Podcasts about iirc

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2024 20:19

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Live Theory Part 0: Taking Intelligence Seriously, published by Sahil on June 27, 2024 on LessWrong. Acknowledgements The vision here was midwifed originally in the wild and gentle radiance that is Abram's company (though essentially none of the content is explicitly his). The PIBBSS-spirit has been infused in this work from before it began (may it infuse us all), as have meetings with the Agent Foundations team at MIRI over the past ~2 years. More recently, everyone who has been loving the High Actuation project into form (very often spontaneously and without being encumbered by self-consciousness of this fact):[1] individuals include Steve Petersen, Mateusz Baginski, Aditya Prasad, Harmony, TJ, Chris Lakin; the AISC 2024 team, Murray Buchanan, Matt Farr, Arpan Agrawal, Adam, Ryan, Quinn; various people from Topos, ALIFE, MAPLE, EA Bangalore. Published while at CEEALAR. Disclaimers Very occasionally there are small remarks/questions from a remarkable human named Steve, since this and the next two posts are an edited transcript of me giving him a talk. I left them in to retain the conversational tone. Steve has also consistently been a fantastic ground for this channeling. I use the term "artefact" a fair amount in this sequence. Unfortunately for you and me, Anthropic also recently started using "artifact" in a different way. I'm using "artefact" in the common sense of the word. The British spelling should help remind of the distinction. Taking Intelligence Seriously Sahil: I gave a talk recently, at an EA event just two days ago, where I made some quick slides (on the day of the talk, so not nearly as tidy as I'd like) and attempted to walk through this so-called "live theory". (Alternative terms include "adaptive theory" or "fluid theory"; where the theories themselves are imbued with some intelligence.) Maybe I can give you that talk. I'm not sure how much of what I was saying there will be present now, but I can try. What do you think? I think it'll take about 15 minutes. Yeah? Steve: Cool. Sahil: Okay, let me give you a version of this talk that's very abbreviated. So, the title I'm sure already makes sense to you, Steve. I don't know if this is something that you know, but I prefer the word "adaptivity" over intelligence. I'm fine with using "intelligence" for this talk, but really, when I'm thinking of AI and LLMs and "live" (as you'll see later), I'm thinking, in part, of adaptive. And I think that connotes much more of the relevant phenomena, and much less controversially. It's also less distractingly "foundational", in the sense of endless questions on "what intelligence means". Failing to Take Intelligence Seriously Right. So, I want to say there are two ways to fail to take intelligence, or adaptivity, seriously. One is, you know, the classic case, of people ignoring existential risk from artificial intelligence. The old "well, it's just a computer, just software. What's the big deal? We can turn it off." We all know the story there. In many ways, this particular failure-of-imagination is much less pronounced today. But, I say, a dual failure-of-imagination is true today even among the "cognoscenti", where we ignore intelligence by ignoring opportunities from moderately capable mindlike entities at scale. I'll go over this sentence slower in the next slide. For now: there are two ways to not meet reality. On the left of the slide is "nothing will change". The same "classic" case of "yeah, what's the big deal? It's just software." On the right, it's the total singularity, of extreme unknowable super-intelligence. In fact, the phrase "technological singularity", IIRC, was coined by Vernor Vinge to mark the point that we can't predict beyond. So, it's also a way to be mind-killed. Even with whatever in-the-limit proxies we have for this, we make various sim...

ai british theory speech intelligence failing published ea maple miri anthropic sahil topos rationalist vernor vinge alife lesswrong aisc iirc matt farr

LW - Live Theory Part 0: Taking Intelligence Seriously by Sahil

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2024 20:19

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Live Theory Part 0: Taking Intelligence Seriously, published by Sahil on June 27, 2024 on LessWrong. Acknowledgements The vision here was midwifed originally in the wild and gentle radiance that is Abram's company (though essentially none of the content is explicitly his). The PIBBSS-spirit has been infused in this work from before it began (may it infuse us all), as have meetings with the Agent Foundations team at MIRI over the past ~2 years. More recently, everyone who has been loving the High Actuation project into form (very often spontaneously and without being encumbered by self-consciousness of this fact):[1] individuals include Steve Petersen, Mateusz Baginski, Aditya Prasad, Harmony, TJ, Chris Lakin; the AISC 2024 team, Murray Buchanan, Matt Farr, Arpan Agrawal, Adam, Ryan, Quinn; various people from Topos, ALIFE, MAPLE, EA Bangalore. Published while at CEEALAR. Disclaimers Very occasionally there are small remarks/questions from a remarkable human named Steve, since this and the next two posts are an edited transcript of me giving him a talk. I left them in to retain the conversational tone. Steve has also consistently been a fantastic ground for this channeling. I use the term "artefact" a fair amount in this sequence. Unfortunately for you and me, Anthropic also recently started using "artifact" in a different way. I'm using "artefact" in the common sense of the word. The British spelling should help remind of the distinction. Taking Intelligence Seriously Sahil: I gave a talk recently, at an EA event just two days ago, where I made some quick slides (on the day of the talk, so not nearly as tidy as I'd like) and attempted to walk through this so-called "live theory". (Alternative terms include "adaptive theory" or "fluid theory"; where the theories themselves are imbued with some intelligence.) Maybe I can give you that talk. I'm not sure how much of what I was saying there will be present now, but I can try. What do you think? I think it'll take about 15 minutes. Yeah? Steve: Cool. Sahil: Okay, let me give you a version of this talk that's very abbreviated. So, the title I'm sure already makes sense to you, Steve. I don't know if this is something that you know, but I prefer the word "adaptivity" over intelligence. I'm fine with using "intelligence" for this talk, but really, when I'm thinking of AI and LLMs and "live" (as you'll see later), I'm thinking, in part, of adaptive. And I think that connotes much more of the relevant phenomena, and much less controversially. It's also less distractingly "foundational", in the sense of endless questions on "what intelligence means". Failing to Take Intelligence Seriously Right. So, I want to say there are two ways to fail to take intelligence, or adaptivity, seriously. One is, you know, the classic case, of people ignoring existential risk from artificial intelligence. The old "well, it's just a computer, just software. What's the big deal? We can turn it off." We all know the story there. In many ways, this particular failure-of-imagination is much less pronounced today. But, I say, a dual failure-of-imagination is true today even among the "cognoscenti", where we ignore intelligence by ignoring opportunities from moderately capable mindlike entities at scale. I'll go over this sentence slower in the next slide. For now: there are two ways to not meet reality. On the left of the slide is "nothing will change". The same "classic" case of "yeah, what's the big deal? It's just software." On the right, it's the total singularity, of extreme unknowable super-intelligence. In fact, the phrase "technological singularity", IIRC, was coined by Vernor Vinge to mark the point that we can't predict beyond. So, it's also a way to be mind-killed. Even with whatever in-the-limit proxies we have for this, we make various sim...

ai british theory speech intelligence failing published ea maple miri anthropic sahil topos rationalist vernor vinge alife lesswrong aisc iirc matt farr

AF - Live Theory Part 0: Taking Intelligence Seriously by Sahil

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2024 20:19

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Live Theory Part 0: Taking Intelligence Seriously, published by Sahil on June 26, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum. Acknowledgements The vision here was midwifed originally in the wild and gentle radiance that is Abram's company (though essentially none of the content is explicitly his). The PIBBSS-spirit has been infused in this work from before it began (may it infuse us all), as have meetings with the Agent Foundations team at MIRI over the past ~2 years. More recently, everyone who has been loving the High Actuation project into form (very often spontaneously and without being encumbered by self-consciousness of this fact):[1] individuals include Steve Petersen, Mateusz Baginski, Aditya Prasad, Harmony, TJ, Chris Lakin; the AISC 2024 team, Murray Buchanan, Matt Farr, Arpan Agrawal, Adam, Ryan, Quinn; various people from Topos, ALIFE, MAPLE, EA Bangalore. Published while at CEEALAR. Disclaimers Very occasionally there are small remarks/questions from a remarkable human named Steve, since this and the next two posts are an edited transcript of me giving him a talk. I left them in to retain the conversational tone. Steve has also consistently been a fantastic ground for this channeling. I use the term "artefact" a fair amount in this sequence. Unfortunately for you and me, Anthropic also recently started using "artifact" in a different way. I'm using "artefact" in the common sense of the word. The British spelling should help remind of the distinction. Taking Intelligence Seriously Sahil: I gave a talk recently, at an EA event just two days ago, where I made some quick slides (on the day of the talk, so not nearly as tidy as I'd like) and attempted to walk through this so-called "live theory". (Alternative terms include "adaptive theory" or "fluid theory"; where the theories themselves are imbued with some intelligence.) Maybe I can give you that talk. I'm not sure how much of what I was saying there will be present now, but I can try. What do you think? I think it'll take about 15 minutes. Yeah? Steve: Cool. Sahil: Okay, let me give you a version of this talk that's very abbreviated. So, the title I'm sure already makes sense to you, Steve. I don't know if this is something that you know, but I prefer the word "adaptivity" over intelligence. I'm fine with using "intelligence" for this talk, but really, when I'm thinking of AI and LLMs and "live" (as you'll see later), I'm thinking, in part, of adaptive. And I think that connotes much more of the relevant phenomena, and much less controversially. It's also less distractingly "foundational", in the sense of endless questions on "what intelligence means". Failing to Take Intelligence Seriously Right. So, I want to say there are two ways to fail to take intelligence, or adaptivity, seriously. One is, you know, the classic case, of people ignoring existential risk from artificial intelligence. The old "well, it's just a computer, just software. What's the big deal? We can turn it off." We all know the story there. In many ways, this particular failure-of-imagination is much less pronounced today. But, I say, a dual failure-of-imagination is true today even among the "cognoscenti", where we ignore intelligence by ignoring opportunities from moderately capable mindlike entities at scale. I'll go over this sentence slower in the next slide. For now: there are two ways to not meet reality. On the left of the slide is "nothing will change". The same "classic" case of "yeah, what's the big deal? It's just software." On the right, it's the total singularity, of extreme unknowable super-intelligence. In fact, the phrase "technological singularity", IIRC, was coined by Vernor Vinge to mark the point that we can't predict beyond. So, it's also a way to be mind-killed. Even with whatever in-the-limit proxies we have for this, we mak...

