Podcasts about Tsvi

Novedades: Menhir, BeatLove, Krikor & Element, T.Williams, TSVI & DJ Plead, L-Vis 1990 & Eklipse, Kaitlyn Aurelia Smith & Joe Goddard, Ruvs, Roman Flügel, CCL, Klara Lewis (Peder Mannerfelt Remix), Chico Blanco & Perra InmundaDisco de la semana: Cora Novoa Especial: Robert HoodLa Perla: PilooskiEscuchar audio

The Corporate Transparency Act is here, and business owners must act before year-end! Learn exactly what you need to know about this crucial new federal requirement affecting LLC and corporation owners. Expert Tsvi Weiser breaks down who needs to file, what information is required, and the serious penalties for non-compliance ($10,000 fine and possible jail time).Discover how this new law impacts business privacy, whether you can handle the filing yourself or need professional help, and what documentation you'll need to submit. Perfect for entrepreneurs, real estate investors, and small business owners who want to ensure they're fully compliant with this major new federal regulation.Key topics covered:• What the Corporate Transparency Act means for your business• Required filing deadlines and penalties• Impact on business privacy and asset protection• State-specific LLC considerations• Essential documentation needed for complianceDon't risk hefty fines or legal issues - get the facts about this important new requirement that affects nearly every U.S. business owner.#financialtransparency #beneficialownershipinformationreporting #corporatetransparencyactupdate #whatisthecorporatetransparencyact #criminaldivisionCHAPTERS:00:00 - Intro00:27 - Corporate Transparency Act Overview05:10 - Key Insights and Considerations07:04 - Recommendations for Real Estate Investors11:56 - Svi's Background and Experience18:00 - Important Topics We Missed19:27 - Taxing Unrealized Gains Explained20:22 - Myths in Real Estate Investing20:47 - Advice for My Younger Self21:40 - Recommended Reading for Investors22:13 - Impactful Tools and Processes in BusinessRealDealCRM.comRealDealCRM is your Real Estate Investing Virtual Assistant. A Real Estate Investing CRM for Real Estate Investors created by Real Estate Investors. SMS, Stealth Voicemails, Phone, Voicemail, Funnels, and AUTOMATION in a single platform! Check out more details at RealDealCRM.comLIKE • SHARE • JOIN • REVIEWWebsiteJoin the REI Mastermind Network on Locals!Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsYouTubeSpotifyStitcherDeezerFacebookTwitterInstagramSUPPORT THE SHOW!Self Managing Your Rental Properties?

Novedades: CS + Kreme, Pinch, Objekt, Soso Tharpa, Tayhana & Aggromance, Pearson Sound, Baiuca, Xtal & Keita Sano, Orion Agassi, Leon Vynehall, Barnt, DJ JM & TSVI, MumdanceDisco de la semana: PhranMini-mix: DadameLa Perla: Sven VathEscuchar audio

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: The Obliqueness Thesis, published by Jessica Taylor on September 19, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum. In my Xenosystems review, I discussed the Orthogonality Thesis, concluding that it was a bad metaphor. It's a long post, though, and the comments on orthogonality build on other Xenosystems content. Therefore, I think it may be helpful to present a more concentrated discussion on Orthogonality, contrasting Orthogonality with my own view, without introducing dependencies on Land's views. (Land gets credit for inspiring many of these thoughts, of course, but I'm presenting my views as my own here.) First, let's define the Orthogonality Thesis. Quoting Superintelligence for Bostrom's formulation: Intelligence and final goals are orthogonal: more or less any level of intelligence could in principle be combined with more or less any final goal. To me, the main ambiguity about what this is saying is the "could in principle" part; maybe, for any level of intelligence and any final goal, there exists (in the mathematical sense) an agent combining those, but some combinations are much more natural and statistically likely than others. Let's consider Yudkowsky's formulations as alternatives. Quoting Arbital: The Orthogonality Thesis asserts that there can exist arbitrarily intelligent agents pursuing any kind of goal. The strong form of the Orthogonality Thesis says that there's no extra difficulty or complication in the existence of an intelligent agent that pursues a goal, above and beyond the computational tractability of that goal. As an example of the computational tractability consideration, sufficiently complex goals may only be well-represented by sufficiently intelligent agents. "Complication" may be reflected in, for example, code complexity; to my mind, the strong form implies that the code complexity of an agent with a given level of intelligence and goals is approximately the code complexity of the intelligence plus the code complexity of the goal specification, plus a constant. Code complexity would influence statistical likelihood for the usual Kolmogorov/Solomonoff reasons, of course. I think, overall, it is more productive to examine Yudkowsky's formulation than Bostrom's, as he has already helpfully factored the thesis into weak and strong forms. Therefore, by criticizing Yudkowsky's formulations, I am less likely to be criticizing a strawman. I will use "Weak Orthogonality" to refer to Yudkowsky's "Orthogonality Thesis" and "Strong Orthogonality" to refer to Yudkowsky's "strong form of the Orthogonality Thesis". Land, alternatively, describes a "diagonal" between intelligence and goals as an alternative to orthogonality, but I don't see a specific formulation of a "Diagonality Thesis" on his part. Here's a possible formulation: Diagonality Thesis: Final goals tend to converge to a point as intelligence increases. The main criticism of this thesis is that formulations of ideal agency, in the form of Bayesianism and VNM utility, leave open free parameters, e.g. priors over un-testable propositions, and the utility function. Since I expect few readers to accept the Diagonality Thesis, I will not concentrate on criticizing it. What about my own view? I like Tsvi's naming of it as an "obliqueness thesis". Obliqueness Thesis: The Diagonality Thesis and the Strong Orthogonality Thesis are false. Agents do not tend to factorize into an Orthogonal value-like component and a Diagonal belief-like component; rather, there are Oblique components that do not factorize neatly. (Here, by Orthogonal I mean basically independent of intelligence, and by Diagonal I mean converging to a point in the limit of intelligence.) While I will address Yudkowsky's arguments for the Orthogonality Thesis, I think arguing directly for my view first will be more helpful. In general, it seems ...

Translator and adapter Weaver sits down with "The Shmooze" to talk about the drama group Theater Between Addresses and its upcoming immersive, staged reading of Sholem Asch's "Shabbtai Tsvi," which Weaver translated and adapted. Never before performed in its entirety, the play shows the meteoric rise and tragic fall of Shabbtai Tsvi, the 17th-century Ottoman Jewish mystic whose messianic aspirations attracted a following of thousands of Jews from every corner of the earth. The reading will take place outdoors on the grounds of the Yiddish Book Center. Episode 376 August 7, 2024 Amherst, MA

As a producer and DJ, TSVI is in the form of his life—which you can't always say for an artist a decade in. He's been an enduring presence through several underground cycles for a reason: the man knows how to flow. TSVI's RA Podcast features a solid number of new and forthcoming cuts from the current vanguard pushing club music forward, amongst them Verraco, Surusinghe, DJ Plead, Doctor Jeep, DJ JM, WOST and Dj Babatr—who just dropped a split 12" with TSVI on TraTraTrax last month. Alongside the names you might expect, TSVI also leans into a streak of personal history. On RA.944 you'll hear fast, deep and percussive '90s and '00s cuts from Spain, Latin America and his native Italy, with a particular focus on the kind of playful progressive trance minted by the late, great Franchino. It makes for a truly dynamite mix. @tsvisions @nervoushorizon Read more at https://ra.co/podcast/944

Novedades: Mess_ey, Tatyana Jane, Pearson Sound, Skee Mask, µ-Ziq, Kode9, Desert, Vanadium, Shy One, Batu, Bamao Yendé, Dj Fucci, TSVI, Peder MannerfeltDisco de la semana: HeaveeMini-mix: Contrøverse La Perla: DJ Skudero & Xavi MetrallaEscuchar audio

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: Koan: divining alien datastructures from RAM activations, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on April 5, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from https://tsvibt.blogspot.com/2024/04/koan-divining-alien-datastructures-from.html.] Exploring the ruins of an alien civilization, you find what appears to be a working computer - - it's made of plastic and metal, wires connect it to various devices, and you see arrays of capacitors that maintain charged or uncharged states and that sometimes rapidly toggle in response to voltages from connected wires. You can tell that the presumptive RAM is activating in complex but structured patterns, but you don't know their meanings. What strategies can you use to come to understand what the underlying order is, what algorithm the computer is running, that explains the pattern of RAM activations? Thanks to Joss Oliver (SPAR) for entertaining a version of this koan. Many of B's ideas come from Joss. Real data about minds Red: If we want to understand how minds work, the only source of real data is our own thinking, starting from the language in which we think. Blue: That doesn't seem right. A big alternative source of data is neuroscience. We can directly observe the brain - - electrical activations of neurons, the flow of blood, the anatomical structure, the distribution of chemicals - - and we can correlate that with behavior. Surely that also tells us about how minds work? Red: I mostly deny this. To clarify: I deny that neuroscience is a good way to gain a deep understanding of the core structure of mind and thought. It's not a good way to gain the concepts that we lack. Blue: Why do you think this? It seems straightforward to expect that science should work on brains, just like it works on anything else. If we study the visible effects of the phenomenon, think of hypotheses to explain those visible effects, and test those hypotheses to find the ones that are true, then we'll find our way towards more and more predictive hypotheses. R: That process of investigation would of course work in the very long run. My claim is: that process of investigation is basically trying to solve a problem that's different from the problem of understanding the core structure of mind. That investigation would eventually work anyway, but mostly as a side-effect. As a rough analogy: if you study soccer in great detail, with a very high standard for predictive accuracy, you'll eventually be forced to understand quantum mechanics; but that's really a side-effect, and it doesn't mean quantum mechanics is very related to soccer or vice versa, and there's much faster ways of investigating quantum mechanics. As another, closer analogy: if you study a calculator in great detail, and you ask the right sort of questions, then you'll eventually be led to understand addition, because addition is in some sense a good explanation for why the calculator is the way that it is; but you really have to be asking the right questions, and you could build a highly detailed physics simulation that accurately predicts the intervention-observation behavior of the calculator as a physical object without understanding addition conceptually (well, aside from needing to understand addition for purposes of coding a simulator). B: What I'm hearing is: There are different domains, like QM and soccer, or electrons in wires vs. the concepts of addition. And if you want to understand one domain, you should try to study it directly. Is that about right? R: Yeah, that's an ok summary. B: Just ok? R: Your summary talks about where we start our investigation. I'd also want to emphasize the directional pull on our investigation that comes from the questions we're asking. B: I see. I don't think this really applies to neuroscience and minds, though. Like, ok, what we really wa...

En aquest nou capítol en Letung ens ha fet viatjar a Chicago per descobrir qui es el garn King Britt. Dosha ha punxat música de ReKab, Thabo Tonick, Issac Carter, UFO95 i Doctor Jeep. L'Eva Manuel ens ha portat ritme i contundencia amb el seus breaks punxant a Amaliah i Bianca Oblivion. L'Hector ha participat com a convidat al casual set….i ens ha portat l'ultim treball de Innershades. Finalment aquesta setmana en Monqui ens ha punxat música de NEXCYIA, Roska, DJ POLO i TSVI. Producció a càrrec de Streamflow (https://streamflow.barcelona) Imatge gràfica per Saudara Studio (https://saudarastudio.com/). Tracklist: 1- ReKab - Solutions - Móatún 7 2- NEXCYIA - Replica - Pensaments Sónics 3- Thabo Tonick - Joyboy - Stay True Sounds 4- Isaac Carter feat. Biyi - 1Up - Ochi 5- King Britt feat. Ursula Rucker - Supernatural (Hardsoul's In My Soul Mix) - Ovum Recordings 6- Dynamic - Yeadon (Dream Mix) - Ovum Recordings 7- King Britt presents Sylk 130 - Season's Change - Ovum Recordings 8- Amaliah - Slow Burn - Maricas Records 9- Roska - MK8 - Roska Kicks & Snares 10- DJ POLO - Bloodhound - Livity Sound 11- Innershades - Unknown Depths - Altered Circuits 12- UFO95 - Gargk - Tresor 13- TSVI - Vitamina H - Nervous Hoprizon 14- Doctor Jeep & Tamarak - Destroyer - Worst Behaviour Recs 15- Blanca Oblivion & ONHELL - Sinais (Thys Remix) - N.A.A.F.I #podcast #ambient #amapiano #house #club #miteselectronica #breaks #techno #electro #drumandbass #viatgeelectroniccrew #barcelonaelectronica

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: A hermeneutic net for agency, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on January 1, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from https://tsvibt.blogspot.com/2023/09/a-hermeneutic-net-for-agency.html. First completed September 4, 2023.] A hermeneutic net for agency is a natural method to try, to solve a bunch of philosophical difficulties relatively quickly. Not to say that it would work. It's just the obvious thing to try. Thanks to Sam Eisenstat for related conversations. Summary To create AGI that's aligned with human wanting, it's necessary to design deep mental structures and resolve confusions about mind. To design structures and resolve confusions, we want to think in terms of suitable concepts. We don't already have the concepts we'd need to think clearly enough about minds. So we want to modify our concepts and create new concepts. The new concepts have to be selected by the Criterion of providing suitable elements of thinking that will be adequate to create AGI that's aligned with human wanting. The Criterion of providing suitable elements of thinking is expressed in propositions. These propositions use the concepts we already have. Since the concepts we already have are inadequate, the propositions do not express the Criterion quite rightly. So, we question one concept, with the goal of replacing it with one or more concepts that will more suitably play the role that the current concept is playing. But when we try to answer the demands of a proposition, we're also told to question the other concepts used by that proposition. The other concepts are not already suitable to be questioned - - and they will, themselves, if questioned, tell us to question yet more concepts. Lacking all conviction, we give up even before we are really overwhelmed. The hermeneutic net would brute-force this problem by analyzing all the concepts relevant to AGI alignment "at once". In the hermeneutic net, each concept would be questioned, simultaneously trying to rectify or replace that concept and also trying to preliminarily analyze the concept. The concept is preliminarily analyzed in preparation, so that, even if it is not in its final form, it at least makes itself suitably available for adjacent inquiries. The preliminary analysis collects examples, lays out intuitions, lays out formal concepts, lays out the relations between these examples, intuitions, and formal concepts, collects desiderata for the concept such as propositions that use the concept, and finds inconsistencies in the use of the concept and in propositions asserted about it. Then, when it comes time to think about another related concept - - for example, "corrigibility", which involves "trying" and "flaw" and "self" and "agent" and so on - - those concepts ("flaw" and so on) have been prepared to well-assist with the inquiry about "corrigibility". Those related concepts have been prepared so that they easily offer up, to the inquiry about "corrigibility", the rearrangeable conceptual material needed to arrange a novel, suitable idea of "flaw" - - a novel idea of "flaw" that will both be locally suitable to the local inquiry of "corrigibility" (suitable, that is, in the role that was preliminarily assigned, by the inquiry, to the preliminary idea of "flaw"), and that will also have mostly relevant meaning mostly transferable across to other contexts that will want to use the idea of "flaw". The need for better concepts Hopeworthy paths start with pretheoretical concepts The only sort of pathway that appears hopeworthy to work out how to align an AGI with human wanting is the sort of pathway that starts with a pretheoretical idea that relies heavily on inexplicit intuitions, expressed in common language. As an exemplar, take the "Hard problem of corrigibility": The "hard problem of corrigibility" is to bui...

A Rosh Hashana paradox: The longer we live the more we understand our lives as a story and a journey. We all have our developing life narratives. But our stories and journeys are complex and complicated. Ironically, the best of who we are today sometimes derives in part from some of the most serious faults and misdeeds of our yesterday. Making mistakes, both moral and religious, seems necessary for our individual spiritual development and growth. Teshuva, however, requires regretting what we did wrong however necessary it was for our growth. In this class, we will explore Jewish texts and our own life experience that deal with the paradox of repentance in a world of indispensable moral and religious errors. What exactly is regret about errors that were necessary for our moral and religious growth?  How do we avoid using the idea of necessary errors as an excuse for bad behavior? Is the logic of regret the same for “necessary sins” against other people as for “necessary sins” against God? How can we sometimes consciously turn what was a sin into the origin of what is a positive good?

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: Telopheme, telophore, and telotect, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on September 17, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed June 7, 2023.] To come to know that a mind will have some specified ultimate effect on the world, first come to know, narrowly and in full, what about the mind makes it have effects on the world. The fundamental question Suppose there is a strong mind that has large effects on the word. What determines the effects of the mind? What sort of object is this question asking for? Most obviously it's asking for a sort of "rudder" for a mind: an element of the mind that can be easily tweaked by an external specifier to "steer" the mind, i.e. to specify the mind's ultimate effects on the world. For example, a utility function for a classical agent is a rudder. But in asking the fundamental question that way - - asking for a rudder - - that essay losses grasp of the slippery question and the real question withdraws. The section of that essay on The word "What", as in ¿What sort of thing is a "what" in the question "What determines a mind's effects?", brushes against the border of this issue but doesn't trek further in. That section asks: What sort of element can determine a mind's effects? It should have asked more fully: What are the preconditions under which an element can (knowably, wieldily, densely) determine a mind's effects? That is, what structure does a mind have to possess, so that there can be an element that determines the mind's ultimate effects? To put it another way: asking how to "put a goal into an agent" makes it sound like there's a slot in the agent for a goal; asking how to "point the agent" makes it sound like the agent has the capacity to go in a specified direction. Here the question is, what does an agent need to have, if it has the capacity to go in a specified direction? Synopsis Telopheme The rudder, the element that determines the mind's ultimate effects, is a telopheme. The morpheme "telo-" means "telos" = "goal, end, purpose", here meaning "ultimate effects". The morpheme "-pheme" is like "blaspheme" ("deceive-speak"). ("Telopheme" is probably wrong morphology and doesn't indicate an agent noun, which it ought to do, but sadly I don't speak Ancient Greek.) So a telopheme is a goal-sayer: it says the goal, the end, the ultimate effects. For example, a utility function for an omnipotent classical cartesian agent is a telopheme. The utility function says how good different worlds are, and by saying that, it determines that the ultimate effect of the agent will be to make the world be the world most highly scored by the utility function. Not only does the utility function determine the world, but it (perhaps) does so densely, knowably, and wieldily. Densely: We can imagine that the utility function is expressed compactly, compared to the complex behavior that the agent executes in pursuit of the best world as a consequence of preimaging the best world through the agent's world-model onto behavior. Knowably: The structure of the agent shows transparently that it will make the world be whatever world is best according to the utility function. Wieldily: IF (⟵ big if) there is available a faithful interpretation of our language about possible worlds into the agent's language about possible worlds, then we can (if granted access) fluently redirect the agent so that the world ends up as anything we choose by saying a new utility function with that world as the maximum. There's a hidden implication in the name "telopheme". The implication is that ultimate effects are speakable. Telophore The minimal sufficient preconditions for a mind's telopheme to be a telopheme is the telophore (or telophor) of the telopheme. Here "-phore" means "bearer, carrier" (as in "phosphorus" = "light-bearer", "metapho...

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: Fundamental question: What determines a mind's effects?, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on September 3, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed April 9, 2023.] A mind has some effects on the world. What determines which effects a mind has? To eventually create minds that have large effects that we specify, this question has to first be answered. Slippery questions A slippery question is a question that, when you try to approach it looking for an answer, it slips out of your grasp. It runs away or withdraws, it cloaks itself in false expressions. It leads you astray, replacing itself with a similar-sounding question, maybe one that's easier to answer. It's hard to hug a slippery question. The question withdraws. Or worse, it pretends to be made out of ungrounded abstract concepts, so that you're not sure anymore that there's even a real question there. This slipperiness is especially likely for questions that involve "big" things, such as minds. The question might seem obvious and even tautological. Or it might seem simplistic, failing to carve reality at the joints. These appearances usually somewhat accurately reflect the reality - - but they do not imply necessarily that there is not a real question behind the appearances. A question that can be pointed at, but only imperfectly, inchoately, ostensively, or preliminarily, is at risk of being question-substituted or being ignored. The discomfort of not having an answer or even a clear question pushes people to run ahead of the question. When they make an error that would have been prevented by meditating on the question, even if they notice the error, they don't notice that they are in general not focusing on the question. If the question asks: There is something, it has to do with concrete things A, B, and C, and it is important - - what is it? Then someone will analyze A and B in detail, gain some understanding, and declare the whole question - - including C, and the inexplicit core question - - solved. This essay will ask a slippery question over and over in different words, hoping to arrive at a firmer grasp on the real questions. The starting point: What determines the effects of a mind? The word "effects" Suppose there is a mind M. As a result of M existing, the cosmos (the entirety of the world, in any aspect or abstraction) is different from how it would have been if M hadn't existed. Those differences are the effects of M. What determines the difference in the cosmos that results from the presence of the mind? The effects of a mind depend on how strong the mind is. But the question wants to ask about the sort of effects, not their size: What determines the direction of a mind's effects? Minds pursue instrumental subgoals, which affect the world. These effects might matter, but they are subordinate to their supergoals. Any reversible effect might be reversed. The question asks about the final effects of the mind: What determines the direction of a mind's ultimate effects on the cosmos? "Direction" is only a metaphor. It suggests that there's something compactly understandable about the effects of the mind. The metaphor may not hold well. To nod in that direction, the question can at least be rephrased to suggest multi-dimensionality: What determines the directions of a mind's ultimate effects on the cosmos? The word "mind" What does "mind" mean here? The choice of the word "mind" reflects the guess that things that have large effects will be integrated - - will speak in internal languages, pass information, correct errors, and in general become coherent. Rather than "mind", the question could refer to [things that have large effects], reading: What determines the effects of a large-effect-haver? But this is too broad. The cosmos as a whole is a large-effect-haver, in...

