I also think trying to measure a person with a single number like IQ is both deeply flawed and undesirable from a social point of view because we all benefit from everyone having opportunities to reach their potential.
No one was arguing that opportunities must be limited, only that IQ is an accurate enough indicator of intelligence to be useful most of the time. Intelligent people score higher on IQ tests, outliers notwithstanding.
Regardless, if your aversion to intelligence is because it is socially undesirable, what do you propose? That we get rid of intelligent people? That we find a different test so that stupid people can score high too? After all, no one is proposing to use IQ scores as a restriction to opportunities, so I'm left wondering why you brought up the whole question of "worth".
Some people are worth more than others. Their IQ has nothing to do with it, and in most cases we assign worth without looking at the IQ score.
Some people just want to believe that there is a scientific, objective way to measure a person's worth.
Actually, after having it thought it over, I am genuinely curious - do you believe everyone has the same worth or that some people are worth more than others?
You're supposed to correlate what is true, not correlate things that are not true. When you detected that IQ isn't the word with disputed meaning, then instead of jumping straight to "yer rong" you should have instead realized your mistake and understood that we weren't even arguing over the definition of IQ. Figure out the context of your argument. Then you might even be able to comprehend what I said.
As for now I'm just going to mark you down as "failed." I don't really care what the numerical representation of your failure would be, either. Or the underlying causes.
Regardless of your incoherent ramblings, for most people, in most contexts IQ is correlated with higher intelligence. Also, please look up what "correlate" means. I don't get to correlate what is true and what is not true, the fact is that intelligence as understood by the clear majority of the population, including scientists, mental health professionals and lay people is very strongly correlated with IQ.
Please, FCOL, look up what the word "correlate" means. You look like an ass when you say such blunders like "correlate things that are true' as then it is clear that you do not know the meaning of the word.
You're wrong in that you have a well-formed belief about something known to be an unresolved issue.
IQ and the definition thereof is not an "unresolved" issue - not only is IQ well-understood lay people also have no trouble understanding it. For *you* it might be unresolved - the rest of the world understands it just fine.
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
Up until they banned sword duels being good with a sword was strongly correlated with financial and political success.
Even if true, that doesn't mean that IQ is incorrectly correlated with success. Like I keep saying, for most people in most contexts, IQ is a mostly correct measure of what most people consider to be intelligences.
It is really not a very way to start off if you're trying to prove even that is a test of general problem-solving. It clearly tests things, but there is no reason to assume that it is testing something generalized.
I'm not trying to prove anything - IQ is a test of problem-solving ability, and it is mostly correct. Most high-IQ people would be considered intelligent (even if their IQ were not known) while most low IQ people would be considered less intelligent (even if their IQ were not known).
Humans put each other into "stupid" and "smart" categories all the time; IQ is a relatively good indicator of intelligence in general. It's like BMI, where you have it accurate for most of the population but with a few outliers where the measurement is not accurate.
I said 'many people don't consider problem-solving to be a sign of intelligence'. I did not say 'most'. The overwhelming majority do, and llike BMI, for most people, in most contexts, it's mostly accurate for what most people consider to be intelligence.
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
IQ tests don't measure "intelligence" because that word, for many people, depends on context. IQ tests measure problem solving ability. This is probably why it correlates so strongly to success: a strong ability to solve problems probably results in a large measure of success anyway.
IQ tests are like BMI - mostly accurate, for most of the population, in the ways that actually matter. If I were to bet on a random high-IQ person successfully performing an unfamiliar task while you bet on the low-IQ person successfully performing an unfamiliar task, after a few iterations you'd lose your money and I would not.
IQ is a great indicator of a person's problem-solving abilities. Many people do not consider problem-solving ability to be 'intelligence'.
Sure, but success is not the same thing as intelligence. And success is strongly correlated with wealth and access to good schooling (although there are plenty of exceptions), which suggests that IQ is not measuring some kind of innate ability or mental processing limit.
Your lack of a background in science is showing again. Success is strongly correlated with wealth, and also strongly correlated with IQ. IOW, look up what "controlled study" means. For IQ, especially, it's easy to control for socioeconomic effects, hence the "IQ is strongly correlated with success" assertion.
Some people just want to believe that there is a scientific, objective way to measure a person's worth. They usually think they are near the top of the ranking, especially if they also cling to the idea of racial intelligence.
