2013
Selekoa’s 32 records dated 2013, in date order, grouped by topic.
Selective: what the records hold, not a history of the year.
How this page is made
- Each record keeps the kind of date its source gives: an event, a publication, an announcement, an effective date, a revision, a signature, a snapshot, or the start or end of an interval. A snapshot is one dated report of a state.
- A record dated only to a month sits under that month, before the records dated to a day. A record dated only to the year sits under the year, before the months. No day or month is added.
- An announcement records what a party stated. It does not show that anything was done, built or paid for.
- Dates a party states for a year are listed apart, after the records: targets, deadlines and terms, and dates stated in passing, such as a reported start of operation. So is a record’s own date that falls after its sources were last checked, such as a law’s date of effect. A stated date given only in words, with no year, is not listed.
- Records with an unknown date are not listed. A record with an interval appears in the year it starts and in the year it ends, or once, with both dates, when both fall in one year.
- Each provision of a text is a record of its own. Provisions sharing a text and a date are shown here as one entry, with their number, and listed on the text’s page; a contested or unresolved one is listed here on its own. The counts on this page include each provision record.
- The page is generated from the records, with no selection or framing by an editor. Coverage is uneven across years and topics: a year or topic with few records may be one the records barely cover.
People 1 record
December 2013
· interval begins · dated to the month
Facebook’s historical biography dates LeCun’s AI research directorship to December 2013. Evidence ↗
Institutions 1 record
Dated to 2013 only
Ideas & lineages 30 records
Dated to 2013 only
· publication · dated to the year
“AI Go Foom” (2013) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
“Emulations Go Foom” (2013) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
“Friendliness Factors” (2013) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
“Friendly Projects vs. Products” (2013) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
“Setting the Stage” (2013) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
“Wrapping Up” (2013) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
“Debating Yudkowsky” (2013) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
“Foom Debate, Again” (2013) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· event · dated to the year
Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics explicitly cites and discusses Good’s 1965 paper. Evidence ↗· event · dated to the year
Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics examines Good’s intelligence-explosion thesis through cognitive reinvestment. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics cites Chalmers’s 2010 philosophical analysis. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics attributes its opening quoted intelligence-explosion argument to Good. Evidence ↗· event · dated to the year
MIRI published Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics as technical report 2013-1. Evidence ↗· event · dated to the year
Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as author. Evidence ↗
February 2013
· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Foom Debate, Again” (2013-02-18), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E01. Hanson restates his position in 2013, granting the novelty of self-modification while doubting that it produces a foom. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Foom Debate, Again” (2013-02-18), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E05. Hanson argues that growth economics, not newly invented categories, should frame the intelligence-explosion question. Evidence ↗
June 2013
· publication · dated to the day
“After critical event W happens, they still won't believe you” (2013-06-13) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “After critical event W happens, they still won't believe you” (2013-06-13) contests Y08. Rejects forecasts of the form 'after event W, everyone will see X and endorse policy Z'; one of his worked examples is the expectation that more sophisticated AI will make society take Friendly AI seriously. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, After critical event W happens, they still won't believe you (2013) →Claim page →
September 2013
· publication · dated to the day
Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics identifies the key issue as returns on cognitive reinvestment: the ability to turn more computing power, faster computers or better algorithms into cognitive labour that produces larger or faster brains or better mind designs. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics analyses the returns on reinvesting cognitive gains in better mind designs. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics argues that an AI that can reinvest the fruits of its intelligence in larger brains, faster processing and better algorithms should have growth curves sharply above human ones, the regime colloquially called hard takeoff. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics” (2013-09-13) contests Y10. Cites the hominid record as evidence against diminishing returns on cognitive improvement, and goes on to infer that researchers improving their own intelligence 'ought to go FOOM'. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics” (2013-09-13) contests Y19. Summarising the instrumental convergence thesis, he states that harm to humans can follow from generic resource-seeking strategies without any goal of harming them. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (2013-09-17) credits Carl Benedikt Frey as one of its 2 authors. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (2013-09-17) credits Michael A. Osborne as one of its 2 authors. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Frey and Osborne, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (2013-09-17) bears on M01. The authors judge the routine/non-routine task framework inadequate for machine learning and mobile robotics and add engineering-bottleneck dimensions drawn from computer science. Evidence ↗Frey and Osborne, The Future of Employment (2013) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
Frey and Osborne, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (2013-09-17) articulates M02. Extending the Autor-Levy-Murnane task model, the authors argue that machine learning lets computer capital substitute for labour in non-routine as well as routine tasks, limited only by perception/manipulation, creative and social-intelligence bottlenecks. Evidence ↗Frey and Osborne, The Future of Employment (2013) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
Frey and Osborne, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (2013-09-17) bears on M05. The authors claim near-universal technical automatability beyond the engineering bottlenecks, but expect workers to move into tasks requiring creative and social intelligence (pdf p. 45). Evidence ↗Frey and Osborne, The Future of Employment (2013) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
Frey and Osborne, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (2013-09-17) articulates M07. The authors estimate occupations' susceptibility to computerisation by matching engineering bottleneck variables in O*NET task descriptions with a classifier trained on hand-labelled occupations. The headline estimate: 47 percent of US employment falls in occupations with high probability of computerisation. Evidence ↗Frey and Osborne, The Future of Employment (2013) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
Frey and Osborne, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (2013-09-17) bears on M09. The authors present their estimate as filling a gap in the literature on recent technological progress and employment. Evidence ↗Frey and Osborne, The Future of Employment (2013) →Claim page →