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: Views on when AGI comes and on strategy to reduce existential risk, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on July 8, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. Summary: AGI isn't super likely to come super soon. People should be working on stuff that saves humanity in worlds where AGI comes in 20 or 50 years, in addition to stuff that saves humanity in worlds where AGI comes in the next 10 years. Thanks to Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel, Abram Demski, Daniel Kokotajlo, Cleo Nardo, Alex Zhu, and Sam Eisenstat for related conversations. My views on when AGI comes AGI By "AGI" I mean the thing that has very large effects on the world (e.g., it kills everyone) via the same sort of route that humanity has large effects on the world. The route is where you figure out how to figure stuff out, and you figure a lot of stuff out using your figure-outers, and then the stuff you figured out says how to make powerful artifacts that move many atoms into very specific arrangements. This isn't the only thing to worry about. There could be transformative AI that isn't AGI in this sense. E.g. a fairly-narrow AI that just searches configurations of atoms and finds ways to do atomically precise manufacturing would also be an existential threat and a possibility for an existential win. Conceptual capabilities progress The "conceptual AGI" view: The first way humanity makes AGI is by combining some set of significant ideas about intelligence. Significant ideas are things like (the ideas of) gradient descent, recombination, probability distributions, universal computation, search, world-optimization. Significant ideas are to a significant extent bottlenecked on great natural philosophers doing great natural philosophy about intelligence, with sequential bottlenecks between many insights. The conceptual AGI doesn't claim that humanity doesn't already have enough ideas to make AGI. I claim that - - though not super strongly. Timelines Giving probabilities here doesn't feel great. For one thing, it seems to contribute to information cascades and to shallow coalition-forming. For another, it hides the useful models. For yet another thing: A probability bundles together a bunch of stuff I have models about, with a bunch of stuff I don't have models about. For example, how many people will be doing original AGI-relevant research in 15 years? I have no idea, and it seems like largely a social question. The answer to that question does affect when AGI comes, though, so a probability about when AGI comes would have to depend on that answer. But ok. Here's some butt-numbers: 3%-10% probability of AGI in the next 10-15ish years. This would be lower, but I'm putting a bit of model uncertainty here. 40%-45% probability of AGI in the subsequent 45ish years. This is denser than the above because, eyeballing the current state of the art, it seems like we currently lack some ideas we'd need - - but I don't know how many insights would be needed, so the remainder could be only a couple decades around the corner. It also seems like people are distracted now. Median 2075ish. IDK. This would be further out if an AI winter seemed more likely, but LLMs seem like they should already be able to make a lot of money. A long tail. It's long because of stuff like civilizational collapse, and because AGI might be really really hard to make. There's also a sliver of a possibility of coordinating for a long time to not make AGI. If I were trying to make a model with parts, I might try starting with a mixture of Erlang distributions of different shapes, and then stretching that according to some distribution about the number of people doing original AI research over time. Again, this is all butt-numbers. I have almost no idea about how much more understanding is needed to make AGI, except that it doesn't seem like we're there yet. Respon...

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: The fraught voyage of aligned novelty, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on June 26, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed March 11, 2023.] A voyage of novelty is fraught. If a mind takes a voyage of novelty, an observer is hard pressed to understand what the growing mind is thinking or what effects the growing mind will have on the world. Fraughtness If a mind grows beyond human activity then it thinks in a language you don't speak, using skills you don't possess, derived from sources you don't share. The mind incorporates new ideas, invalidating your predictions and specifications for how the mind affects the world. "Fraught" is cognate with "freight": fraughtness is ladenness. "Fraught" is an intensive prefix "fra-" (cognate with English "for-", "fro", Ancient Greek "πρό-") followed by a descendant of Proto-Germanic "aiganą", meaning "to possess". From that etymon comes English "owe", "ought", and "own", and German "eigen". To be fraught is to be laden by intensely possessing. Extended table of contents: Understanding: If a mind takes a far-ranging voyage of novelty, it's difficult for an observer to understand what the mind thinks, knows, and does. Neurath's ship: Novelty involves change. Some of that change deeply changes how the mind operates and how the mind connects its capabilities to the effects it has on the world. Previous understanding of the mind, and in particular previously correct models of the mind's effects, might not stay valid across these changes. Alienness: A mind that gains a lot of structure not possessed by humans is alien to humans. It has structure (content, generators, contexts) not shared by humans. So it's hard for humans to understand the mind. Inexplicitness: Structure in the mind is often unavailable for relation within the mind. Such structure tends to also be unavailable for relation with an observer. Noncomprehensiveness: Creativity, inexplicitness, provisionality, noncartesianness, and integration tend to make a mind and its elements nonencompassable. The mind and its elements can't easily be understood in a way that implies conclusions that will be valid across a very wide range of possible future contexts. Agency: Agency comes along with novelty. It comes along unannounced. Pressure towards agency on a voyage of novelty: If a mind takes a far-ranging voyage of novelty, then it likely also has large effects on the world. The murkiness of values: The existing concepts of values and agency don't explain what determines the direction of the effects that a mind has on the world or how an observer could specify that direction. Understanding If a mind takes a far-ranging voyage of novelty, it's difficult for an observer to understand what the mind thinks, knows, and does. Neurath's ship Novelty involves change. Some of that change deeply changes how the mind operates and how the mind connects its capabilities to the effects it has on the world. Previous understanding of the mind, and in particular previously correct models of the mind's effects, might not stay valid across these changes. Creativity implies an influx of novel elements. Some mental elements are essentially provisional: they're never complete, and there's always a further growth of the mind that will call on them to change, grow, or refactor. To continue to understand the role played by essentially provisional elements, as a mind grows, we may be required to grow in ways analogous to how the mind is growing. Some novelty is diasystemic: it touches on many preexisting elements, and doesn't fit into preexisting elements in a way neatly analogous to how the preexisting elements fit in with each other. Diasystemic novelty may be necessary to create very capable minds, but more difficult to notice, appreciate as important, understand, and ...

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: Provisionality, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on June 19, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed March 7, 2023.] A mental element has to be open to revision, and so it has to be treated as though it might be revised. Thanks to Sam Eisenstat for relevant conversations and for the basic notion of provisionality. Terms Provisionality A mental element E is provisional when it is suitable to treat E as open to revision, i.e. as though it might be suitable to revise E in the future. Provisionality is the state of being provisional. Many elements are provisional: they have yet to be fully grasped, made explicit, connected to what they should be connected to, had all their components implemented, carved at the joints, made available for use, indexed, suitably redescribed in other terms. An element is essentially provisional when it is, in its essence, provisional. That is, an essentially provisional element is, by its nature and by its role in the mind, provisional: in all (or a great range of) possible worlds the element is always provisional, even after more explicitizing and correcting has happened. Provisionality is normative Provisionality isn't how a mind actually treats the element. A mind might treat an element as-if-provisionally even though really the element is not provisional (i.e., really it ought to be treated as finalized), and a mind might treat an element not as-if-provisionally even though the element really is provisional. Provisionality is also not whether the element will actually be revised. So, provisionality is normative (it describes "right" behavior, and so is an imperative for an agent behaving "rightly"), while as-if-provisionality is descriptive (describes actual behavior). Revision of an element is a kind of witness to its prior provisionality, since probably if the element actually gets revised, it should have been treated as though it will be revised. Openness An element E is open when it is suitable to treat E as non-closed, non-circumscribed, open to novel relations; that is, as though it might in the future be suitable to relate E to more elements than it currently relates to. Openness is the state of being open. Openness could also be called noncontainedness. As with provisionality, openness is normative. Openness is a subclass of provisionality. If an element E is open then E is also provisional in that way, because a novel relation with E is a kind of revision of E. Updating a probability distribution can be a substantial revision that's not (much of) a novel relation, witnessing provisionality but not openness. (On the other hand, to deduce consequences of a hypothesis witnesses openness, because it brings more kinds of evidence to bear on the hypothesis.) Essentiality Essentiality is when a property holds of a thing by the nature of that thing: in all (or a great range of) possible worlds, the property holds of the thing. An example is essentially undecidable logical theories: theories which can't be consistently extended to a decidable theory. A class of examples comes from logical implication, i.e. analyticity, as in "Pediatricians are essentially doctors.". (The concept of analytic is problematic because it relies somewhat circularly on notions of logical rules and implication, see Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", but relative analyticity (or enthymemic analyticity, understood to always be relative to unstated premises) seems less problematic.) In terms of a thing as an inductive nexus of reference, essentiality means centrality or eventual permanence. A thing is essentially P if, following the reference of the thing however deep into its nexus, whatever structure is there will satisfy property P. Quoting from "Rootedness" about essential provisionality and essential openness: The novelty c...

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: Explicitness, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on June 12, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed March 3, 2023.] Explicitness is out-foldedness. An element of a mind is explicit when it is available to relate to other elements when suitable. Thanks to Sam Eisenstat for related conversations. Note: The ideas of explicitness and inexplicitness require more explication. Explicitness and inexplicitness Elements can be more or less explicit, less or more inexplicit. (This statement wants to be unpacked.) In general, inexplicitness is the lack of explicitness, and explicitness is when elements that have good reason to be related, are able to be related. That is, when structure is explicit, it can be brought into relation with other structure when suitable. Structure is explicit when it's out-folded: when it already makes itself available (visible, applicable, informative, copyable, tunable, directable, modifiable, predictable, combinable, interoperable), so that nothing is hidden or blocked. An explicit element is an element high in explicitness, i.e. it can be brought into relation with other elements when suitable. Explicitizing Elements can become more explicit. By default, structure is fully inexplicit for a mind. That is, it's fully ectosystemic for the mind: it's not available for elements of the mind to relate to. Structure can be brought into explicitness. For example, these processes make structure more explicit: reflection, analysis, description, expression, joint-carving, separating, factoring, refactoring, modularization, indexing, interfacing, connecting, disentangling. The early stages of explicitizing involve incomplete or deficient participation——like a blind man touching an elephant's tail, or entering the outer regions of a nexus of reference. E.g., the relationship that the Ancient Greek mathematicians had to Cartesian algebraic geometry. A diagram: Examples An example of explicitizing also furnishes examples of inexplicitness (before the explicitizing) and explicitness (after the explicitizing), and likewise an example of inexplicitizing also furnishes examples of explicitness and inexplicitness. Classes of examples of explicitizing Internal sharing of elements. See here for examples of inexplicitness. Making an analogy. By grasping a partial isomorphism, the partially isomorphic aspects of the analogands can be transferred back and forth between them. Putting a word to something. When the word comes up, the element is accessed, and vice versa. That helps different contexts in which the element is relevant communicate with each other through the unfolding of the element. Refactoring code. Separating concerns A and B renders code for dealing with just A useful for tasks that deal with A but not B, whereas the unseparated code might for example assume the existence of B (e.g. as an argument or global variable). The separation makes explicit the dependence and non-dependence of code on A or B. Or for example rewriting a function so that it accepts a standard rather than non-standard input format, so that elements expecting a function to accept standard input can easily relate to the function. Deduction. Drawing out the implications of an element makes the element available for comparison with other elements and makes the element available to recommend action. Writing things down. Expressing and recording something in shared language makes it available to others. Storing something in memory makes it available to your future self. Abbreviating something makes synopsis and large-scale modification more feasible. For example, mathematical notation makes big thoughts viewable all together, and makes algebra more efficient. Attaching abbreviations to an element makes that element easier to find. Drawing a picture makes somet...

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: Wildfire of strategicness, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on June 5, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. It may not be feasible to make a mind that makes achievable many difficult goals in diverse domains, without the mind also itself having large and increasing effects on the world. That is, it may not be feasible to make a system that strongly possibilizes without strongly actualizing. But suppose that this is feasible, and there is a mind M that strongly possibilizes without strongly actualizing. What happens if some mental elements of M start to act strategically, selecting, across any available domain, actions predicted to push the long-term future toward some specific outcome? The growth of M is like a forest or prairie that accumulates dry grass and trees over time. At some point a spark ignites a wildfire that consumes all the accumulated matter. The spark of strategicness, if such a thing is possible, recruits the surrounding mental elements. Those surrounding mental elements, by hypothesis, make goals achievable. That means the wildfire can recruit these surrounding elements toward the wildfire's ultimate ends. By recruiting more dry matter to the wildfire, the wildfire burns hotter and spreads further. Also by hypothesis, the surrounding mental elements don't themselves push strongly for goals. Seemingly, that implies that they do not resist the wildfire, since resisting would constitute a strong push. We can at least say that, if the totality of the mental elements surrounding the wildfire is going to notice and suppress the wildfire, it would have to think at least strategically enough to notice and close off all the sneaky ways by which the wildfire might wax. This implies that the surrounding mental elements do a lot of thinking and have a lot of understanding relevant to strategic takeovers, which itself seemingly makes more available the knowledge needed for strategic takeovers. Capabilities overhang provides fuel for a wildfire of strategicness. That implies that it's not so easy to avoid wrapper-minds. This is very far from being a watertight argument, and it would be nice if the conclusion were false; how is it false? Maybe, as is sometimes suggested, minds selected to be creative are selected to keep themselves open to new ideas and therefore to new agency, implying that they're selected to prevent strategic takeovers, which would abhor new agency? Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Ed2000 & Educador are tooled up, clued up, coming on strong thanks to Kbuta, Lakso, Gantz, Wooton, Kizzy, Dream Sound Masters & Ezequiel, The Puppetmastaz, Brny Owl, TSVI, Drone, Luxe, Alphonse, Nimhaz and Dog Patrol, with sounds that will empower and sustain you as lickshots a plenty come down. This is Dub Intervention.Tune into new broadcasts of Dub Intervention, Saturday from 8 - 10 PM EST / 1 - 3 AM GMT (Sunday).For more info visit: https://thefaceradio.com/dub-intervention///Dig this show? Please consider supporting The Face Radio: http://support.thefaceradio.com Support The Face Radio with PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/thefaceradio. Join the family at https://plus.acast.com/s/thefaceradio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Joe Dlugo is a TSVI, COMS, and Certified Assistive Technology Instructional Specialist (CATIS) at the Washington State School for the Blind. Joe is also the Vision Grant Program Mentor for Washington Sensory Disabilities Services. Always at the forefront of technology in the field of blind, low vision, and deafblind education, he brings us an introduction to ChatGPT and potential implications for our work.    Perkins School for the Blind recently published an article by Joe on this same topic: https://www.perkins.org/resource/generative-artificial-intelligence-impacts-on-professionals-in-the-field-of-educating-students-with-blindness-and-low-vision/

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: A strong mind continues its trajectory of creativity, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on May 14, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed January 29, 2023.] A very strong mind is produced by a trajectory of creativity. A trajectory of creativity that produces a very strong mind is hard to separate from the mind's operation. So a strong mind continues on its trajectory of creativity as long as it is active. A strong mind comes from a trajectory of creativity If a mind is highly capable, it got to that point by gaining understanding in a voyage of novelty. If the mind gains understanding that is novel for all the surrounding minds (e.g., preexisting humans), it does so through creativity: generating novelty, rather than merely copying it. If the mind becomes much more capable than the surrounding minds, it does so by being on a trajectory of creativity: something about the mind implies that it generates understanding that is novel to the mind and its environment. If the mind is on a trajectory of creativity that brought it to the point of being highly capable, its trajectory of creativity probably carries the mind much further, making the mind much more capable than it already is. The ex quo of a mind's creativity is the element (collection of elements) out of which comes novel structure. The ex quo of a modern AI system is almost entirely dependent on the search (i.e. training) apparatus, which is clearly separated out from running the found system. (The ex quo isn't entirely dependent on the search apparatus. Some non-zero creativity happens in the collision of elements that happens in, say, a single run of a stable diffusion image model or a large transformer language model. But it's not much creativity, and the found structure is about as temporarily grasped as possible.) The proximal ex quo is that out of which novel structure comes directly. The distal ex quo is that out of which novel structure comes indirectly. So the mental context that's set up when a particular idea comes to you, and the other dark matter that goes into that abduction, is the proximal ex quo; human evolution is the distal ex quo; and the history of the development of your brain is an intermediate ex quo. Trajectory and operation are hard to separate An AI can simply be shut down, until it's able to and wants to stop you from shutting it down. But can an AI's improvement be shut down, without shutting down the AI? This can be done for all current AI systems in the framework of finding a fairly limited system by a series of tweaks. Just stop tweaking the system, and it will now behave as a fixed (perhaps stochastic) function that doesn't provide earth-shaking capabilities. I suspect that the ex quo that puts a mind on a trajectory to being very strong, is hard to separate from the operation of the mind. Some gestures at why: Making doesn't imply understanding Just because you can make something, doesn't mean you understand how it works. Evolution is a distal ex quo of human understanding. But there's clearly an ex quo more proximal than evolution for, say, scientific understanding: human thought and investigation. Setting up an evolution that can produce humans doesn't imply that you understand how humans do science. The way we make neural networks today is by setting up a distal ex quo (the search process). A more proximal ex quo for a neural net comes from the accumulated hidden features: they set up the context in which the next little tweak is beneficial. We can know how to make neural nets that work well without knowing much about how the series of tweaks in context build up the computations that end up performing well at the given task. We can nevertheless turn off the ex quo of current AI systems because the ex quo is almost entirely dependent on the ...

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: An anthropomorphic AI dilemma, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on May 7, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed January 21, 2023.] Either generally-human-level AI will work internally like humans work internally, or not. If generally-human-level AI works like humans, then takeoff can be very fast, because in silico minds that work like humans are very scalable. If generally-human-level AI does not work like humans, then intent alignment is hard because we can't use our familiarity with human minds to understand the implications of what the AI is thinking or to understand what the AI is trying to do. Terms Here generally-human-level AI means artificial systems that can perform almost all tasks at or above the level of a human competent at that task (including tasks that take a long time). Here intent alignment means making artificial systems try to do what we, on reflection and all things considered, would want them to do. A system that doesn't have intents in this sense--i.e. isn't well-described as trying to do something--cannot be intent aligned. Here "how a mind works" points at the generators of the mind's ability to affect the world, and the determiners of [in what direction to push the world] a mind applies its capabilities. Let A be some generally-human-level AI system (the first one, say). (Here "dilemma" just means "two things, one of which must be true", not necessarily a problem.) The anthropomorphy dichotomy Either A will work internally like humans work internally, or not. Well, of course it's a spectrum, not a binary dichotomy, and a high-dimensional space, not a spectrum. So a bit more precisely: either A will work internally very much like how humans work internally, or very much not like how humans work internally, or some more ambiguous mix. To firmly avoid triviality: to qualify as "very much like" how humans work, in the sense used here, it is definitely neither necessary nor sufficient to enjoy walking barefoot on the beach, to get angry, to grow old, to have confirmation bias, to be slow at arithmetic, to be hairy, to have some tens of thousands of named concepts, to be distractible, and so on. What's necessary and sufficient is to share most of the dark matter generators of human-level capabilities. (To say that, is to presume that most of the generators of human-level capabilities aren't presently understood explicitly; really the condition is just about sharing the generators.) Anthropomorphic AI is scalable Suppose that A does share with humans the dark matter generators of human-level capabilities. Then A is very scalable, i.e. can be tweaked without too much difficulty so that it becomes much more capable than A. The basic case is here, in the section "The AI Advantage". (That link could be taken as arguing that AI will be non-anthropomorphic in some sense, but from the perspective of this essay, the arguments given there are of the form: here's how, starting from the human (anthropomorphic) baseline, it's visibly possible to make tweaks that greatly increase capabilities.) To add two (overlapping) points: Simple network effects might be very powerful. If ideas combine at some low rate with other ideas and with tasks, then scaling up the number of idea-slots (analogous to cortex) would give superlinear returns, just using the same sort of thinking that humans use. Imagine if every thought in the world was made available to you, so that as you're having your thoughts, the most especially relevant knowledge held by anyone brings itself to your attention, and is already your own in the same way as your knowledge is already your own. Imagine if the most productive philosophical, mathematical, and scientific quirks of thought, once called forth by some private struggles, were instantly copyable to ten thous...

