On this edition of the Minnesota Vikings Podcast, vikings.com's Tatum Everett, Gabe Henderson. Chris Corso and producer Jay Nelson are joined by Vikings Director of Entertainment Greg Bostrom who previews what the fan experience will be like when the team welcomes back fans for the first time at a regular season game in over 600 days.
On this edition of the Minnesota Vikings Podcast, vikings.com's Tatum Everett, Gabe Henderson. Chris Corso and producer Jay Nelson are joined by Vikings Director of Entertainment Greg Bostrom who previews what the fan experience will be like when the team welcomes back fans for the first time at a regular season game in over 600 days.
Jose Segarra, MNA, CAE obtained a bachelor's degree in psychology and communications from Loyola University in Chicago, a master's degree in nonprofit management from North Park University and earned his certified association executive CAE designation from the American Society of Association Executives. Jose is currently an accountant executive for Bostrom, an association management firm and is an Association Forum board member.Host and Founder: Lowell Aplebaum - CEO & Strategy Catalyst at Vista Cova Producer and Operations: Amy Hager - Strategy Advisor at Vista CovaVideo and Audio Editing: Kaelyn SandersMusic: Slow Burn by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4372-slow-burnLicense: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
For most of her life, Pacific Northwest naturalist, photographer, and award-winning author Cheryl Grey Bostrom, MA, has lived in the rural and wildlands that infuse her writing. Her work has appeared in a variety of publications, including the American Scientific Affiliation's God and Nature Magazine, for which she's a regular photo essayist. A member of the Redbud Writers Guild, she has also authored two non-fiction books. Sugar Birds is her first novel. Conversations with Extraordinary People A monthly FB Live/podcast based on my book The Magical Guide to Bliss. It takes the listener through the year with empowering conversations from January and Carpe Diem- Seize the Day to December, Awe-inspiring Magic and Miracles. Get your copy on Amazon.com or order a signed magical copy at megnocero.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/meg-nocero/support
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/updated-look-at-long-term-ai-risks The last couple of posts here talked about long-term risks from AI, so I thought I'd highlight the results of a new expert survey on exactly what they are. There have been a lot of these surveys recently, but this one is a little different. Starting from the beginning: in 2012-2014, Muller and Bostrom surveyed 550 people with various levels of claim to the title "AI expert" on the future of AI. People in philosophy of AI or other very speculative fields gave numbers around 20% chance of AI causing an "existential catastrophe" (eg human extinction); people in normal technical AI research gave numbers around 7%. In 2016-2017, Grace et al surveyed 1634 experts, 5% of whom predicted an extremely catastrophic outcome. Both of these surveys were vulnerable to response bias (eg the least speculative-minded people might think the whole issue was stupid and not even return the survey). The new paper - Carlier, Clarke, and Schuett (not currently public, sorry, but you can read the summary here) - isn't exactly continuing in this tradition. Instead of surveying all AI experts, it surveys people who work in "AI safety and governance", ie people who are already concerned with AI being potentially dangerous, and who have dedicated their careers to addressing this. As such, they were more concerned on average than the people in previous surveys, and gave a median ~10% chance of AI-related catastrophe (~5% in the next 50 years, rising to ~25% if we don't make a directed effort to prevent it; means were a bit higher than medians). Individual experts' probability estimates ranged from 0.1% to 100% (this is how you know you're doing good futurology). None of that is really surprising. What's new here is that they surveyed the experts on various ways AI could go wrong, to see which ones the experts were most concerned about. Going through each of them in a little more detail: 1. Superintelligence: This is the "classic" scenario that started the field, ably described by people like Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky. AI progress goes from human-level to vastly-above-human-level very quickly, maybe because slightly-above-human-level AIs themselves are speeding it along, or maybe because it turns out that if you can make an IQ 100 AI for $10,000 worth of compute, you can make an IQ 500 AI for $50,000. You end up with one (or a few) completely unexpected superintelligent AIs, which wield far-future technology and use it in unpredictable ways based on untested goal structures.
Dr. Hayes interviews Dr. Allen Lichter for a second time on ASCO. TRANSCRIPT SPEAKER: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. [MUSIC PLAYING] DANIEL F. HAYES: Welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories-- The Art of Oncology, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insights into the world of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at a podcast.asco.org. Today, our guest is Dr. Allen Lichter, the former CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Lichter has previously been a guest on this program in regards to his role as a radiation oncologist back in the early days and the research he did. But today, I'm going to ask him more about the history of ASCO. To begin with, Dr. Lichter has leadership roles with Cellworks and Lifelike. He has a consulting or advisory role with Integra, Ascentage Pharma, L-Nutra, and TRG Healthcare. He's also received travel accommodations and expenses from Cellworks. Dr. Lichter, welcome to our program again. ALLEN LICHTER: Dan, it's great to be here. DANIEL F. HAYES: Terrific to have you. As I said, the last time we spoke, I really was focused on having you tell us about the evolution of radio psychology in this country, and was a terrific interview. I hope our listeners have had a chance to listen to it. But since you've had so much to do with ASCO, you've been a president of ASCO, you've been a CEO of ASCO, you're pretty much done it all, I thought we'd take an opportunity to pick your brain about the history of ASCO. So to start with, I think a lot of our listeners probably don't know much about how ASCO got started in the first place. You want to give us a little background about that? ALLEN LICHTER: I think to understand ASCO, you have to go back, really, to the very beginnings of medical oncology. In the 1940s and '50s, a few chemotherapy agents were invented and brought into practice. Toxicity was high. The benefits weren't that great. But there was some hope that through scientific discovery and research, things could get better. In 1954, the NCI created the first National Drug Discovery program, which began to catalyze the discovery of more chemotherapy agents. And it's into that environment that a group of, who were then internal medicine docs, started to use chemotherapy more and began creating some training programs in medical oncology. That led in the early '60s to an organizing meeting that took place at AACR. And there were 50 attendees. It was on November 4, 1964. So here were these physicians who were interested in cancer, who got together at the American Association of Cancer Research and formed an organization concerned with the management, the clinical management, of cancer. And you go back to that early meeting and read the following sentence, quote, "This society shall not be a society of chemotherapeuticsts only. The society should consider the total management of cancer." They established dues of $10 a year, and they agreed to meet again at the following spring. And on April 10, 1965, at the next AACR meeting-- or, actually, the original meeting was off cycle from AACR. And then, in '65, they met formally at AACR for the first time. That sentence, that this is not a society of chemotherapeuticsts, as they wrote it-- because there were no medical oncologists-- but was a society for cancer physicians of all persuasions, was a fundamental organizing principle of ASCO, a principle that holds true today. And it is one of the great strengths of ASCO, is that it welcomes and embraces and enjoys the membership of oncologists of all subspecialties. And then, as you move ahead in the development of medical oncology, you get to the American Board of Internal Medicine that had pressure from outside agitators, people like PJ Kennedy and Paul Calabrese and Paul Carbone, and Jim Holland and Tom Frei and Al Owens, to form and create a subspecialty board in this nascent specialty of medical oncology. And that came into fruition in the early 1970s. And if you go back into the '70s, ASCO had a revenue of $25,000. That was the annual revenue of the organization. It's now probably close to $150 million. And ASCO is number two in terms of the size of its revenue of all medical professional societies in the US behind only the American Medical Association. So that first idea of founding the society, creating it as a multidisciplinary society, and standing back and watching it grow as the specialties in oncology grew, has really borne fruit over many, many years. There were seven founders of the organization. Their names are in the ASCO office. People who come to the ASCO office can come into our big boardroom, which is called the Founder's Room, and see the bios of Fred Ansfield, Robert Talley, Harry Bissell, William Wilson, Herman Freckman, Edonis Goldsmith, and very specially, Jane Wright-- Dr. Wright being not the only female in this group at the time, one of the few African-American medical oncologists in the nation. She had a distinguished career and has had many awards and tributes given to her both by ASCO and by AACR. So the society moved along. And I like to say to people, you know, what is really startling is that the field of medical oncology, the medical oncologists forgot to establish the American Society of Medical Oncology. They are, to this day, the only medical subspecialty in internal medicine that does not have its own dedicated professional society. ASCO has filled that role from its inception through the time that the specialty boards were created. And to this day, there is no ESMO, there is only ASCO. And so ASCO has this dual organizational responsibility, one to the entire field of oncology, and then a very special relationship with the field of medical oncology, as we represent that specialty almost exclusively. DANIEL F. HAYES: Let me jump in. There, for example, is a Society of Surgical Oncology and the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology, which I believe you were president of as well. So I agree with you that the internal medicine part of it is really unique in terms of ASCO serving as a society for everybody, even though there are these other societies that represent the individual modalities. ALLEN LICHTER: Yes. There is nothing quite like it. It has worked well. We have never, to my knowledge, had an uprising of the medical oncology specialty saying we need a different organization. The community oncologists form the Community Oncology Alliance, COA, which is a thriving organization that pays a lot of attention to those special needs of community practice in oncology. But even then, virtually all the members of COA are members of ASCO as well. So as the society moved along and it grew beyond its $25,000 revenue, we hired a professional management firm to run the administration of the society, a firm called Bostrom. They were based out of Chicago. And for many years, a guy named Al Van Horn was the executive director of ASCO. He was an employee of Bostrom, but his salary was paid by ASCO. And the society grew, but we retained this relationship with ASCO until we got into the early 1990s. I was on the board at that time, but I'll digress for a moment to talk about how I got on the board. So at the annual meeting of ASCO, they always had a member's meeting. And it was like at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. And it was in one of the meeting rooms. And the dais was set with a long table. And the board of directors sat at the table. And the membership who, those that came, sat in the audience and heard from the leaders of the organization what was going on, et cetera, et cetera. And then, they had open mic that members could come forward and ask questions. So I arose from my seat and went to the microphone. And I said, gentlemen-- because they were all men-- you have extolled the multidisciplinary nature of this organization that existed from its founding up to the present day. But as I look at the assembled board in front of me, they are 100% medical oncologists. And you have radiation oncologists and surgical oncologists and pediatric oncologists and gynecologic oncologists and so forth in the organization. And we have no representation on the board. And they said, thank you, Dr. Lichter, for your question. And down I sat. But a little seed was planted, I guess. Because over the next couple years, the board decided to enlarge its membership and have dedicated seats for a radiation oncologist, a surgical oncologist, and a pediatric oncologist, seats that exist today. And I got a call, OK, big mouth. You raised this. You raised this. We're going to run you for the board. And I said OK. And I got elected to the board as the first radiation-- sitting in the first radiation oncology seat. I watched as the society grew. And we recognized, we needed to take over our own management, to move away from the hired hands at Bostrom and to have our own organization. And it was under the steady hand of then President John Glick, who led us through this transition. We interviewed candidates to be the then called the executive vice president and hired John Durant, who was then at the University of Alabama. And John took us through that transition. We opened an office in Alexandria, Virginia, and began to hire staff. And John was an absolutely sensational leader for the organization during that important transition. And that was in kind of the mid '90s. John Glick was one of the truly terrific presidents of ASCO. And I contributed to that because I ran against John. And John wanted an election. And it was my doing that John became president of ASCO. I graciously lost to him. They decided, for some reason or another, that they would run me again for president. And I did win that election. I ran against Charles Balch, who was a surgeon. And Charles later succeeded John Durant as the CEO of ASCO as ASCO's second CEO. I was president '98-'99 was my year. And the organization continued to grow. I rotated off the board and was happily in my job at Ann Arbor. And then, Dr. Balch was stepping down and they were looking for a CEO. And I threw my hat in the ring and became the CEO of the organization in 2006. And that's a big, broad overview of the organization. It now has 45,000 members, as I say, a wonderful and steady revenue stream, although it's been a challenge over the last 18 months with COVID and losing the physical annual meeting. But those are the broad brush strokes. DANIEL F. HAYES: So my impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, I mean, the original seven founders, I've read the minutes of the original meeting. And they were pretty interested in how do you dose reduce? How do you get this drug? How do you get that drug? And I think there was maybe one or two scientific presentations. But correct me if I'm wrong. By the time came on the board, ASCO was principally a place to present your data and publish your papers in JCO. By that time, personally, I feel that it began to roll back into saying, look, 60% to 70% of our members are community oncologists. And I've seen a huge increase in ASCO's focus on the community oncologist. Is that perception all true, or