ai british theory speech intelligence failing published ea maple miri anthropic sahil topos rationalist vernor vinge alife aisc iirc matt farr

LW - Examples of Highly Counterfactual Discoveries? by johnswentworth

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 23, 2024 2:21

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Examples of Highly Counterfactual Discoveries?, published by johnswentworth on April 23, 2024 on LessWrong. The history of science has tons of examples of the same thing being discovered multiple time independently; wikipedia has a whole list of examples here. If your goal in studying the history of science is to extract the predictable/overdetermined component of humanity's trajectory, then it makes sense to focus on such examples. But if your goal is to achieve high counterfactual impact in your own research, then you should probably draw inspiration from the opposite: "singular" discoveries, i.e. discoveries which nobody else was anywhere close to figuring out. After all, if someone else would have figured it out shortly after anyways, then the discovery probably wasn't very counterfactually impactful. Alas, nobody seems to have made a list of highly counterfactual scientific discoveries, to complement wikipedia's list of multiple discoveries. To that end: what are some examples of discoveries which nobody else was anywhere close to figuring out? A few tentative examples to kick things off: Shannon's information theory. The closest work I know of (notably Nyquist) was 20 years earlier, and had none of the core ideas of the theorems on fungibility of transmission. In the intervening 20 years, it seems nobody else got importantly closer to the core ideas of information theory. Einstein's special relativity. Poincaré and Lorentz had the math 20 years earlier IIRC, but nobody understood what the heck that math meant. Einstein brought the interpretation, and it seems nobody else got importantly closer to that interpretation in the intervening two decades. Penicillin. Gemini tells me that the antibiotic effects of mold had been noted 30 years earlier, but nobody investigated it as a medicine in all that time. Pasteur's work on the germ theory of disease. There had been both speculative theories and scattered empirical results as precedent decades earlier, but Pasteur was the first to bring together the microscope observations, theory, highly compelling empirical results, and successful applications. I don't know of anyone else who was close to putting all the pieces together, despite the obvious prerequisite technology (the microscope) having been available for two centuries by then. (Feel free to debate any of these, as well as others' examples.) Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

speech albert einstein ea gemini alas discoveries pasteur penicillin lorentz nyquist counterfactuals rationalist poincar lesswrong iirc

LW - Examples of Highly Counterfactual Discoveries? by johnswentworth

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 23, 2024 2:21

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Examples of Highly Counterfactual Discoveries?, published by johnswentworth on April 23, 2024 on LessWrong. The history of science has tons of examples of the same thing being discovered multiple time independently; wikipedia has a whole list of examples here. If your goal in studying the history of science is to extract the predictable/overdetermined component of humanity's trajectory, then it makes sense to focus on such examples. But if your goal is to achieve high counterfactual impact in your own research, then you should probably draw inspiration from the opposite: "singular" discoveries, i.e. discoveries which nobody else was anywhere close to figuring out. After all, if someone else would have figured it out shortly after anyways, then the discovery probably wasn't very counterfactually impactful. Alas, nobody seems to have made a list of highly counterfactual scientific discoveries, to complement wikipedia's list of multiple discoveries. To that end: what are some examples of discoveries which nobody else was anywhere close to figuring out? A few tentative examples to kick things off: Shannon's information theory. The closest work I know of (notably Nyquist) was 20 years earlier, and had none of the core ideas of the theorems on fungibility of transmission. In the intervening 20 years, it seems nobody else got importantly closer to the core ideas of information theory. Einstein's special relativity. Poincaré and Lorentz had the math 20 years earlier IIRC, but nobody understood what the heck that math meant. Einstein brought the interpretation, and it seems nobody else got importantly closer to that interpretation in the intervening two decades. Penicillin. Gemini tells me that the antibiotic effects of mold had been noted 30 years earlier, but nobody investigated it as a medicine in all that time. Pasteur's work on the germ theory of disease. There had been both speculative theories and scattered empirical results as precedent decades earlier, but Pasteur was the first to bring together the microscope observations, theory, highly compelling empirical results, and successful applications. I don't know of anyone else who was close to putting all the pieces together, despite the obvious prerequisite technology (the microscope) having been available for two centuries by then. (Feel free to debate any of these, as well as others' examples.) Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

speech albert einstein ea gemini alas discoveries pasteur penicillin lorentz nyquist counterfactuals rationalist poincar lesswrong iirc

LW - Jobs, Relationships, and Other Cults by Ruby

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 14, 2024 50:13

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Jobs, Relationships, and Other Cults, published by Ruby on March 14, 2024 on LessWrong. For years I (Elizabeth) have been trying to write out my grant unified theory of [good/bad/high-variance/high-investment] [jobs/relationships/religions/social groups]. In this dialogue me (Elizabeth) and Ruby throw a bunch of component models back and forth and get all the way to better defining the question. About a year ago someone published Common Knowledge About Leverage Research, which IIRC had some information that was concerning but not devastating. You showed me a draft of a reply you wrote to that post, that pointed out lots of similar things Lightcone/LessWrong did and how, yeah, they could look bad, but they could also be part of a fine trade-off. Before you could publish that, an ex-employee of Leverage published a much more damning account. This feels to me like it encapsulates part of a larger system of trade-offs. Accomplishing big things sometimes requires weirdness, and sometimes sacrifice, but places telling you "well we're weird and high sacrifice but it's worth it" are usually covering something up. But they're also not wrong that certain extremely useful things can't get done within standard 9-5 norms. Which makes me think that improving social tech to make the trade-offs clearer and better implemented would be valuable. Which makes me think that improving social tech to make the trade-offs clearer and better implemented would be valuable. Seems right. I don't remember the details of all the exchanges with the initial Leverage accusations. Not sure if it was me or someone else who'd drafted the list of things that sounded equally bad, though I do remember something like that. My current vague recollection was feeling kind of mindkilled on the topic. There was external pressure regarding the anonymous post, maybe others internally were calling it bad and I felt I had to agree? I suppose there's the topic of handling accusations and surfacing info, but that's a somewhat different topic. I think it's possible to make Lightcone/LessWrong sound bad but also I feel like there are meaningful differences between Lightcone and Leverage or Nonlinear. It'd be interesting to me figure out the diagnostic questions which get at that. One differentiating guess is that while Lightcone is a high commitment org that generally asks a for a piece of your soul [1], and if you're around there's pressure to give more, my felt feeling is we will not make it "hard to get off the train". I could imagine if that the org did decide we were moving to the Bahamas, we might have offered six-months severance to whoever didn't want to join, or something like that. There have been asks that Oli was very reluctant to make of the team (getting into community politics stuff) because that felt beyond scope of what people signed up for. Things like that meant although there were large asks, I haven't felt trapped by them even if I've felt socially pressured. Sorry, just rambling some on my own initial thoughts. Happy to focus on helping you articulate points from your blog posts that you'd most like to get out. Thoughts on the tradeoffs you'd most like to get out there? (One last stray thought: I do think there are lots of ways regular 9-5 jobs end up being absolutely awful for people without even trying to do ambitious or weird things, and Lightcone is bad in some of those ways, and generally I think they're a different term in the equation worth giving thought to and separating out.) [1] Although actually the last few months have felt particular un-soul-asky relative to my five years with the team. I think it's possible to make Lightcone/LessWrong sound bad but also I feel like there are meaningful differences between Lightcone and Leverage or Nonlinear. It'd be interesting to me figure out the d...

relationships jobs speech leverage bahamas ea cults oli accomplishing nonlinear rationalist lesswrong iirc