Cody Laplante is an itinerant TSVI in Maryland and co-founder of "eye.t". He aims to create curriculum and professional development rolled into one for busy teachers of students with visual impairment with an emphasis on technology. You can currently find information regarding screen reader instruction on his website and tech tips on his youtube channel.    For more information on eye.t be sure to visit them on YouTube at and the eye.t website.  

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: The voyage of novelty, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on April 30, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed January 17, 2023. This essay is more like research notes than exposition, so context may be missing, the use of terms may change across essays, and the text might be revised later; only the versions at tsvibt.blogspot.com are definitely up to date.] Novelty is understanding that is new to a mind, that doesn't readily correspond or translate to something already in the mind. We want AGI in order to understand stuff that we haven't yet understood. So we want a system that takes a voyage of novelty: a creative search progressively incorporating ideas and ways of thinking that we haven't seen before. A voyage of novelty is fraught: we don't understand the relationship between novelty and control within a mind. What takes the voyage, from where to where? The voyage is taken by some AI system, from not understanding what we want it to understand, to understanding all that. A schematic: Novelty Novelty is structure that is new to a mind. A mind acquires novelty via creativity. Endosystemic novelty is novelty that fits in with the preexisting mind in ways analogous to how preexisting elements of the mind fit in with the mind; e.g., a new sub-skill such as "opening a car door", or a new word. Diasystemic novelty is novelty (new structure) that involves through-going changes to the mind; e.g. a new heuristic like "investigate boundaries" applied automatically across many contexts. At the extreme end of diasystemic novelty are cognitive realms distinct from the cognitive realm currently occupied by the mind. Structure hand-holdable by humanity Where does the voyage of novelty start? It starts wherever the mind is. But where can it safely start? A lot of structure has the property that it is easy enough for humans to render non-dangerous a mind's exploration (discovery, creation) and exercise (application, expression) of that structure. Humanity can "hold a mind's hand" through its voyage of novelty through such structure. Some overlapping reasons that structure can be hand-holdable, with examples: The structure just doesn't contribute much to a mind having large effects on the world. For example, a mind might know about some obscure species of grass that no human knows about; a human can't understand the mind's thoughts in absolutely full detail, at least without zerself learning about the species of grass. But it just doesn't matter that much, assuming the grass isn't a source of extremely potent toxin or something. The structure is easy to intervene on to limit the extent of its influence over the rest of the mind. For example, one can limit the information flow between graspable elements. (However, this sort of hand-holding is very fraught, for example because of conceptual Doppelgängers: the rest of the mind can just reconstitute the supposedly boxed structure in a Doppelgänger outside of the box.) The structure is easy for humans to understand fully, including all its implications for and participation in thinking and action, so that it doesn't contribute inscrutably to the mind's activity. See gemini modeling. For example, the mental model [coffee cup] is hand-holdable, as humans have it. This is a central example of hand-holdability: the mind (hypothetically, at least) in question does the same things, thinks the same way, with respect to coffee cups, as do humans; what's in common between the mind's activity in different contexts with respect to coffee cups, is also in common with humans. (It's not clear whether and how this is possible in practice, for one thing due to essential provisionality: the way a mind thinks about something can always change and expand, so that [the structure that currently plays the analogous role in ...

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: Endo-, Dia-, Para-, and Ecto-systemic novelty, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on April 23, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed January 10, 2023. This essay is more like research notes than exposition, so context may be missing, the use of terms may change across essays, and the text might be revised later; only the versions at tsvibt.blogspot.com are definitely up to date.] Novelty can be coarsely described as one of: fitting within a preexisting system; constituting a shift of the system; creating a new parallel subsystem; or standing unintegrated outside the system. Thanks to Sam Eisenstat for related conversations. Novelty is understanding (structure, elements) that a mind acquires (finds, understands, makes its own, integrates, becomes, makes available for use to itself or its elements, incorporates into its thinking). A novel element (that is, structure that wasn't already there in the mind fully explicitly) can relate to the mind in a few ways, described here mainly by analogy and example. A clearer understanding of novelty than given here might clarify the forces acting in and on a mind when it is acquiring novelty, such as "value drives". Definitions "System" ("together-standing") is used here to emphasize the network of relations between elements of a mind. These terms aren't supposed to be categories, but more like overlapping regions in the space of possibilities for how novelty relates to the preexisting mind. Endosystemic novelty (or "basis-aligned" or "in-ontology") is novelty that is integrated into the mind by fitting alongside and connecting to other elements, in ways analogous to how preexisting elements fit in with each other. Endosystemic novelty is "within the system"; it's within the language, ontology, style of thinking, conceptual scheme, or modus operandi of the preexisting mind. Diasystemic novelty (or "cross-cutting" or "basis-skew" or "ontological shift") is novelty that is constituted as a novel structure of the mind by many shifts in many of the preexisting elements or relations, adding up to something coherent or characteristically patterned. Diasystemic novelty is "throughout the system"; it's skew to the system, cross-cutting the preexisting schemes; it touches (maybe subtly) many elements, many relations, or certain elements that shape much of the mind's activity, hence altering the overall dynamics or character of the system. Parasystemic novelty is novelty that is only loosely integrated into the whole mind, while being more tightly integrated within a subsystem of the mind. Parasystemic novelty is "alongside the system"; it's neither basis-aligned (since it's outside preexisting tightly integrated systems) nor cross-cutting (as it doesn't touch most of the system, or require most of the system for its constitution). Ectosystemic novelty is novelty that is merely juxtaposed or appended to the mind, without being really integrated. Ectosystemic novelty is "on or outside the system"; it's external, only loosely related to the mind, as by a narrow interface or by an external aggregration mechanism. It differs from parasystemic novelty by being even less integrated, and by not nucleating or expanding a tightly integrated subsystem. Analogies Analogy: If a language is like a mind, then a new word would be endosystemic novelty; a sound shift or (more properly) a grammatical innovation would be diasystemic (cross-cutting) novelty; specialized languages (such as scientific jargon), and dialect formation, would be parasystemic novelty; and an encounter with a foreign language would be ectosystemic novelty. Pidgins, being unstable and noncanonical, witness the ectosystemic nature: the foreign languages don't integrate. Creoles, however, could be dubbed "systemopoetic novelty"--like parasystemic novel...

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: Possibilizing vs. actualizing, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on April 16, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed December 31, 2022. This essay is more like research notes than exposition, so context may be missing, the use of terms may change across essays, and the text might be revised later; only the versions at tsvibt.blogspot.com are definitely up to date.] Some behavior seems like it's just making things possible, without actually doing much of anything, while other behavior seems to actually do something. Is there a principled, or a useful, distinction between possibilizing and actualizing? Is it possible to possibilize a large effect on the world without actualizing large effects on the world? It's not clear whether this is a real distinction, but to me it's a very intuitive and intuitively salient idea (because possibilizing seems safer than actualizing), so I'd like to have a better analysis or dissolution of it. Terms Possibilizing is making something possible for an agent to do. That is, it's setting the stage, preparing, unlocking, satisfying the preconditions, gathering the needed resources and tools, gaining the necessary understanding and skill and components and information, getting agents on board, making the plans, opening the way. "Possible" is cognate with "potent", "power", and "hospital". Other possible words: enabling, feasibilizing, empowering. Actualizing is (an agent) actually doing something, making something happen, achieving a goal, affecting something, having impact, delivering a payload. Other possible words: realizing, implementing, exerting. Examples Taking a step forward along a path possibilizes the next step, and contributes to possibilizing further steps; and it actualizes itself, a forward movement of the walker. In this example, it does seem like there's much distinction between possibilizing and actualizing: what's being possibilized (subsequent steps) is the same sort of thing as the possibilizing (the current step), and they interact in a straightforward way. Intuitively, this is mere progress, not possibilizing, so the above definition of possibilizing is incomplete. Speed cubers first look at the Rubik's cube, then put it down, and then pick it up and turn its faces. Before they pick it up the second time, in their head they're possibilizing solving the cube by figuring out the sequence of moves. Before that, they had to understand how to solve the cube and train that skill, which was also possibilizing solving the cube. The order can't be switched: you can't turn the faces so the cube is in a solved state, and then, after that, figure out for the first time what sequence of turns would solve the cube. But you can "think with the cube", trying out moves to see what happens, sometimes backtracking, which blurs the distinction. To build a complicated house, you look at the site where you'll build it, then you leave and elsewhere you think and draw pictures, and then later you come back and build the house. A lot of engineering tasks are solved straightforwardly. But engineering tasks that push the envelope require the engineers to recurse up to more abstract thinking (e.g. "first-principles thinking"), removing all but the most necessary assumptions/constraints, finding an abstract design that satisfies the abstract constraints, and then constructing a new concrete, detailed design in a way that's beholden to the abstract design. Coming up with a word possibilizes the expression of some thoughts. Coming up with a concept possibilizes making good predictions and finding good designs. If you don't know about chromatic dispersion, you'll be confused about why your lenses produce images with weird color-dependent blurring, and you'll have trouble knowing, without physically testing, how muc...

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: Expanding the domain of discourse reveals structure already there but hidden, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on April 9, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed May 15, 2022. This essay is more like research notes than exposition, so context may be missing, the use of terms may change across essays, and the text might be revised later; only the versions at tsvibt.blogspot.com are definitely up to date.] To understand a complex system like a mind or an ecosystem, we have to understand a tangled web of objects, features, processes, relations, correlations, clusters, constraints, causes, and so on. It helps to find underlying explanations and generating process, and to find deep reasons that explain why many relationships are the way they are. To find those underlying explanations, it helps to know relationships between relationships: which relationships cause, explain, or constrain other relationships. When staring at an assembly of relationships and asking which relationships explain other relationships, it can seem like we're at a loss for where to go; sometimes there are clearly relationships, but there's no clear way to extract any further order, because there's no basis on which to say that one relationship explains another--the relationships are just there, and that's it. By way of example/analogy, suppose we look at a list of facts like [3×4=12, 12/4=3, 4=12/3, 12=4×3], and ask, which facts are more foundational to which other facts? Which facts explain, ground, cause, or constitute the essence of, which other facts? Is 12/4=3 because 12=4×3, or vice versa? Is the evenness of 12 due to the evenness of 4? Or due to the evenness of 6? What if there's no answer, and all we can say is that all these facts stand together as related by derivations and proofs, with no priority given to any of them over any other? Another example: take a smooth closed curve C in the plane. These conditions are equivalent: There is a point p such that all points on C are equidistant from p. C has constant curvature. (If C bounds a disc) C bounds the maximum area that's possible to bound with a curve of the same length as C. The group of isometries of the plane that maps C to itself is a nontrivial connected compact topological group. These conditions all define a circle in the plane. If we're asked "Why does a locus of equidistant points have constant curvature?", we can answer with a proof. But if we're asked, "Is a circle constant curvature because it maximizes area, or does it maximize area because it has constant curvature?", we might have nothing to say. If we ask "Why does a wheel roll?", should we be satisfied with the explanation: "To roll, it's necessary that it admits a nontrivial connected compact group of isometries; it admits these isometries because it has constant curvature; it has constant curvature because the points on its rim are equidistant from the axle."? What if instead the explanation ended with "...because its rim bounds the maximum area boundable by any rim of the same length."? What if we meant to ask why the rolling keeps the axle level, not why the rolling is a continuous motion? In some cases, deriving the presence of traits in a species from other present traits might be like this: the traits all imply each other, so the implications can be understood, but none of the traits underlie the other traits. This situation is not so implausible. For one thing, features of species that we name might be related to each other less like two objects relate to each other (causal dynamics, interaction) and more like logical properties (implication, equivalence). E.g. the feature "totally consumes its prey" pretty much logically implies "causes its prey to die". For another thing, many systems (especially biological and mental ones) h...

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: Ultimate ends may be easily hidable behind convergent subgoals, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on April 2, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed December 18, 2022.] Thought and action in pursuit of convergent instrumental subgoals do not automatically reveal why those subgoals are being pursued--towards what supergoals--because many other agents with different supergoals would also pursue those subgoals, maybe with overlapping thought and action. In particular, an agent's ultimate ends don't have to be revealed by its pursuit of convergent subgoals. It might might therefore be easy to covertly pursue some ultimate goal by mostly pursuing generally useful subgoals of other supergoals. By the inspection paradox for the convergence of subgoals, it might be easy to think and act almost comprehensively like a non-threatening agent would think and act, while going most of the way towards achieving some other more ambitious goal. Note: the summary above is the basic idea. The rest of the essay analyzes the idea in a lot of detail. The final main section might be the most interesting. What can you tell about an agent's ultimate intent by its behavior? An agent's ultimate intent is what the agent would do if it had unlimited ability to influence the world. What can we tell about an agent's ultimate intent by watching the external actions it takes, whether low-level (e.g. muscle movements) or higher-level (e.g. going to the store), and by watching its thinking (e.g. which numbers it's multiplying, which questions it's asking, which web searches it's running, which concepts are active)? Terms The cosmos is everything, including the observable world, logical facts, observers and agents themselves, and possibilities. A goal-state is a state of the cosmos that an agent could try to bring about. (A state is equivalent to a set of states; more formally, the cosmos is a locale of possibilities and a goal-state is an open subspace.) An instantiation of a cosmos-state is a substate. E.g. [I have this particular piece of gold] is an instantiation of [I have a piece of gold in general]. A goal is a property of an agent of the form: this agent is trying to bring about goal-state G. Overloading the notation, we also say the agent has the goal G, and we can imprecisely let the term also stand for whatever mental elements constitute the goal and its relations to the rest of the agent. A pursuit of G is behavior, a set of actions, selected to achieve G. Since an agent having a goal G is basically the same as the agent pursuing G, we also say e.g. "the farmer has the goal [grow crops]", which really means, "the farmer selects actions that ze expects will bring about zer goal state [have crops], and so ze behaves in a way that's well-described as [growing crops]". A strategy (for G) is a pursuit (of G) that involves an arrangement of goals (perhaps in sequence or in multiple parallel lines, perhaps with branching on contingencies). If an agent is following a strategy for G, then for each goal Gs in the strategy, Gs is a subgoal of the agent's goal of G, and G is a supergoal of Gs. We can also loosely say that some goal G′ is a subgoal of G if G′ helps achieve G, whether or not there's an agent pursuing G using G′, meaning vaguely something like "there's a strategy sufficient to achieve G that uses G′ as a necessary part" or "many agents will do reasonably well in pursuing G if they use G′". An intermediate goal is a goal that motivates the pursuit of subgoals, and itself is motivated by the pursuit of one or more supergoals. The motivator set of a goal G is the set of goals Gs such that Gs is plausibly a supergoal of G. The (sufficient) strategy set of a goal G is the set of strategies that are sufficient to achieve G. Inferring supergoals through subgoal...

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: Descriptive vs. specifiable values, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on March 26, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed November 19, 2022.] What are an agent's values? An answer to this question might be a good description of the agent's external behavior and internal workings, without showing how one could modify the agent's workings or origins so that the agent pushes the world in a specific different direction. Descriptive values There's some discussion of what can be inferred about the values of an agent based on its behavior and structure. E.g. see Daniel Dennett's intentional stance, and "Occam's razor is insufficient to infer the preferences of irrational agents" by Stuart Armstrong, Sören Mindermann (arxiv), and this post by Vanessa Kosoy. One could describe an agent as having certain values: the agent's behavior is a boundedly rational attempt to push the world in certain directions. For some purposes, it's useful to have a parsimonious description of an agent's behavior or internal workings in terms of values. For example, such a description could be useful for helping the agent out: to help the agent out, you push the world in the same direction that the agent is trying to push the world. Specifiable values A distinct purpose in describing an agent as having values is to answer questions about values in counterfactuals: What determined that the agent would have those values and not other values? Under what circumstances will the agent continue to have those values? E.g., will the agent rewrite itself so that its behavior is no longer well-described as boundedly pursuing those values? How could the agent's values be modified? How could the values be modified in a specific direction, or to a specific state, so that that the modified agent has some specific effect on the world? How could the agent's ontogeny--the process that made it what it is--be altered so that it ends up with some other specific values? To make these questions more likely to have answers, and to not rely too much on assumptions about what values are, replace the notion of "values" with the notion "what directions a mind ends up pushing the world in". Quasi-example: explicit utility maximization An auxiliary question: how, mechanistically, do "the values" determine the behavior? This question might not have an answer, because there might not be some component in the agent that constitutes "the values". For example, in humans, there's no clear value component; there are many in-built behavior-determiners, but they don't fully constitute what we call our values. But, in cases where we clearly understand the mechanism by which an agent's values determine its behavior, answers to other questions about values in counterfactuals might follow. For example, there's the classic agent model: a system that searches for actions that it predicts will lead in expectation to the most highly-scored world according to its utility function box. The mechanism is explicit in this model. The utility function is embodied, in a box, as an input-output function, and it determines the agent's effects on the world by providing the criterion that the agent uses to select actions. Some answers to the above questions follow. E.g., it's clear at least qualitatively how to modify the agent's values to a specific state: if you want to make the agent cause a certain kind of world, just change the utility function to score that kind of world highly. Even this example is not so clear cut, and relies on background assumptions. See problems with embedded agency. For example, if we assume that there's already a fixed world (that is, an understanding of what's possible) about which to define the utility function, we sweep under the rug that the understanding behind having such a world had t...

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: Shell games, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on March 19, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed November 18, 2022.] Shell game Here's the classic shell game: Youtube Screenshot from that video. The little ball is a phantom: when you look for it under a specific shell, it's not there, it's under a different shell. (This might be where the name "shell company" comes from: the business dealings are definitely somewhere, just not in this company you're looking at.) Perpetual motion machines Related: Perpetual motion beliefs Bhāskara's wheel is a proposed perpetual-motion machine from the Middle Ages: Here's another version: From this video. Someone could try arguing that this really is a perpetual motion machine: Q: How do the bars get lifted up? What does the work to lift them? A: By the bars on the other side pulling down. Q: How does the wheel keep turning? How do the bars pull more on their way down than on their way up? A: Because they're extended further from the center on the downward-moving side than on the upward-moving side, so they apply more torque to the wheel. Q: How do the bars extend further on the way down? A: Because the momentum of the wheel carries them into the vertical bar, flipping them over. Q: But when that happens, energy is expended to lift up the little weights; that energy comes out of the kinetic energy of the wheel. A: Ok, you're right, but that's not necessary to the design. All we need is that the torque on the downward side is greater than the torque on the upward side, so instead of flipping the weights up, we could tweak the mechanism to just shift them outward, straight to the side. That doesn't take any energy because it's just going straight sideways, from a resting position to another resting position. Q: Yeah... you can shift them sideways with nearly zero work... but that means the weights are attached to the wheel at a pivot, right? So they'll just fall back and won't provide more torque. A: They don't pivot, you fix them in place so they provide more torque. Q: Ok, but then when do you push the weights back inward? A: At the bottom. Q: When the weight is at the bottom? But then the slider isn't horizontal, so pushing the weight back towards the center is pushing it upward, which takes work. A: I meant, when the slider is at the bottom--when it's horizontal. Q: But if the sliders are fixed in place, by the time they're horizontal at the bottom, you've already lifted the weights back up some amount; they're strong-torquing the other way. A: At the bottom there's a guide ramp to lift the weights using normal force. Q: But the guide ramp is also torquing the wheel. And so on. The inventor can play hide the torque and hide the work. Shell games in alignment Some alignment schemes--schemes for structuring or training an AGI so that it can be transformatively useful and doesn't kill everyone--are prone to playing shell games. That is, there's some features of the scheme that don't seem to happen in a specific place; they happen somewhere other than where you're looking at the moment. Consider these questions: What sort of smarter-than-human work is supposed to be done by the AGI? When and how does it do that work--by what combination of parts across time? How does it become able to do that work? At what points does the AGI come to new understanding that it didn't have before? How does the AGI orchestrate it's thinking and actions to have large effects on the world? By what process, components, rules, or other elements? What determines the direction that the AGI's actions will push the world? Where did those determiners come from, and how exactly do they determine the direction? Where and how much do human operators have to make judgements? How much are those judgements being relied on to point to...