am I making it up? ALLEN LICHTER: I think that that's true. If you look back at the first annual meeting in 1965, I think there were three or four papers presented. They were all clinical, and in some respects, as they should be. Because people wanted to begin to share their experience with using these new highly toxic agents. There was just no precedent. Everything was done through trial and error and clinical research and experimentation. And so the results were shared. And the society continued along in that vein not so much as a pure scientific society, and certainly, not so much as presenting basic science research, but presenting clinical research. I think at the time, it was felt that the more pure science was AACR. And ASCO was going to present the clinical stuff. And as you know, for the first many, many years of the society, the two societies met back-to-back. So a typical meeting in the 1980s was Monday and Tuesday was AACR. Wednesday was an overlap day, and then Thursday and Friday was ASCO. And so that dichotomy of, there is the science, especially the bed science, and there's the clinical science at the end of the week, existed for quite some time until ASCO grew its meeting enough, worked out an arrangement with AACR, and the two meetings divided, with AACR meeting in April and ASCO meeting in June-- again, something that still exists to this day. DANIEL F. HAYES: When you were CEO, though, for example, you initiated the Department of Clinical Affairs or something to that effect. And also, how did the affiliates begin to grow up? I mean, it was all news to me when I became president. I knew nothing about that. ALLEN LICHTER: Over the years, not only did ASCO develop as a national organization, but within each state, either a medical oncology or an oncology writ large society was formed. And just about every state had them. It was not a revolutionary idea to begin to try to tie the affiliates into ASCO. Not that were floundering in any way, but they could use some support speakers to be arranged for their own annual gatherings. And we became much more interested in making sure there was a dialogue between ASCO central and what was going on in the trenches of physician practice in the community and around the states. And so we began to bring the state affiliates closer to the organization. A lot of this was done under the guidance of Joe Bailes, who was president of ASCO after me and had a prominent role in the government relations aspects of reimbursement aspects of the specialty. And Joe was very close to the state affiliates. That grew in importance and we ended up creating the state affiliate council and hearing from them at each board meeting and then finally, to the point where we had the president of the state affiliate council who was invited to attend every board meeting, and to be part of the board deliberations. So it's complex to knit the whole thing together. Medical oncology really, in essence, grew up as an academic discipline. It was started at major medical centers like Sloan Kettering and MD Anderson and so forth. You might be too young to remember, but patients used to be admitted to hospital to receive their chemotherapy. And they certainly were admitted, often admitted to hospital to receive their radiation to some extent, because insurance wouldn't pay for it if it was given-- and there was no such thing as outpatient cancer therapy. But as the specialty then began to move out of these large academic hospitals and into the community, that began this whole infrastructure of state affiliate societies and our relationship up and down. We are not just an organization of academics, although we've been led mostly by academic physicians throughout our history. The community oncologists have a very important role to play not only in ASCO, but in the delivery of cancer care in this country. DANIEL F. HAYES: Actually, I am old enough. I remember I told many fellows that when I was a fellow, we put people in the hospital. All we had was prochlorperazine, Compazine, which doesn't work at all. And we would give them barbiturates not because it kept them from throwing up, but it kept them from remembering how much they threw up so they would come back and get their next treatment. So it was pretty barbaric. Now, all outpatient, which is fantastic. Actually, you touched on this briefly, but how about the evolution of ASCO as an advocacy organization in politics, which has taken a major step lately? ALLEN LICHTER: Even while we were under the management of Bostrom, we did have a legislative government relations team in Washington. And the first couple of fulltime employees that ASCO had were hired in the government relations side. And a lot of this was really, again, we had to represent medical oncology in important areas of billing and reimbursements and Medicare coverage and Medicaid coverage, and so on, and so forth. And as I said earlier, there was no one else to do it. We were, by default, those specialty society that was going to represent medical oncology. So we had to do that. The surgeons had their own. The radiation oncologists had their own, and so on, and so forth. But ASCO did that relatively early on. And of course, as the complexity of Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance, and the cost of care and inpatients and outpatients, and who's going to pay for what, where, and so on, and so forth, we have become deeply enmeshed in that. Because, again, it's our responsibility to do so. And I think the society over the years has done an excellent job of representing this field. DANIEL F. HAYES: Even to the extent that recently, we've set up a separate business, I think it's called the Association of ASCO, or ASCO assoc-- I can't remember what it's called. ALLEN LICHTER: Yeah, I think it's the Association for Clinical Oncology. Anyway, it's named so that it can also be called ASCO. But when ASCO was founded-- and this makes us different from a lot of our sister societies-- we were founded as a 501(c)(3). That's the tax code, educational organization. And as a 501(c)(3) educational organization, we could not engage very much in what is known as lobbying. We could advocate for legislation. We could do some gentle advocation for legislation. We could interface with regulatory agencies. So we were unlimited in our ability to talk to the FDA or the CDC or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and that. But we couldn't do very much on the legislative side. And we thought for a long time about whether that needed to be remedied or not. In the end, it was decided it did need to be remedied. That is, we needed to have the ability to have a bigger footprint inside Capitol Hill in the legislative process. Virtually, all our sister societies had that. And many of them were founded as-- and I'm not a tax expert but-- a (c)(4) or (c)(6) organizations, which gave them that ability. And ASCO was a (c)(3). in the end, we formed a new (c)(6), which is this Association for Clinical Oncology, that allows us to have a more visible presence on the legislative side of the house and the ability to influence legislation on behalf of cancer patients and cancer physicians. DANIEL F. HAYES: Yeah, I think most of our membership, probably especially the academics, have always just thought, well, I don't have to worry about this. ASCO has my back. And what I have seen in the last 10 years is, first of all, an increasing presence of ASCO on Capitol Hill. Again, many of our listeners may not know this, but twice a year, there is a so-called day on the Hill. And even when I got elected, I think there were 40 of us that did this. I had never done it before. It was a lot of fun, where we go out and meet with the senators and representatives and their staff, and with specific issues that we think are important for our patients. We just did this virtually last week. And I think there were 130 of us or something. That's increased quite a bit. And those discussions are now being led by what is essentially