LW - Jobs, Relationships, and Other Cults by Ruby

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 14, 2024 50:13

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Jobs, Relationships, and Other Cults, published by Ruby on March 14, 2024 on LessWrong. For years I (Elizabeth) have been trying to write out my grant unified theory of [good/bad/high-variance/high-investment] [jobs/relationships/religions/social groups]. In this dialogue me (Elizabeth) and Ruby throw a bunch of component models back and forth and get all the way to better defining the question. About a year ago someone published Common Knowledge About Leverage Research, which IIRC had some information that was concerning but not devastating. You showed me a draft of a reply you wrote to that post, that pointed out lots of similar things Lightcone/LessWrong did and how, yeah, they could look bad, but they could also be part of a fine trade-off. Before you could publish that, an ex-employee of Leverage published a much more damning account. This feels to me like it encapsulates part of a larger system of trade-offs. Accomplishing big things sometimes requires weirdness, and sometimes sacrifice, but places telling you "well we're weird and high sacrifice but it's worth it" are usually covering something up. But they're also not wrong that certain extremely useful things can't get done within standard 9-5 norms. Which makes me think that improving social tech to make the trade-offs clearer and better implemented would be valuable. Which makes me think that improving social tech to make the trade-offs clearer and better implemented would be valuable. Seems right. I don't remember the details of all the exchanges with the initial Leverage accusations. Not sure if it was me or someone else who'd drafted the list of things that sounded equally bad, though I do remember something like that. My current vague recollection was feeling kind of mindkilled on the topic. There was external pressure regarding the anonymous post, maybe others internally were calling it bad and I felt I had to agree? I suppose there's the topic of handling accusations and surfacing info, but that's a somewhat different topic. I think it's possible to make Lightcone/LessWrong sound bad but also I feel like there are meaningful differences between Lightcone and Leverage or Nonlinear. It'd be interesting to me figure out the diagnostic questions which get at that. One differentiating guess is that while Lightcone is a high commitment org that generally asks a for a piece of your soul [1], and if you're around there's pressure to give more, my felt feeling is we will not make it "hard to get off the train". I could imagine if that the org did decide we were moving to the Bahamas, we might have offered six-months severance to whoever didn't want to join, or something like that. There have been asks that Oli was very reluctant to make of the team (getting into community politics stuff) because that felt beyond scope of what people signed up for. Things like that meant although there were large asks, I haven't felt trapped by them even if I've felt socially pressured. Sorry, just rambling some on my own initial thoughts. Happy to focus on helping you articulate points from your blog posts that you'd most like to get out. Thoughts on the tradeoffs you'd most like to get out there? (One last stray thought: I do think there are lots of ways regular 9-5 jobs end up being absolutely awful for people without even trying to do ambitious or weird things, and Lightcone is bad in some of those ways, and generally I think they're a different term in the equation worth giving thought to and separating out.) [1] Although actually the last few months have felt particular un-soul-asky relative to my five years with the team. I think it's possible to make Lightcone/LessWrong sound bad but also I feel like there are meaningful differences between Lightcone and Leverage or Nonlinear. It'd be interesting to me figure out the d...

relationships jobs speech leverage bahamas ea cults oli accomplishing nonlinear rationalist lesswrong iirc

LW - Why I'm Not (Yet) A Full-Time Technical Alignment Researcher by NicholasKross

Play Episode Listen Later May 26, 2023 6:47

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why I'm Not (Yet) A Full-Time Technical Alignment Researcher, published by NicholasKross on May 25, 2023 on LessWrong. I have bills to pay (rent and food). For those, I need money. Most full-time technical alignment researchers solve this problem by looking for outside funding. (I.e., most researchers are not independently wealthy; they go to someone else to afford to work on alignment full-time.) To get funding in alignment, you generally apply for a grant or a job. In both cases, anyone who'd give you those things will want to see evidence, beforehand, that you know what you're doing. To a near-tautological degree, this evidence must be "legible". How do I make my skills/ideas legible? The recommended route is to write my ideas on a blog/LessWrong, read and interact with other alignment materials, and then... eventually it's enough, I assume. For reasons I may/not write about in the near future, many ideas about alignment (especially anything that could be done with today's systems) could very well accelerate capabilities work. There are at least some types of alignment research that are also easy to use for increasing capabilities. Since I'm especially interested in John Wentworth's "abstraction" ideas, anything good I come up might also be like that. In other words legibility and security conflict at least some of the time, especially on the sorts of ideas I'm personally likely to have. OK, fine, maybe it's hard to publish legible non-exfohazardous original/smart thoughts about AI alignment. Luckily, funders and hire-ers don't expect everyrone coming in to have already published papers! Perhaps I can simply demonstrate my skills, instead? Firstly, many technical skills relevant to AI alignment are hard to demonstrate efficiently. Say you develop a cool new ML algorithm. Did you just speed up capabilities? Okay, just take public notes on a large amount of technical reading... but that mostly signals conscientiousness, not research Talent:tm:! Well, how about you do another technical project... well, now you're wasting precious time that maybe should've been spent on original research. How long are your timelines? (This also applies to the "become independently wealthy to fund yourself" strategy, only more so. I spent an embarrassingly long time on that route in my spare time...) My skills, themselves, are not always legible! Some of my skills are legible enough for my resume: I've engineered some software at some companies, I know how to debug things, and I list more in a section below. I'm pretty okay at these things. However, I think the stuff I'm best at is currently under-measured. These skills include (but aren't limited to): fast learning (assuming I have the energy and sleep and hopefully a bit of prior exposure to the topic), some technical intuition, absurdly-general knowledge, a good bit of security mindset, having-read-and-understood-most-of-The-Sequences, thinking clearly (again modulo sleep/energy), noticing some things, curiosity, and the oft-mocked-but-probably-underrated "creativity" or "idea generation". I wish there were something like Human Benchmark but for the kinds of "mental motions" needed in AI alignment research. Even when my skills are legible, they don't seem to be "world-class" in the way that MIRI or OpenAI seem to select for. I got a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science (with a minor in Mathematics) from RIT, in upstate New York. Is that impressive? I got a math-SAT score of over 700, IIRC, and the paper I got back said I was in the 98th or 99th percentile. Is that interesting? I worked with Tensorflow at an internship, and have learned (and often forgotten) the basics of ML coding in classes and online courses. Is that enough for more theoretical/mathematical/conceptual work in alignment? I list more of these in a section below, bu...

new york ai bachelor talent speech alignment researchers technical full time ea openai computer science mathematics ml miri sequences rit tensorflow rationalist lesswrong iirc

LW - Why I'm Not (Yet) A Full-Time Technical Alignment Researcher by NicholasKross

Play Episode Listen Later May 26, 2023 6:47

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why I'm Not (Yet) A Full-Time Technical Alignment Researcher, published by NicholasKross on May 25, 2023 on LessWrong. I have bills to pay (rent and food). For those, I need money. Most full-time technical alignment researchers solve this problem by looking for outside funding. (I.e., most researchers are not independently wealthy; they go to someone else to afford to work on alignment full-time.) To get funding in alignment, you generally apply for a grant or a job. In both cases, anyone who'd give you those things will want to see evidence, beforehand, that you know what you're doing. To a near-tautological degree, this evidence must be "legible". How do I make my skills/ideas legible? The recommended route is to write my ideas on a blog/LessWrong, read and interact with other alignment materials, and then... eventually it's enough, I assume. For reasons I may/not write about in the near future, many ideas about alignment (especially anything that could be done with today's systems) could very well accelerate capabilities work. There are at least some types of alignment research that are also easy to use for increasing capabilities. Since I'm especially interested in John Wentworth's "abstraction" ideas, anything good I come up might also be like that. In other words legibility and security conflict at least some of the time, especially on the sorts of ideas I'm personally likely to have. OK, fine, maybe it's hard to publish legible non-exfohazardous original/smart thoughts about AI alignment. Luckily, funders and hire-ers don't expect everyrone coming in to have already published papers! Perhaps I can simply demonstrate my skills, instead? Firstly, many technical skills relevant to AI alignment are hard to demonstrate efficiently. Say you develop a cool new ML algorithm. Did you just speed up capabilities? Okay, just take public notes on a large amount of technical reading... but that mostly signals conscientiousness, not research Talent:tm:! Well, how about you do another technical project... well, now you're wasting precious time that maybe should've been spent on original research. How long are your timelines? (This also applies to the "become independently wealthy to fund yourself" strategy, only more so. I spent an embarrassingly long time on that route in my spare time...) My skills, themselves, are not always legible! Some of my skills are legible enough for my resume: I've engineered some software at some companies, I know how to debug things, and I list more in a section below. I'm pretty okay at these things. However, I think the stuff I'm best at is currently under-measured. These skills include (but aren't limited to): fast learning (assuming I have the energy and sleep and hopefully a bit of prior exposure to the topic), some technical intuition, absurdly-general knowledge, a good bit of security mindset, having-read-and-understood-most-of-The-Sequences, thinking clearly (again modulo sleep/energy), noticing some things, curiosity, and the oft-mocked-but-probably-underrated "creativity" or "idea generation". I wish there were something like Human Benchmark but for the kinds of "mental motions" needed in AI alignment research. Even when my skills are legible, they don't seem to be "world-class" in the way that MIRI or OpenAI seem to select for. I got a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science (with a minor in Mathematics) from RIT, in upstate New York. Is that impressive? I got a math-SAT score of over 700, IIRC, and the paper I got back said I was in the 98th or 99th percentile. Is that interesting? I worked with Tensorflow at an internship, and have learned (and often forgotten) the basics of ML coding in classes and online courses. Is that enough for more theoretical/mathematical/conceptual work in alignment? I list more of these in a section below, bu...

new york ai bachelor talent speech alignment researchers technical full time ea openai computer science mathematics ml miri sequences rit tensorflow rationalist lesswrong iirc

232: Theresa A. revisits

Live IFS

Play Episode Listen Later May 19, 2023 56:19

makes embarrassment internal family systems forceful iirc

232: Theresa A. revisits

Live IFS

Play Episode Listen Later May 19, 2023 56:19

makes embarrassment internal family systems forceful iirc

AF - What organizations other than Conjecture have (esp. public) info-hazard policies? by David Scott Krueger

