValueFunfetti · 9 months ago

This makes sense if you believe in a non-materialist self, like a soul. That model wouldn't be falsifiable- we can't measure it, so it can have whatever properties are convenient. You could then rule out the possibility that your soul would inhabit the copied 'you' by fiat.

Scientifically, though: of course an exact copy of you is you. If you don't believe in souls but still feel like this is not the case, that indicates your model of 'you' is incorrect.

TomasBM · 9 months ago

There's no need to believe in an immaterial soul to think that a copy is a different 'you'.

It is enough to understand that having an independent "command & control" structure (for lack of a better word; C&C) is by definition 'you'. C&C means that the individual can perform a self-contained sense-think-act cycle.

We can infer this from the following: 1. Identical twins, despite having identical genetic structures, have separate C&C, and therefore qualify as separate persons. 2. Two siamese twins conjoined by the body (including parts of the head) have two C&Cs, and therefore qualify as two persons (with varying level of bodily control per person). 3. An individual with additional parts of the body (e.g., in a special case of being conjoined with a twin) has only one C&C and therefore qualifies as one person. 4. Clones are a special case of identical twins, and still have separate C&Cs, therefore qualifying as two persons. 5. A person in a coma or with another condition nonetheless qualifies as a person with some sense-think-act autonomy, despite being dependent on someone else for continued bodily functions. 6. An individual with a transplant (e.g., heart) or an extension (e.g., pacemaker) is nonetheless a person because of their consistent C&C. 7. An individual with extreme memory loss remains a person with C&C (in brain, body, genetics for the most part).

Any other special but naturally occurring cases (e.g., individuals with two brains, individuals with completely separated hemispheres, conjoined twins sharing a brain) would require either that we: a. understand how brains and bodies work (and therefore, make a more quantified measure of how much of sense-think-act autonomy qualifies as personhood); or b. decide based on a heuristic (1 brain = 1 person) or principle (protection of bodily autonomy, i.e., 1 body = 1 person).

But none of these need you to believe in a soul, in order to think that a digital clone is not 'you'. Unless, of course, you can prove that an individual either: 1. can sense-think-act with both physical and digital 'bodies' simultaneously and/or sequentially*, which share an equivalent experience (i.e., central C&C coordinating distribution or maintaining strict consistency across bodies). 2. can sense-think-act with either physical or digital 'body' at will, upon establishing a 'connection' and successful transfer of state (i.e., remote access). 3. can transfer whatever is necessary for C&C to another 'body' (e.g., brain transplant), and demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that their C&C signatures in new body match the ones in the old one.

TomasBM commented on Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking quantamagazine.org/mathem... · Posted by u/sonabinu

penguin_booze · 9 months ago

To my mind, the premature formalization of the math is the principal contributor to gas lighting and alienation of people from maths. The reduction of concepts to symbols and manipulation thereof, is an afterthought. It's misguided for them to be introduced to people right at the outset.

People need to speak in plain English [0]. To some mathematicians' assertion that English is not precise enough, I say, take a hike. One need to walk before they can run.

Motivating examples need to precede mathematical methods; formulae and proofs ought to be reserved for the appendix, not page 1.

[0] I mean natural language

TomasBM · 9 months ago

I believe you're right, even though I don't have any evidence except for my own experience.

This issue becomes very clear when you see how many ways there are to express a simple concept like linear regression. I've had the chance to see that for myself in university when I pursued a bunch of classes from different domains.

The fact that introductory statistics (y = a + bx), econometrics (Y = beta_0 + beta_1 * X) and machine learning (theta = epsilon * x, incl. matrix notation) talk about the same formula with quite different notation can definitely be confusing. All of them have their historical or logical reasons for formulating it that way, but I believe it's an unnecessary source of friction.

If we go back to basic maths, I believe it's the same issue. Early in my elementary school, the pedagogical approach was this: 0. only work with numbers until some level 1. introduce the first few letters of the alphabet as variables (a, b, c) - despite no one ever explaining why "variable" and "constant" are nouns all of a sudden 2. abruptly switch to the last letters of the alphabet (x, y, z), two of which don't exist in my native language 3. reintroduce (a,b,c) as sometimes free variables, and sometimes very specific things (e.g., discriminant of a quadratic equation) 4. and so on for greek letters, etc.

It's not something that's too difficult to grasp after some time, but I think it's a waste to introduce this friction to kids when they're also dealing with completely unrelated courses, social problems, biological differences, etc. If you're confused by "why" variables are useful, why does the notation change all the time, and why it sometimes doesn't - and who gets to decide - this never gets resolved.

Not to mention how arbitrarily things are presented, no explanation of how things came to be or why we learn them, and every other problem that schools haven't tackled since my grandparents were kids.

TomasBM commented on In some scientific papers, words expressing uncertainty have decreased (2023) science.org/content/artic... · Posted by u/lapnect

mberlove · 10 months ago

This strikes a chord with me (not that I'm the only one). Every time I write longform, I intuitively want to include, "maybe", "might", "I think", but then axe them from my writing so as to not invite total dismissal.

In the abstract the authors write "Among the existing studies, there is also divergent understandings." It'd be interesting to see the methodology of this paper (doesn't seem to have access without pay) and how it differs from previous studies.

TomasBM · 10 months ago

Depends on what you're writing, I guess.

If you're writing a scientific article with the results of your research, your audience (i.e., reviewers and other readers, usually scientists) will expect you to have evidence for your claims. Any speculation or other "maybe's" should be kept in the sections like discussion or future work, or left out.

If you're writing something where opinions are accepted or even appreciated, like a position paper or a blog post, the audience should be aware that whatever you say is your interpretation anyway. But then, it also applies that some interpretations or guesses are more "educated" than others.

"Maybe" does sound too vague. Although it sounds like a language trick, I prefer to use a disclaimer at the beginning or "assume", "expect", "my understanding", to show that whatever follows is my opinion, but also that I think it's still valid and I'm willing to stand behind it.