IQ is very strongly correlated with success. Multiple replicated studies have added support for that.
These Nigerians are barely computer literate and barely literate at all. They will struggle to pass a Turing test themselves. I think that even Eliza level chatbots will fool them. The idea is that they will have to manually sift through thousands of emails per day to find the real mark, and I think that this idea will work.
When developing and testing complex new systems, you try to keep your unknowns and external variables to a minimum (i.e. bad weather, terrible roads and traffic). Once you've established your algorithms work in the simpler cases, you move on to tougher and tougher situations. This is normal, logical development progression. I'm not sure why you'd think it's somehow indicative that cars will *never* be able to handle anything but good weather and traffic.
I'm not sure why you think that the edge cases are solvable without a general AI (which doesn't yet exist).
In any case, this is good news: I'm tired of correcting people who say "SDCs already have a better driving record than humans" when they mean "SDCs with a human to correct them in the driver's seat driving only under perfect conditions have a better driving record than humans under all conditions".
I've been waiting for SDCs that need no human correction. This looks like it might be it.
If we need 1000x more computational power for something a human finds 2.5x more complex, do you really think that we will only need 12x more computational power for something that humans find 12x more complex?
I was talking about the number of neurons in the human brain taking part in the game decision process. I think it's reasonable to assume that the scaling in the brain corresponds with the scaling in nodes in artificial neural nets. Perceptive complexity isn't a very good measure, I think. People find common tasks, like walking, simpler than playing StarCraft, but that could be because their brains are optimized for the first task, and not for the second. I think someone playing StarCraft uses a bigger part of their brain than someone playing Go, because there's more overlap between StarCraft and daily life, so more neurons can be recruited to join in the effort. But I highly doubt the difference is more than a factor 100.
Besides, as you say Deep Blue did not use NN, and the method Deep Blue used will likely not work well for AG anyway, resulting in the 2.5x complexity increase needing 1000x more computational power.
Because Deep Blue didn't use NN, I don't think it's useful to discuss the relative complexity increase.
What makes you think a 12x (or whatever) complexity is a tractable problem?
Because DeepMind already had a 12x bigger version running before.
All the evidence I've seen points to AI scaling being O(N^m) with N being the complexity.
I doubt it. Our neocortex is only twice as big as the chimpanzee's, and our total brain is only 3x the size, but we are capable of tasks that orders of magnitude more complex.
Yeah, but human and chimp brains aren't AI, and don't work the same way that NNs do. NNs scale linearly, for example, but biological brains do not. NN are not digital representations of biological brains. If they were by now we'd have machines with the sentience sentience at least a cockroach, but we do not.
We went from needing 30 x 120MHz CPUs to win at Chess (Deep Blue), to 1202 CPUs and 176 GPUs to win at Go (Alphago).
AlphaGo Zero only uses 4 TPUs,
Which is much more powerful for the task than the 176 GPUs I stated above.
and is much stronger than the 176 GPU version. It is also much stronger than the 48 TPU version that beat Lee Sedol, while only using a fraction of the space and power.
It is much more computational power. There is a reason I kept saying "resources" and "computational power" instead of "electricity". You've sort of agreed that we've used multiple magnitudes of computing power to make the AI win.
If the goal is only to narrowly beat the human world champ, maybe 1 or 2 TPUs would suffice.
IOW, we used almost 1000x more resources to win at Go than at Chess.
AlphaGo Zero uses less power
I suggest you reread what I wrote in my original post. I never claimed that Alphago uses less electricity, but you imply that I made the electricity argument. I didn't.
I did claim "1000x more computational power".
than Deep Blue did, and plays at a much higher level (comparing with best human players).
But the biggest problem with your analysis is that Chess is solved in a completely different way. Deep Blue didn't use neural nets, but relatively simple human-generated heuristics combined with deep brute force search. There have been some experiments with NN based chess programs, but so far, the results have not led to top-class performance. It is conceivable that a NN based chess program would require more resources than a Go program.
I agree that StarCraft would most likely require more processing units than Go, but at this point, that's all we can say.
How many more brain cells does a human StarCraft player use compared to a human Go player ? If it's a factor 12, then the AlphaGo Lee version, running on 48 TPUs may be able to do the job, given the proper algorithms.