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 16, 2023 0:47

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What organizations other than Conjecture have (esp. public) info-hazard policies?, published by David Scott Krueger on March 16, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. I believe Anthropic has said they won't publish capabilities research?OpenAI seems to be sort of doing the same (although no policy AFAIK).I heard FHI was developing one way back when...I think MIRI sort of does as well (default to not publishing, IIRC?) Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

public speech organizations policies ea openai hazard krueger miri anthropic david scott conjecture fhi rationalist iirc

LW - Heritability, Behaviorism, and Within-Lifetime RL by Steven Byrnes

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 3, 2023 7:13

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Heritability, Behaviorism, and Within-Lifetime RL, published by Steven Byrnes on February 2, 2023 on LessWrong. I'm a firm subscriber to both: (A) The theory that people's personalities are significantly predictable from their genes, and mostly independent of how their parents raised them (at least within the typical distribution, i.e. leaving aside cases of flagrant abuse and neglect etc.). See e.g. popular expositions of this theory by Judith Harris or by Bryan Caplan for the fine print. (B) The theory that we should think of people's beliefs and goals and preferences developing via within-lifetime learning, and more specifically via within-lifetime Model-based Reinforcement Learning (details), with randomly-initialized (“learning-from-scratch”) world-model and value function. I feel like there's an idea in the air that these two beliefs are contradictory. For example, one time someone politely informed me that (A) is true and therefore obviously (B) must be false. Needless to say, I don't think they're contradictory. Indeed, I think that (B) naturally implies (A). But I admit that they sorta feel contradictory. Why do they feel that way? I think because: (A) is sorta vaguely affiliated with cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, etc. (B) is sorta vaguely affiliated with B.F. Skinner-style behaviorism, .and those two schools-of-thought are generally considered to be bitter enemies. In this short post I want to explain why we should put aside that baggage and see (A) & (B) as natural allies. Two dubious steps to get from (B) to Behaviorism Here's the fleshed-out argument as I see it: I'll go through the two dubious steps in the opposite order. Dubious step #1: “No more learning / unlearning after the kid grows up” Here are two stories: “RL with continuous learning” story: The person has an internal reward function in their head, and over time they'll settle into the patterns of thought & behavior that best tickle their internal reward function. If they spend a lot of time in the presence of their parents, they'll gradually learn patterns of thought & behavior that best tickle their innate internal reward function in the presence of their parents. If they spend a lot of time hanging out with friends, they'll gradually learn patterns of thought & behavior that best tickle their innate internal reward function when they're hanging out with friends. As adults in society, they'll gradually learn patterns of thought & behavior that best tickle their innate internal reward function as adults in society. “RL learn-then-get-stuck” story: The kid learns patterns of thoughts & behavior in childhood, and then sticks with those patterns for the rest of their lives no matter what. Claim: I think the “RL with continuous learning” story, not the “RL learn-then-get-stuck” story, is how we should generally be thinking about things. At least in humans. (Probably also in non-human animals, but that's off-topic.) I am not making a strong statement that the “RL learn-then-get-stuck” story is obviously and universally wrong and stupid nonsense. Indeed, I think there are edge cases where the “learn-then-get-stuck” story is true. For example, childhood phobias can sometimes persist into adulthood, and certainly childhood regional accents do. Some related discussion is at Scott Alexander's blog post “Trapped priors”. Instead, I think we should mainly believe the “RL with continuous learning” story for empirical reasons: Heritability studies: See top. More specifically, note that (IIRC) parenting style can have some effect on what a kid believes and how they behave while a child, but these effects fade out when the kid grows up. Culture shifts: Culture shifts are in fact possible, contrary to the “RL learn-then-get-stuck” story. For example, almost everybody in the USA opposed gay marria...

united states culture model speech lifetime trapped needless ea skinner rl dubious byrnes scott alexander reinforcement learning bryan caplan behaviorism rationalist heritability lesswrong iirc

LW - You are better at math (and alignment) than you think by Trevor1

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 13, 2022 35:33

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: You are better at math (and alignment) than you think, published by Trevor1 on October 13, 2022 on LessWrong. I was absolutely dazzled by the Viliam-Valentine Math-Education debate, which was in the comments section of the Seeking PCK chapter in the Center for Applied Rationality's Rationality Handbook. The debate gives an autopsy of why education systems inflicts math on children during their most formative years, resulting in the vast majority of the population falsely believing that they cannot enjoy math. In reality, you can probably get very good at math and have a great time doing it too; and, in fact, you even have a very serious chance of becoming one of the 300 AI safety researchers on earth. Odds are also good that you have a big advantage in terms of "superior-at-actually-using-math-in-real life" genes, which have a surprisingly weak correlation with the "inferior at learning math in a classroom at age 7" genes (such as being praise-motivated, obedient, and comfortable doing the same thing hundreds of times without asking why). I strongly recommend reading this debate yourself if you currently don't see yourself as quantitatively skilled or quantitatively employed, and also showing it to other people who might have had strong potential for quantitative skill all along. The phenomena described below seems to be the main reason why such a small proportion of people are willing to do the quantitative work necessary for technical AI alignment, and therefore they are a major alignment bottleneck that is worth tackling. Viliam: I think that in Slovakia an d Czechia, this style of teaching [PCK, aka paying attention to what it's like to learn something while you are teaching] is referred to as "constructivist education". On the other hand, for English-speaking audience, the word "constructivism" seems to refer to quite different things (1, 2, 3). And when I try to explain concepts like this in English, I sometimes get surprising responses when people seem to automatically run along the chain of associations: "trying to understand the student's model" = "constructivism" = "you should never explain math" = "math wars" = "total failure". I tried to figure out how this could have happened, and my current best guess is that in the past some people in USA promoted some really stupid and harmful ideas under the banner of "constructivism", which made people associate the word "constructivism" with those stupid ideas. Meanwhile, some of the original good ideas are still taught, but carefully under different labels. (Longer version here.) So perhaps the people who want to learn how to teach well, could find something useful in the writings of Piaget and Vygotsky. However, a Google search for "constructivism" might just return a list of horror stories. By the way, I would expect pedagogical content knowledge of STEM topics to be super rare, because it requires an intersection of being good at psychology and math. And, at least in my experience, psychologists are often quite math- and tech-phobic. On the other hand, people good at math often fail to empathize with the beginners, and just keep writing complex equations, preferably without explanation of what the symbols mean. Valentine: On the other hand, for English-speaking audience, the word "constructivism" seems to refer to quite different things (1, 2, 3). And when I try to explain concepts like this in English, I sometimes get surprising responses when people seem to automatically run along the chain of associations: "trying to understand the student's model" = "constructivism" = "you should never explain math" = "math wars" = "total failure". IIRC, this was the result of trying to implement the good version of constructivism in the USA. It wasn't just that some people had bad ideas and called those "constructivism" to...

united states english google ai speech math longer stem odds alignment ea slovakia czechia piaget rationalist vygotsky lesswrong pck applied rationality iirc

LW - You are better at math (and alignment) than you think by Trevor1

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 13, 2022 35:33

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: You are better at math (and alignment) than you think, published by Trevor1 on October 13, 2022 on LessWrong. I was absolutely dazzled by the Viliam-Valentine Math-Education debate, which was in the comments section of the Seeking PCK chapter in the Center for Applied Rationality's Rationality Handbook. The debate gives an autopsy of why education systems inflicts math on children during their most formative years, resulting in the vast majority of the population falsely believing that they cannot enjoy math. In reality, you can probably get very good at math and have a great time doing it too; and, in fact, you even have a very serious chance of becoming one of the 300 AI safety researchers on earth. Odds are also good that you have a big advantage in terms of "superior-at-actually-using-math-in-real life" genes, which have a surprisingly weak correlation with the "inferior at learning math in a classroom at age 7" genes (such as being praise-motivated, obedient, and comfortable doing the same thing hundreds of times without asking why). I strongly recommend reading this debate yourself if you currently don't see yourself as quantitatively skilled or quantitatively employed, and also showing it to other people who might have had strong potential for quantitative skill all along. The phenomena described below seems to be the main reason why such a small proportion of people are willing to do the quantitative work necessary for technical AI alignment, and therefore they are a major alignment bottleneck that is worth tackling. Viliam: I think that in Slovakia an d Czechia, this style of teaching [PCK, aka paying attention to what it's like to learn something while you are teaching] is referred to as "constructivist education". On the other hand, for English-speaking audience, the word "constructivism" seems to refer to quite different things (1, 2, 3). And when I try to explain concepts like this in English, I sometimes get surprising responses when people seem to automatically run along the chain of associations: "trying to understand the student's model" = "constructivism" = "you should never explain math" = "math wars" = "total failure". I tried to figure out how this could have happened, and my current best guess is that in the past some people in USA promoted some really stupid and harmful ideas under the banner of "constructivism", which made people associate the word "constructivism" with those stupid ideas. Meanwhile, some of the original good ideas are still taught, but carefully under different labels. (Longer version here.) So perhaps the people who want to learn how to teach well, could find something useful in the writings of Piaget and Vygotsky. However, a Google search for "constructivism" might just return a list of horror stories. By the way, I would expect pedagogical content knowledge of STEM topics to be super rare, because it requires an intersection of being good at psychology and math. And, at least in my experience, psychologists are often quite math- and tech-phobic. On the other hand, people good at math often fail to empathize with the beginners, and just keep writing complex equations, preferably without explanation of what the symbols mean. Valentine: On the other hand, for English-speaking audience, the word "constructivism" seems to refer to quite different things (1, 2, 3). And when I try to explain concepts like this in English, I sometimes get surprising responses when people seem to automatically run along the chain of associations: "trying to understand the student's model" = "constructivism" = "you should never explain math" = "math wars" = "total failure". IIRC, this was the result of trying to implement the good version of constructivism in the USA. It wasn't just that some people had bad ideas and called those "constructivism" to...

