ioeu

To quote Pedro Domingos in "The Master Algorithm" [1]:

> But everyone has only a sliver of it [information about you]. Google sees your searches, Amazon your online purchases, AT&T your phone calls, Apple your music downloads, Safeway your groceries, Capital One your credit-card transactions. Companies like Acxiom collate and sell infor- mation about you, but if you inspect it (which in Acxiom’s case you can, at aboutthedata.com), it’s not much, and some of it is wrong. No one has anything even approaching a complete picture of you. That’s both good and bad. Good because if someone did, they’d have far too much power. Bad because as long as that’s the case there can be no 360-degree model of you. What you really want is a digital you that you’re the sole owner of and that others can access only on your terms.

Does this mean that effectively all of Facebook, Amazon, Google, IBM and Microsoft will have the whole picture? That makes me worried.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Master-Algorithm-Ultimate-Learning-Ma...

What fields would you guide them to instead?

I may be one of the developers you speak of (with academic aspirations), presently considering my path forward.

I'm sceptical if going down the ML swamp is the best way forward.

In retrospect that seems much simpler than what I proposed in my edit, thanks.

> For each image, the algorithm produces a heat map showing which parts of the image are most memorable. By emphasizing different regions, they can potentially increase the image’s memorability.

Most memorable, according to human subjects subjective thought on the matter?

> The team then pitted its algorithm against human subjects by having the model predicting how memorable a group of people would find a new never-before-seen image. It performed 30 percent better than existing algorithms and was within a few percentage points of the average human performance.

Who's to say human subjects are any good at objectively judging how memorable a photo is? I feel like I'm missing something.

Edit: Riight, I guess it could be based on observing neural activity in human subjects while they look at photos. That makes a lot more sense.

> While deep-learning has propelled much progress in object recognition and scene understanding, predicting human memory has often been viewed as a higher-level cognitive process that computer scientists will never be able to tackle

Seriously?

Has it seriously often been viewed like that?

Your response is totally understandable given my (very clumsy) comment. Let me make myself more clear; I'm in the process of reading up on what material one should study to set oneself up to ultimately be able to consider AGI research as a career choice.

You say "mathematics, cognitive science, and computer science at increasing levels of sophistication.". That's probably true, I'd recon a fair bit of biology, chemistry and physics is most likely also needed.

My question, though, is what specific branches of said subjects?

I totally agree! If anybody knows of something similar for artificial general intelligence I'm all ears, currently in the process of reading up on it.

Did you look for any similar software before you started building? Did you find anything?

I'm inclined to agree, I think it should work for most basic types using controls for forward/rewind and optionally only looking at a subset of the data.

A potential problem with visualizing more complex structures may be that people's mental representations for them probably differ, making it really hard to offer a visualization that maps to each person's mental model of each specific (complex) data structure.

What do you mean by: "There are also controls you can't see that make hierarchically navigating from groups of data structures to single data structures to single elements, easy."?

I'm happy we came across then! I find this type of visualiation to be intriguing, and I may give it a stab in the future.

We should definitely keep in touch.

Thanks! I'll hopefully have a look, at some point.

I would've enjoyed reading more about your approach seeing as it seems to be very alike to what I wanted to try and solve. I wanted to, similar to what you describe, be able to visualize the program's data structures as I visualize them in my head avoiding writing one-off, text-based, sub-optimal printing code.

I'm still interested in the idea (i.e. visualizing a program by its state) although I fear it may not be practical for non-trivial programs with complex, large and rapidly changing data structures.

I can relate to what you're describing, thanks for sharing.

Some part of me wants to just live in solitude with little or no social interaction at all, but I deliberately avoid it since my rational side tells me I'll end up depressed.

I've been told more than once I should look into meditation, do you know of a good way to start?

Your abstract visual debugger is really cool! I was thinking about pursuing something similar for my bachelor thesis but ended up doing something much different.

I'm curious to learn more about your insights regarding the subject, where can I find more information?

Also curious to learn what made you go from thinking "this was you" to thinking another lifestyle could make you happier, which lifestyle? Why?

Edit: Going through your submissions now (:

"Soylent 2.0 makes complete nutrition accessible to all ..."

"All", assuming you're in the USA or Canada.. I actually thought it meant they were gonna start shipping to more countries! Bummer.

I agree, presuming you use Github for more than just hosting code. Ironically, I was in the middle of evaluating wheter we should start using Github for more than just hosting code, e.g., lightweight project management through issues, code reviews through issues, internal company documentation through wiki etc. when I noticed it being down!

It does sound rather major [1]. I'm looking forward to hear the aftermath of this.

[1]: https://twitter.com/githubstatus

It seems to be up again [1].

[1]: http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/github.com