a PAC, a political action committee, this association but with a lot more influence that has had in the past. And I know I sound like I'm on a soapbox, but I've become a true believer, maintaining what you and your predecessors continued to emphasize, which is that we are not a trade union. We are there to improve patient care. And that's what we do. The topics we choose to discuss are related to things we feel need to be legislated for the purpose of improving patient care. I'm actually very proud of this, which is why I'm discussing it. I've had nothing to do with it except show up. I'm proud to ASCO who's done this. ALLEN LICHTER: Yes. And with the political action committee, it does give us the chance to have a presence at certain events that before, we couldn't, we could not have a presence then. It allows us to have influence as we can support those legislators that are sympathetic to the work that we're trying to get accomplished, and so on, and so forth. We resisted it for so long, it was time and the appropriate thing to do. And I join you in being proud of the organization to have just done it. DANIEL F. HAYES: So that's an advertisement. If any of our listeners would like to become part of the day's on the Hill, if you go into the volunteer corps, you can sign up and ASCP staff will then teach you what you need to do and how you need to do it, and how you need to say it. You can be part of this, and it's actually a lot of fun to do. And this association has very real guardrails set up so that we continue to advocate and lobby, again, for what we think is best for our patients. And that's another reason I was very supportive of it when it came around. ALLEN LICHTER: Your mentioning of volunteers makes me want to comment. Many of our sister societies, when I was CEO, the organizations that got together a couple of times a year were saying how difficult it was to get members to participate in the work of the society. Everybody was so busy in their practice environment, or their academic environment, or whatever. ASCO has always had exactly the opposite problem. We have way more of our dedicated members who want to participate in the society than we have places for them to participate. So it's a wonderful problem to have. It has been that way for as long as I can remember, and continues that way today. It's a real tribute, I think, to the specialty as to how dedicated our members are in being willing to volunteer and serve, and really devoting a huge amount of time. You've been president. You've been on the board. That service is all volunteer and takes, over a career, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours. But people do it actively and willingly. And our only problem is I wish we had more spots for people to have positions inside the organization. DANIEL F. HAYES: When I became president, I think I had 220 slots, or something like that, to fill. And I had something like 2,000 people volunteer. And I agree with you. Actually, was it under your watch that the designated seats for community oncologists for the board became a reality? Or was that before you? ALLEN LICHTER: That existed before. That was added. And I can't remember if it was added at the time the subspecialists were added or whether it came a separate thing. But yes, and it goes to what we were talking about before, which is with community oncologists, we felt very important even as today, that they needed a seat at the table for ASCO. So we have this dedicated seat for a community oncologist, and even have brought community people into the undesignated seats. We learn a lot from our community colleagues and need them and have them close at hand. DANIEL F. HAYES: I have said many, many times before I was on the board and when I was president that the academics, including myself, will speak up to show you how smart they are. But the community oncologists on the board were there for a very real reason. And I learned very quickly my first year on the board, keep my mouth shut and listen to these folks because they had a lot to tell us. They're there because they want to make things well. I think the academics are too. They want to make things better. But the community oncologists are giving money up out of their pocket. They could be seeing patients. And they're there on the board because they feel that they have a real set of concerns. And again, I'm proud of the fact that the board of directors is made up of a fair number of them who have really been instrumental in what we do and how we do it. ALLEN LICHTER: Yeah. I have to be a little bit of a Homer and say, that certainly, Dan, you're at the University of Michigan. And I used to be at the University of Michigan, but we've had three presidents of ASCO in modern times, my presidency and your presidency, and now Lori Pierce. And of course, two of those people are-- DANIEL F. HAYES: Actually, Doug Blayney, so four. ALLEN LICHTER: Doug was president while he was at Michigan. Absolutely, don't want to forget Dr. Blayney. And of course, two of those presidents were radiation oncologists from the department I used to lead. And we are very proud of the work that the Red Hawks from Michigan are doing inside ASCO. DANIEL F. HAYES: Go blue. I think that pretty much uses up our alotted time here. Is there anything else about the history of ASCO you think that our listeners ought to know about that they might not? ALLEN LICHTER: You know, we are regarded as really, a highly successful and highly effective society. Many organizations in medicine have come to look to ASCO for ideas, for policy positions, for ways of running the organization. We have a fabulous staff made up of both of about five physicians in our senior staff and a number of distinguished professionals who support our policy and membership in meetings, and so many other parts of our organization. We created the Journal of Clinical Oncology out of nothing and built it into the most important clinical journal in oncology today. It's an ever-changing critically important piece of the oncology ecosphere. And it's an organization I'm very proud of. DANIEL F. HAYES: Me too. So with that, I will say to you what I said to you last time, thanks for all you've done for the field. Thanks for all you've done for ASCO, and thanks for all you've done for me personally as well. And appreciate the time you spent with us today ALLEN LICHTER: Dan, it's been a pleasure. [MUSIC PLAYING] DANIEL F. HAYES: Until next time, thank you for listening to this JCO's Cancer Stories-- The Art of Oncology podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. While you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology podcast is just one of ASCO's many podcasts. You can find all the shows at podcast.asco.org. [MUSIC PLAYING]
In this episode, I speak with Dr. Derek Leben about his recent Philosophy Now article, Pascal’s Artificial Intelligence Wager. We talk about Pascal's wager applied to AI, the control problem, consciousness, our ability to control the course of AI development, and the meaning that grounds moral realism. Here's any links you'll need to dive deeper: https://philosophynow.org/issues/139/PascalsArtificialIntelligence_Wager https://www.derekleben.com/ https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Robots-Design-Moral-Algorithm-ebook/dp/B07FN629T6 If you learned something from this episode, please consider supporting me here: https://www.patreon.com/jordanmyers Every dollar that comes in will go towards bettering the show or towards funding my Philosophy PhD. Twitter: @JordanCMyers You can also get in contact by emailing me at firstname.lastname@example.org Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD1RiH1j-M6C59z1upPXkWw?disable_polymer=true Plato's Cave Website: https://platoscave.fireside.fm/ Special Guest: Derek Leben.