united states english google ai speech math longer stem odds alignment ea slovakia czechia piaget rationalist vygotsky lesswrong pck applied rationality iirc

EA - Meat Externalities by Richard Y Chappell

The Nonlinear Library: LessWrong Top Posts

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 11, 2022 4:04

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Meat Externalities, published by Richard Y Chappell on July 11, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. [Thanks to Pablo S. for suggesting that I cross-post this here.] A year ago, Scott Alexander argued that it's better to eat beef than chicken, on the (interesting but questionably relevant) grounds that it's vastly cheaper to offset the climate costs of beef than the animal welfare costs of chicken: Eating beef causes more climate change than eating chicken, but eating chicken causes more animal suffering than eating beef. Offsetting the climate change effects of beef would only cost $22 per year, which seems really good. Offsetting the animal suffering effects of chicken might only cost $360 per year, but this is a very tentative estimate and maybe shouldn't be taken seriously. Also, these only work if you're actually doing the offsetting. If not, you should probably default to eating beef over chicken, but I can't prove it. So I was excited to hear Kevin Kuruc's talk on ‘Monetizing the Externalities of Animal Agriculture' (you can find the full paper on his website), extending standard economic models of the “social cost of carbon” to additionally estimate the “social cost” of factory-farmed animal suffering. The headline result: We find that the welfare costs of global animal agriculture are very large in the case that animals do not have net-pleasurable existences: the monetized costs of producing the meat consumed for the Standard American Diet (SAD) for one person is on the order of $100,000 per year under our baseline parameters. In other words, eliminating the production of meat required for one individual's diet for one year confers social welfare benefits equal to the benefits of increasing annual global output by more than $100,000. While this particular number is highly sensitive to the baseline parameters of the model, the broader conclusion that animal welfare costs completely swamp the climate costs of eating meat turns out to be almost unavoidable once you grant that factory-farmed animal lives are net-negative. Note that, while the animal welfare costs of the Standard American Diet are on the order of $100,000 per year, the climate costs are a mere $47. Combining these with Scott Alexander's estimates of offsetting efficacy yields some interesting results. Suppose for simplicity that the SAD involves equal parts beef and chicken. (This is presumably incorrect, so take the following numbers with a large grain of salt.) $47 worth of climate costs could then be prevented with a mere $11 to effective climate charities. (Good value!) Whereas >$100,000 worth of animal suffering costs could be prevented with ~$180 donated to effective animal suffering charities. (Insanely good value!) I should re-emphasize that these numbers are unreliable. But they indicate at least some back-of-the-envelope reason to expect effective animal charities to do (vastly!) more good per $ than climate charities. And even when replacing all chicken with beef, the welfare costs still dwarf the climate costs by many orders of magnitude. So for reasons of both efficacy and reparative justice, it seems that meat eaters should eat (only) beef and then prioritize further offsetting the animal welfare costs of being non-vegetarian, rather than merely offsetting the (comparatively trivial) climate costs. So that's an interesting result. One thing I'd be curious to hear more about is how the ~$100,000 in negative externalities compares to the (i) intrinsic value, and (ii) positive externalities of a Standard American year of life. IIRC, the value of a statistical life-year in the US is itself on the order of $100,000. So the harm of a Standard American Diet roughly balances out the intrinsic value of a standard American life (on standard economic approaches). If you're neither vegetarian ...

american eating speech meat sad ea monetizing chappell insanely standard american diet pablos scott alexander animal agriculture externalities rationalist standard american iirc

Lessons I've Learned from Self-Teaching

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 12, 2021 15:09

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Lessons I've Learned from Self-Teaching, published by TurnTrout on LessWrong. In 2018, I was a bright-eyed grad student who was freaking out about AI alignment. I guess I'm still a bright-eyed grad student freaking out about AI alignment, but that's beside the point. I wanted to help, and so I started levelling up. While I'd read Nate Soares's self-teaching posts, there were a few key lessons I'd either failed to internalize or failed to consider at all. I think that implementing these might have doubled the benefit I drew from my studies. I can't usefully write a letter to my past self, so let me write a letter to you instead, keeping in mind that good advice for past-me may not be good advice for you. Make Sure You Remember The Content TL;DR: use a spaced repetition system like Anki. Put in cards for key concepts and practice using the concepts. Review the cards every day without fail. This is the most important piece of advice. The first few months of 2018 were a dream: I was learning math, having fun, and remaking myself. I read and reviewed about one textbook a month. I was learning how to math, how to write proofs and read equations fluently and think rigorously. I had so much fun that I hurt my wrists typing up my thoughts on impact measures. This turned a lot of my life upside-down. My wrists wouldn't fully heal for two years, and a lot happened during that time. After I hurt my wrists, I became somewhat depressed, posted less frequently, and read fewer books. When I looked back in 2019/2020 and asked "when and why did my love for textbooks sputter out?", the obvious answer was "when I hurt my hands and lost my sense of autonomy and became depressed, perchance? And maybe I just became averse to reading that way?" The obvious answer was wrong, but its obvious-ness stopped me from finding the truth until late last year. It felt right, but my introspection had failed me. The real answer is: when I started learning math, I gained a lot of implicit knowledge, like how to write proofs and read math (relatively) quickly. However, I'm no Hermione Granger: left unaided, I'm bad at remembering explicit facts / theorem statements / etc. I gained implicit knowledge but I didn't remember the actual definitions, unless I actually used them regularly (e.g. as I did for real analysis, which I remained quite fluent in and which I regularly use in my research). Furthermore, I think I coincidentally hit steeply diminishing returns on the implicit knowledge around when I injured myself. So basically I'm reading these math textbooks, doing the problems, getting a bit better at writing proofs but not really durably remembering 95% of the content. Maybe part of my subconscious noticed that I seem to be wasting time, that when I come back four months after reading a third of a graph theory textbook, I barely remember the new content I had "learned." I thought I was doing things right. I was doing dozens of exercises and thinking deeply about why each definition was the way it was, thinking about how I could apply these theorems to better reason about my own life and my own research, etc. I explicitly noticed this problem in late 2020 and thought, is there any way I know of to better retain content? ... gee, what about that thing I did in college that let me learn how to read 2,136 standard-use Japanese characters in 90 days? you know, Anki spaced repetition, that thing I never tried for math because once I tried and failed to memorize dozens of lines of MergeSort pseudocode with it? hm... This was the moment I started feeling extremely silly (the exact thought was "there's no possible way that my hand is big enough for how facepalm this moment is", IIRC), but also extremely excited. I could fix my problem! And a problem this was. In early 2020, I had an interview where I was asked t...

ai lessons teaching japanese speech ea learned anki hermione granger rationalist lesswrong iirc

Saleh Ahmed: Climate Change Equity from Idaho to Bangladesh

Sci & Tell

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 25, 2021 23:22

After a summer of erratic weather and the recent IIRC report, the effects of climate change seem urgent now more than ever. Which is why we were so excited to talk to Saleh Ahmed on Sci & Tell. Saleh is a professor of Environmental Studies, Global Studies, and Public Policy at Boise State University. His research focuses on how climate change is affecting marginalized communities around the world, whether that be communities on coastal Bangladesh or India, Rohingya refugees, or people in the Intermountain West. In this episode, we talked about his research, the importance of communicating science to those affected by it, and how climate change isn't an abstract concept for the future- it's here, and it's affecting people's lives right now. This episode was produced by Shane M Hanlon and Nisha Mital, and mixed by Collin Warren. Artwork by Karen Romano Young.

climate change equity idaho public policy bangladesh artwork saleh environmental studies rohingya global studies boise state university intermountain west iirc

What boards should know about climate change and value creation

Financial Management (FM) magazine

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 25, 2021 25:11

Extreme weather risks have been on the rise for businesses worldwide, and regulators and standard setters are taking steps to keep investors updated. The recent merger of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), which formed the Value Reporting Foundation, was a step towards consistency in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and sustainability reporting. In this episode, Jeremy Osborn, FCMA, CGMA, director of business relationships and networks with the Value Reporting Foundation, suggests that integrated thinking and reporting can help corporate boards create long-term value, particularly when they consider potential consequences of climate change as they devise business strategy. This is part of a series of podcasts that explore how the finance function can drive sustainable business success and account for ESG issues.

finance climate change sustainability extreme esg boards value creation cgma iirc

S05E08: The Fan

Betamax Rewind with Matt and Doug

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2021 141:32

Not a great movie...and unfortunately not a great podcast. Technical issues caused problems with the audio and some of it had to be recreated. Still I think there are some diamonds (not hearts) in the rough of the podcast. Take a stroll down memory lane as Matt and Doug discuss a movie you probably never heard of, much less have seen. It is Kyle Reece's debut film IIRC. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/mattanddoug/message

technical iirc

If I Remember Correctly: Episode 1 - Right Before Aaliyah Died

If I Remember Correctly

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 16, 2021 27:42

Welcome to Episode 1! Daniele Gates and Ryan Brook, co-hosts of IIRC, share the story of how they met and the evolution of their relationship - along with other relationships.

