Sguan

That’s my new Caffeine Name (like porno star name , but for ordering at places like Starbucks)

Rack it up to being Chinese-American in the 21st Century America.

This was the Starbucks in Palo Alto where more than half of the customers are Asian. I mean I really should be upset, indignant and filing complaints with HQ like I usually do,…. and I never smoke weed,…. but all I can do is giggle like my little girl does right now at the sight of this on my cup of iced decaf Americano. Serves me right for ordering that anyway.

Yish…

This is so good, we need to make it a spectator sport. I will make big mullah if I can some how capture these moments of genuine genius, and the follow-up interactions or reactions, for reproduction, enmass to masses, later.

That’d be something you’d be interested in observing, wouldn’t it?

P.s. full disclosure, I hold an investment position in Starbucks. There has been less than quarter a dozen wild, deep ocean, Caffeine Names that I caught worthy of FAM blogs in many years, imho. (For example, just found a picture of Bahn)

I Didn’t See it Coming!

Almost hit a Tesla X yesterday, just before Mother’s Day. My family in tow, I was trying to make a left turn into middlefield from Watkins in Menlo Park. I stopped for something else and saw a red flash from the far lane across. If I hadn’t stopped, we’d have been in an accident in which the tesla hit us from the right.

I clearly did not see the tesla x. It’s apparently very visible to my passengers who admired its brand new glistening red paint job. But seriously, I did not see the car. I looked. There is a small smear on my right lens. But I have two eyes, why didn’t the other one see it. I stopped and looked and looked twice with the left-right-left. The minivan has given me the habit of extra caution.

I didn’t see it!! I can’t stand he fact that this has happened! How do I avoid it next time?

I drove back to check out the scene of non-accident. The one possible scenario is that the tesla turned right onto Middlefield from James ave. Which is one tenth of mile away. This stretch of Middlefield road has speed limit of 35 mph.

Say I am retarded and looked away for 3 seconds.

2 * (.1 miles)/(3 second * 3 seconds) = 35.76 m/s/s = 3.65g

Google result shows tesla x getting to 60mph in about 2.28 seconds or an acceleration of 11.8m/s/s.

So root-cause analysis, this non-accident wasn’t caused by excessively fast cars even if I misjudged the time by another second to a total of four seconds that I looked to my left, that’s still 20 m/s/s acceleration, more than twice what today’s tesla is capable of.

This leaves me with a dreadfully chilling conclusion:

I didn’t see it coming!

I took my non-tesla-x minivan for the acelletation test and achieved 12 second time from idle between James and Watkins. At speed limit of 35 mph, the distance takes 10.28s.

Personally, I’d guess at fastest the tesla x was driving 50mph when it flashed in front of my eyes. 3 seconds would take it 67 meters away–0.042 miles.

Hrmn!! Actually, that’s getting closer. So if the tesla x had been driving 50mph and I didn’t see it at half way from James to Watkins, looked away for 3 seconds, then I would have saw that red flash and almost hit it.

There are vines and walls to my right. Btw this makes my passengers story dubious as that seat has even more obstructed view of my right side than my driver seat. So I guess I’m more leaning towards believing that I just didn’t see it because it was still hidden behind the vine when I looked right. Because I didn’t advance far enough onto Middlefield street to see it coming. Then I inched forward to look to my left (also obstructed by vegetation), that took 3 seconds. I decided I can make it across wrt cars coming from the left, accelerated, and almost hit the Tesla X which is now in front of me.

I didn’t see it coming.

As believable as that story is. I really do remember looking left-right-left twice, each time after advancing more into Middlefield. Most likely failure was probably after the second right peek, I reacted too slowly to the approaching tesla, looked left, saw it was clear and decide to cross.

I didn’t see it coming…

I don’t even remember why I even stopped?

I just don’t remember seeing the front of that tesla x! It even had day time running lights on! How could I not see it???!!

The masonry wall lining the other side of the street is also red, but much faded. It could not have hidden the red tesla x.

I just didn’t see it coming!!

I hope this blog entry isn’t written unknowingly from limbo. I had four other souls on my car… and the Tesla had at least the driver, the auto-pilot and perhaps passengers. That collision, t-bone, broadside, side-impact, is least fun for me, exposing two mothers and three daughters to the direct hit. My car is 4600 lbs at most and tesla X is up to 5400lbs. 17% mass advantage. It is a seriously losing situation for me in all possible scenarios as he has right of way, I would be more at fault even if he’s speeding.

Sigh, and I really didn’t see it coming. 😦

P.s. rereading I guess it sums to that either myself or the other driver made driving mistakes and it wasn’t because of tesla X’s volume, color, acceleration or auto-pilot.

We are Due to Malice

Still reading Homo Deus… So many new things in history to absorb.

So it may be the case that our evolutionary success is due to Malice towards other spieces. We incorporated hatred into our society. When we hate something we stir up same hatred in other humans. In such a fashion we unite and destroy others somewhat irrationally. Even when in a time when resources and spaces are plentiful, we found a will to organize and fight. Deus author may say it is a shared fiction, but to me it feels more like a baser sentiment. 