Listen to this discussion with Ken Bostrom as he shares his perspective of 30 years of teaching accounting, how it has changed and now being done. Enjoy the evolution of accounting which now includes computers and software, how things progressed from WordPerfect, Lotus123, ABC Accounting, MYOB to so much more. See how the accounting profession has changed, especially how it has been taught over the years from debits and credits to include software training, from classroom instruction to online courses and programs. It has become easier and more systemized. Ken also shares how and when updates to training accounting occur each year to help individuals excel in the careers to get paid what they are worth. Your Host: Roger Knecht, president of Universal Accounting Center Our Guest: Ken Bostrom Ken Bostrom has been an instructor, coach, and officer of Universal sector for nearly three decades. He has seen Universal Accounting Center grow from a small local brick-and-mortar accounting training school to an international provider of cutting edge, online certification training for accounting professionals to start and grow their own bookkeeping, accounting, and tax practice. Ken is the author behind our Professional Bookkeeper’s Guide to QuickBooks, as well as its annual updates. You could say Ken wrote the book on how to use QuickBooks to get more done in less time and to become a Profit and Growth Expert. He is a certified Color Accounting instructor, QuickBooks Specialist, and a QuickBooks Pro Advisor. Sponsors: Universal Accounting Center Helping accounting professionals confidently and competently offer quality accounting services to get paid what they are worth. Learn more about the MISSION Offers: Job Placement Assistance The Turnkey Business Plan for accounting professionals Color Accounting, learn the language of business in lay terms to communicate more effectively with your clients Remember this, Accounting Success IS Universal. Listen to our next episode and be sure to subscribe. For more information on how you can apply these principles in your business please visit us at www.universalaccountingschool.com or call us at 801.265.3777
simulacija, ai, nauka, neuronauka, društvene mreže, pinboard Links:Pinboard (@Pinboard) / Twitter — The light inside is broken, but I still work. The Cadillac of online bookmarking sites. https://pinboard.in email@example.com +1 415 610 0231Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People — This scenario is a caricature of Bostrom's argument, because I am not trying to convince you of it, but vaccinate you against it.Andrew Huberman: Neuroscience of Optimal Performance | Lex Fridman Podcast #139 - YouTube — Andrew Huberman is a neuroscientist at Stanford.Thread Helper — A serendipity engine on the Twitter sidebar.MyHeritage on Twitter — “It makes me so happy to see him smile again!" Try our new #DeepNostalgia #PhotoAnimation feature for yourself and prepare to be AMAZED!!!Flint Dibble on Twitter — Alright, I'm joining the game and animating some ancient stuff. This is from the Acropolis Museum in AthensShockingly Real Tom Cruise Deepfakes Are Invading TikTok — Three days ago, a TikTok account going by @deeptomcruise began posting video clips of the Hollywood actor Tom Cruise doing everything from golfing, to tripping and telling a joke in what appears to be a men's clothing store in Italy, to performing a magic trick with a coin. In each of the three videos, Cruise delivers his signature maniacal laugh—you know, the one he repeatedly unleashed in that batty Scientology recruitment video years back—before launching into some sort of bit, and in all of them, it looks just like Cruise. Only it's not Cruise.GPT-3 - Wikipedia — Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3) is an autoregressive language model that uses deep learning to produce human-like text. It is the third-generation language prediction model in the GPT-n series (and the successor to GPT-2) created by OpenAI, a San Francisco-based artificial intelligence research laboratory.Franz Kafka's A Country Doctor English Subtitle - YouTube — “A Country Doctor” (German: “Ein Landarzt”) is a short story written in 1917 by Franz Kafka. It was first published in the collection of short stories of the same title. In the story, a country doctor makes an emergency visit to a sick patient on a winter night. The doctor faces absurd, surreal predicaments that pull him along and finally doom him.The EMBO Journal on Twitter: "See what's really going on inside your nerves' ends - real-time analysis of protein mobility at the #synapse courtesy of Rizzoli lab https://t.co/lIUP0yrsnS https://t.co/l15MXR5j9k" / TwitterPriključenija 15: Simulacija — Nebojša misli da živimo u simulaciji. Miloš je skeptičan. Obojici se sviđa serija koja nema veze sa simulacijom, osim što možda ima.Priključenija 23: Računari — Miloš je pod utiskom nakon čitanja knjige, Nebojša nakon gledanja filma. Nepoznavanje inženjerstva i ekonomije neće ih sprečiti da podele svoja mišljenja o oba. Links:Pinboard (@Pinboard) / Twitter — The light inside is broken, but I still work. The Cadillac of online bookmarking sites. https://pinboard.in firstname.lastname@example.org +1 415 610 0231Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People — This scenario is a caricature of Bostrom's argument, because I am not trying to convince you of it, but vaccinate you against it.Andrew Huberman: Neuroscience of Optimal Performance | Lex Fridman Podcast #139 - YouTube — Andrew Huberman is a neuroscientist at Stanford.Thread Helper — A serendipity engine on the Twitter sidebar.MyHeritage on Twitter — “It makes me so happy to see him smile again!" Try our new #DeepNostalgia #PhotoAnimation feature for yourself and prepare to be AMAZED!!!Flint Dibble on Twitter — Alright, I'm joining the game and animating some ancient stuff. This is from the Acropolis Museum in AthensShockingly Real Tom Cruise Deepfakes Are Invading TikTok — Three days ago, a TikTok account going by @deeptomcruise began posting video clips of the Hollywood actor Tom Cruise doing everything from golfing, to tripping and telling a joke in what appears to be a men's clothing store in Italy, to performing a magic trick with a coin. In each of the three videos, Cruise delivers his signature maniacal laugh—you know, the one he repeatedly unleashed in that batty Scientology recruitment video years back—before launching into some sort of bit, and in all of them, it looks just like Cruise. Only it's not Cruise.GPT-3 - Wikipedia — Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3) is an autoregressive language model that uses deep learning to produce human-like text. It is the third-generation language prediction model in the GPT-n series (and the successor to GPT-2) created by OpenAI, a San Francisco-based artificial intelligence research laboratory.Franz Kafka's A Country Doctor English Subtitle - YouTube — “A Country Doctor” (German: “Ein Landarzt”) is a short story written in 1917 by Franz Kafka. It was first published in the collection of short stories of the same title. In the story, a country doctor makes an emergency visit to a sick patient on a winter night. The doctor faces absurd, surreal predicaments that pull him along and finally doom him.The EMBO Journal on Twitter: "See what's really going on inside your nerves' ends - real-time analysis of protein mobility at the #synapse courtesy of Rizzoli lab https://t.co/lIUP0yrsnS https://t.co/l15MXR5j9k" / TwitterPr
Bei den drei bisher diskutierten mutmaßlichen Kränkungen ging es immer um eine Sonderstellung, deren wir uns sicher glaubten, und derer wir von der Wissenschaft beraubt wurden. Der Philosoph Nick Bostrom setzt noch eins drauf: Was wäre, wenn wir nicht nur nichts Besonderes sind -- sondern gar nicht so richtig "sind"; nämlich nur im Computer simuliert? Sein Argument: Wenn eine Spezies sehr leistungsfähige Computer hat, und ihre eigene Entwicklung besser verstehen will, dann wird sie irgendwann ihre eigene Entwicklung im Computer simulieren. Und dann sind wir, unsere ganze Welt, unser ganzes Universum, vielleicht nur eine dieser Simulationen. Ein Abklatsch. Die absolute Kränkung? Darüber diskutieren in dieser Folge Marius, Claus und Niklas.