died iirc

$596 Billion with a B

The WP Minute

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 9, 2021 3:04

Jetpack gave us all a boost by pushing out a forced update patching a vulnerability in the Carousel feature. Tony Perez illustrated his point of view on how forced updates, in the hands of bad actors, could be a risk for the software. Brandon Kraft, part of the Jetpack team, tweeted that the forced update was justified by the meta/security team since 18% of Jetpack sites were affected. We weren't part of the discussion. Provided details and got the response, but I wouldn't expect a security convo to be public. But, yes. Single feature impacted. A few things need to be all true for it to matter on a site, which looked like qualified about 18% of sites IIRC.— A Guy Called Kraft ❤️‍

single billion carousel jetpacks tony perez iirc

Improving Corporate Sustainability Reporting: SASB and IIRC Merger (+ What It Means)

Refinitiv Sustainability Perspectives Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 25, 2021 12:48

How is the corporate sustainability reporting system going to evolve? Tune in our interview with Katie Schmitz Eulitt, Director of Investor Outreach at SASB, as she walks us through the key pillars of the upcoming SASB - IIRC merger. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

director improving reporting merger corporate sustainability sasb iirc

What does a 95% effective vaccine mean? Professor Horacio Bach. Manager, Antibody Engineering and Proteomics - IIRC, Jack Bell Research Centre, Vancouver (UBC)

Roy Green Show

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 28, 2020 10:07

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

professor vaccines engineering vancouver bach antibodies horacio research centre proteomics iirc jack bell

Sustainable Finance Insights - September 2020 Highlights

The Sustainalytics Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 11, 2020 23:16

In this episode, Nick and Cheryl note that the cumulative volume of green bond issuance globally has surpassed $1 trillion. They also discuss the Climate Bonds Initiative's annual conference, which focused heavily on the theme of transition finance. In addition, they note pledges from China and South Korea to become carbon neutral by 2050 and 2060 respectively, and provide updates on developments in sustainable finance and corporate sustainability commitments. Hosts: Nick Gandolfo, Director, Sustainable Finance Solutions Cheryl Tay, Senior Associate, Sustainable Finance Solutions Resources mentioned in the episode: AIIB & Amundi: Climate Change Investment Framework BP: 2020 Energy Outlook report World Economic Forum & Deloitte: Summary of alignment discussion among leading sustainability and integrated corporate reporting organization CDP, CDSB, GRI, IIRC and SASB Environmental Finance: Defining transition finance: how to be inclusive yet specific International Energy Agency: Energy Technology Perspectives 2020 Hellenic Shipping News: The Poseidon Principles: Shipping emissions reduction efforts steer into new waters GRI Universal Standards GRI Sector Standard: Oil and Gas Natixis CIB: Report on EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities Sustainalytics SPOs: CPI Second-Party Opinion Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Second-Party Opinion Concord Second-Party Opinion Volkswagen AG Second-Party Opinion Novartis Second-Party Opinion (Sustainability-Linked Bond) Icade Sante Second-Party Opinion Sovcombank Second-Party Opinion More Episodes

director china south korea senior associate cdp sustainable finance gri iirc

BumbleKast Q&A – For October 26th, 2020

KNGI Network Podcast Master Feed

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 26, 2020 55:22

More answers to more burning questions! Patreon Perk – Jump to the Q&A: 4:30 Check out Ian's free comics on Medibang! Support the show on Patreon and Ko-Fi! Shop the BumbleStore! Show Information Your hosts: Ian "BumbleKing" Flynn - Head writer of Sonic the Hedgehog comics for IDW Publishing and Mega Man for Archie Comics, Narrative Director for Rivals of Aether, writing for Archie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and more Kyle "KyleJCrb" Crouse - Founder & Administrator of the KNGI Network, host of the Nitro Game Injection video game music podcast Subscribe and listen on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher and Google Play RSS Feed for podcast apps and readers Check out BumbleKing Comics and the KNGI Network Like BumbleKing Comics & KNGI on Facebook Follow @BumbleKast, @IanFlynnBKC & @KyleJCrb on Twitter Get some BumbleGear at the BumbleStore Original music in this episode composed by Ken "coda" Snyder, used with permission – Check out his music on Bandcamp Special Thanks to our friends at Noise Channel! Pay what you want for the theme song and more great music as part of their charity compilation Noisechan & Nugget: Adventures in Chiptunes Want to have your product promoted on the show? Check out the Patreon site to find out how! Want to ask us a question? Ask at: Twitter at @BumbleKast Email bumblekast [at] yahoo [dot] com YouTube comments Patrons can post on Patreon – https://patreon.com/bumblekast PRIORITY Q&A N’Oni I've been binging a bit of sonic games, and I've noticed that a lot of more 'interesting' stores are either run by chao, I.E. The black market. Is there a reason such adorable critters seem to fall into a potentially life threatening career? Are they predisposed to being merchants, and just a few of them take things a bit far? Is there anything from Sega explaining this particular bit of chao background? I guess what I'm asking is, who taught the babies crime? Addendum: Also, who taught them how to use heavy machinery?? Have they always been this smart, or are these special cases? Scruffymatt Ian and Kyle, oh wise and knowledgeable sages of truth, I have a problem. Every night I lay awake, trying to figure out the answer to one question, and one question only. I have been tormented with many sleepless nights in pursuit of this answer, and now I turn to you both in my hour of need. Gentlemen, you are my last hope. Please tell me, what is the answer to this question: Who is the best Darkwing Duck Villain? Is it Megavolt, Steelbeak or Nega Duck? I can't choooooooose! Papadripopolous Ian- Iizuka's repeatedly said the Chaotix were rebooted in 2003, you've mentioned often having issues particularly using material from the game Chaotix, and if you read the Japanese manual's character descriptions, it becomes clear that the characters are just too drastically different from their 2003-onward versions to work as a cohesive interpretation. Do you think in a classic sonic book, such as the minisseries IDW announced that IIRC hasn't been confirmed whether you're writing it or not, but do you think they'd allow the Chaotix to appear? Or would the use of the classic Chaotix cause too much conflict with the modern interpretations? Would they allow it if it were the classic designs, but modern personalities? etc, just asking you to guess from your experience Andrew D. Are there any events or lore from past games that you wanted to explore or expand upon but was told you couldn’t? If so, can you say what they were? Some things I’d love to see explored are why one of the seven Chaos Emeralds were missing until Sonic 2, what the Hidden Palace Zone on Westside Island was for, and why the plans for the Death Egg II from Fighters was seemingly scrapped until the Death Egg mk. II in Sonic 4. There are a whole bunch of unexplained bits in the past that are ripe for exploring. Chris A. Are you sure you want the freedom fighters to come bac...

spotify game radio japanese open mountain shop stitcher sonic fighters gentlemen snyder sonic the hedgehog teenage mutant ninja turtles sega rivals circuit administrators hedgehog kofi mega man nitro injection idw aether archie comics idw publishing overcoats molehill chaos emeralds game fuel iirc chaotix death egg kngi megavolt kylejcrb nitro game injection bumblekast kngi network noise channel kyle kylejcrb crouse founder bumblegear noisechan nugget adventures bumblekast email bumbleking comics ian bumbleking flynn head

BumbleKast Q&A – For October 26th, 2020

BumbleKing Comics Presents: BumbleKast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 26, 2020 55:22

More answers to more burning questions! Patreon Perk – Jump to the Q&A: 4:30 Check out Ian's free comics on Medibang! Support the show on Patreon and Ko-Fi! Shop the BumbleStore! Show Information Your hosts: Ian "BumbleKing" Flynn - Head writer of Sonic the Hedgehog comics for IDW Publishing and Mega Man for Archie Comics, Narrative Director for Rivals of Aether, writing for Archie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and more Kyle "KyleJCrb" Crouse - Founder & Administrator of the KNGI Network, host of the Nitro Game Injection video game music podcast Subscribe and listen on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher and Google Play RSS Feed for podcast apps and readers Check out BumbleKing Comics and the KNGI Network Like BumbleKing Comics & KNGI on Facebook Follow @BumbleKast, @IanFlynnBKC & @KyleJCrb on Twitter Get some BumbleGear at the BumbleStore Original music in this episode composed by Ken "coda" Snyder, used with permission – Check out his music on Bandcamp Special Thanks to our friends at Noise Channel! Pay what you want for the theme song and more great music as part of their charity compilation Noisechan & Nugget: Adventures in Chiptunes Want to have your product promoted on the show? Check out the Patreon site to find out how! Want to ask us a question? Ask at: Twitter at @BumbleKast Email bumblekast [at] yahoo [dot] com YouTube comments Patrons can post on Patreon – https://patreon.com/bumblekast PRIORITY Q&A N’Oni I've been binging a bit of sonic games, and I've noticed that a lot of more 'interesting' stores are either run by chao, I.E. The black market. Is there a reason such adorable critters seem to fall into a potentially life threatening career? Are they predisposed to being merchants, and just a few of them take things a bit far? Is there anything from Sega explaining this particular bit of chao background? I guess what I'm asking is, who taught the babies crime? Addendum: Also, who taught them how to use heavy machinery?? Have they always been this smart, or are these special cases? Scruffymatt Ian and Kyle, oh wise and knowledgeable sages of truth, I have a problem. Every night I lay awake, trying to figure out the answer to one question, and one question only. I have been tormented with many sleepless nights in pursuit of this answer, and now I turn to you both in my hour of need. Gentlemen, you are my last hope. Please tell me, what is the answer to this question: Who is the best Darkwing Duck Villain? Is it Megavolt, Steelbeak or Nega Duck? I can't choooooooose! Papadripopolous Ian- Iizuka's repeatedly said the Chaotix were rebooted in 2003, you've mentioned often having issues particularly using material from the game Chaotix, and if you read the Japanese manual's character descriptions, it becomes clear that the characters are just too drastically different from their 2003-onward versions to work as a cohesive interpretation. Do you think in a classic sonic book, such as the minisseries IDW announced that IIRC hasn't been confirmed whether you're writing it or not, but do you think they'd allow the Chaotix to appear? Or would the use of the classic Chaotix cause too much conflict with the modern interpretations? Would they allow it if it were the classic designs, but modern personalities? etc, just asking you to guess from your experience Andrew D. Are there any events or lore from past games that you wanted to explore or expand upon but was told you couldn’t? If so, can you say what they were? Some things I’d love to see explored are why one of the seven Chaos Emeralds were missing until Sonic 2, what the Hidden Palace Zone on Westside Island was for, and why the plans for the Death Egg II from Fighters was seemingly scrapped until the Death Egg mk. II in Sonic 4. There are a whole bunch of unexplained bits in the past that are ripe for exploring. Chris A. Are you sure you want the freedom fighters to come bac...