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: Are there cognitive realms?, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on March 12, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed November 16, 2022. This essay is more like research notes than exposition, so context may be missing, the use of terms may change across essays, and the text may be revised later; only the versions at tsvibt.blogspot.com are definitely up to date.] Are there unbounded modes of thinking that are systemically, radically distinct from each other in relevant ways? Note: since I don't know whether "cognitive realms" exist, this essay isn't based on clear examples and is especially speculative. Realms Systemically, radically distinct unbounded modes of thinking The question is, are there different kinds--writ large--of thinking? To the extent that there are, interpreting the mental content of another mind, especially one with different origins than one's own, may be more fraught than one would assume based on experience with minds that have similar origins to one's own mind. Are there unbounded modes of thinking that are systemically, radically distinct from each other? "Unbounded" means that there aren't bounds on how far the thinking can go, how much it can understand, what domains it can become effective in, what goals it can achieve if they are possible. "Systemically" ("system" = "together-standing-things") means that the question is about all the elements that participate in the thinking, as they covary / coadapt / combine / interoperate / provide context for each other. "Radical" (Wiktionary) does not mean "extreme". It comes from the same etymon as "radish" and "radix" and means "of the root" or "to the root"; compare "eradicate" = "out-root" = "pull out all the way to the root", and more distantly through PIE wréh₂ds the Germanic "wort" and "root". Here it means that the question isn't about some mental content in the foreground against a fixed background; the question asks about the background too, the whole system of thinking to its root, to its ongoing source and to what will shape it as it expands into new domains. Terms Such a mode of thinking could be called a "realm". A cognitive realm is an overarching, underlying, systemic, total, architectural thoughtform that's worth discussing separately from other thoughtforms. A realm is supposed to be objective, a single metaphorical place where multiple different minds or agents could find themselves. Other words: systemic thoughtform system of thought, system of thinking cognitive style state of mind cluster / region in mindspace mode of being species of thinking Realm vs. domain A domain is a type of task, or a type of environment. A realm, on the other hand, is a systemic type of thinking; it's about the mind, not the task. For the idea of a domain see Yudkowsky's definition of intelligence as efficient cross-domain optimization power. Compare also domain-specific programming languages, and the domain of discourse of a logical system. It might be more suitable for a mind to dwell in different realms depending on what domain it's operating in, and this may be a many-to-many mapping. Compare: The mapping from computational subsystems to cognitive talents is many-to-many, and the mapping from cognitive talents plus acquired expertise to domain competencies is also many-to-many, [...]. From "Levels of Organization in General Intelligence", Yudkowsky (2007). Domains are about the things being dealt with; it's a Cartesian concept (though it allows for abstraction and reflection, e.g. Pearlian causality is a domain and reprogramming oneself is a domain). Realms are about the thing doing the dealing-with. Realm vs. micro-realm A micro-realm is a realm except that it's not unbounded. It's similar to a cognitive faculty, and similar to a very abstract domain, but includes t...

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: Do humans derive values from fictitious imputed coherence?, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on March 5, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed November 1, 2022. This essay is more like research notes than exposition, so context may be missing, the use of terms may change across essays, and the text may be revised later; only the versions at tsvibt.blogspot.com are definitely up to date.] Humans are born with some elements of their minds, and without many other elements, some of which they'll acquire as their life unfolds. In particular, the elements that we pretheoretically call "values"--aesthetic preferences, goals, life goals, squad goals, aspirations, needs, wants, yearnings, drives, cravings, principles, morals, ethics, senses of importance, and so on--are for the most part acquired or at least unfolded, rather than being explicitly present in a newborn. How does this happen? What generates these mental elements? Hypothesis: a human derives many of zer values by imputing coherent agency to zer past behavior, and then adopting the goals of that fictitious agency as actively influential criteria for future action. Thanks to Sam Eisenstat for relevant conversations. The FIAT hypothesis As a shorthand: "the FIAT hypothesis" = "the Fictitious Imputed Adopted Telos hypothesis". ("Fiat" is Latin for "may it happen" or "may it be made", which has some resonance with the FIAT hypothesis in that they both talk about a free creation of goals.) FIAT goals are goals imputed to some behavior and then adopted as goals. Human behavior is determined by many things: built-in behavior-determiners such as the instinctive ability to breath, socially learned behavior and values, convergent instrumental goals, and freely created autopoietic goals such as artistic goals. The FIAT hypothesis says that a major determiner of a human's behavior is the process of adopting goals based on interpreting zer past behavior as agentic. Ze can be interpreted as asking the question: if my past behavior were the behavior of a coherent agent trying to do something, what would that something be? Then, whatever the answer was, ze adopts it as a goal--a target of more coherent behavior (more effective, more strategic, more orchestrated, more coordinated, more conscious, better resourced, more reflective, more univocal, more wasteless). This hypothesis gives a possible answer to the question: how did evolution build something with some substantial level of agentic coherence, even though evolution can't directly program conscious concepts like "avoiding death" or "saving food" or "inclusive genetic fitness" for use as terms in a utility function for an organism to pursue? This process could be continuous, with goals becoming gradually more coherent (and then potentially deprioritized, but usually not de-cohered). This process is iterative, starting with built-in behavior-determiners, then adopting new FIAT goals based on past behavior mainly generated by built-in determiners (and also maybe adopting new goals for other reasons), and then adopting new goals based on past behavior influenced by previously adopted goals, including previous FIAT goals, and so on. FIAT goals also come from not just imputing goals to zer own behavior, but also to the behavior of others, such as parents and leaders. Everything gets enshrined, but everything is open to criticism. Note that calling this a hypothesis is maybe presumptuous; it's an idea, but since it's abstract and it's about a complex system, there's a lot of ambiguity between FIAT and other explanations or descriptions of behavior, and it's not necessarily obvious how to make different predictions according to the FIAT hypothesis. Something left quite unspecified is how the FIAT process picks different possible interpretations ...

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RryyWNmJNnLowbhfC/please-don-t-throw-your-mind-away[Warning: the following dialogue contains an incidental spoiler for "Music in Human Evolution" by Kevin Simler. That post is short, good, and worth reading without spoilers, and this post will still be here if you come back later. It's also possible to get the point of this post by skipping the dialogue and reading the other sections.]Pretty often, talking to someone who's arriving to the existential risk / AGI risk / longtermism cluster, I'll have a conversation like the following:Tsvi: "So, what's been catching your eye about this stuff?"Arrival: "I think I want to work on machine learning, and see if I can contribute to alignment that way."T: "What's something that got your interest in ML?"A: "It seems like people think that deep learning might be on the final ramp up to AGI, so I should probably know how that stuff works, and I think I have a good chance of learning ML at least well enough to maybe contribute to a research project."------This is an experiment with AI narration. What do you think? Tell us by going to t3a.is.------

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: Counting-down vs. counting-up coherence, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on February 27, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed 25 October 2022.] Counting-down coherence is the coherence of a mind viewed as the absence of deviation downward in capability from ideal, perfectly efficient agency: the utility left on the table, the waste, the exploitability. Counting-up coherence is the coherence of a mind viewed as the deviation upward in capability from a rock: the elements of the mind, and how they combine to perform tasks. What determines the effects of a mind? Supranormally capable minds can have large effects. To control those effects, we'd have to understand what determines the effects of a mind. Pre-theoretically, we have the idea of "values", "aims", "wants". The more capable a mind is, the more it's that case that what the mind wants, is what will happen in the world; so the mind's wants, its values, determine the mind's effect on the world. A more precise way of describing the situation is: "Coherent decisions imply consistent utilities". A mind like that is incorrigible: if it knows it will eventually be more competent than any other mind at pushing the world towards high-utility possibilities, then it does not defer to any other mind. So to understand how a mind can be corrigible, some assumptions about minds and their values may have to be loosened. The question remains, what are values? That is, what determines the effects that a mind has on the world, besides what the mind is capable of doing or understanding? This essay does not address this question, but instead describes two complementary standpoints from which to view the behavior of a mind insofar as it has effects. Counting-down coherence Counting-down coherence is the coherence of a mind viewed as the absence of deviation downward in capability from ideal, perfectly efficient agency: the utility left on the table, the waste, the exploitability. Counting-down coherence could also be called anti-waste coherence, since it has a flavor of avoiding visible waste, or universal coherence, since it has a flavor of tracking how much a mind everywhere conforms to certain patterns of behavior. Some overlapping ways of describing counting-down incoherence: Exploitable, Dutch bookable, pumpable for resources. That is, someone could make a set of trades with the mind that leaves the mind worse off, and could do so repeatedly to pump the mind for resources. See Garrabrant induction. VNM violating. Choosing between different outcomes, or different probabilities of different outcomes, in a way that doesn't satisfy the Von Neumann–Morgenstern axioms, leaves a mind open to being exploited by Dutch books. See related LessWrong posts. Doesn't maximize expected utility. A mind that satisfies the VNM axioms behaves as though it maximizes the expected value of a fixed utility function over atomic (not probabilistic) outcomes. So deviating from that policy exposes a mind to Dutch books. Missed opportunities. Leaving possible gains on the table; failing to pick up a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk. Opposing pushes. Working at cross-purposes to oneself; starting to do X one day, and then undoing X the next day; pushing and pulling on the door handle at the same time. Internal conflict. At war with oneself; having elements of oneself that try to harm each other or interfere with each other's functioning. Inconsistent beliefs, non-Bayesian beliefs. Sometimes acting as though X and sometimes acting as though not-X, where X is something that is either true or false. Or some more complicated inconsistency, or more generally failing to act as though one has a Bayesian belief state and belief revisions. Any of these also open one up to being Dutch booked. Inefficient allocation. Choosing to inve...

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: Does novel understanding imply novel agency / values?, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on February 19, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed 17 October 2022.] To have large relevant effects on the world, a mind has to understand a lot about the world. The mind has to have a lot of the structure of the cosmos (the entirety of the world, in any aspect or abstraction) highly accessible to itself for use in skillful action. To understand a lot about the world, the mind has to gain a lot of understanding that it didn't have previously. When a mind gains understanding, that's a change in the mind. Does that change have to include a change to the values of the mind? Thanks to Sam Eisenstat for related conversations and ideas, e.g. provisionality. Terms This essay uses terms less than perfectly carefully, and makes a lot of very broad statements. Besides laziness, a hope is that this will expose, by a sort of parallax, what meanings would have to be provided by a better set of concepts gestured at by the terms used in the broad statements. Inconsistencies in how words are used in statements should be more prominent if the statements are more absolute, and prominent inconsistencies in statements that one cares about might spur questioning that gets on the way to better concepts. In particular, here "values" is a pre-theoretic term, and refers to a very broad, unrefined idea. Something like "control": any way that elements of a mind en-structure the mind, or other elements of the mind, or the world. Anything that's usually called "values" is also some kind of "control". A thermostat controlling the temperature of the room "has values" only ambiguously and at a stretch, but it's definitely exerting control. What's usually called "values" has specific salience beyond just being some kind of control, because part of what "value" means is "that sort of control which is exerted by minds that have large relevant effects on the world", and that sort of control is stereotyped (for example, it can't be "just like a thermostat", as thermostats do not have large effects on the world) and so probably has some understandable structure. This essay also doesn't carefully distinguish mind from agency. "Mind" is about intelligence, thought, concepts, understanding, structure, investigation, truth; "agency" is about coherent action, making things happen in the world, goals, strategy, organizing towards a purpose, coordinating, deciding. Agents have values. Mind comes from agency; an agent has a mind. Reasons that novel understanding implies novel values (These items aren't exhaustive or mutually exclusive.) Understanding involves internal control An idea has some internal structure--parts or aspects or something, which relate to each other not completely arbitrarily. The not-completely-arbitrary-ness of the internal relationships of the idea constitute some sort of control. This internal control could be as simple and maybe value-free as the control exerted by the CPU on an array stored in memory when executing a sorting algorithm, or as complex and value-laden as the relationships between members in a research collaboration that understands something no one else understands. In the latter case, with humans, the relationships are usually not very related to the idea itself, but sometimes they are. For example, think of a strategy in a team game that's embodied as behavior patterns distributed across team members specialized to play different roles, where the specialized adaptive interplay between members is an integral aspect of the strategy. Or, think of the idea of GAN training; an implementation or embodiment of that idea, or of the idea of adversarial training in general, involves not just internal control, but internal conflict as a necessary aspect. ...

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: The conceptual Dopplegänger problem, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on February 12, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed 9 October 2022.] Suppose we want to observe the thoughts of a mind in order to detect whether it's making its way towards a plan to harm us, and ideally also to direct the mind so that it pursues specific aims. To this end, we might hope that the mind and its thinking are organized in a way we can come to understand in the way that we understand ourselves and our thinking. We might hope that when the mind considers plans that involve something, e.g. plans that involve the coffee cup, it does so using a concept alike to our concept [[coffee cup]]. When the mind recognizes, predicts, imagines, simulates, manipulates, designs, combines things with, describes, studies, associates things with, summarizes, remembers, compares things with, deduces things about, makes hypotheses about, or is otherwise mentally involved with the coffee cup, maybe it always does so in a way that is fully comprehendable in fixed terms that are similar to the terms in which we understand ourselves when we do those activities. Maybe the structure involved in psychic events in the mind reliably falls into basins of attraction that indicate unambiguously to us, as we observe these events, which nexi of reference that structure constitutes. Maybe the X-and-only-X problem is solved by ensuring that the mind's thoughts are in a language made of these concepts; when the mind plans to "fetch the coffee", it somehow means only fetching the coffee, in the "natural" sense of [[fetch]] and [[the coffee]]. One obstacle to this rosy picture is conceptual Dopplegängers. A conceptual Dopplegänger of some concept Z, is a concept Z' that serves some overlapping functions in the mind as Z serves, but is psychically distinct from Z. Here saying that Z' is psychically distinct from Z is ambiguous, but means something like: Z' is not transparently closely related to Z, or is mechanistically / physically separate from Z, or is referred to in a set of contexts that's systematically segregrated from the contexts in which Z is referred to, or is not explicitly described or treated as being the same as or similar to or analogous to Z. A Dopplegänger concept Z' enables a mind to think about what Z is about, at least in some respects, without psychically using Z. This makes it hard to be sure that the mind is not thinking about what Z is about; even if the mind is not using Z, it might be thinking about what Z is about by using some Z'. Maybe Dopplegängers of Z can be psychically located by doing something like looking for mental stuff that has high mutual logical information with Z. This might work to identify blatant deception: if the mind maintains a puppet show of fake thoughts using Z and has its real thoughts using a Z' that's psychically isomorphic to Z, then Z' will be obviously related to Z. But, Dopplegängers don't have to be so obvious. Mental stuff that constitutes skill with manipulating what Z is about, can be, compared to Z, more or less: partial implicit diffuse (diffused throughout other skills and knowledge) encrypted externalized transiently reconstructed out of precursors when needed structurally deep (and therefore alien to someone who thinks in terms of Z) Baldwinized to specific purposes and can be expressed in a different language or constituted by differently-factored concepts referred to in a set of contexts that's systematically segregrated from the contexts in which Z is referred to. All of these features make it harder to see that Z' is in some respects a Doppelgänger of Z. In other words, to the extent these features (and probably others) characterize mental stuff in the mind, the mind is liable to be thinking about coffee cups even wh...

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: Control, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on February 5, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed 3 July 2022.] I don't know how to define control or even point at it except as a word-cloud, so it's probably wanting to be refactored. The point of talking about control is to lay part of the groundwork for understanding what determines what directions a mind ends up pushing the world in. Control is something like what's happening when values or drives are making themselves felt as values or drives. ("Influence" = "in-flow" might be a better term than "control".) Previous: Structure, creativity, and novelty Definitions of control Control is when an element makes another element do something. This relies on elements "doing stuff". Control is when an element {counterfactually, evidentially, causally, logically...} determines {the behavior, the outcome of the behavior} of an assembly of elements. Control is when an element modifies the state of an element. This relies on elements having a state. Alternatively, control is when an element replaces an element with a similar element. Control is when an element selects something according to a criterion. These definitions aren't satisfying in part because they rely on the pre-theoretic ideas of "makes", "determines", "modifies", "selects". Those ideas could be defined precisely in terms of causality, but doing that would narrow their scope and elide some of the sense of "control". To say, pre-theoretically, "My desire for ice cream is controlling where I'm walking.", is sometimes to say "The explanation for why I'm walking along such-and-such a path, is that I'm selecting actions based on whether they'll get me ice cream, and that such-and-such a path leads to ice cream.", and explanation in general doesn't have to be about causality. Control is whatever lies behind the explanations given in answer to questions like "What's controlling X?" and "How does Y control Z?" and "How can I control W?". Another way the above definitions are unsatisfactory is that they aren't specific enough; some of them would say that if I receive a message and then update my beliefs according to an epistemic rule, that message controls me. That might be right, but it's a little counterintuitive to me. There's a tension between describing the dynamics of a mind--how the parts interact over time--vs. describing the outcomes of a mind, which is more easily grasped with gemini modeling of "desires". (I.e. by having your own copy of the "desire" and your own machinery for playing out the same meaning of the "desire" analogously to the original "desire" in the original mind.) I'm focusing on dynamical concepts because they seem more agnostic as discussed above, but it might be promising to instead start with presumptively unified agency and then distort / modify / differentiate / deform / vary the [agency used to gemini model a desire] to allow for modeling less-presumptively-coherent control. (For discussion of the general form of this "whole->wholes" approach, distinct from the "parts->wholes" approach, see Non-directed conceptual founding.) Another definition of control in that vein, a variation on a formula from Sam Eisenstat: Control is an R-stable relationship between an R-stable element and R-unstable prior/posterior elements (which therefore play overlapping roles). "R-stable" means stable under ontological Revolutions. That is, we have C(X,Y) and C(X,Z), where X and C are somehow the same before and after an ontological revolution, and Y and Z aren't the same. Control vs. values I'm talking about control rather than "values" because I don't want to assume: that there are terminal values, that there's a clear distinction between terminal values and non-terminal values, that there are values stable across time and m...

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: Structure, creativity, and novelty, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on January 29, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. First completed 26 June 2022. I'm likely to not respond to comments promptly.] A high-level confusion that I have that seems to be on the way towards understanding alignment, is the relationship between values and understanding. This essay gestures at the idea of structure in general (mainly by listing examples). Why do we want AGI at all? We want AGI in order to understand stuff that we haven't yet understood. (This is not a trivial claim. It might be false. It could be that to secure the future of humane existence, something other than understanding is necessary or sufficient; e.g. it's conceivable that solving some large combinatorial problem, akin to playing Go well or designing a protein by raw search with an explicit criterion, would end the acute risk period. But I don't know how to point at such a thing--plans I know how to point at seem to centrally involve understanding that we don't already have.) Elements and structure Understanding implies some kind of structure. (This is a trivial claim, or a definition: structure is what a mind is or participates in, when it understands.) Structure is made of elements. "Structure" is the mass noun of, or continuous substance version of, "element". The point of the word "element" is just to abbreviate "any of that pattern-y, structure-y stuff, in a mind or in the world in general". Elements. An element (of a mind) is anything that combines to constitute the mind, at any level of organization or description. Examples of elements. Any instance within a mind of any of the following categories is an element: features, aspects, properties, parts, components, subagents, pieces, inputs, algorithms, code, processes, concepts, ideas, skills, methods, procedures, values, goals, architecture, modules, thoughts, propositions, beliefs, probabilities, principles, rules, axioms, heuristics, plans, operations, connections, associations, metaphors, abstractions, memories, arguments, reasons, purposes, modes, emotions, tendencies, organs, ingredients, functions, dynamics, structures, data, types, languages, proofs, justifications, motives, images, searches, knowledge, computations, rewards, reinforcement, specifications, information, intuitions, ideologies, protocols, stimuli, responses, domains, gradients, objective functions, optimizers, satisficers, control systems, basins of attraction, tasks, attitudes, stances, dispositions, words, terms, definitions, nexi, drives, perceptions, grammar, criteria, possibilities, combinations, categories, inferences, actions. Examples of elements. Any instance within a mind of any of the following categories is an element: features, aspects, properties, parts, components, subagents, pieces, inputs, algorithms, code, processes, concepts, ideas, skills, methods, procedures, values, goals, architecture, modules, thoughts, propositions, beliefs, probabilities, principles, rules, axioms, heuristics, plans, operations, connections, associations, metaphors, abstractions, memories, arguments, reasons, purposes, modes, emotions, tendencies, organs, ingredients, functions, dynamics, structures, data, types, languages, proofs, justifications, motives, images, searches, knowledge, computations, rewards, reinforcement, specifications, information, intuitions, ideologies, protocols, stimuli, responses, domains, gradients, objective functions, optimizers, satisficers, control systems, basins of attraction, tasks, attitudes, stances, dispositions, words, terms, definitions, nexi, drives, perceptions, grammar, criteria, possibilities, combinations, categories, inferences, actions. How elements are. Mental elements overlap, crisscross, lie on spectra, control, use, associate w...