If we need 1000x more computational power for something a human finds 2.5x more complex, do you really think that we will only need 12x more computational power for something that humans find 12x more complex? My argument is that AI accomplishments are not scaling linearly, and they are fast hitting the wall with brute-force and NN.
Besides, as you say Deep Blue did not use NN, and the method Deep Blue used will likely not work well for AG anyway, resulting in the 2.5x complexity increase needing 1000x more computational power. What makes you think a 12x (or whatever) complexity is a tractable problem? All the evidence I've seen points to AI scaling being O(N^m) with N being the complexity.
"They said we'd never achieve $FOO, and then we did. This proves we'd achieve $BAR" is a fundamentally flawed argument, regardless of what values you assign to FOO and BAR.
Except in cases where FOO and BAR are essentially the same thing, but BAR is a bit further on the scale of size and complexity than FOO,
It's debatable whether "Win at Go" and "Win at Starcraft" are the same thing separated only by complexity, but let's be generous and assume that it is. We went from needing 30 x 120MHz CPUs to win at Chess (Deep Blue), to 1202 CPUs and 176 GPUs to win at Go (Alphago).
IOW, we used almost 1000x more resources to win at Go than at Chess.
For humans, at least, Go is roughly 2.5 times more complex than Chess . To address the 2.5 extra complexity going from Chess to Go, we used 1000x extra resources.
Starcraft, for humans at any rate, is a lot more than 2.5 times more complex than Go.
You're assuming that the required computational power/problem-solving scales log(x), like in this chart: as we get closer to the maximum computational power of the universe we'll solve more and more problems.
I'm more inclined to believe that the computational power/problem-solving chart looks like this (the right half only, obviously). IOW, the easy problems scale well, the hard problems are impossible.
You don't seem to be aware that you're making a faith-based argument.
"They said we'd never achieve $FOO, and then we did. This proves we'd achieve $BAR" is a fundamentally flawed argument, regardless of what values you assign to FOO and BAR.
"They" said we'd never beat chess, "they" said we'd never beat Go, but "they" also said we'd never achieve time-travel into the past.
Oh, one more thing - no one said "we'd never beat Go": throughout the 90's I only ever heard "we'd never beat Go with current computers". They were right, too.
There is no magic in "emergent behavior", and you do not "accidentally" get e.g. intelligent self-replicating robots by "stitching together" some 3D printers, motors and chips.
We accidentally got intelligent self-replicating robots by stitching together some cells.
I have released a book a month back (UTOPAI) which looks at the social and economic effects of a benevolent AI. What I found was that the current economic system would become obsolete once AI goes mainstream. Even the social structure undergoes a radical change as a result.
You misspelled "speculated". What you speculated was that the current economic system would become obsolete once AI goes mainstream (of course, no danger of that, not in my lifetime anyway).
FecesBook - people posting their random crap that no one gives a shit about
FazeBook - yet-another-social-media-site
FarceBook - more bullshit news then real news
FailBook - more failed virtual relations then real ones
FuckBook - your privacy is fucked over for profit
. Men NEVER face a similar problem, so their stress level is invariably MUCH LESS from the job
Reality very much contradicts this assertion. If it were at all true then men wouldn't kill themselves four times more than women do.
Same way you sell anything else, you negotiate how much you want from the buyer and in exchange the buyer gets the rights to what you sell. So, for potential legal claims, they give you money and you give them the right to subrogate an unliquidated debt. They can then collect the money owed just as if they bought any other debt from you.
Nope. That's for "legal claims". Not "potential legal claims".
Slashdot Mirror
I also think trying to measure a person with a single number like IQ is both deeply flawed and undesirable from a social point of view because we all benefit from everyone having opportunities to reach their potential.
No one was arguing that opportunities must be limited, only that IQ is an accurate enough indicator of intelligence to be useful most of the time. Intelligent people score higher on IQ tests, outliers notwithstanding.
Regardless, if your aversion to intelligence is because it is socially undesirable, what do you propose? That we get rid of intelligent people? That we find a different test so that stupid people can score high too? After all, no one is proposing to use IQ scores as a restriction to opportunities, so I'm left wondering why you brought up the whole question of "worth".
Some people are worth more than others. Their IQ has nothing to do with it, and in most cases we assign worth without looking at the IQ score.