spotify science man tech japanese universe gaming shop boom comics stitcher mega sonic fighters gentlemen snyder sonic the hedgehog teenage mutant ninja turtles sega rivals administrators hedgehog kofi mega man idw aether archie comics crouse idw publishing chaos emeralds iirc chaotix death egg megavolt kngi kylejcrb nitro game injection bumblekast kngi network bumbleking noise channel kyle kylejcrb crouse founder bumblegear noisechan nugget adventures bumblekast email bumbleking comics ian bumbleking flynn head

114. Integrated reporting: Value beyond the numbers | with Charles Tilley

Future-Proof

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 28, 2020 37:47

Financial performance isn’t the only metric of value we should care about, so why is it all that we report on? We’re living in a different time. We’re working for different organizations that are impacted by different issues, and we need financial reports and tell different stories and communicate different values than those of the past. Integrative reports intend to fix this problem by including factors in addition to financial performance: reliance on the environment, social reputation, human capital skills, and more. Charles Tilley is CEO of the International Integrated Reporting Council, and previously chaired the IIRC’s technical task force, which is the group responsible for developing the Integrated Reporting framework. He joins us to get everyone up to speed with Integrated Reporting, what the benefits are for organizations and stakeholders alike, and what the future of this type of reporting might look like. To learn more, and for the complete show notes, visit blionline.org/blog (https://blionline.org/blog). Resources: integratedreporting.org (https://integratedreporting.org/) Businesses must take the lead in renewing global cooperation (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/business-leaders-must-take-the-lead-in-renewing-global-cooperation-heres-why/) Integrated reporting (https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-Integrated-reporting/$FILE/EY-Integrated-reporting.pdf) Future-Proof is a production of (http://crate.media)

ceo financial numbers businesses integrated integrative future proof tilley iirc integrated reporting

(Special) Episode 4: First Guest! Modded MC and My YouTube Content

The I Can't Sleep Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 22, 2020 36:40

It's been a good two months since the last episode. This episode I have my dad on as a quick guest. Other than that I talk about what I've been doing lately and my thoughts on a Minecraft modpack I've been playing, as well as things involving my YouTube videos. This episode was done much earlier in the night as heard by me using my computer. The Buildcraft pipes story: In its earliest of versions, Thermal Expansion actually used Buildcraft MJ. On a server, I used some of its machines, powering them with Redstone Engines. Iirc they didn't have input or output sides yet so I tried using Buildcraft pipes to sort their outputs into chests. It didn't work too well and the next time I got on Thermal Expansion had introduced RF.

minecraft rf modded iirc thermal expansion

Ricky Chu - Contributor, Import Scene OG, and Super Street Magazine Alum

Mod Talks: The Only Aftermarket Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 12, 2020 45:42

before we depended on Youtube, Instagram, and the endless number of car blogs to deliver us the trends, the parts, and latest going ons in the world of car culture, there were these things called magazines, and back at the height of the car culture/tuning scene there were a few magazines that were considered the authority, and Super Street was certainly one of the magazines that were must read if you were a gear head. And one of Super Streets most recognizable and knowledgeable writers was Rikdaddy! aka Ricky Chu and he is in the pod booth for this episode of Mod Talks. So, Join Eran and Ricky well they revisit the glory days and talk about how Ricky's time in scene contrasts with the scene of today. This is going to be a good episode.

cars magazine racing import contributors motorsports alum modified drag racing project cars car culture formula drift super street iirc

2019-033-Part 2 of the Kubernetes security audit discussion (Jay Beale & Aaron Small)

Brakeing Down Security Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2019 44:26

Topics:Infosec Campout report Jay Beale (co-lead for audit) *Bust-a-Kube* Aaron Small (product mgr at GKE/Google) Atreides Partners Trail of Bits What was the Audit? How did it come about? Who were the players? Kubernetes Working Group Aaron, Craig, Jay, Joel Outside vendors: Atredis: Josh, Nathan Keltner Trail of Bits: Stefan Edwards, Bobby Tonic , Dominik Kubernetes Project Leads/Devs Interviewed devs -- this was much of the info that went into the threat model Rapid Risk Assessments - let’s put the GitHub repository in the show notes What did it produce? Vuln Report Threat Model - https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-security-audit/findings/Kubernetes%20Threat%20Model.pdf White Papers https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/wg-security-audit/findings Discuss the results: Threat model findings Controls silently fail, leading to a false sense of security Pod Security Policies, Egress Network Rules Audit model isn’t strong enough for non-repudiation By default, API server doesn’t log user movements through system TLS Encryption weaknesses Most components accept cleartext HTTP Boot strapping to add Kubelets is particularly weak Multiple components do not check certificates and/or use self-signed certs HTTPS isn’t enforced Certificates are long-lived, with no revocation capability Etcd doesn’t authenticate connections by default Controllers all Bundled together Confused Deputy: b/c lower priv controllers bundled in same binary as higher Secrets not encrypted at rest by default Etcd doesn’t have signatures on its write-ahead log DoS attack: you can set anti-affinity on your pods to get nothing else scheduled on their nodes Port 10255 has an unauthenticated HTTP server for status and health checking Vulns / Findings (not complete list, but interesting) Hostpath pod security policy bypass via persistent volumes TOCTOU when moving PID to manager’s group Improperly patched directory traversal in kubectl cp Bearer tokens revealed in logs Lots of MitM risk: SSH not checking fingerprints: InsecureIgnoreHostKey gRPC transport seems all set to WithInsecure() HTTPS connections not checking certs Some HTTPS connections are unauthenticated Output encoding on JSON construction This might lead to further work, as JSON can get written to logs that may be consumed elsewhere. Non-constant time check on passwords Lack of re-use / library-ification of code Who will use these findings and how? Devs, google, bad guys? Any new audit tools created from this? Brad geesaman “Hacking and Hardening Kubernetes Clusters by Example [I] - Brad Geesaman, Symantec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTgQLzeBfRU Aaron Small: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/precious-cargo-securing-containers-with-kubernetes-engine-18 https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/exploring-container-security-running-a-tight-ship-with-kubernetes-engine-1-10 https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/how-to/hardening-your-cluster CNCF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90kZRyPcRZw Findings: Scope for testing: Source code review (what languages did they have to review?) Golang, shell, ... Networking (discuss the networking *internal* *external* Cryptography (TLS, data stores) AuthN/AuthZ RBAC (which roles were tested? Just admin/non-admin *best practice is no admin/least priv*) Secrets Namespace traversals Namespace claims Methodology: Setup a bunch of environments? Primarily set up a single environment IIRC Combination of code audit and active ?fuzzing? What does one fuzz on a K8s environment? Tested with latest alpha or production versions? Version 1.13 or 1.14 - version locked at whatever was current - K8S releases a new version every 3 months, so this is a challenge and means we have to keep auditing. Tested mulitple different types of k8s implementations? Tested primarily against kubespray (https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kubespray) Bug Bounty program: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/bug-bounty.md Check out our Store on Teepub! https://brakesec.com/store Join us on our #Slack Channel! Send a request to @brakesec on Twitter or email bds.podcast@gmail.com #Brakesec Store!:https://www.teepublic.com/user/bdspodcast #Spotify: https://brakesec.com/spotifyBDS #RSS: https://brakesec.com/BrakesecRSS #Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/c/BDSPodcast #iTunes Store Link: https://brakesec.com/BDSiTunes #Google Play Store: https://brakesec.com/BDS-GooglePlay Our main site: https://brakesec.com/bdswebsite #iHeartRadio App: https://brakesec.com/iHeartBrakesec #SoundCloud: https://brakesec.com/SoundcloudBrakesec Comments, Questions, Feedback: bds.podcast@gmail.com Support Brakeing Down Security Podcast by using our #Paypal: https://brakesec.com/PaypalBDS OR our #Patreon https://brakesec.com/BDSPatreon #Twitter: @brakesec @boettcherpwned @bryanbrake @infosystir #Player.FM : https://brakesec.com/BDS-PlayerFM #Stitcher Network: https://brakesec.com/BrakeSecStitcher #TuneIn Radio App: https://brakesec.com/TuneInBrakesec