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: Gemini modeling, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on January 22, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. Written 17 June 2022. I'm likely to not respond to comments promptly.] A gemini model is a kind of model that's especially relevant for minds modeling minds. Two scenarios You stand before a tree. How big is it? How does it grow? What can it be used to make? Where will it fall if you cut it here or there? Alice usually eats Cheerios in the morning. Today she comes downstairs, but doesn't get out a bowl and spoon and milk, and doesn't go over to the Cheerios cupboard. Then she sees green bananas on the counter. Then she goes and gets a bowl and spoon and milk, and gets a box of Cheerios from the cupboard. What happened? We have some kind of mental model of the tree, and some kind of mental model of Alice. In the Cheerios scenario, we model Alice by calling on ourselves, asking how we would behave; we find that we'd behave like Alice if we liked Cheerios, and believed that today there weren't Cheerios in the cupboard, but then saw the green bananas and inferred that Bob had gone to the grocery store, and inferred that actually there were Cheerios. This seems different from how we model the tree; we're not putting ourselves in the tree's shoes. Gemini modeling and empathic modeling What's the difference though, really, between these two ways of modeling? Clearly Alice is like us in a way the tree isn't, and we're using that somehow; we're modeling Alice using empathy ("in-feeling"). This essay describes another related difference: We model Alice's belief in a proposition by having in ourselves another instance of that proposition. (Or: by having in ourselves the same proposition, or a grasping of that proposition.) We don't model the tree by having another instance of part of the tree in us. I call modeling some thing by having inside oneself another instance of the thing--having a twin of it--"gemini modeling". Gemini modeling is different from empathic modeling. Empathic modeling is tuning yourself to be like another agent in some respects, so that their behavior is explainable as what [you in your current tuning] would do. This is a sort of twinning, broadly, but you're far from identical to the agent you're modeling; you might make different tradeoffs, have different sense acuity, have different concepts, believe different propositions, have different skills, and so on; you tune yourself enough that those differences don't intrude on your predictions. Whereas, the proposition "There are Cheerios in the cupboard.", with its grammatical structure and its immediate implications for thought and action, can be roughly identical between you and Alice. As done by humans modeling humans, empathic modeling may or may not involve gemini modeling: we model Alice by seeing how we'd act if we believed certain propositions, and those propositions are gemini modeled; on the other hand, we could do an impression of a silly friend by making ourselves "more silly", which is maybe empathic modeling without gemini modeling. And, gemini modeling done by humans modeling humans involves empathic modeling: to see the implications of believing in a proposition or caring about something, we access our (whole? partial?) agentic selves, our agency. Gemini modeling vs. general modeling In some sense we make a small part of ourselves "like a tree" when we model a tree falling: our mental model of the tree supports [modeled forces] having [modeled effects] with resulting [modeled dynamics], analogous to how the actual tree moves when under actual forces. So what's different between gemini modeling and any other modeling? When modeling a tree, or a rock, or anything, don't we have a little copy or representation of some aspects of the thing in us? Isn't that like having a so...

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: Non-directed conceptual founding, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on January 15, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. Written 13 June 2022. I'm fairly likely to not respond to comments promptly. If you're especially interested in chatting, my gmail address is: tsvibtcontact ] In trying to understand minds-in-general, we sometimes ask questions that talk about "big" things (taking "big" to ambiguously mean any of large, complex, abstract, vague, important, touches many things, applies to many contexts, "high-level"). E.g.: What is it for a mind to have thoughts or to care about stuff? How does care and thought relate? What is it to believe a proposition? Why do agents use abstractions? These "big" things such as thought, caring, propositions, beliefs, agents, abstractions, and so on, have to be analyzed and re-understood in clearer terms in order to get anywhere useful. When others make statements about these things, I'm pulled to pause their flow of thoughts and instead try to get clear on meanings. In part, that pull is because the more your thoughts use descriptions that aren't founded on words with clear meaning, the more leeway is given to your words to point at different things in different instances.[1] Main claim From talking with Sam, I've come to think that there's an important thing I hadn't seen sufficiently clearly: A description of Y that uses terms that are only as "foundational" as Y or even "less foundational" than Y, can still be useful and doesn't have to be harmful. For analyzing "big" things, such descriptions are necessary. Circular founding A description is a proposition of the form "Y is a ...". A description is founded on X if it assumes that X exists, e.g. by mentioning X, or by mentioning Z which mentions X, or by relying on X to be in the background.[2] Some descriptions of Y might be founded on Y, or on X where X is itself founded on Y. A description like that could be called circular, or in general non-directed. The circularity could be harmful. E.g., you could trick yourself into thinking you're talking about anything coherently, when really you're not: whenever you ask "Wait, what's Y?" you respond "Oh it's XZ", and you say "Z is YX", and you say "X is YZ", and you never do the work of connecting XYZ to stuff that matters, so it's all hot air. Or, you might have "Y" more densely connected to its neighbors, but not beholden to anything outside of its neighbors, so "Y" and its neighbors might drift under their own collaborative inertia and drag other ideas with them away from reality. There are probably other problems with circular founding, so, there's reason to be suspicious. But: (A) Non-directed founding can elucidate relevant structure; (B) For "big" things, it's more likely to be feasible to found somewhat-non-directedly, and especially somewhat-circularly, and less likely to be feasible to found strictly in a certain direction; and therefore (C) For analyzing and understanding "big" things, non-directed and circular founding are likely to be best-in-class among the available tools. (A): "Thing = Nexus" as a circular, non-directed, useful founding As an example, take the description of a thing as an inductive nexus of reference (more specifically, the claim that nexusness points essentially [see below] at the nexus of thingness). This description makes use of a pre-theoretic notion of the "stuff" between which there may be relations of reference, and defines "reference" in terms of what minds in general do. So the definition of nexus is founded on "stuff", which is pre-theoretically on a similar footing to "thing", making the definition of nexus somewhat circularly founded. And, the definition of nexus is founded on "mind", which is a "bigger" concept than "thing", making the definition of nexus founded on so...

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: The Thingness of Things, published by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on January 1, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. [Metadata: crossposted from. I'm fairly likely to not respond to comments promptly. If you're especially interested in chatting, my gmail address is: tsvibtcontact ] What's a thing, in general? Minds deal with things, so this question comes up in trying to understand minds. Minds think about things, speak of things, manipulate things, care about things, create things, and maybe are made of things. Things Examples of things: table, elephant, carbon atom. France, Martin Luther King. Insertion sort. Chess. Unicorn. Learning. Seven. Towel, strand, wing, crystal, finger, space, diffraction. The laws of electromagnetism. The first World War. Non-things What about non-things? It might be hard to list non-things because what we have words for, tend to be things. Redness seems like sort of a thing, but less so. Laws of physics also. Also ghosts. One might say "the ideal gas law is totally a thing" or "ghosts aren't a thing", though I think ghosts are a thing. Events can be things; WWI seems like a thing to me. But a minute ago I picked up my bottle of water and drank from it; that's clearly an event, a real one, but it doesn't feel that much like a thing. The abstract [drinking from a water bottle] feels like a thing though. (There are some usual critiques of thingness. Yes, there's no sharp dividing line between a wave and a trough, but clearly waves are a thing. Yes, seven is not a physical object you'll ever bump into, but it's clearly a thing. The ideal gas law isn't localized in space or time, but it's a thing. Unicorns aren't real, in that you'll bump into people speaking about them but you won't bump into unicorns themselves and won't be constrained by unicorns in the way you're constrained by seven, but they're things. The world of Ender's Game isn't real, though it's a remote possibility, and it's a thing.) Features of things Coherence. A thing usually has properties, parts, aspects that are coherent with each other. Some things are big, some things are small; but usually there's nothing like a table that's both big and small. Prediction, homogeneity, constancy, constraint. A thing usually has some predictive meaning; its presence implies constraints on other things or the future, and it implies some constancy in some features. Expression. Related to prediction, a name that names a thing or an idea that's about a thing contributes to expressing thoughts about situations involving the thing. Expressing thoughts about the thing contributes to further behavior such as successfully predicting or manipulating the thing. Cluster. A thing that's an instance of a type of thing, has multiple features mostly shared by most things of that type and not mostly shared by most things not of that type. Exterior, relations. A thing usually can "impinge on other things from the outside". "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Indicatability. A thing can be indicated. A physical object can literally be pointed at, seven can be pointed at by showing how to count and showing sets of seven like things, and many things can be pointed at by saying the word for that thing. Truth, solidity, fixed import. "True" comes from PIE deru- ("be firm, solid"), cognate with "trust" and "tree" and possibly "durable". Things have truth to them; a thing makes a promise of agreement between minds on questions about the thing upon further independent investigation. Beyond indicatability, the truth of a thing implies that the thing can be advantageously treated and used in a fixed way. Hollowness, cavernousness. The more comprehensively the history, features, changes, components, causes, internal relations, overarching structures, and explanations of a thing are kept in min...

This is Draw The Line Radio Show with Jacki-E, presenting the best music from female producers & DJs. Helping me Draw the Line with her mix in the 2nd hr it's Saliah, a British Lebanese electronic music producer & DJ who's based in London. She made her debut appearance at Glastonbury this year & has recently been named one of Virtuoso's 'ones to watch'. Renowned for her unique blends of acapellas, UK bass, popular Arabic classics & a range of ground-shaking electronic genres. Saliah's track selections & stage presence brings the energy that draws in the crowds to the dance floor. Links for Saliah:- Bookings:- hello@saliah.world Website:- https://saliah.world Soindcloud:- https://soundcloud.com/saliahofficial Instagram:- https://www.instagram.com/saliahgram In my mix in the 1st hr I'm playing tracks by Sama'Abdulhadi, Pretty Pink, Imogen, Deena Abdelwahed, Nocturnal Sunshine & lots more. It's time to say NO to gender imbalance in dance music. It's time to Draw The Line!! Track list 1st hour mixed by Jacki-E:- 1. James Organ – Muuden (Sama Abdul'hadi remix) Last Night on Earth. 2. Anna Lunoe – What You Need ft Wuki (original mix) Mad Decent Records. 3. Helen&Boys – Keep and Touch (original mix) 4. Pretty Pink – Come Back (original mix) Anjunabeats. 5. Lily Pita, Apsara – Powerhouse (original mix) Awen Records. 6. Deena Abdelwahed – 5 5 (original mix) Khonnar. 7. Darse, Iva – Night Away ft Vero Perez (original mix) Running Clouds. 8. Beth Lydi – Love Your People (original mix) Snoe. 9. Mandy van Dorten – Put my Life (original mix) Frequenza Records. 10. 8Kays, Lazurusman – Respect Me (original mix) Eleatics Records. 11. Ann Clue – Dreamcatcher (original mix) Fckng Serious. 12. Lady Caro'zart – Mirrored Souls (original mix) Aida Records. 13. Pretty Pink – Echo ft Grace Thunder (original mix) Anjunabeats. 14. Sama Abdul'hadi – Reverie (original mix) Cicoloco Records. 15. Terr – Energy Sync (original mix) Phantasy Sound. 16. Imogen – Look What You Made Me Do (original mix) Voitax promo to be released 25th July 2022. 17. Nocturnal Sunshine – Hotel (original mix) I/AM/ME. 18. Nur Jaber – A World Where Nothing Else Matters (original mix) OSF. 19. Anna Kost – Cr22 (original mix) Hotflush Recordings. 2nd hour Saliah - An exclusive guest mix for Draw The Line Radio Show. 1. DJ JM - Mad Move ft.TSVI (original mix) Nervois Horizon. 2. Ain Essouda - Ammar 808 ft. Cheb Hassen Tej (original mix) Glitterbeat Records. 3. Disfreq - Essa Mina (original mix) Diynamic. 4. Bianca Oblivion – Calling (original mix) Club Djembe. 5. Ahadadream - Dhol Part 2 (original mix) More Time Records. 6. DJ Plead - Baharat (original mix) Nervous Horizon. 7. UNIIQU3, Ase Manual - 2 The Floor (original mix) 135 Worldwide. 8. Bianca Oblivion - Respire (original mix) Couvre x Chefs. 9. TSVI - Egyptian Sensation ft Luru (original mix) Nervous Horizon. 10. Saliah - Habibi Riddim (original mix) 11. Ahadadream - Hydration (original mix) More Time Records. 12. Bedouin Burger - Tah't Al Ward (original mix) Bedouin Burger 13. INVT- Paliza (original mix) INVT Records. 14. Nuri - Asfer (original mix) Shouka. 15. Iso Riddim - Murder He Wrote (original mix) Rhythm Athletic. 16. Cando - Clutch (Bakongo remix) Le Chatroom Records. 17. DAM - Milliardat (original mix) 18. Lucent - Light Your Eyes (original mix) Low Pitched Records. 19. Anunaku - Forgotten Tales (original mix) K7 Records. 20. DJ Swisha - Shake N Bounce ft Bassbear (original mix) 21. Warda x Lazy Flow - Haramt Ahebak (Vogue edit) Free Download https://hypeddit.com/track/fkdg1t 22. Saliah - Bos Bos ft Nancy Ajram (original mix) 23. DJ Plead - Rough Text (original mix) Livity Sound Recordings. 24. Acid Arab Laba Staifia (Ammar 808 remix) Crammed Discs/Shelter Studio 25. D-Unity - More Drums Please (original mix) Unity Records.

Today's Broadcast is C2E8 for Theme Thursday, June 30th, 2022. Today's episode will be Nerd Noise Radio's contribution to the greater VGM podcast scene massive group project “Masters of VGM” (https://mastersofvgm.com) and like all “MoVGM” episodes from all the participating podcasts, will be a focus on our four favorite composers (with a surprise “East meets West” twist) - on a program that we're quite simply calling “Our Four Favorites”   01) Earcatcher: 00:00:00 02) Hugues' Composer #4: Yoko Shimomura! Hugues' Yoko track: Ken's Theme - Street Fighter II - Arcade Music - 00:00:03 Intro: 00:02:13 Top of Show Business: 00:04:08 Track (and composer) Discussion: 00:19:19 John's Yoko Track: Kairi 1 - Kingdom Hearts - PS2 Music - 00:24:26 Discussion - 00:26:09 03) John's Composer #4: Martin Iveson! John's Martin Track: Shop Theme - Jaguar XJ220 - Sega CD Music - 00:33:23 Discussion - 00:34:48 Hugues' Martin Track: Country Select - Jaguar XJ220 - Sega CD Music - 00:38:24 Discussion - 00:39:44 BEGIN: Bad Audio for voice (backup copy - see note after track list) - 00:40:15 04) Hugues' Composer #3: Yuzo Koshiro! Hugues' Yuzo Track: Daiba Freezing Town - 7th Dragon 2020 - PSP Music - 00:42:38 Discussion - 00:45:55 John's Yuzo Track: Undiscovered Realm (in-game symphonic vers) - Actraiser Renaissance - multiplatform Music - 00:50:21 Discussion - 00:52:39 05) John's Composer #3: Spencer Nilsen! John's Spencer Track: Cathedral and Sewers - Batman Returns - Sega CD Music - 00:57:33 Discussion - 01:00:44 END: Bad Audio for voice (backup copy) - 01:06:09 Hugues' Spencer [maybe] Track: The Vents - Ecco the Dolphin - Genesis (possibly composed by Andras Magyari and/or Brian Coburn instead - or as well) Music - 01:06:25 Discussion - 01:08:38 06) Hugues' Composer #2: Nobuo Uematsu! Hugues' Nobuo Track: The Oath - Final Fantasy VIII - PS1 Music - 01:14:53 Discussion - 01:18:09 John's Nobuo Track: Esto Gaza - Final Fantasy IX - PS1 Music - 01:25:26 Discussion - 01:29:05 07) John's Composer #2: Matt Furniss! John's Matt Track: The Red Woods - Puggsy - Genesis Music - 01:34:57 Discussion - 01:37:59 Hugues' Matt Track: Title - Sega Chess - Mastersystem Music - 01:42:39 Discussion - 01:44:46 08) Hugues' Composer [TEAM] #1: Hayato Sonoda and/or Takahiro Unisuga [Falcom Sound Team JDK]! Hugues' Falcom Track: Blue Destination - Trails of Cold Steel II - Vita/PS3/PS4/PC Music - 01:51:41 Discussion - 01:56:28 BEGIN: More Backup voice audio - 02:01:07 END: More Backup voice audio - 02:01:13 John's Falcom Track: Crystal Valley - Zwei II - PC [EDITOR'S NOTE: I missed my chance to point out that Zwei (pronounced “TsvI”)is the German word for “two”. So this game is basically called “Two Two”. :-D - St. John] Music - 02:07:38 Discussion - 02:10:10 09) John's Composer [TEAM] #1: The Super Follin Bros [Tim and/or Geoff Follin] John's Follin Track: Gambit - Spider-Man / X-Men: Arcade's Revenge - SNES Music - 02:13:51 Discussion - 02:17:56 End of Show Business (and FINALLY titling the episode!) - 02:23:47 Our other Programs - 02:29:09 Hugues' Follin Track Discussion - 02:31:46 Sign Off - 02:34:38 Hugues' Follin Track: Parking Garage - Target Renegade - NES - 02:35:33 10) Blooper Reel (contains both high and low quality voice audio - AND OUR CENSOR SOUND!!!) - 02:38:48 11) Bonus 1: The Oath - Distant Worlds Symphonic Concert Version - 02:46:29 12) Bonus 2: Rain Angel - AtJazz (post-VGM non-VGM works by Martin Iveson) - Lab Results (album) - c 2002 - 02:51:47   Total Episode Runtime: 02:58:04   NOTE ON BACKUP [bad] AUDIO - SHORT[ISH] VERSION: when Hugues and I meet, we have our Google Meet output recording, as well as each having higher quality Audacity recordings of just our own sides of the conversation. We keep the Meet recording in case there is an emergency with the Audacity recording, but otherwise don't use it in the final episode, and I just align and combine our high quality Audacity recordings. On this episode, however, (a first for Ch 2) we lost a portion of Hugues' Audacity recording, so we did have to use our fallback a little bit. At the very bottom of the show notes, I'll include a LONG[ISH] VERSION which explains more. I did everything I could to minimize the impact of the Google Meet recording in the final episode. But it is noticeable at points.   You can find Brian and Kristen Peterson's GoFundMe here: https://gofund.me/1ef0f855. Again, absolutely zero pressure to contribute, but anything you do would certainly be most appreciated!   You can find our "Introduction to Nerd Noise Radio - 2022" blog here: https://nerdnoiseradio.blogspot.com/2022/06/nnr-blog-st-john-introduction-to-nerd.html   The Masters of VGM Website, once again, can be found at https://mastersofvgm.com/. You can also follow MoVGM on Twitter @MastersOfVGM! Please do check out some (or preferably, ALL) of the other shows' episodes in the series!   Retro Game Club can be found here:   https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/retro-game-club/id1453018680   You can also follow Retro Game Club on Facebook and Instagram @retrogameclubpodcast and on Twitter @rgcpodcast.   Hugues' blog (and his Sega Genesis demo) can be found here:    https://huguesjohnson.com/   You can find Nerd Noise Radio on Facebook and on Twitter each @NerdNoiseRadio. There are also two Facebook Groups: Nerd Noise Radio “Easy Mode” where we just have general video game and nerd fun, or for the gearheads among you, Nerd Noise Radio “Expert Mode” where we deep dive sound hardware, composer info, and music theory.    You can find the blog at www.nerdnoiseradio.blogspot.com. Where we sometimes share additional show notes, and inside info. You can also find Nerd Noise Radio on Archive.org, where we have remixes and super bonuses only available there (such as a music-only alternative version of today's show).   Nerd Noise Radio is also a member of the Retro Junkies community, which can be found at www.theretrojunkies.com. And we are a member of the VGM Podcast Fans community on Facebook. St. John is also the admin of the Podcasters of Des Moines Facebook group, which features a number of other podcasters and great programs from the greater Des Moines area.   Thanks for listening! Join us again in July on Channel 1 for two separate retrospective episodes: C1E65a: “The Best of 2020 / 2021 - St. John's picks” and C1E65b: “The Best of 2020 / 2021 - Hugues' picks”. Then join us again in August on Ch 2 for C2E9: “Just Deserts”. And wherever you are….Fly the N!   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   NOTE ON BACKUP [bad] AUDIO - LONG VERSION: When Hugues and I record, we record over Google Meet. But we also each have separate recordings going simultaneously in Audacity to capture just our side of the conversation in higher quality. He uses the same mic for both recordings, a Blue Snowball USB Condenser mic, plus, he is the one hosting the Google Meet session, so the sound quality difference between his Meet recording and Audacity recording is very negligible (though Audacity is still a little bit better). My side of the conversation, though, is where the difference becomes significant. To record my high quality audio in Audacity, I use a RØDE Podmic XLR dynamic mic through a Cloudlifter into a Focusrite 4i4, and then into the computer. Given the flexibility of Linux audio routing (Hugues and I both use Linux, actually), I -CAN- pull double duty with the Podmic as well, and use it for both the Audacity and Google Meet recordings like Hugues does. But I've found that doing so tends to degrade the audio quality of the Audacity recording. And so, I prefer to keep the Podmic and Focusrite discrete for Audacity to keep it as pristine as possible, and then use one my lower-quality mics for the Google Meet. In the case of today's episode, I just used the sludgy, boomy, poorly defined mic that's built right into my very run of the mill webcam. I mean, because hey, it's not gonna matter, right? Nobody's gonna hear the Google Meet audio anyway...right? Well, that presumes that everything goes fine on both of our individual Audacity recordings. And for this episode (a first in the history of Ch 2), we had a couple segments, one really short and insignificant, and one much more significant, where Hugues' side of the Audacity cut out. It just briefly quit recording. So, we had to fallback to the Google Meets recording for those segments. I was able to minimize the impact of those segments by replacing as much of the Google Meets audio for my side of the recording as possible with my Audacity audio, but what I couldn't do was remove the moments where I would "Mhm" etc while Hugues was talking, since to do so would also remove what he was saying. So, I had to leave those in - and that can be pretty jarring. Also, during the portions of these periods where I'm talking, I had to remove all the "Mhms" etc from Hugues because I couldn't include them without including my bad audio in the mix too. Though you don't end up hearing a whole lot of me on the bad audio, the sudden transitions from the boomy, murky "mhms" to the clean, defined high quality audio is pretty jarring - plus, Hugues sounds completely disengaged when I'm talking in those moments when he really wasn't. But it was the best we could do with what we had. So, we made do, and I think it ultimately turned out pretty alright. But I did at least want to acknowledge the issue and confirm I was very much aware of it. By the time I got to the bloopers, I was a little burned out from the granularity of splicing good audio over bad audio and cutting the bad audio back out, and so, I figured that for the bloopers it wouldn't matter, and just left some of the Meet clips alone. I suppose this has the accidental benefit of letting you hear what the Meet recording sounded like. :-)  