Meditation starts at 6:36 In 2003, Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed we may be existing in a virtual reality orchestrated by our descendants who wanted to recreate their ancestors. He suggested that if technology advanced to the point where we could create such a virtual world, we would likely create multiple copies. If our descendants managed this feat sometime in the future, Bostrom argued, then the odds were that you and I are one of many copies living in a simulation rather than the base reality. If Bostrom is correct, this implies we are simply reliving an earlier existence. Our lives, or at least the major milestones, are predetermined, our choices already made, and our decisions only seem to be spontaneous. We've heard from a number of scientists and thought leaders, including Elon Musk, it's likely we're living in a computer-simulated reality. Musk said he believes there's a one-in-billions chance we're living in “base reality,” or a non-simulated, completely organic existence. It's also becoming more apparent that mathematics is the language of nature — a universal dialectical that can be used to describe everything, from the inconceivably large to the infinitesimally small. As we continue to acquire more insight on this reality, it appears we may be living in what appears to be a physical construct that might actually be generated from code. In an attempt to understand the fundamental laws of nature, theoretical physicist, Dr. James Gates, discovered a set of equations he says are indistinguishable from the computer code one might find powering their web browser. In his study of string theory, he also discovered an error-correcting code in supersymmetry equations used to describe how the universe works. This forced him to ask himself, “am I living in the Matrix?” Gates said, upon his discovery, that he came to a profound existential quandary; “I have in my life come to a very strange place, because I never expected the movie The Matrix might be an accurate representation of the place in which I live.” But this concept can also be thought of as a semantic argument bridging the gap between materialists identifying as atheists, and those with spiritual or religious beliefs in a creator. Could stories of saints and enlightened beings performing miracles, reincarnating, and transcending our reality also be construed as humans who figured out how to hack the simulation? In fact, one of the comments pinned to the front page of Bostrom's website reads, “the simulation argument is perhaps the first interesting argument for the existence of a creator in 2,000 years.” Meditation is the simulation hacking method that has been used for centuries. The only way one can truly access consciousness directly is by going within through meditation. The goal of meditation in Vedic ideology is to eliminate Maya, the illusory ignorance of what we perceive as a reality where we see ourselves as finite beings, separate from the creator. Maya is not this illusory reality itself, but rather the thing that creates the illusion. Is Maya synonymous with our computer simulation? In Vedic teachings, those who devote their lives to meditation and realize this oneness can attain superpowers known as the “siddhis.” The siddhis are similar to powers Neo achieves when he wakes up from the Matrix, such as the ability to fly, manifest and control material things, to become invisible, and to be in more than one place at a time. Some of these superpowers, thought to be impossible by many, are starting to become theoretically plausible through discoveries in quantum physics. For example, the ability to manifest material things has been proven in a sense through the famous double-slit experiment which determined that light acts as a particle when we observe it, and as a wave when we don't. This wave-particle duality essentially revealed that our consciousness affects the way light manifests. Accessing the void allows you to break through the standard programming, this unlocks the habitual thinking programs and scenarios that are always playing out in the simulation. Once you move into the operating system you become the programmer and anything becomes possible. Welcome to the Reality Revolution.Music By Mettaversealways nowcosmic riverthe shift639hx increase love and harmony ➤ Listen on Soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2KjGlL➤ Follow them on Instagram: http://bit.ly/2JW8BU2➤ Join them on Facebook: http://bit.ly/2G1j7G6➤ Subscribe to their channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyvjffON2NoUvX5q_TgvVkw Guided Meditations https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKv1KCSKwOo_BfNnb5vLcwouInskcEhqL For all episodes of the Reality Revolution – https://www.therealityrevolution.com Join our facebook group The Reality Revolution https://www.facebook.com/groups/403122083826082/ Contact us at email@example.com#meditation #guidedmeditation #simulation #hackthesimulation #quantumjump
This is Episode 22 of Board game Cinema. This week my brother Brett and I look at the movie Minority Report (2002) and the game Coup (2012). We also discuss the Three Weird Sisters from Macbeth, Bostrom's Simulation Theory and Laplace's Demon. In the Be Kind Rewind Section I discuss: The New Mutants (2020) The Sunlit Night (2019) Hillbilly Elegy (2020) The Happiest Season (2020) Possesor (2020). I also take a look at a new Board Game Magazine called Senet. Use your free will and listen!
Have you ever thought that you might be living in a simulation? A recent article from Popular Mechanics indicates there's a 50% chance that we *are* living in a simulation. Today, we're going to dig into that idea and what it means. Join Rob as he discusses the article titled "Are We Living in a Simulation"https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34362527/are-we-living-in-a-simulation/Simulation Theory is not new to me - I've heard it discussed several times on the Joe Rogan Experience, check out the following links below:Joe Rogan & Elon Musk - Are We in a Simulated Reality?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cM690CKArQAI Expert Lex Fridman Weighs in on Simulation Theoryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFID_rgzE_YJoe Rogan & Dennis McKenna Go DEEP Into Simulation Theoryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0OClR1WnzcHowever, we'll discuss the main points in the article from Popular MechanicsThe 50/50 probability is rounded from a calculation whose outcome is more like 50.22222 to 49.77778. Scientific American cites the landmark 2003 paper “Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?” by philosopher Nick Bostrom. It’s worth reading Bostrom’s brief abstract in full:“I argue that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to become extinct before reaching a ‘posthuman’ stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of its evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we shall one day become posthumans who run ancestor‐simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. I discuss some consequences of this result.”Scientific American points out that The Matrix and its sequels did a lot to push the simulation theory forward, but philosophers have speculated in this direction for thousands of years.Rob discusses the allegory of the cave, or Plato's CaveBut back to the article...it continues with:But Bostrom’s simulation theory in particular pivots on computing power...and it goes into the dialogue with an astronomer and the philosopher Nick Bostrom himself. Read more here:https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34362527/are-we-living-in-a-simulation/Rob discusses his own personal experience with different realities...and how he is actively creating the next simulation.Have a Question for Rob?Send your questions to firstname.lastname@example.orgJoin the All Around Growth Community!Join the Telegram group: t.me/allaroundgrowth- CLICK HERE TO RATE AND REVIEW THE PODCASTSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/allaroundgrowth)
Selam fularsızlar! Artık modern simülasyon argümanının kalbine geldik. Esasında bu içeriği iki ayrı bölüm olarak yazmıştım: "Kavanozdaki Beyin" ve "Bilgisayardaki Beyin". Ama yayın takviminde geciktiğim için içeriği biraz değiştiriyor ve tek bölüm halinde yayınlıyorum.(Aşağıda dünya kadar makale linki var, göremeyenler başka bir podcast app'i kullanabilirler. Ayrıca dinamik reklamlar yüzünden zamanlarda kayma olabilir, kusura bakmayın.).Orijinal Blog Yazıları: Birinci Kısım | İkinci Kısım.Bölüm Sponsoru: WWF Market (Link) - https://wwfmarket.com/discount/FULARSIZPANDA .Bölüm Sponsoru: GoDaddy (Link).Konular: (01:00) 1. Kısım: Kavanozdaki beyin. (Orijinal makalem). (01:50) Philosophical Zombies.(03:30) Turing Testi (xkcd karikatürü).(04:15) Çin odası. (Analiz | Daniel Dennett ile yapılmış bir podcast).(07:45) Umumi kavanoz senaryoları.(09:35) Kişiye özel kavanoz senaryoları.(11:30) Kötülük Probleminin "çözümü".(12:30) 2. Kısım: Bilgisayardaki beyin (Orijinal makalem | Bostrom'un makalesi).(13:45) Varsayım 1: Sim içi ve dışının benzeşmesi.(14:45) Varsayım 2: Sim ihtimalimi ya sıfır ya da %100'e yakın.(16:00) Varsayım 3: Zaman kısıtı olmaması.(17:15) Netice: Simülasyonda değilsek, hiçbir zaman olmayacağız.(18:15) Paralel evrenler ve fraktal. (Susskind'in 10^500 evren tahmini).(21:50) Teorik limitler: Life 3.0 (qualia zeka farkı makalesi).(23:20) İşlevselcilik (nano örgü makalesi).(25:30) Anti-işlevselcilik: İklim simülasyonu yapan bir bilgisayar üşür mü?(27:00) Pratik limitler: Moravech Paradoksu ve log günahları.(30:00) Kimsenin olmadığı ormanlarda bağıra çağıra düşen ağaçlar.(33:15) Varoluşsal tehditler: Fermi Paradoksu makalesi | Paperclip Maximizer .(36:40) Teşekkürler. ***Patreon: Aylık veya YILLIK destek verin, ikimiz de rahat edelim:)Kitap: Safsatalar Ansiklopedisi (4. Baskı çıktı, hem de bu sefer bir kısmı ciltli).