2019-032-kubernetes security audit dicussion with Jay Beale and Aaron Small

Brakeing Down Security Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 31, 2019 47:13

Topics:Infosec Campout report Derbycon Pizza Party (with podcast show!) https://www.eventbrite.com/e/brakesec-pizza-party-at-the-derbycon-mental-health-village-tickets-69219271705 Mental health village at Derbycon Jay Beale (co-lead for audit) *Bust-a-Kube* Aaron Small (product mgr at GKE/Google) Atreides Partners Trail of Bits What was the Audit? How did it come about? Who were the players? Kubernetes Working Group Aaron, Craig, Jay, Joel Outside vendors: Atredis: Josh, Nathan Keltner Trail of Bits: Stefan Edwards, Bobby Tonic , Dominik Kubernetes Project Leads/Devs Interviewed devs -- this was much of the info that went into the threat model Rapid Risk Assessments - let’s put the GitHub repository in the show notes What did it produce? Vuln Report Threat Model - https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-security-audit/findings/Kubernetes%20Threat%20Model.pdf White Papers https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/wg-security-audit/findings Discuss the results: Threat model findings Controls silently fail, leading to a false sense of security Pod Security Policies, Egress Network Rules Audit model isn’t strong enough for non-repudiation By default, API server doesn’t log user movements through system TLS Encryption weaknesses Most components accept cleartext HTTP Boot strapping to add Kubelets is particularly weak Multiple components do not check certificates and/or use self-signed certs HTTPS isn’t enforced Certificates are long-lived, with no revocation capability Etcd doesn’t authenticate connections by default Controllers all Bundled together Confused Deputy: b/c lower priv controllers bundled in same binary as higher Secrets not encrypted at rest by default Etcd doesn’t have signatures on its write-ahead log DoS attack: you can set anti-affinity on your pods to get nothing else scheduled on their nodes Port 10255 has an unauthenticated HTTP server for status and health checking Vulns / Findings (not complete list, but interesting) Hostpath pod security policy bypass via persistent volumes TOCTOU when moving PID to manager’s group Improperly patched directory traversal in kubectl cp Bearer tokens revealed in logs Lots of MitM risk: SSH not checking fingerprints: InsecureIgnoreHostKey gRPC transport seems all set to WithInsecure() HTTPS connections not checking certs Some HTTPS connections are unauthenticated Output encoding on JSON construction This might lead to further work, as JSON can get written to logs that may be consumed elsewhere. Non-constant time check on passwords Lack of re-use / library-ification of code Who will use these findings and how? Devs, google, bad guys? Any new audit tools created from this? Brad geesaman “Hacking and Hardening Kubernetes Clusters by Example [I] - Brad Geesaman, Symantec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTgQLzeBfRU Aaron Small: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/precious-cargo-securing-containers-with-kubernetes-engine-18 https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/exploring-container-security-running-a-tight-ship-with-kubernetes-engine-1-10 https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/how-to/hardening-your-cluster CNCF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90kZRyPcRZw Findings: Scope for testing: Source code review (what languages did they have to review?) Golang, shell, ... Networking (discuss the networking *internal* *external* Cryptography (TLS, data stores) AuthN/AuthZ RBAC (which roles were tested? Just admin/non-admin *best practice is no admin/least priv*) Secrets Namespace traversals Namespace claims Methodology: Setup a bunch of environments? Primarily set up a single environment IIRC Combination of code audit and active ?fuzzing? What does one fuzz on a K8s environment? Tested with latest alpha or production versions? Version 1.13 or 1.14 - version locked at whatever was current - K8S releases a new version every 3 months, so this is a challenge and means we have to keep auditing. Tested mulitple different types of k8s implementations? Tested primarily against kubespray (https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kubespray) Bug Bounty program: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/bug-bounty.md Check out our Store on Teepub! https://brakesec.com/store Join us on our #Slack Channel! Send a request to @brakesec on Twitter or email bds.podcast@gmail.com #Brakesec Store!:https://www.teepublic.com/user/bdspodcast #Spotify: https://brakesec.com/spotifyBDS #RSS: https://brakesec.com/BrakesecRSS #Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/c/BDSPodcast #iTunes Store Link: https://brakesec.com/BDSiTunes #Google Play Store: https://brakesec.com/BDS-GooglePlay Our main site: https://brakesec.com/bdswebsite #iHeartRadio App: https://brakesec.com/iHeartBrakesec #SoundCloud: https://brakesec.com/SoundcloudBrakesec Comments, Questions, Feedback: bds.podcast@gmail.com Support Brakeing Down Security Podcast by using our #Paypal: https://brakesec.com/PaypalBDS OR our #Patreon https://brakesec.com/BDSPatreon #Twitter: @brakesec @boettcherpwned @bryanbrake @infosystir #Player.FM : https://brakesec.com/BDS-PlayerFM #Stitcher Network: https://brakesec.com/BrakeSecStitcher #TuneIn Radio App: https://brakesec.com/TuneInBrakesec

Skin of Evil

The Beige and The Bold

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 20, 2019 49:11

Underneath it all, “Skin of Evil” is a pretty straightforward episode. Again, I don't know if authorial intent can be used to condemn a story that plays well, especially when it's presaging internet phenomena in the earliest days of the Internet. Literally, the late eighties and early nineties were the years that the Internet was transitioning from research/military networks to public, commercial networks. And Derek was right about the IRC thing. I don't know why I thought it was “IIRC” and not “IRC.” Also, the Charles Bronson films I was thinking of were the “Death Wish” series. Marina Sirtis was in the third one. I mentioned “The Executioner” or something which is a book series. The mix-up was because my dad loves both.

internet evil skin underneath death wish executioners irc charles bronson marina sirtis skin of evil iirc

IIRC - Episode 4 - Communism: Projects and Secrecy(3 of 3)

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 8, 2018 12:30

IIRC - Episode 4 - Communism: Projects and Secrecy(3 of 3) by IIRC - If I Remember Correctly

projects communism secrecy iirc

IIRC Episode 3 - Update and Communist Side Stories

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 24, 2018 8:03

Just a little departure from what I normally do, wanted to try something new and had a few small stories to get out of the way.

communists side stories iirc

#99 - Laura Deming

Y Combinator

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 23, 2018 69:49

Laura Deming is a partner at The Longevity Fund. They invest in companies that will allow us to live longer and healthier lives.You can learn more about them at Longevity.vc.Laura’s on Twitter @LauraDeming.The YC podcast is hosted by Craig Cannon.***Topics00:22 - Why focus on longevity now?2:12 - How did Laura get started in longevity?3:22 - Why raise a fund?5:52 - What does Laura do personally for longevity?9:07 - Worm and mouse studies10:44 - Craig's personal habits12:37 - Human studies15:22 - Mica asks - Do you think immortality is going to be achieved by: 1. Curing all disease and stop aging so we could live with our own bodies forever 2. OR is going to be something like porting our brain, "mind" to a computer/robot?17:37 - Most likely strategies to increase lifespan19:47 - Ryan Hoover asks - Ask about the ethics of longevity. Jack J. Fernandes asks - Do people actually want to live longer?21:44 - Mica asks - How would immortality change society? Wouldn't we become more complacent? Since we have "forever" to do things wouldn't that diminish our rate of innovation? And since less new individuals are being created we would have access to less new ideas. We would just stop creating new Newtons, Einsteins, Mozarts…24:52 - Cognitive enhancement25:52 - Daily habits34:12 - Tech environment changes in the past 5-10 years39:22 - What percentage of people in labs want to start companies?41:37 - Pioneer43:57 - Confidence45:52 - Podcasting49:12 - Choosing media to consume52:17 - Sam Betesh asks - The last thing that led to a step function change in average life span was germ theory. What new areas of research might provide the next step function change?55:07 - Extending fertility windows57:22 - Jason Choi asks - What % of longevity is attributable to lifestyle choices vs genetics and the progress of technology in influencing both.58:37 - Fatih asks - is blood transfusion a thing or just a hoax1:00:42 - Rapamycin1:02:27 - Testosterone1:04:37 - Chris asks - Aubrey De Grey, IIRC, mentioned a number of times that we might, in the future, replace organs and tissues with new organic ones before they fail. Is this actually a reasonable idea, or is it more likely that we'll replace them with synthetic ones, if we replace them at all?1:06:07 - Mica asks - Laura did a "cookie diet" for one month. Why did you do it? How did you feel? Doesn't it go against all the research on longevity? ;-)1:08:07 - Is Laura actually not doing anything strange in her diet?

tech human longevity mica mozart cognitive worm extending fernandes curing yc fatih einsteins aubrey de grey newtons ryan hoover jack j jason choi laura deming iirc sam betesh craig cannon

IIRC - Episode 2 - Communism: Projects and Secrecy(2 of 3)

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 18, 2018 4:54

This week we explore a bit more about communist projects and their after effects. The Intro and Outro is Mantarochen by HNRK and the background music is Stevia Sphere - Waiting for the bus

projects communism secrecy iirc

IIRC Episode 1 - Communism: Projects and Secrecy (1 of 3)