CHEST#8 ----- musicfor (fishbone kite) -----/---/--/-7-/--/---/----- music for watching fish ---- We Wave From Our Boats - Mary lattimore ---- Desert Sand - Roger Eno, Brian Eno ---- Design I Could Not Love - Varnrable, Choir of Young Believers ---- Pine trees - Mary Lattimore ---- Strand of life ("Viroid") - Laurie Spiegel music for catching fish ---- Sirens - Anna Homler, Steve Moshier ---- Oath - Mija Milovic ---- Between the Gray and the Purple - Steve Roach ---- Reverie (arr. Knoth for Solo Violin, Strings and Electronics) - Hannah Peel, Erland Cooper, Mari Samuelsen, Scoring Berlin ---- dark eyed sister - 2005 ---- Huit - Sky H1 music for removing bone ---- L'Abbesse - Michel Godard, Gavino Murgina, BRuno Helstroffer, Fanny Paccoud, Steve Swallow ---- Take the thorn, leave the Rose - Ana Roxanne ---- Seca - Lucrecia Dalt ---- Reminiscene - Ólafur Arnalds, Alice Sara Ott ---- Animal - Sky H1 feat. Soho Rezanejad ---- A study in Vastness - Ana Roxanne music for building fishbone kite ---- Donta - Pamela Angela music for kite flying ---- Going Through the Veil - Becoming a Swan - Joanna Brouk ---- Tears Take Forever - Croatian Amor, Varg2TM, NikkiH2OP ---- In Waves - oqbqbo version - Frederik Valentin, Loke Rahbek, oqbqbo ---- Stravinsky: The Firebird Suite: Berceuse (1919 Version) [live] music for kite burning ---- Elysian Heights - Sky H1 ---- Swallow Ash - GIL ---- Gemini Mood Swing - Mia Ghabarou music for falling from the sky ---- Orfeo ed Euridice, Wq. 30 (Arranged by Sgambati): MElodie dell'Orfeo - Christoph Willibald Gluck, Yuja Wang ---- HVORFOR IKKE KALDE DEM ØJNE - oceanfloor.group ---- FALLING RIZLAS - Actress ---- Angel's Flight ---- Axis Mundi - Paraadiso, TSVI, Seven Orbits music for collecting bones ---- Silver Ladders - Mary Lattimore ---- OPALERNE VENTER 2CC - oceanfloor.group music for Madonna ---- Like a Prayer - Madonna -----/---/--/-7-/--/---/-----

Where would we be without Pusha T? Well, two tracks short for today's episode of The Daily Review, for a start, which celebrates his new album It's Almost Dry. Plus, we have new music from Nia Archives, TSVI, PinkPantheress, Yaya Bey, The Smile, Maria Jaume, Tallies and more.

Dr. Rona Pogrund is the Coordinator of Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments Program in the Department of Special Education, College of Education at Texas Tech University. She provides instruction, mentoring, and guidance to those seeking to become a teacher of students who are visually impaired (TSVI) and those working on a Masters or Doctorate degree in our field. Her 49 years in blindness education make her an expert in teacher training, professional engagement, and all the things that make our profession great.

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: Troll Bridge , published by Abram Demski on the AI Alignment Forum. All of the results in this post, and most of the informal observations/interpretations, are due to Sam Eisenstat. I think the Troll Bridge story, as a way to make the decision problem understandable, is due to Tsvi; but I'm not sure. Pure Logic Version Troll Bridge is a decision problem which has been floating around for a while, but which has lacked a good introductory post. The original post gives the essential example, but it lacks the "troll bridge" story, which (1) makes it hard to understand, since it is just stated in mathematical abstraction, and (2) makes it difficult to find if you search for "troll bridge". The basic idea is that you want to cross a bridge. However, there is a troll who will blow up the bridge with you on it, if (and only if) you cross it "for a dumb reason" — for example, due to unsound logic. You can get to where you want to go by a worse path (through the stream). This path is better than being blown up, though. We apply a Löbian proof to show not only that you choose not to cross, but furthermore, that your counterfactual reasoning is confident that the bridge would have blown up if you had crossed. This is supposed to be a counterexample to various proposed notions of counterfactual, and for various proposed decision theories. The pseudocode for the environment (more specifically, the utility gained from the environment) is as follows: IE, if the agent crosses the bridge and is inconsistent, then U=-10. (□⊥ means "PA proves an inconsistency".) Otherwise, if the agent crosses the bridge, U=+10. If neither of these (IE, the agent does not cross the bridge), U=0. The pseudocode for the agent could be as follows: This is a little more complicated, but the idea is supposed to be that you search for every "action implies utility" pair, and take the action for which you can prove the highest utility (with some tie-breaking procedure). Importantly, this is the kind of proof-based decision theory which eliminates spurious counterfactuals in 5-and-10 type problems. It isn't that easy to trip up with Löbian proofs. (Historical/terminological note: This decision theory was initially called MUDT, and is still sometimes referred to in that way. However, I now often call it proof-based decision theory, because it isn't centrally a UDT. "Modal DT" (MDT) would be reasonable, but the modal operator involved is the "provability" operator, so "proof-based DT" seems more direct.) Now, the proof: Reasoning within PA (ie, the logic of the agent): Suppose the agent crosses. Further suppose that the agent proves that crossing implies U=-10. Examining the source code of the agent, because we're assuming the agent crosses, either PA proved that crossing implies U=+10, or it proved that crossing implies U=0. So, either way, PA is inconsistent -- by way of 0=-10 or +10=-10. So the troll actually blows up the bridge, and really, U=-10. Therefore (popping out of the second assumption), if the agent proves that crossing implies U=-10, then in fact crossing implies U=-10. By Löb's theorem, crossing really implies U=-10. So (since we're still under the assumption that the agent crosses), U=-10. So (popping out of the assumption that the agent crosses), the agent crossing implies U=-10. Since we proved all of this in PA, the agent proves it, and proves no better utility in addition (unless PA is truly inconsistent). On the other hand, it will prove that not crossing gives it a safe U=0. So it will in fact not cross. The paradoxical aspect of this example is not that the agent doesn't cross -- it makes sense that a proof-based agent can't cross a bridge whose safety is dependent on the agent's own logic being consistent, since proof-based agents can't know whether their logic is consistent. Rather, the ...

“Israel is one of the startup epicentres of the world after Silicon Valley. Over the last two years, 71 companies reached the unicorn status, 15 waves of IPO happened and the startup ecosystem soared to a $50B valuation."On this episode of The Shape of Work podcast, our guest is Tsvi Lev who combines a career in innovation and strategy including working with giants like Amdocs as the VP & Head of Strategy and Samsung Electronics as VP innovation & Strategy.He currently brings that expertise to NEC Research Center Israel as the Managing Director and Corporate Vice President, where he helps Israeli companies, products, and technologies to incorporate into the NEC Global business offering.Tsvi is also one of the respected authors of numerous patents, and a frequent speaker at events related to technological innovation.In addition to his extensive corporate experience, Tsvi has been an entrepreneur in the mobile multimedia and computer vision space and brought his two-year-old company to a successful exit.In this far-ranging conversation, we discuss with Tsvi:Israeli technological Innovation- what's going on and what's coming up next?Startup ecosystem - Drivers, challenges and pillars of supportTrends in the remote work- all sorts of flavourWhy always-on connectivity is the new infrastructureA dual cybersecurity mission- supporting business continuity and protecting the enterprise and its customersEPISODE HIGHLIGHTS:Israeli Technological Innovations and TransformationThere have been seventy-one unicorns and 15 IPOs in 2020 that have changed Israel. If you combine the number of employees of pre and post IPO company's want to hire. Theirs is more than available; talent competition is fierce. The unicorns were able to raise over 15 billion dollars in the last couple of years.Tsvi says that NEC Research Center has an excellent view of the latest trends and waves in the technology sector. The key is the coupling of digital transformation with AI; NEC has been doing things independently for a long time. However, no one can do everything by themselves in this new world. Hence, they lookout for a new wave, a major global trend that is going to change everything and at the same time relates to NEC's current or future business.They find a plethora of new startups to collaborate with NEC. Tsvi says the startups are quick and nimble, like surfers who can paddle quickly and catch the wave; they can guide NEC there. NEC's job in the lab is to understand what they do, see how it may relate to NEC, and then push it in NEC. NEC does co-research, development, product positioning, analysis, and commercial negotiations. Hence, they don't call the employees researchers but innovation coaches; they coach the startups to make a difference.Remote Work, Challenges and the Future of WorkJust like other countries, Israel had a couple of small covid lockdowns. Most folks worked from home. Few multinational companies ceased functioning running operations  as part of global directives. In the worst case, 40% of the workforce was at the office; now, it is 60%. Employees come to the office three days a week. Since NEC isn't only into software, there are also labs; working entirely from home was never an option.Follow Tsvi on LinkedInProduced by: Priya BhattPodcast host: Abhash Kumar

Enjoying the show? Please support BFF.FM with a donation. Playlist 0′00″ SAN / 散 by Li Yilei on 之 / OF (metron records) 1′45″ Mirror by Đ.K. on Eighteen Movements (Abstrakce Records) 6′15″ About Breathing by Healion on In Light, It Undoes Nothing... (NAFF) 12′30″ Sammen by En Anden on Giv Besked (oenr) 15′00″ Heiwa (Qnete Remix) by Umbra on Heiwa (Qnete Remix) (Magma Records) 19′15″ Ancient Air by DJ Panthr on 2nd Life Silk (100% Silk) 24′15″ Flora by Bon on Pantheon (Spatial Awareness) 27′00″ Momento Presente by Mas Aya on Máscaras (Telephone Explosion Records LTD) 32′50″ Perfectly You by Ronan on Reflections On Intrinsic Value (Eternal Ocean) 39′40″ Realise by Lone on Always Inside Your Head (Greco-Roman Ltd) 44′40″ Azarca by Alaska on Azarca - Single (Arctic Music) 51′10″ Solitude by Gilbert on New Reality EP (Echocentric Records) 56′35″ Winged by Priori on Your Own Power (Naff under exclusive license to Courage Holdings Inc.) 59′45″ Harrisburg by Dylan Henner on Amtracks - EP (Phantom Limb) 62′50″ Rare by Stones Taro on Yakusugi - EP (Lobster Theremin) 69′00″ Yakusugi by Stones Taro on Yakusugi - EP (Lobster Theremin) 73′56″ Across the Ocean (Currency Audio Remix) [feat. Benny Dayal, Priya Darshini, Warren Mendonsa, Max ZT & Komorebi] by Karsh Kale on Across the Ocean (Remixes) [feat. Benny Dayal, Priya Darshini, Warren Mendonsa, Max ZT, Komorebi & Currency Audio] - Single (Mighty Junn) 79′05″ Kaguya by Coco Bryce on Ayakashi - EP (7th Storey Projects) 83′25″ The Work (feat. Stunny) by Brogan Bentley on Diapason Rex (Leaving Records) 86′40″ Violets by Two Toke on Violets - Single (Maison Fauna) 90′45″ Cloudform (Agua Pura) by Ronan on Ronan 'Return To The Sea' (eternal ocean) 96′50″ One Tim Road by Tim Reaper on MASSIV 10 - Remix Edition (Myor) 102′00″ October by Tom VR on October - Single (all my thoughts) 106′40″ Stone Diviner by IkE on Stone Diviner - EP (Die Orakel) 112′20″ Love + Joy by Sempra on Diamond Life 11 (myor) 112′22″ Axis Mundi by Paraadiso, TSVI & Seven Orbits on Unison (SVBKVLT) Check out the full archives on the website.

TSVI's sound is rooted in techno but takes in a whole world of influences. Some of it is real - flecks of the Indian classical music he grew up around, bits of traditional Sufi Muslim music from his partner, or the UK funky drums that have permeated his ears while living in London. And some of it is surreal, such as dream states and altered states of consciousness. Most of this comes on the Italian-born artist's own Nervous Horizon label such as his recent Sogno EP. But next up is a new album, Unison, as Paraadiso with audio-visual artist Seven Orbits. It is a project inspired by Italian folk music, noise and ancient choral acoustic compositions, and it focuses on the collective experiences of music that we have all so dearly missed. Across this week's 90 minute podcast, TSVI drags us deep into a world of rhythm. His bold, punchy drums take on all forms from techno to drum & bass, club to dub, and plenty in between. It is thrillingly intense and perfectly physical music that taps into the primeval urge to dance that we all have buried deep inside of us.

In this event, Rabbi Tsvi Blanchard, presents​ his virtual talk "How Stories Heal: How To Read and Access the Magic of Hasidic Stories" DONATE: http://www.bit.ly/1NmpbsP​​​​​​​​ For podcasts of VBM lectures, GO HERE: https://www.valleybeitmidrash.org/learning-library https://www.facebook.com/valleybeitmidrash BECOME A MEMBER: https://www.valleybeitmidrash.org/become-a-member Valley Beit Midrash is proud to host the Jaburg Wilk Learning Season. Learn more about Jaburg Wilk at: http://www.jaburgwilk.com/

Podcast: Antipod Host: DJ SOSA RD Special guest: EQUISS Monday 8PM UK More info at: https://itswide.com/en/antipod-17th-nov-w-dj-sosa-rd-special-guest-equiss/ Tracklist: Michael - Club (Impromptu) (Photay's 1st Club Experience) DJ SWISHA x OSSX - Woldmart Sonido Berzerk - Mocambo (Radeco Domar RMX) AceMo/Les Sins - Can't Take It Anymore DJ SOSA RD - YO NUNCA FOLZO DEJO QUE TODO FLUYA Soda Plains - No Fear Gooooose & DJ Scotch Egg - Altered Destiny (Seven Orbits & TSVI remix) Liquid City Motors - Vacuum Fulanito - La Novela (DJ SOSA VIP Edit) NKC - Tyrannoskank Amazondotcom / Siete Catorce - Parti

@nicovntrl in the mix More info: itswide.com/en/venturelli-guest-mix-0060-24th-jul-2020/ Tracklist: Fatima Al Qadiri - Hip hop spa (final) DEKKAPA - Don’t play x Divoli S’vere - Give it 2 U Hecthepunisher - Envidia Byrell the Great - Wild, FTN Jarreau Vandal - Saturday love Callosum & Wild Kid - Back x LSDXOXO - GrAtaTa Marginal Men - Perereca voodoo La Materialista, Belinda & Jojo Maronttinni - La chapa que vibran (remix) TSVI & DJ JM - Xus lord Eh o willzin do 85 - Senta no bico da grock DJ Missdevana - Brass x MC Oklinhos - É treta Ozwald - Work that body Leo Justi - Vida loka RJ Ase Manual - King’s dead P. Adrix - Tia medusa Ase Manual - Touch x Deutsch Amerikanische Freundschaft - El que Slikback - Karum DJ Firmeza - Alma de meu pai x DJ N.K. - Zuguza x Puto Tito - Batata frita Matheus Yurley - Zé droguinha Ekuka Moriss Sirikiti - Acoc acoc twol iye acayi x Ckrono - CG4 String x Authentically Plastic - Swarm Normal Nada - KAKARAK I WC do Karate - Fode foe vai sentando na pica Bamba Pana - Kusini (Slikback remix) MC Rafinha - Fica teguinha fica fica mec tref SINES & Rafa Maya - Triunfo x Gabber Modus Operandi - Sangkakala II

Dans ce podcast vous découvrirez une histoire de guérison extraordinaire, une segoula du Tsadik Rabbi Tsvi de Stratyn

Gaika - Sunlinght (zut zut)Phone DOwn Zut ZutGET JANE HYPNOTIZED [LPACA & RAZLO EDIT]PNL – 91’s ft. QSS (((Flexican Edit)))DJ Pump x Nick Bike - NbNChamos - Honest Mathias Zimmerman - QuincyJean Nippon - girl Complex Akito - Metamessage [Alternative Mix]Canblaster Berou - got YouY du V - FibaGirl Unit - Irl (French Fries)AJ Tracey X Lil Uzi Vert - XO Tour Riddim (Arma Blend)Maribor - Blinkered(Wifey Riddim)Akalex - Génération Assassin ft. BooVelour - Kick it Till it BreaksTsvi & Luru - Egyptian SensationBeataucue - TulumOld Snake rapir (myd Samtiba)Strut (dubbel dutch)

This week on IsraelCast, host Steven Shalowitz is back at the Galilee Medical Center in Nahariya visiting with Dr. Tsvi Sheleg, the center’s Deputy Director General. Dr. Sheleg discusses evacuating to fully operational underground hospitals in times of crisis and working seven days straight during his time as the Medical Director of the IDF Field Hospital in Haiti and Nepal after devastating earthquakes.

A$AP Ferg, Alex Albrecht, Burial, CA$TLE, Cadenza, Caski, Clarence Clarity, Commodo, D1, Deadcrow, Denai Moore, DJ Milktray, Elmono, Greeze, HAELOS, Halpe, JME, Joris Voorn, Kai Whiston, Lesser Pieces, Lokane, Max Richter, Mearl, Melquiades, Mr Mitch, Oneohtrix Point Never, Prez T, Prospa, Richelle, Ross From Friends, Silk Road Assassins, Sinjin Hawke, Tchami, The Chromatics, TNGHT, TSVI, Underworld, Utah?, Vince Staples, Wiley, XTC, Zora Jones.

This week Robert is joined in the studio by Rhi who plays some tunes from her second album on Tru Thoughts – "The Pale Queen". Rhi also brings a selection of quality tunes and discusses the world of a solo artist who sings, writes, plays, programs, makes the beats and records all her songs. Robert brings some new fresh tunes from Jme featuring Wiley, Steam Down, Alphabets Heaven, TSVI and a track from the excellent new (not Drum & Bass) Calibre album. Press play…it’s a good show.