Some people just want to believe that there is a scientific, objective way to measure a person's worth.
Actually, after having it thought it over, I am genuinely curious - do you believe everyone has the same worth or that some people are worth more than others?
You're supposed to correlate what is true, not correlate things that are not true. When you detected that IQ isn't the word with disputed meaning, then instead of jumping straight to "yer rong" you should have instead realized your mistake and understood that we weren't even arguing over the definition of IQ. Figure out the context of your argument. Then you might even be able to comprehend what I said.
As for now I'm just going to mark you down as "failed." I don't really care what the numerical representation of your failure would be, either. Or the underlying causes.
Regardless of your incoherent ramblings, for most people, in most contexts IQ is correlated with higher intelligence. Also, please look up what "correlate" means. I don't get to correlate what is true and what is not true, the fact is that intelligence as understood by the clear majority of the population, including scientists, mental health professionals and lay people is very strongly correlated with IQ.
Please, FCOL, look up what the word "correlate" means. You look like an ass when you say such blunders like "correlate things that are true' as then it is clear that you do not know the meaning of the word.
You're wrong in that you have a well-formed belief about something known to be an unresolved issue.
IQ and the definition thereof is not an "unresolved" issue - not only is IQ well-understood lay people also have no trouble understanding it. For *you* it might be unresolved - the rest of the world understands it just fine.
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
Up until they banned sword duels being good with a sword was strongly correlated with financial and political success.
Even if true, that doesn't mean that IQ is incorrectly correlated with success. Like I keep saying, for most people in most contexts, IQ is a mostly correct measure of what most people consider to be intelligences.
It is really not a very way to start off if you're trying to prove even that is a test of general problem-solving. It clearly tests things, but there is no reason to assume that it is testing something generalized.
I'm not trying to prove anything - IQ is a test of problem-solving ability, and it is mostly correct. Most high-IQ people would be considered intelligent (even if their IQ were not known) while most low IQ people would be considered less intelligent (even if their IQ were not known).
Humans put each other into "stupid" and "smart" categories all the time; IQ is a relatively good indicator of intelligence in general. It's like BMI, where you have it accurate for most of the population but with a few outliers where the measurement is not accurate.
IQ is mostly accurate.
We agree. They should remove the I from IQ.
I said 'many people don't consider problem-solving to be a sign of intelligence'. I did not say 'most'. The overwhelming majority do, and llike BMI, for most people, in most contexts, it's mostly accurate for what most people consider to be intelligence.
You keep saying IQ is correlated with various things... But not intelligence.
That's what I started with - "IQ is strongly correlated with success".
IQ tests don't measure "intelligence" because that word, for many people, depends on context. IQ tests measure problem solving ability. This is probably why it correlates so strongly to success: a strong ability to solve problems probably results in a large measure of success anyway.
IQ tests are like BMI - mostly accurate, for most of the population, in the ways that actually matter. If I were to bet on a random high-IQ person successfully performing an unfamiliar task while you bet on the low-IQ person successfully performing an unfamiliar task, after a few iterations you'd lose your money and I would not.
IQ is a great indicator of a person's problem-solving abilities. Many people do not consider problem-solving ability to be 'intelligence'.
Sure, but success is not the same thing as intelligence. And success is strongly correlated with wealth and access to good schooling (although there are plenty of exceptions), which suggests that IQ is not measuring some kind of innate ability or mental processing limit.
Your lack of a background in science is showing again. Success is strongly correlated with wealth, and also strongly correlated with IQ. IOW, look up what "controlled study" means. For IQ, especially, it's easy to control for socioeconomic effects, hence the "IQ is strongly correlated with success" assertion.
Some people just want to believe that there is a scientific, objective way to measure a person's worth. They usually think they are near the top of the ranking, especially if they also cling to the idea of racial intelligence.
IQ is very strongly correlated with success. Multiple replicated studies have added support for that.
These Nigerians are barely computer literate and barely literate at all. They will struggle to pass a Turing test themselves. I think that even Eliza level chatbots will fool them. The idea is that they will have to manually sift through thousands of emails per day to find the real mark, and I think that this idea will work.
When developing and testing complex new systems, you try to keep your unknowns and external variables to a minimum (i.e. bad weather, terrible roads and traffic). Once you've established your algorithms work in the simpler cases, you move on to tougher and tougher situations. This is normal, logical development progression. I'm not sure why you'd think it's somehow indicative that cars will *never* be able to handle anything but good weather and traffic.