Jason and Bear were able to have a great conversation with Rasmus about his ideas, training methods and what goes into being a predator hunter in Scandinavia. Rasmus gives his thought on Black Bears vs. Brown and talks about his dog of choice for pursuing the Brown Bruin, his trusty Plott Hounds. We also get a chance to talk about the impact Brown Bears have on the Reindeer population in Sweden as well as his work with the Swedish Govt. to collect data to better understand Brown Bear habits. We even get into Rasmus’ foxhounds, the differences in track style, and his use of terriers for ground work. This episode has a little something for everyone, so we hope you enjoy listening as much as we enjoyed our time together. Anyone looking for some cool Predator hunting from abroad, make sure to check out Rasmus’ youtube channel “Bearplay” https://www.youtube.com/c/BEARPLAYTV/videos and for any of our European listeners, https://www.bearskin.se/
Eric has had a very unconventional life. He grew up in a motorcycle dealership, raced professionally with his brother, broke an absurd amount of bones in all his crashes, and then went on to invent a product and found a company due to those injuries.
A survey of the idea that technology is creatures. Subscribe at: paid.retraice.com Details: we should call them something else; high-altitude fruit; Simon—the rules are the same; Grey Walter's tortoises; Butler—war to the death; Dyson—they're *not* imaginary; Wolfram's simple programs; Yudkowsky on fire alarms; I. J. Good—take science fiction seriously; `unquestionably'; Yudkowsky—smartish stuff; S. Russell and Norvig—operating on their own; two meanings of `the singularity'; a moral challenge; S. Russell—the user's mind; Dyson—worry less about intelligence; Smallberg—energy sources and replication; a digression on search; Dietterich—reproduction with autonomy; the work; Bostrom—deferred gratification; our civilization is evidence of capacity; skyscrapers seem taller than they are. Complete notes and video at: https://www.retraice.com/segments/re8 Air date: Wednesday, 28th Oct. 2020, 3 : 30 PM Pacific/US. Chapters: 00:00 we should call them something else; 00:35 high-altitude fruit; 02:55 Simon—the rules are the same; 04:06 Grey Walter's tortoises; 08:19 Butler—war to the death; 11:16 Dyson—they're *not* imaginary; 14:02 Wolfram's simple programs; 15:49 Yudkowsky on fire alarms; 17:14 I. J. Good—take science fiction seriously; 18:36 `unquestionably'; 19:29 Yudkowsky—smartish stuff; 23:00 S. Russell and Norvig—operating on their own; 24:55 two meanings of `the singularity'; 25:41 a moral challenge; 26:52 S. Russell—the user's mind; 28:46 Dyson—worry less about intelligence; 30:24 Smallberg—energy sources and replication; 31:13 a digression on search; 34:02 Dietterich—reproduction with autonomy; 35:55 the work; 36:46 Bostrom—deferred gratification; 39:13 our civilization is evidence of capacity; 39:52 skyscrapers seem taller than they are. References: Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford. First published in 2014. Citations are from the pbk. edition, 2016. ISBN: 978-0198739838. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0198739838 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0198739838 https://lccn.loc.gov/2015956648 Brockman, J. (Ed.) (2015). What to Think About Machines That Think: Today’s Leading Thinkers on the Age of Machine Intelligence. Harper Perennial. ISBN: 978-0062425652. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0062425652 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0062425652 https://lccn.loc.gov/2016303054 Brockman, J. (Ed.) (2019). Possible Minds: Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI. Penguin. ISBN: 978-0525557999. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0525557999 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0525557999 https://lccn.loc.gov/2018032888 Butler, S. (1863). Darwin among the machines. The Press (Canterbury, New Zealand). Reprinted in Butler et al. (1923). Butler, S., Jones, H., & Bartholomew, A. (1923). The Shrewsbury Edition of the Works of Samuel Butler Vol. 1. J. Cape. No ISBN. https://books.google.com/books?id=B-LQAAAAMAAJ Retrieved 27th Oct. 2020. de Garis, H. (2005). The Artilect War: Cosmists vs. Terrans: A Bitter Controversy Concerning Whether Humanity Should Build Godlike Massively Intelligent Machines. ETC Publications. ISBN: 0882801546. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0882801546 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0882801546 Dietterich, T. G. (2015). How to prevent an intelligence explosion. (pp. 380–383). In Brockman (2015). Dyson, G. (2019). The third law. (pp. 31–40). In Brockman (2019). Dyson, G. B. (1997). Darwin Among The Machines: The Evolution Of Global Intelligence. Basic Books. ISBN: 978-0465031627. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0465031627 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0465031627 https://lccn.loc.gov/2012943208 Good, I. J. (1965). Speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine. Advances in Computers, 6, 31–88. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/feigenbaum/catalog/gz727rg3869 Retrieved 27th Oct. 2020. Harris, S. (2016). Can we build AI without losing control over it? — Sam Harris. TED. https://youtu.be/8nt3edWLgIg Retrieved 28th Oct. 2020. Holland, O. (2003). Exploration and high adventure: the legacy of Grey Walter. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 361, 2085–2121. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9025611 Retrieved 22nd Nov. 2019. See also: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=grey+walter+tortoise+ Jackson, R. E., & Cormack, L. K. (2008). Evolved navigation theory and the environmental vertical illusion. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 299–304. https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/cps/_files/cormack-pdf/12Evolved_navigation_theory2009.pdf Retrieved 29th Oct. 2020. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Penguin. ISBN: 978-0143037880. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0143037880 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0143037880 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004061231 Legg, S., & Hutter, M. (2007a). A collection of definitions of intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 157, 17–24. June 2007. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 Retrieved ca. 10 Mar. 2019. Legg, S., & Hutter, M. (2007b). Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds & Machines, 17(4), 391–444. December 2007. https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 Retrieved ca. 10 Mar. 2019. Retraice (2020/09/07). Re1: Three Kinds of Intelligence. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re1 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020. Retraice (2020/09/08). Re2: Tell the People, Tell Foes. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re2 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020. Russell, S. (2019). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Viking. ISBN: 978-0525558613. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0525558613 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0525558613 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019029688 Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson, 4th ed. ISBN: 978-0134610993. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0134610993 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0134610993 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019047498 Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT, 3rd ed. ISBN: 0262691914. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0262691914 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0262691914 https://lccn.loc.gov/96012633 Previous editions available at: https://archive.org/search.php?query=The%20sciences%20of%20the%20artificial Smallberg, G. (2015). No shared theory of mind. (pp. 297–299). In Brockman (2015). Ulam, S. (1958). John von Neumann 1903-1957. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 64, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5 Retrieved 29th Oct. 2020. Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. W. H. Freeman and Company. ISBN: 0716704633. Also available at: https://archive.org/details/computerpowerhum0000weiz Wolfram, S. (Ed.) (2002). A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media, Inc. ISBN: 1579550088. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=1579550088 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+1579550088 https://lccn.loc.gov/2001046603 Yudkowsky, E. (2013). Intelligence explosion microeconomics. Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Technical report 2013-1. https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf Retrieved ca. 9th Dec. 2018. Yudkowsky, E. (2017). There’s no fire alarm for artificial general intelligence. Machine Intelligence Research Institute. 13th Oct. 2017. https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/ Retrieved 9th Dec. 2018. Copyright: 2020 Retraice, Inc. https://retraice.com
Derrick Bostrom, drummer of the legendary band Meat Puppets is on the podcast this week, what a true honor! I had a fantastic and unforgettable time talking to him! This year, they are celebrating Record Store Day with a limited edition self-titled Meat Puppets 10 inch EP that features newly recorded tracks. It will available via Stinkweeds Records on Sep. 26th. Follow Meat Puppets on socials @puppetsofmeatSubscribe to Ivancast Podcast for free on your favorite podcast app!