For Ep.19 of the Bside live series, we are joined by the Edinburgh based trio - Artiisan. As always on the show, the DJs were invited to show off their favourite records, being restricted to only playing the B-side. Artiisan aim to showcase an eclectic mix of electronic music through their bookings and their own DJing. Based between The Bongo Club and The Mash House, their past guests include Skillis, TSVI and recently Volruptus who delivered a range of sounds from UK techno to fast-paced electro. The Artiisan residents strayed from their characteristic fast and heavy sounds, bringing a wide range of records to the live Bside mix. Expect some Soul, hip hop, jazzy/deep house, garage, and mellow DnB. Enjoy! Shout out to Molly Hickey for providing the artwork as always. Check out her art here - https://www.instagram.com/mollyth.art/

DnA - Dreams (OAKK Remix) [Medicine] Spurz - Fall In2 Pieces [Aufect] Redublic x Cambot - To The People [Shadow Trix] Electric Candy Sand ft. Grasps_ - Choppin Rocks [dos ·ing] Gold Standard - Attrition [ShadowTrix Music] Kursa & Seppa - RKDABT [Wonk#ay Records] Doctor Jeep - Snorin' [Doctor Jeep] LEVELZ - Warning Call [LEVELZ] Greazus - XoTiC [Aufect] AxH - Dubplate Champion (Abstrakt Sonance Remix) [Gourmet Beats] Icicle - Raising the Dead [Sentry] Icicle - NT [Sentry] Havelock - Graphics (Hi5Ghost Remix) [20-20 LDN] Strategy - Yung Pepsi [Exit Records] Chrizpy Chriz - Fire Tub [Wonk#ay Records] Ternion Sound - Parasite 6 [Artikal Music] Sleeper & Mesck - Ghettonomics [Crucial Recordings] El-B ft. Ita - Think Ur Greezy [Thriller Funk] Wiley - I Call The Shots (feat. JME) [Chasing The Art] The Brothers Grimm - Exodus (The Lion Awakes) (Special Request Remix) [Sneaker Social Club] Don Froth - HR22 [WNCL Recordings] Detboi - Raw [Metalheadz] MM - Rope [Her Records] Tarquin, TSVI & Luru ft. Jammz - Come to the Dance [Nervous Horizon] Tension - Grove [Flood Trax] Boxwork - Pepper Stalk [WNCL] Etch - Predator [Green Village] DAWL - Drop It [Craigie Knowes] Chrissy - We Need Love [Chiwax] Hornsey Hardcore - Get Busy [Don't] Warlock - TV Controls Your Mind [Rag & Bone] Oyubi - D-Train [Trekkie Trax] Carpainter - Fluid Emotion [Trekkie Trax]

DnA - Dreams (OAKK Remix) [Medicine] Spurz - Fall In2 Pieces [Aufect] Redublic x Cambot - To The People [Shadow Trix] Electric Candy Sand ft. Grasps_ - Choppin Rocks [dos ·ing] Gold Standard - Attrition [ShadowTrix Music] Kursa & Seppa - RKDABT [Wonk#ay Records] Doctor Jeep - Snorin' [Doctor Jeep] LEVELZ - Warning Call [LEVELZ] Greazus - XoTiC [Aufect] AxH - Dubplate Champion (Abstrakt Sonance Remix) [Gourmet Beats] Icicle - Raising the Dead [Sentry] Icicle - NT [Sentry] Havelock - Graphics (Hi5Ghost Remix) [20-20 LDN] Strategy - Yung Pepsi [Exit Records] Chrizpy Chriz - Fire Tub [Wonk#ay Records] Ternion Sound - Parasite 6 [Artikal Music] Sleeper & Mesck - Ghettonomics [Crucial Recordings] El-B ft. Ita - Think Ur Greezy [Thriller Funk] Wiley - I Call The Shots (feat. JME) [Chasing The Art] The Brothers Grimm - Exodus (The Lion Awakes) (Special Request Remix) [Sneaker Social Club] Don Froth - HR22 [WNCL Recordings] Detboi - Raw [Metalheadz] MM - Rope [Her Records] Tarquin, TSVI & Luru ft. Jammz - Come to the Dance [Nervous Horizon] Tension - Grove [Flood Trax] Boxwork - Pepper Stalk [WNCL] Etch - Predator [Green Village] DAWL - Drop It [Craigie Knowes] Chrissy - We Need Love [Chiwax] Hornsey Hardcore - Get Busy [Don't] Warlock - TV Controls Your Mind [Rag & Bone] Oyubi - D-Train [Trekkie Trax] Carpainter - Fluid Emotion [Trekkie Trax]

DnA - Dreams (OAKK Remix) [Medicine] Spurz - Fall In2 Pieces [Aufect] Redublic x Cambot - To The People [Shadow Trix] Electric Candy Sand ft. Grasps_ - Choppin Rocks [dos ·ing] Gold Standard - Attrition [ShadowTrix Music] Kursa & Seppa - RKDABT [Wonk#ay Records] Doctor Jeep - Snorin' [Doctor Jeep] LEVELZ - Warning Call [LEVELZ] Greazus - XoTiC [Aufect] AxH - Dubplate Champion (Abstrakt Sonance Remix) [Gourmet Beats] Icicle - Raising the Dead [Sentry] Icicle - NT [Sentry] Havelock - Graphics (Hi5Ghost Remix) [20-20 LDN] Strategy - Yung Pepsi [Exit Records] Chrizpy Chriz - Fire Tub [Wonk#ay Records] Ternion Sound - Parasite 6 [Artikal Music] Sleeper & Mesck - Ghettonomics [Crucial Recordings] El-B ft. Ita - Think Ur Greezy [Thriller Funk] Wiley - I Call The Shots (feat. JME) [Chasing The Art] The Brothers Grimm - Exodus (The Lion Awakes) (Special Request Remix) [Sneaker Social Club] Don Froth - HR22 [WNCL Recordings] Detboi - Raw [Metalheadz] MM - Rope [Her Records] Tarquin, TSVI & Luru ft. Jammz - Come to the Dance [Nervous Horizon] Tension - Grove [Flood Trax] Boxwork - Pepper Stalk [WNCL] Etch - Predator [Green Village] DAWL - Drop It [Craigie Knowes] Chrissy - We Need Love [Chiwax] Hornsey Hardcore - Get Busy [Don't] Warlock - TV Controls Your Mind [Rag & Bone] Oyubi - D-Train [Trekkie Trax] Carpainter - Fluid Emotion [Trekkie Trax]

DnA - Dreams (OAKK Remix) [Medicine] Spurz - Fall In2 Pieces [Aufect] Redublic x Cambot - To The People [Shadow Trix] Electric Candy Sand ft. Grasps_ - Choppin Rocks [dos ·ing] Gold Standard - Attrition [ShadowTrix Music] Kursa & Seppa - RKDABT [Wonk#ay Records] Doctor Jeep - Snorin' [Doctor Jeep] LEVELZ - Warning Call [LEVELZ] Greazus - XoTiC [Aufect] AxH - Dubplate Champion (Abstrakt Sonance Remix) [Gourmet Beats] Icicle - Raising the Dead [Sentry] Icicle - NT [Sentry] Havelock - Graphics (Hi5Ghost Remix) [20-20 LDN] Strategy - Yung Pepsi [Exit Records] Chrizpy Chriz - Fire Tub [Wonk#ay Records] Ternion Sound - Parasite 6 [Artikal Music] Sleeper & Mesck - Ghettonomics [Crucial Recordings] El-B ft. Ita - Think Ur Greezy [Thriller Funk] Wiley - I Call The Shots (feat. JME) [Chasing The Art] The Brothers Grimm - Exodus (The Lion Awakes) (Special Request Remix) [Sneaker Social Club] Don Froth - HR22 [WNCL Recordings] Detboi - Raw [Metalheadz] MM - Rope [Her Records] Tarquin, TSVI & Luru ft. Jammz - Come to the Dance [Nervous Horizon] Tension - Grove [Flood Trax] Boxwork - Pepper Stalk [WNCL] Etch - Predator [Green Village] DAWL - Drop It [Craigie Knowes] Chrissy - We Need Love [Chiwax] Hornsey Hardcore - Get Busy [Don't] Warlock - TV Controls Your Mind [Rag & Bone] Oyubi - D-Train [Trekkie Trax] Carpainter - Fluid Emotion [Trekkie Trax]

DnA - Dreams (OAKK Remix) [Medicine] Spurz - Fall In2 Pieces [Aufect] Redublic x Cambot - To The People [Shadow Trix] Electric Candy Sand ft. Grasps_ - Choppin Rocks [dos ·ing] Gold Standard - Attrition [ShadowTrix Music] Kursa & Seppa - RKDABT [Wonk#ay Records] Doctor Jeep - Snorin' [Doctor Jeep] LEVELZ - Warning Call [LEVELZ] Greazus - XoTiC [Aufect] AxH - Dubplate Champion (Abstrakt Sonance Remix) [Gourmet Beats] Icicle - Raising the Dead [Sentry] Icicle - NT [Sentry] Havelock - Graphics (Hi5Ghost Remix) [20-20 LDN] Strategy - Yung Pepsi [Exit Records] Chrizpy Chriz - Fire Tub [Wonk#ay Records] Ternion Sound - Parasite 6 [Artikal Music] Sleeper & Mesck - Ghettonomics [Crucial Recordings] El-B ft. Ita - Think Ur Greezy [Thriller Funk] Wiley - I Call The Shots (feat. JME) [Chasing The Art] The Brothers Grimm - Exodus (The Lion Awakes) (Special Request Remix) [Sneaker Social Club] Don Froth - HR22 [WNCL Recordings] Detboi - Raw [Metalheadz] MM - Rope [Her Records] Tarquin, TSVI & Luru ft. Jammz - Come to the Dance [Nervous Horizon] Tension - Grove [Flood Trax] Boxwork - Pepper Stalk [WNCL] Etch - Predator [Green Village] DAWL - Drop It [Craigie Knowes] Chrissy - We Need Love [Chiwax] Hornsey Hardcore - Get Busy [Don't] Warlock - TV Controls Your Mind [Rag & Bone] Oyubi - D-Train [Trekkie Trax] Carpainter - Fluid Emotion [Trekkie Trax]

DnA - Dreams (OAKK Remix) [Medicine] Spurz - Fall In2 Pieces [Aufect] Redublic x Cambot - To The People [Shadow Trix] Electric Candy Sand ft. Grasps_ - Choppin Rocks [dos ·ing] Gold Standard - Attrition [ShadowTrix Music] Kursa & Seppa - RKDABT [Wonk#ay Records] Doctor Jeep - Snorin' [Doctor Jeep] LEVELZ - Warning Call [LEVELZ] Greazus - XoTiC [Aufect] AxH - Dubplate Champion (Abstrakt Sonance Remix) [Gourmet Beats] Icicle - Raising the Dead [Sentry] Icicle - NT [Sentry] Havelock - Graphics (Hi5Ghost Remix) [20-20 LDN] Strategy - Yung Pepsi [Exit Records] Chrizpy Chriz - Fire Tub [Wonk#ay Records] Ternion Sound - Parasite 6 [Artikal Music] Sleeper & Mesck - Ghettonomics [Crucial Recordings] El-B ft. Ita - Think Ur Greezy [Thriller Funk] Wiley - I Call The Shots (feat. JME) [Chasing The Art] The Brothers Grimm - Exodus (The Lion Awakes) (Special Request Remix) [Sneaker Social Club] Don Froth - HR22 [WNCL Recordings] Detboi - Raw [Metalheadz] MM - Rope [Her Records] Tarquin, TSVI & Luru ft. Jammz - Come to the Dance [Nervous Horizon] Tension - Grove [Flood Trax] Boxwork - Pepper Stalk [WNCL] Etch - Predator [Green Village] DAWL - Drop It [Craigie Knowes] Chrissy - We Need Love [Chiwax] Hornsey Hardcore - Get Busy [Don't] Warlock - TV Controls Your Mind [Rag & Bone] Oyubi - D-Train [Trekkie Trax] Carpainter - Fluid Emotion [Trekkie Trax]

Is COR always "strict"? Tune into the CORcast with Rabbi Tsvi Heber, COR's director of community kosher. You might be surprised.

Slick productions and his dope label made us aware of TSVI. Enjoy! Interview: http://iliantape.de/ilian-tape-podcast-series-040/

1. Charli XCX - Focus (Yaeji Remix) 2. Tove Lo - Disco Tits (Chris Lake Remix) 3. Jaded - Pancake 4. Sharda x Shanique Marie - Wanna Know 5. Mak & Pasteman - My MPC 6. Mark Blair - I Miss the Old Kanye 7. Autoerotique - Bling feat. Lady Leshurr 8. Leikeli47 - Wash & Set (Bot Rework) 9. Circuit 900 - Obsidian (Fisky Remix) 10. Bodyjack - Hotshot 11. Chris Lorenzo & Taiki Nulight - Mind Control (Never Say Never) 12. Phlegmatic Dogs - Westcoaster 13. Rico Tubbs - Energy 14. Brent Kilner - Get Narstie (Pelikann Remix) 15. Inkline - Gentlemen 16. Tengu & Hybrid Theory - Slippin' 17. Tony Quattro - Fuerza feat. Nani Castle 18. V Kim feat. Divoli S'Vere - Gold Chainz 19. Neana - Scrub 20. NKC - HD Anthem 21. Arma - Big Tom 22. TSVI & Luru - The Cobra's Dance 23. Hipsters Don't Dance - Pull Up Tall 24. Lone - Once In A While (Sinden Remix) 25. LSDXOXO - Burn the Witch 26. Another Alias - Built to Spill 27. Aaliyah vs UVB - WE Need A Quiet Life (Sega Bodega Mashup) 28. Deapmash - Wrong Meta 29. Raito - Green Inferno 30. Frankie Castle & Ford Foster - Anxiety 31. Finn - Sometimes The Going Gets A Little TOugh 32. Sharda - Chin Up 33. Rico Tubbs - Ghost Rider (Dr. Cryptic Remix) 34. Sammy Virji - Too Much Conversation 35. Bassboy - Blush 36. GhstGhstGhst - Brandy and Coke 37. Killjoy - Delusions 4x4 38. Charli XCX - Dreamer (Thorpey Bootleg) 39. Sample Junkie - Bad Boi Trip 40. Yeahhbuzz - Fatman 41. Kanji Kinetic - Nightmares 42. Ozwald - Raspberry Flutes 43. Kanye West - All of the Lights (De Grandi Be Rite Flip) 44. Strict Face - Snakers 45. Charli XCX - Out Of My Head (Gangsigns Flip) 46. Nina Las Vegas - I Know How It Goes 47. Casement - Icepick 48. DJ Vague - Freakout 49. SOPHIE - Immaterial (Gangsigns Bootleg) 50. Namasenda - Donuts 51. Wuki - DADADA 52. Yayaya - '91 53. LSDXOXO - False Idols 54. TOmmy Cash - X-Ray 55. Indecorum - Fire In My Body Reloaded 56. Itoa - Diceman 57. Torbjorn - Mans Got Game 58. DJ eSports - Kill the Stage (DJ Pizzaboy Edit) 59. Post Malone - Better Now (Graz Remix)

Art nouveau - Air france (lol boys remix) High Klassified & Da-p - Ns Bounce Geothery - acrophobia Duke Dumont - Thunder clap Black Motion - Documentary Youngstar - Bongo (Dubbel Dutch remix) D Malice - Gabryelle (refix) Jean Nippon - Complex girl Duke Dumont - Thunder Clap Blackmotion - The Documentary Ahadadream - Mylo Drum edit TSVI & Luru - Egyptian Sensation Jensen Interceptor - Collect Those Ends Privacy - No Way Back  Transparent Sound - No Call From New York (Acid mix) - The Hacker & Millimetric & David Carretta - Moskow Reise

Welcome back! Sorry for missing last weeks episodes. This week I use the Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs spread from Labyrinthos.com, I got a fringe, and I touch on how Existential February makes me feel. Thanks for listening Cheers

Introduction: (0:00-1:15) Present Futures #1: WEF Risk Report (1:15-15:09) Present Futures #2: 5G (15:09-24:03) Weird Futures: Casual Layer Analysis (24:03-37:11) Social Futures: CRISPR (37:11-48:16) Futurist Interview: Tsvi Bisk and The Future of No Limits (48:16-1:29:01)

  Pour cette épisode on a recu la dj montréalaise Empress pour un interview et un guest mix, on a parlé mode, vie nocturne et afro beatDREAMCSTLE b2b LEONARD Selection varié avec des morceaux fait par Ngunzugunzu, Housemeister, Duke Dumont, Grems, TSVI et plein d'autre   INTERVIEW w/Empress   EMPRESS DJ MIX LV - Boomslang (feat.Okmalumkoolkat) DJ Spoko - Oreng Mo (feat.DJ Mujava) BBQ - Got That Dick feat Spoek Mathambo Me Likey (Babel-Ish X Fabrie & Paolo Bootleg)   Jeremih - Birthday Sex(Sam Blans Afrodub Mix)   DJ Zinhle Feat. Busiswa Gqulu - My Name is (Main Mix)   Zakes Bantwini - Clap Your Hands   LV feat. Okmalumkoolkat - Diamonds   SBMG & LIL KLEINE & DJ STIJCO - 4x Duurder   BBQ - Booty Call feat Spoek Mathambo & Damaged Good$   Dj Ganyani ft. FB - Xigubu (DjPaparazzi-Rmx)   Eddy Kenzo - Balaumba Remix   DJ Maphorisa,Rude Boyz,Distruction Boy feat DJ Tira, Busiswa, Moonchild Sanelly - Midnight Starring   Digits (Meith e Dj André Sousa Afro-Mix)   Look Like You - Grizzy X M Dargg Afrobeat Remix DJbboy X Tia Maria   Dj Nigga Fox - Weed   Sekta feat. Spoek Mathambo - Peterpan (Julio Bashmore Remix)   Julio Bashmore - Umuntu

  Pour cette épisode on a recu la dj montréalaise Empress pour un interview et un guest mix, on a parlé mode, vie nocturne et afro beatDREAMCSTLE b2b LEONARD Selection varié avec des morceaux fait par Ngunzugunzu, Housemeister, Duke Dumont, Grems, TSVI et plein d'autre   INTERVIEW w/Empress   EMPRESS DJ MIX LV - Boomslang (feat.Okmalumkoolkat) DJ Spoko - Oreng Mo (feat.DJ Mujava) BBQ - Got That Dick feat Spoek Mathambo Me Likey (Babel-Ish X Fabrie & Paolo Bootleg)   Jeremih - Birthday Sex(Sam Blans Afrodub Mix)   DJ Zinhle Feat. Busiswa Gqulu - My Name is (Main Mix)   Zakes Bantwini - Clap Your Hands   LV feat. Okmalumkoolkat - Diamonds   SBMG & LIL KLEINE & DJ STIJCO - 4x Duurder   BBQ - Booty Call feat Spoek Mathambo & Damaged Good$   Dj Ganyani ft. FB - Xigubu (DjPaparazzi-Rmx)   Eddy Kenzo - Balaumba Remix   DJ Maphorisa,Rude Boyz,Distruction Boy feat DJ Tira, Busiswa, Moonchild Sanelly - Midnight Starring   Digits (Meith e Dj André Sousa Afro-Mix)   Look Like You - Grizzy X M Dargg Afrobeat Remix DJbboy X Tia Maria   Dj Nigga Fox - Weed   Sekta feat. Spoek Mathambo - Peterpan (Julio Bashmore Remix)   Julio Bashmore - Umuntu

@antosorganic is an italian dj and producer based in Milan who developed very early his passion for electronic music. He started djing for a web radio and then he created a crew wherewith he sitll organizes underground parties in Milan. Antos djsets and productions are eclectics: from industrial techno to ghetto house, with a little pop influence. Antos about this crunchy podcast: "A djset is like a human being: he couldn't exist without considering other people. For this podcast I tried to create a coherent excalation between my favourites genres (breaks, techno and house) imagining me to play for an happy crowd enjoying a sunset". TRACKLIST: 01 . Radial - 1980 (Original Mix) 02. TSVI - Parade (Original Mix) 03. Tuf Sherm - Beneath Numeral (Cassius Select Remix) 04. DJ Funk - Twerk It 05. A Made Up Sound - Cheater Vip (Original Mix) 06. TSVI - 12345678 (Original Mix) 07. L- Vis 1990 - DS Theme (Original Mix) 08. Head High - Power Seat (Original Mix) 09. Kink - Perth (Original Mix) 10. Nina Simone - Sinnerman (Felix Da Housecat Remix) 11. Paul Johnson - Get Get Down

The by now standard homebrew of mangled earscapes, big switches and bass belters. Expect a wonky trip-hop selection on this one, mutant dancehall for the sufferahs and more for the first hour before things fall apart as we lose the run of ourselves with some hot off Soulseek 128kbs 2step selections and rave. Tune in for the good stuff from folks like Andy Mac & Ossia, Mosca, Ital Tek, Lemonick, Wagaon Christ, Simo Cell, Lone, Luke Vibert, TSVI, Laurel Halo, Rufige Kru, Manni Dee and Sophua Loiziou. Tracklisting: Cado - Andy Mac & Ossia Fever Version - Mosca Broken Glass Arch - Djrum The Circle Is Complete - Ital Tek The Premise - Wagon Christ We're Gettina Down - Tek 9 Divide And Rule (feat Lee "Scratch" Perry, Junior Reid & Elan - dub) - Coldcut & On-u Sound Nammi - Lemonick Libido - Mistareez Never Leave You (Uh Oooh, Uh Oooh) - Lumidee Sufferah -Bounty Killer Ruffest & Tuffest - Assassin Xm24 -Lenky Fractions Of The Absolute - Primitive World Blue Scene (Laurel Halo remix) - Helm Stop The Killing - Simo Cell Pull Up - Tsvi Twisted Blood - Lukid Bongo (Impey's Text 66668 Bar remix) - Youngstar Bongo (Hi5Ghost remix) - Youngstar This Is England (Pypz UKG mix) - Animal Man Backtail Was Heavy - Lone Unity - Time Base aka Krome & Time Memories Of Angels - Sophia Loizou Heard It All B4 - Luke Vibert VIP Riders Ghost - Rufige Kru