I'm not sure why you think that the edge cases are solvable without a general AI (which doesn't yet exist).
In any case, this is good news: I'm tired of correcting people who say "SDCs already have a better driving record than humans" when they mean "SDCs with a human to correct them in the driver's seat driving only under perfect conditions have a better driving record than humans under all conditions".
I've been waiting for SDCs that need no human correction. This looks like it might be it.
Hello Apple, welcome to 2014
- a BlackBerry Passport user
If we need 1000x more computational power for something a human finds 2.5x more complex, do you really think that we will only need 12x more computational power for something that humans find 12x more complex?
I was talking about the number of neurons in the human brain taking part in the game decision process. I think it's reasonable to assume that the scaling in the brain corresponds with the scaling in nodes in artificial neural nets. Perceptive complexity isn't a very good measure, I think. People find common tasks, like walking, simpler than playing StarCraft, but that could be because their brains are optimized for the first task, and not for the second. I think someone playing StarCraft uses a bigger part of their brain than someone playing Go, because there's more overlap between StarCraft and daily life, so more neurons can be recruited to join in the effort. But I highly doubt the difference is more than a factor 100.
Besides, as you say Deep Blue did not use NN, and the method Deep Blue used will likely not work well for AG anyway, resulting in the 2.5x complexity increase needing 1000x more computational power.
Because Deep Blue didn't use NN, I don't think it's useful to discuss the relative complexity increase.
What makes you think a 12x (or whatever) complexity is a tractable problem?
Because DeepMind already had a 12x bigger version running before.
All the evidence I've seen points to AI scaling being O(N^m) with N being the complexity.
I doubt it. Our neocortex is only twice as big as the chimpanzee's, and our total brain is only 3x the size, but we are capable of tasks that orders of magnitude more complex.
Yeah, but human and chimp brains aren't AI, and don't work the same way that NNs do. NNs scale linearly, for example, but biological brains do not. NN are not digital representations of biological brains. If they were by now we'd have machines with the sentience sentience at least a cockroach, but we do not.
We went from needing 30 x 120MHz CPUs to win at Chess (Deep Blue), to 1202 CPUs and 176 GPUs to win at Go (Alphago).
AlphaGo Zero only uses 4 TPUs,
Which is much more powerful for the task than the 176 GPUs I stated above.
and is much stronger than the 176 GPU version. It is also much stronger than the 48 TPU version that beat Lee Sedol, while only using a fraction of the space and power.
It is much more computational power. There is a reason I kept saying "resources" and "computational power" instead of "electricity". You've sort of agreed that we've used multiple magnitudes of computing power to make the AI win.
If the goal is only to narrowly beat the human world champ, maybe 1 or 2 TPUs would suffice.
IOW, we used almost 1000x more resources to win at Go than at Chess.
AlphaGo Zero uses less power
I suggest you reread what I wrote in my original post. I never claimed that Alphago uses less electricity, but you imply that I made the electricity argument. I didn't.
I did claim "1000x more computational power".
than Deep Blue did, and plays at a much higher level (comparing with best human players).
But the biggest problem with your analysis is that Chess is solved in a completely different way. Deep Blue didn't use neural nets, but relatively simple human-generated heuristics combined with deep brute force search. There have been some experiments with NN based chess programs, but so far, the results have not led to top-class performance. It is conceivable that a NN based chess program would require more resources than a Go program.
I agree that StarCraft would most likely require more processing units than Go, but at this point, that's all we can say.
How many more brain cells does a human StarCraft player use compared to a human Go player ? If it's a factor 12, then the AlphaGo Lee version, running on 48 TPUs may be able to do the job, given the proper algorithms.
If we need 1000x more computational power for something a human finds 2.5x more complex, do you really think that we will only need 12x more computational power for something that humans find 12x more complex? My argument is that AI accomplishments are not scaling linearly, and they are fast hitting the wall with brute-force and NN.
Besides, as you say Deep Blue did not use NN, and the method Deep Blue used will likely not work well for AG anyway, resulting in the 2.5x complexity increase needing 1000x more computational power. What makes you think a 12x (or whatever) complexity is a tractable problem? All the evidence I've seen points to AI scaling being O(N^m) with N being the complexity.