We're on break this week so we're rebroadcasting the origin story of The Box! All hail the box!: We've returned to Black Mirror to talk about one of the episodes that started this all, Hand the DJ. Or maybe we're just yet another simulation of that in a test by a marketing brand to see if this show would work. Hard to say, really. A breakdown of Newcomb's Paradox: https://brilliant.org/wiki/newcombs-paradox/ Bostrom's Simulation Theory Paper: https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf Editing by Lu Lyons, check out her amazing podcast Filmed Live Musicals! http://www.filmedlivemusicals.com/podcast.html Support us at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/0G Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/0gPhilosophy Join our Facebook discussion group (make sure to answer the questions to join): https://www.facebook.com/groups/985828008244018/ Email us at: email@example.com If you have time, please write us a review on iTunes. It really really helps. Please and thank you! Sibling shows: Serious Inquiries Only: https://seriouspod.com/ Opening Arguments: https://openargs.com/ Embrace the Void: https://voidpod.com/ Recent appearances: Thomas had me on SIO to discuss the recent revelations around the ownership of New Discourses's, James Lindsay's laundering operation for for far right talking points and conspiracy theories. If you're lost on what this is about check out ETV150 first. https://seriouspod.com/sio250-james-lindsays-new-discourses-funded-by-far-right-christian-nationalist/ CONTENT PREVIEW: REBROADCASTING 0G63: Fury Road and Ecofeminism
80,000 Hours, along with many other members of the effective altruism movement, has argued that helping to positively shape the development of artificial intelligence may be one of the best ways to have a lasting, positive impact on the long-term future. Millions of dollars in philanthropic spending, as well as lots of career changes, have been motivated by these arguments. Have they been subject to sufficient scrutiny given this level of investment? According to today’s guest Ben Garfinkel, Research Fellow at Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, they have not. In particular, the case for working on AI if you care about the long-term future has often been made on the basis of concern about AI accidents; it's actually quite difficult to design systems that you can feel confident will behave the way you want them to in all circumstances. Nick Bostrom wrote the most fleshed out version of the argument in his book, Superintelligence. But Ben reminds us that, apart from Bostrom’s book and essays by Eliezer Yudkowsky, there's very little existing writing on existential accidents. Links to learn more, summary and full transcript. There have also been very few skeptical experts that have actually sat down and fully engaged with it, writing down point by point where they disagree or where they think the mistakes are. This means that Ben has probably scrutinised classic AI risk arguments as carefully as almost anyone else in the world. He thinks that most of the arguments for existential accidents often rely on fuzzy, abstract concepts like optimisation power or general intelligence or goals, and toy thought experiments. And he doesn’t think it’s clear we should take these as a strong source of evidence. Ben’s also concerned that these scenarios often involve massive jumps in the capabilities of a single system, but it's really not clear that we should expect such jumps or find them plausible. These toy examples also focus on the idea that because human preferences are so nuanced and so hard to state precisely, it should be quite difficult to get a machine that can understand how to obey them. But Ben points out that it's also the case in machine learning that we can train lots of systems to engage in behaviours that are actually quite nuanced and that we can't specify precisely. If AI systems can recognise faces from images, and fly helicopters, why don’t we think they’ll be able to understand human preferences? Despite these concerns, Ben is still fairly optimistic about the value of working on AI safety or governance. He doesn’t think that there are any slam-dunks for improving the future, and so the fact that there are at least plausible pathways for impact by working on AI safety and AI governance, in addition to it still being a very neglected area, puts it head and shoulders above most areas you might choose to work in. This is the second episode hosted by our Strategy Advisor Howie Lempel, and he and Ben cover, among many other things: • The threat of AI systems increasing the risk of permanently damaging conflict or collapse • The possibility of permanently locking in a positive or negative future • Contenders for types of advanced systems • What role AI should play in the effective altruism portfolio Get this episode by subscribing: type 80,000 Hours into your podcasting app. Or read the linked transcript. Producer: Keiran Harris. Audio mastering: Ben Cordell. Transcriptions: Zakee Ulhaq.
Eric Bostrom is a former AMA Road Racing Champion, earning his titles in the 1998 AMA Formula Xtreme Championship and in the 2001 AMA Supersport Series. He also finished second it the AMA Superbike Championship on two occasions - to Mat Mladin in 2001 and to Nicky Hayden in 2002. Bostrom did a lot of winning in his career and his 15 AMA Superbike wins put him tied for 10th all-time with Freddie Spencer. Carruthers and Bice caught up with Eric Bostrom for this week's Off Track with Carruthers and Bice podcast to discuss his racing career and his ventures in life after racing.Instagram: @bozbrosTwitter: @BozBrosFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/EBoz32/Support the show (http://motoamerica.com)
The guys talk to Blake's partner (in paddle, not life) about who the toughest opponents are as well as some of the personalities behind the scenes --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/insidethewires/message
Ben Bostrom is an AMA Superbike and AMA Supersport Champion, a multi-time World Superbike race winner, an AMA Supermoto Champion and an XGames Gold Medalist in Supermoto. And he's about to try something else that MotoAmerica fans will be interested in. Bostrom chatted with Carruthers and Bice about all things motorcycling and life, and this is an episode of Off Track that you most definitely don't want to miss. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_bostrom/Twitter: https://twitter.com/BenBostromFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/benjamin.bostrom.7Support the show (http://motoamerica.com)
Humanity is on its way to creating a "black ball": a technological breakthrough that could destroy us all, says philosopher Nick Bostrom. In this incisive, surprisingly light-hearted conversation with Head of TED Chris Anderson, Bostrom outlines the vulnerabilities we could face if (or when) our inventions spiral beyond our control -- and explores how we can prevent our future demise.