What we share, even more rudimentary than fictional stories about our kind, about ourselves, and about our world, is the sentiment of hating (or loving). We hate our enemies, and we love ourselves. We hate the devil and love God. We hate tornados and love balmy sundays.

Hatred! That is what makes us us.

Imagine a competitive situation: at the end of Titanic, Jack’s self hate made the fateful selection of letting rose survive. I wonder how often such a scene occur in evolution? Mommies throwing their babies out of fire or water while devastating the object of her despise-her own body. Can we bring our imagination to a scene in which huan success in evolution is in part due to united hatred, in addition to all of our other bonadaptations? Could it be that hating sentiment is the real key to our prosperity?

We carry out an experiment. Let us take a group of people and ask them to never hate, and while we’re at it, let’s also never have ill intentions. Such an experiment would scientifically test our hypothesis that people without hatred will be severely disadvantaged to an extent that they would not propagate successfully. Hypothesis can be proven false and can be replicated. It can be a very informative experiment.

Affirm us!

Oh dear God please affirm us!

I am having a slight bit of an imagined mental crisis reviewing Homo Deus. At the part where research regarding jobs that will be replaced in the next 10 to 20 years, it occurs to me that a job like tour guide is actually kind of fun. One wonders if jobs will become entertainment, that you may choose what you want to do for the sheer pleasure of doing it? (Like, a more utilitarian world, maximizing pleasure irrespective of abstract utility)

The world would run an Affirmative Action for Humans. What ever people think is best for themselves they can do that just for self improvement. And the rest of the AI enabled world moves on with the most optimal enjoyment of life…

An agency has moved in next door

Think my new neighbors are secret agents. This family of half a dozen adults and a few kids lives in a 1100 sqft house with 5 cars parked outside. My own family of half that population lives in a larger space and 3 cars averaging smaller displacement than their 5.

When we made an emergency visit to the ER just now, an SUV skillfully pulled up to block our exit for noticeable amount of time. AT 11:30pm! The driving is too abrupt and too effective too precise… the only thing it resembles is secret police pulling up to block terrorist attacker in a movie. The car stops just right, frame shifting in a way very unnatural for a car. It happens in a movie because the cars might be fake and being moved by mechanical arms. I don’t know why that real SUV was manuverable to that same way.

Anyways… they pretend to be rowdy normal neighbors, blasting loud music, kids wondering around… but there are signs… their SUV and cars gets moved just when I leave.

Lmk if I’m right about this.

Machine Teaching

So, obviously all you smart people in science and technology have built internal algorithms for keeping up with this insane progress. In particular, it is especially visible in peer reviewed software and publications. More stuff of incredible quality are being produced than any person can contain in his head. If you compute the bits of input you have via physical constraints of the nurons in your eyes and ears and nose, skin, etc. It receives less information in 24 hour period than that which is produced. Imho.

I am looking for how people think about the totality of human knowledge, its organization, advancement and teaching. There was a decade or so when Google was set to perform this task: organize the world’s information. But, apparently, they have abandoned that for Alphabet.

Let’s see. If I were to think about it, and I will disclaim that I know of a lot of people who are better than me at knowing more and thinking effectively, but for a person of my knowledge and skill, I can imagine all scientific knowledge and software as code.

OSS and scientific publications are versioned objects in this language. It may inherit from Publication, with Peer Review. Publication class may contain Authors, title, abstract, section, reference and appendix, it may also have venue(Nature, GitHub) and genre(immunology, reinforcement learning, group theory, reversed web proxy), date. More generically, there is a vocabulary associated with the publication of genre. Commonly used subroutines may include metrics, sampling or experimentation methodology, methods of comparison(i.e. a function that takes in present paper and other papers and judges present paper worthy of publication (irrespective of peer reviewers))

For example

better_rocauc(this_paper_algo1, [other_papers], [Iris, mushroom, mnist])

smaller_amotized_runtime(this_paper_algo2, [algos from other referred papers], [imagenet])

better_false_discovery_rate(this_paper_procedure_A, [text book approaches, procedures in popular use])

best_worst_case_performance(my_algo, your_algo)

The publication objects most importantly exposes to the public

  • Context of the publication, including references to previous publications documenting relavent or comparable knowledge.
  • Export data for future publication comparison
  • Export of functionality via API
  • Explanation of what it improves on(beats what other publication on what metric)
  • Describes sufficiently how to replicate the representation of knowledge in this publication.
  • State known limitations and directions of improvements.

For technical publication, the API might be a new procedure for distilling gold out of stream water, for scientific publications, we have to come up with a functions or procedural representation of knowledge. Consider a new measurement of speed of light, it’s obvious that this can be done. What about discovery of a new planet or organism or organ?… What about a nonterminating program? What about a new useful transcendental functions? It will rely on the establishment of a vocabulary and semantics–the language of knowledge.

But there seems to be an infinite way to write these things. Is Occam’s razor the principal to take in designing this language? I would propose a couple of approaches to solving knowledge.