X-Coast - Velvet Rope (DJ Boring Remix) [Lost Palms] DJ Clouds - United Booty [Dr Banana] Melé - Larry's Beat [Unknown To The Unknown] Redlight - Equinox [Unknown To The Unknown] Mike & Charlie - I Get Live (Headbanger Boogie Mix) [Just Funkin] Jack N Jerk - Ear II Brain [Clipp Art] R-Zone - Houz Nation [R-Zone] SW. - The Album D2 [Apollo] R-Zone - Down-E Rave [R-Zone] Dan Habarnam - High Pass Rambo [Idle Hands] Hostage - NT1 (2ndSun Remix 2) [Tessier-Ashpool] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Drum Rack [Private Persons] Scanone - The Art of Fire R-Zone - 321 [R-Zone] Kalla - Slippers On The Dancefloor [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] Kalla - Klear That Path [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] TSVI - 12345678 [Enklav] Throwing Snow - Tantrum [Houndstooth] Leftfield & Channy Leaneagh - Bilocation (Special Request Remix) [Infectious] Deapmash - Blocks [Balance] Oleka - Fully Functional Weapon [Variance] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - F5 [Private Persons] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Battery Assault [Cultivated Electronics] Oleka - Empty Blood Vessels [Variance] Spookhouse - Break Yoself Fool!!! (Mad-Tek Remix) [Digital Distortions] Spookhouse - Like What! [Digital Distortions] Woody McBride - Dark & Low [NovaMute] Avgusto - Hunting the Bass [Flash Recordings] Dave Clarke - The Compass [Skint] The Chemical Brothers - Electronic Battle Weapon 1 [Freestyle Dust] Hostage - NT1 [Tessier-Ashpool] Milanese - So Malleable (Cold Mix) [Planet Mu]

X-Coast - Velvet Rope (DJ Boring Remix) [Lost Palms] DJ Clouds - United Booty [Dr Banana] Melé - Larry's Beat [Unknown To The Unknown] Redlight - Equinox [Unknown To The Unknown] Mike & Charlie - I Get Live (Headbanger Boogie Mix) [Just Funkin] Jack N Jerk - Ear II Brain [Clipp Art] R-Zone - Houz Nation [R-Zone] SW. - The Album D2 [Apollo] R-Zone - Down-E Rave [R-Zone] Dan Habarnam - High Pass Rambo [Idle Hands] Hostage - NT1 (2ndSun Remix 2) [Tessier-Ashpool] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Drum Rack [Private Persons] Scanone - The Art of Fire R-Zone - 321 [R-Zone] Kalla - Slippers On The Dancefloor [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] Kalla - Klear That Path [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] TSVI - 12345678 [Enklav] Throwing Snow - Tantrum [Houndstooth] Leftfield & Channy Leaneagh - Bilocation (Special Request Remix) [Infectious] Deapmash - Blocks [Balance] Oleka - Fully Functional Weapon [Variance] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - F5 [Private Persons] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Battery Assault [Cultivated Electronics] Oleka - Empty Blood Vessels [Variance] Spookhouse - Break Yoself Fool!!! (Mad-Tek Remix) [Digital Distortions] Spookhouse - Like What! [Digital Distortions] Woody McBride - Dark & Low [NovaMute] Avgusto - Hunting the Bass [Flash Recordings] Dave Clarke - The Compass [Skint] The Chemical Brothers - Electronic Battle Weapon 1 [Freestyle Dust] Hostage - NT1 [Tessier-Ashpool] Milanese - So Malleable (Cold Mix) [Planet Mu]

X-Coast - Velvet Rope (DJ Boring Remix) [Lost Palms] DJ Clouds - United Booty [Dr Banana] Melé - Larry's Beat [Unknown To The Unknown] Redlight - Equinox [Unknown To The Unknown] Mike & Charlie - I Get Live (Headbanger Boogie Mix) [Just Funkin] Jack N Jerk - Ear II Brain [Clipp Art] R-Zone - Houz Nation [R-Zone] SW. - The Album D2 [Apollo] R-Zone - Down-E Rave [R-Zone] Dan Habarnam - High Pass Rambo [Idle Hands] Hostage - NT1 (2ndSun Remix 2) [Tessier-Ashpool] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Drum Rack [Private Persons] Scanone - The Art of Fire R-Zone - 321 [R-Zone] Kalla - Slippers On The Dancefloor [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] Kalla - Klear That Path [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] TSVI - 12345678 [Enklav] Throwing Snow - Tantrum [Houndstooth] Leftfield & Channy Leaneagh - Bilocation (Special Request Remix) [Infectious] Deapmash - Blocks [Balance] Oleka - Fully Functional Weapon [Variance] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - F5 [Private Persons] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Battery Assault [Cultivated Electronics] Oleka - Empty Blood Vessels [Variance] Spookhouse - Break Yoself Fool!!! (Mad-Tek Remix) [Digital Distortions] Spookhouse - Like What! [Digital Distortions] Woody McBride - Dark & Low [NovaMute] Avgusto - Hunting the Bass [Flash Recordings] Dave Clarke - The Compass [Skint] The Chemical Brothers - Electronic Battle Weapon 1 [Freestyle Dust] Hostage - NT1 [Tessier-Ashpool] Milanese - So Malleable (Cold Mix) [Planet Mu]

X-Coast - Velvet Rope (DJ Boring Remix) [Lost Palms] DJ Clouds - United Booty [Dr Banana] Melé - Larry's Beat [Unknown To The Unknown] Redlight - Equinox [Unknown To The Unknown] Mike & Charlie - I Get Live (Headbanger Boogie Mix) [Just Funkin] Jack N Jerk - Ear II Brain [Clipp Art] R-Zone - Houz Nation [R-Zone] SW. - The Album D2 [Apollo] R-Zone - Down-E Rave [R-Zone] Dan Habarnam - High Pass Rambo [Idle Hands] Hostage - NT1 (2ndSun Remix 2) [Tessier-Ashpool] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Drum Rack [Private Persons] Scanone - The Art of Fire R-Zone - 321 [R-Zone] Kalla - Slippers On The Dancefloor [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] Kalla - Klear That Path [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] TSVI - 12345678 [Enklav] Throwing Snow - Tantrum [Houndstooth] Leftfield & Channy Leaneagh - Bilocation (Special Request Remix) [Infectious] Deapmash - Blocks [Balance] Oleka - Fully Functional Weapon [Variance] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - F5 [Private Persons] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Battery Assault [Cultivated Electronics] Oleka - Empty Blood Vessels [Variance] Spookhouse - Break Yoself Fool!!! (Mad-Tek Remix) [Digital Distortions] Spookhouse - Like What! [Digital Distortions] Woody McBride - Dark & Low [NovaMute] Avgusto - Hunting the Bass [Flash Recordings] Dave Clarke - The Compass [Skint] The Chemical Brothers - Electronic Battle Weapon 1 [Freestyle Dust] Hostage - NT1 [Tessier-Ashpool] Milanese - So Malleable (Cold Mix) [Planet Mu]

X-Coast - Velvet Rope (DJ Boring Remix) [Lost Palms] DJ Clouds - United Booty [Dr Banana] Melé - Larry's Beat [Unknown To The Unknown] Redlight - Equinox [Unknown To The Unknown] Mike & Charlie - I Get Live (Headbanger Boogie Mix) [Just Funkin] Jack N Jerk - Ear II Brain [Clipp Art] R-Zone - Houz Nation [R-Zone] SW. - The Album D2 [Apollo] R-Zone - Down-E Rave [R-Zone] Dan Habarnam - High Pass Rambo [Idle Hands] Hostage - NT1 (2ndSun Remix 2) [Tessier-Ashpool] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Drum Rack [Private Persons] Scanone - The Art of Fire R-Zone - 321 [R-Zone] Kalla - Slippers On The Dancefloor [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] Kalla - Klear That Path [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] TSVI - 12345678 [Enklav] Throwing Snow - Tantrum [Houndstooth] Leftfield & Channy Leaneagh - Bilocation (Special Request Remix) [Infectious] Deapmash - Blocks [Balance] Oleka - Fully Functional Weapon [Variance] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - F5 [Private Persons] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Battery Assault [Cultivated Electronics] Oleka - Empty Blood Vessels [Variance] Spookhouse - Break Yoself Fool!!! (Mad-Tek Remix) [Digital Distortions] Spookhouse - Like What! [Digital Distortions] Woody McBride - Dark & Low [NovaMute] Avgusto - Hunting the Bass [Flash Recordings] Dave Clarke - The Compass [Skint] The Chemical Brothers - Electronic Battle Weapon 1 [Freestyle Dust] Hostage - NT1 [Tessier-Ashpool] Milanese - So Malleable (Cold Mix) [Planet Mu]

X-Coast - Velvet Rope (DJ Boring Remix) [Lost Palms] DJ Clouds - United Booty [Dr Banana] Melé - Larry's Beat [Unknown To The Unknown] Redlight - Equinox [Unknown To The Unknown] Mike & Charlie - I Get Live (Headbanger Boogie Mix) [Just Funkin] Jack N Jerk - Ear II Brain [Clipp Art] R-Zone - Houz Nation [R-Zone] SW. - The Album D2 [Apollo] R-Zone - Down-E Rave [R-Zone] Dan Habarnam - High Pass Rambo [Idle Hands] Hostage - NT1 (2ndSun Remix 2) [Tessier-Ashpool] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Drum Rack [Private Persons] Scanone - The Art of Fire R-Zone - 321 [R-Zone] Kalla - Slippers On The Dancefloor [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] Kalla - Klear That Path [Dixon Avenue Basement Jams] TSVI - 12345678 [Enklav] Throwing Snow - Tantrum [Houndstooth] Leftfield & Channy Leaneagh - Bilocation (Special Request Remix) [Infectious] Deapmash - Blocks [Balance] Oleka - Fully Functional Weapon [Variance] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - F5 [Private Persons] Jensen Interceptor & Assembler Code - Battery Assault [Cultivated Electronics] Oleka - Empty Blood Vessels [Variance] Spookhouse - Break Yoself Fool!!! (Mad-Tek Remix) [Digital Distortions] Spookhouse - Like What! [Digital Distortions] Woody McBride - Dark & Low [NovaMute] Avgusto - Hunting the Bass [Flash Recordings] Dave Clarke - The Compass [Skint] The Chemical Brothers - Electronic Battle Weapon 1 [Freestyle Dust] Hostage - NT1 [Tessier-Ashpool] Milanese - So Malleable (Cold Mix) [Planet Mu]

Bit of a switch up from the usual fray. Tonnes of early bleep sounds on this one, doses of house, rakes of breakbeat and possibly even an italo laced tune. We played tracks by Satin Storm, DJ Stingray, CELESTIAL TRAX, Larry Heard, Cocosteel and Lovebomb, Culture Clash, Auntie Flo, Om Unit, Dead Man's Chest, Kelela, Mella Dee, WNCL Recordings, DJ Spooky, Cloaka, TSVI and a whole lot more. Tracklisting Crushhh - Celestial Trax Faint Object Detection - Larry Heard Gammellan (Dresvn remix) by Don't Dj Feel It! by Coco Steel, Lovebomb Aftermath (Special Request redux) by Nightmares On Wax Peschi by Reload Volumes by Minor Science Baia (original mix) by Freakme Dominion by Cadans XLB by Pearson Sound Brass House Riddim by Mad Scientist Dont I Know You by Cloaka Everytime You Touch Me) I Get Hype by West Norwood Cassette Library Shut Up & Move by Chubba Malfunction by Tsvi Enemy (prod Nguzunguzu) by Kelela All About You by Dead Man's Chest Gammellan (Dresvn remix) - Don't Dj Feel It! - Coco Steel, Lovebomb Aftermath (Special Request redux) - Nightmares On Wax Peschi - Reload Volumes - Minor Science Baia (original mix) - Freakme Dominion - Cadans XLB - Pearson Sound Brass House Riddim - Mad Scientist Dont I Know You - Cloaka Everytime You Touch Me) I Get Hype - West Norwood Cassette Library Shut Up & Move - Chubba Malfunction - Tsvi Enemy (prod Nguzunguzu) - Kelela All About You - Dead Man's Chest Drifting Signs - Clementine Drifting Signs by Clementine We'll be back on Thursday June 14th at 10pm again with more random nonsense on Dublin Digital Radio - ddr. Until then...

1. L-vis 1990 - Sweet Spot (feat. Ronika) 2. Flamingosis - What Went Wrong 3. The Notorious B.I.G - Hypnotize 4. Gunge - Yves Gr8dane 5. Beek & Zora Jones - Miss Kitty 6. Jam City - Direct Drums 7. Dead Fader - FYI (JK Flesh Remix) 8. DJ Bowlcut - No Such Thing As a Soul 9. Hysterics - Empty VIP 10. Addison Groove & Sam Binga - WATP 1 11. Boys Noize - Starwin 12. F A I K - Freak 13. Escor Krist - CTRL 14. Sinden & Pilo - Night Visions 15. TOny Quattro - Jack's Back (Walter Ego Remix) 16. Yeahhbuzz - Tropical Space Jam (That Came From Space) Part II 17. Murder He Wrote - Seed Riddim 18. Bert On Beats - Santa On Some Kuduro Tip 19. De Grandi - Clouds 20. TSVI & Wallwork - Jaguar 21. Deke Soto - Silicium Romance 22. Eloq x Kid Antoine - Orion 23. DJ Tameil - Back It Up & Dump It 24. Wheez-ie - That UH Track 25. Charli XCX - Out of My Head (Gangsigns Flip) 26. Jaycek - Dreamer 27. Eloq x VesperTown - Why Don't U 28. Hi Tom - Bugatti Friendz 29. Deech - Love Me 30. VesperTown - Royal Flash 31. LYK - Dice 32. Diveo - Ferris Wheel 33. Grimecraft - Castle 34. Joker - Only You 35. Boys Noize - Go Hard 36. CHLO - Show Me 37. Eloq - C'mon 38. F I J I - One Kiss (feat Beaux Maris) 39. Big Dope P - Still Hood 40. Canblaster - Continue (Zora x Can "Dance Like a Stripper") 41. Lum - Boy Bye

Jamie Haus & CSGRV - Alpha (Deapmash Rework) TSVI & Wallwork - Paradise 660 [Nervous Horizon] Anton Khalemsky - 218 (Miclodiet Remix) [Genesa] Four Tet - Jupiters (Happa Remix) [Four Tet] J. Tijn - Eye [In An Instant] Avatism - They Should Have Sent a Poet [Nonplus] Pulse One - Against Myself [Granulart Recordings] The Exaltics - The Girl And The Chameleon [Solar One Music] High Position - Cops [Klockworks] Swardz - Evening Bitches [Variance] Blue Hour - Falling Lines (Panagea Remix) [Blue Hour] Jerome Hill - Plastic Jam [Swords] Mark Rogan - Paranoia (Jerome Hill Remix) [DSNT] Paul Mac - Resident Problem (Kamikaze Space Programme) [Tactical] Benjamin Damage - Drum Computer [R & S] Casper Hastings - Bionic [Rave Selekts] Lars Huismann - Parallx [Animal Farm] Manni Dee - Leadon Idols [Candela Rising]

Jamie Haus & CSGRV - Alpha (Deapmash Rework) TSVI & Wallwork - Paradise 660 [Nervous Horizon] Anton Khalemsky - 218 (Miclodiet Remix) [Genesa] Four Tet - Jupiters (Happa Remix) [Four Tet] J. Tijn - Eye [In An Instant] Avatism - They Should Have Sent a Poet [Nonplus] Pulse One - Against Myself [Granulart Recordings] The Exaltics - The Girl And The Chameleon [Solar One Music] High Position - Cops [Klockworks] Swardz - Evening Bitches [Variance] Blue Hour - Falling Lines (Panagea Remix) [Blue Hour] Jerome Hill - Plastic Jam [Swords] Mark Rogan - Paranoia (Jerome Hill Remix) [DSNT] Paul Mac - Resident Problem (Kamikaze Space Programme) [Tactical] Benjamin Damage - Drum Computer [R & S] Casper Hastings - Bionic [Rave Selekts] Lars Huismann - Parallx [Animal Farm] Manni Dee - Leadon Idols [Candela Rising]

Jamie Haus & CSGRV - Alpha (Deapmash Rework) TSVI & Wallwork - Paradise 660 [Nervous Horizon] Anton Khalemsky - 218 (Miclodiet Remix) [Genesa] Four Tet - Jupiters (Happa Remix) [Four Tet] J. Tijn - Eye [In An Instant] Avatism - They Should Have Sent a Poet [Nonplus] Pulse One - Against Myself [Granulart Recordings] The Exaltics - The Girl And The Chameleon [Solar One Music] High Position - Cops [Klockworks] Swardz - Evening Bitches [Variance] Blue Hour - Falling Lines (Panagea Remix) [Blue Hour] Jerome Hill - Plastic Jam [Swords] Mark Rogan - Paranoia (Jerome Hill Remix) [DSNT] Paul Mac - Resident Problem (Kamikaze Space Programme) [Tactical] Benjamin Damage - Drum Computer [R & S] Casper Hastings - Bionic [Rave Selekts] Lars Huismann - Parallx [Animal Farm] Manni Dee - Leadon Idols [Candela Rising]

Jamie Haus & CSGRV - Alpha (Deapmash Rework) TSVI & Wallwork - Paradise 660 [Nervous Horizon] Anton Khalemsky - 218 (Miclodiet Remix) [Genesa] Four Tet - Jupiters (Happa Remix) [Four Tet] J. Tijn - Eye [In An Instant] Avatism - They Should Have Sent a Poet [Nonplus] Pulse One - Against Myself [Granulart Recordings] The Exaltics - The Girl And The Chameleon [Solar One Music] High Position - Cops [Klockworks] Swardz - Evening Bitches [Variance] Blue Hour - Falling Lines (Panagea Remix) [Blue Hour] Jerome Hill - Plastic Jam [Swords] Mark Rogan - Paranoia (Jerome Hill Remix) [DSNT] Paul Mac - Resident Problem (Kamikaze Space Programme) [Tactical] Benjamin Damage - Drum Computer [R & S] Casper Hastings - Bionic [Rave Selekts] Lars Huismann - Parallx [Animal Farm] Manni Dee - Leadon Idols [Candela Rising]

Jamie Haus & CSGRV - Alpha (Deapmash Rework) TSVI & Wallwork - Paradise 660 [Nervous Horizon] Anton Khalemsky - 218 (Miclodiet Remix) [Genesa] Four Tet - Jupiters (Happa Remix) [Four Tet] J. Tijn - Eye [In An Instant] Avatism - They Should Have Sent a Poet [Nonplus] Pulse One - Against Myself [Granulart Recordings] The Exaltics - The Girl And The Chameleon [Solar One Music] High Position - Cops [Klockworks] Swardz - Evening Bitches [Variance] Blue Hour - Falling Lines (Panagea Remix) [Blue Hour] Jerome Hill - Plastic Jam [Swords] Mark Rogan - Paranoia (Jerome Hill Remix) [DSNT] Paul Mac - Resident Problem (Kamikaze Space Programme) [Tactical] Benjamin Damage - Drum Computer [R & S] Casper Hastings - Bionic [Rave Selekts] Lars Huismann - Parallx [Animal Farm] Manni Dee - Leadon Idols [Candela Rising]

Jamie Haus & CSGRV - Alpha (Deapmash Rework) TSVI & Wallwork - Paradise 660 [Nervous Horizon] Anton Khalemsky - 218 (Miclodiet Remix) [Genesa] Four Tet - Jupiters (Happa Remix) [Four Tet] J. Tijn - Eye [In An Instant] Avatism - They Should Have Sent a Poet [Nonplus] Pulse One - Against Myself [Granulart Recordings] The Exaltics - The Girl And The Chameleon [Solar One Music] High Position - Cops [Klockworks] Swardz - Evening Bitches [Variance] Blue Hour - Falling Lines (Panagea Remix) [Blue Hour] Jerome Hill - Plastic Jam [Swords] Mark Rogan - Paranoia (Jerome Hill Remix) [DSNT] Paul Mac - Resident Problem (Kamikaze Space Programme) [Tactical] Benjamin Damage - Drum Computer [R & S] Casper Hastings - Bionic [Rave Selekts] Lars Huismann - Parallx [Animal Farm] Manni Dee - Leadon Idols [Candela Rising]

Tsvi Bisk is an independent futurist, social researcher, and strategy planning consultant He is the director of the Center for Strategic Futuristic Thinking and the founder and director of the Strategic Educational Planning Institute. For more than 20 years, he was a senior associate of the Beit Berl Institute (the research and education arm of the Israel Labor Movement). Bisk is the author of five books, and has published more than one hundred essays and articles in English and Hebrew in a variety of publications. A transcript of this episode (lightly edited for clarity) is available here:

We talk with Tsvi from MIRI Game-playing algorithm that pauses Tetris “On The Origin of Circuits“, discussing a chip hardware evolution experiment MIRI’s technical research agenda overview Alignment for advanced machine learning systems paper from MIRI Musk’s OpenAI Paul Christiano’s … Continue reading →

[Re]Sources Invite TSVI, Lorenzo BITW & Bob Sleigh