"They said we'd never achieve $FOO, and then we did. This proves we'd achieve $BAR" is a fundamentally flawed argument, regardless of what values you assign to FOO and BAR.
Except in cases where FOO and BAR are essentially the same thing, but BAR is a bit further on the scale of size and complexity than FOO,
It's debatable whether "Win at Go" and "Win at Starcraft" are the same thing separated only by complexity, but let's be generous and assume that it is. We went from needing 30 x 120MHz CPUs to win at Chess (Deep Blue), to 1202 CPUs and 176 GPUs to win at Go (Alphago).
IOW, we used almost 1000x more resources to win at Go than at Chess.
For humans, at least, Go is roughly 2.5 times more complex than Chess . To address the 2.5 extra complexity going from Chess to Go, we used 1000x extra resources.
Starcraft, for humans at any rate, is a lot more than 2.5 times more complex than Go.
You're assuming that the required computational power/problem-solving scales log(x), like in this chart: as we get closer to the maximum computational power of the universe we'll solve more and more problems.
I'm more inclined to believe that the computational power/problem-solving chart looks like this (the right half only, obviously). IOW, the easy problems scale well, the hard problems are impossible.
You don't seem to be aware that you're making a faith-based argument.
"They said we'd never achieve $FOO, and then we did. This proves we'd achieve $BAR" is a fundamentally flawed argument, regardless of what values you assign to FOO and BAR.
"They" said we'd never beat chess, "they" said we'd never beat Go, but "they" also said we'd never achieve time-travel into the past.
Oh, one more thing - no one said "we'd never beat Go": throughout the 90's I only ever heard "we'd never beat Go with current computers". They were right, too.
There is no magic in "emergent behavior", and you do not "accidentally" get e.g. intelligent self-replicating robots by "stitching together" some 3D printers, motors and chips.
We accidentally got intelligent self-replicating robots by stitching together some cells.
I have released a book a month back (UTOPAI) which looks at the social and economic effects of a benevolent AI. What I found was that the current economic system would become obsolete once AI goes mainstream. Even the social structure undergoes a radical change as a result.
You misspelled "speculated". What you speculated was that the current economic system would become obsolete once AI goes mainstream (of course, no danger of that, not in my lifetime anyway).
When you're calling for actual fucking action against a group of people based on the skin colour, you're nowhere near "not-evil".
Your fake concern is noted.
You think concerns about objectively racist action is fake?
FecesBook - people posting their random crap that no one gives a shit about
FazeBook - yet-another-social-media-site
FarceBook - more bullshit news then real news
FailBook - more failed virtual relations then real ones
FuckBook - your privacy is fucked over for profit
Bookbook - social networking site for chickens
If you run a shop without continuous integration/deployment, full testing automation, A/B deployment, constant feedback loops,
Then you're not doing web development. Seriously, 'Software development" is not a different way of saying "Doing web-dev".
In my experience, QA may get paid less, but they work harder than the developers.
In my experience, Bricklayers may get paid less, but they work harder than the QA.
IOW, you don't have a point. We don't pay people more for working harder. We pay them for the value they bring.
The more high-quality devs you have, the lower the value of the QA as there's fewer issues to be found and reported.
A place with shitty copy-paste devs needs better QA to stop unsuitable product from leaving the company, so the QA there is more valuable.
. Men NEVER face a similar problem, so their stress level is invariably MUCH LESS from the job Reality very much contradicts this assertion. If it were at all true then men wouldn't kill themselves four times more than women do.
Gawker exhibited the worst of ethics free reporting and had the audacity to call it journalism.
Call me evil, but I don't think outing billionaires or celebrity affairs is anywhere near the "worst" reporting.
How about ignoring a direct court order?
Or calling for action against a specific race group?
When you're calling for actual fucking action against a group of people based on the skin colour, you're nowhere near "not-evil".
Gawker media on men and women:
https://imgur.com/gallery/CQ5qgvu
Same way you sell anything else, you negotiate how much you want from the buyer and in exchange the buyer gets the rights to what you sell. So, for potential legal claims, they give you money and you give them the right to subrogate an unliquidated debt. They can then collect the money owed just as if they bought any other debt from you.
Nope. That's for "legal claims". Not "potential legal claims".