  • Communication: One important principle is to restrict considerations to knowledge as communication. Knowledge as we know it may have powers for us to think and act. But the knowledge that this blog post is considering is mainly the communication of knowledge. Publications in scientific journals and OSS are mainly to teach and empower other systems or people to think and act. Admittedly, the knowledge within, it’s representation in my head or that cluster of massively parallel computers are highly important to our success. They may be of great research interest to any, but we have no real power over them unless the communication of knowledge is established. Otherwise we can only stand idly by and watch each of our separate intelligence perform separately based on their separate knowledges.
  • Generalization: This is a subsequent restriction to knowledge of interest to those as communication. Roughly speaking, generalized communication is an effective broadcast of knowledge. This is to contrast with, for example, point-to-point communication, or multi-cast communication, and encrypted communication, where in each case the communication is either intended or guaranteed to be comprehensible only by designated parties and not a general unrestricted pipulation. Dissemination of knowledge is the sole goal of present endeavor.
  • Efficiency: Another important principle is to balance efficiency and expandability. Occam’s razor, as great as it is suffers from short-sightedness. The modern knowledge-base designer must be conscientious of the present limits of total human-computer cognition on earth. It must admit the imminent possibility of a redesign to include new knowledge that we do not yet know and those that we have not anticipated. This is the only prudent path forward and must be audited frequently.
  • Verification: A second balance is the one between theoretic guarantees and empirical verifiability. Properties of the language must be empirically verified. Theoretical analysis on its limits and powers are also very important. This balance is not mutually exclusive and is not subservient to any other principles.
  • Usefulness: A final principle of solution is that they must be requirements-driven.

One must always ask: what’s this for?? Each of these design seem like monumental to pursue, and they certainly intermix and needs to be translatable between each other.

  • The language is for human consumption.
  • The language is for human production.
  • The language is for machine consumption.
  • The language is for automated scientific or programming systems.

Each language will have dialects for different genres. For example the human consumption language may have

  • Biological Sciences
  • Numerical Algorithms
  • Psychology
  • Theology

The dialects for machine interpretation may be:

  • Python
  • Perl
  • ADA
  • Java

Although, one note of caution, these organically grown programming languages often communicate meaning both to human and computers. Additionally, the “source code” often explicitly stipulates internal machine representation during execution. In this regard, we must rethink language design and separate all these concerns!

These abstractions can also result in other changes such as new formal peer review system. Machine invention, machine experimentation, and the one thing I could really use: Machine Teaching. The machine should teach me the agglomeration of human knowledge and history, all that is interesting and necessary I want to learn before 12… next life time perhaps.

Okay, that’s all for now. Time to hit the books on epistemology… I have to learn everything the old way before the machines can teach it all back to me a better way.

P.s. this blog post was Made on Earth, and © 2018 FAM Blog.

The Human Limit

Still reading Homo Deus. It occurs to me that there is a chance that humans intelligence are a local optimum, that it is a limit that we have arrived at after many years of evolution. (Calculus limit in the sense of the place one arrives at after many iterations of getting closer to better)

That is to say that there is some small chance that even if we put all of the energy the sun and elements on earth gives to us that the result may not be as intelligent as human kind intelligence at the evolutionary competition.

That is not a very scientific assertion. We’d have to have an AI to test that in case people loses.

That may also be very delusional. Guns, cars, planes. The only reason why other extensions to our faculties are not injuring us at a higher rate is the self restrain human has while using them. It is the coordination and enforcement that we have developed to ensure that they do not exceed their safe boundaries. It may more likely be the case that we put on a brake before we reach that evolutionarily competitive stage.

Yes laziness and greediness will make everything AI based. Just as we have segways and powered wheel chairs, we ride them if it is fun and avoid them if it is not fun.

Maybe… fingers crossed.

…We have come so far! advanced so much!! too far  too much to perish at our own indiscretions… or elseI watched too many Dr. Who episodes recently and have come to believes that will prove to be delusional…

I’m Who??

Okay, recovering Trekkie here, and reborn Whovian. Just watching the seasons backwards from nine and now on s2e1… having just seen Amelia’s final farewell. So sad that the show is so honest about age and usefulness to a TV show.

It occurs to me that some day in the future, haha, in the future, that an angels episode should be shot in Tibet, or in one of the other major Buddhist temples such as those in Shaolin temple. There are literally rows upon rows of these sculptures of people and some monsters that look like they’re trying to scare you. And some are smiling too of course and others are doing kungfu..(google Shao Lin arhats for example there are a few of lots of these)

If I didn’t know any better, I’d suggest that a time traveler from the future where all of our cultures are all mixed together has come back and brought those future daemons from future Buddhism to modern fiction.

But who knows, maybe a time traveler like dr. Who traveled back to ancient China and inspired these meditations in sculptures…

Back to copies too funny 

Funny dialog in s3e1 of catastrophe…. 

American husband: what? You held that guys penis?!?!
British Wife: yes , I don’t know, maybe, it was  tough time! You, me, the Brexit, your new president..
Guy: what?! Don’t ping what you did on me, that wasn’t my fault!

Words for Spores

Why don’t you take a vacation at foxconn in Shenzhen ? you’ll get to see all the freaking iPhones in the whole world!!!!

(historical note, foxconn used to make all the iPhones in the whole wide world… iPhone was the most famous and widely used smart phones in the world…)