Posts
Comments
Assuming I've understood your toy model correctly, if you add that due the solar competition during the day, the nuclear plant only sells half of what it used to during the day, it'd need to raise the night price to 195% to keep revenue fixed, and now the average price is up.
To answer what might be a natural question, yes, L-glucose does taste sweet: link.
I think this would be missing the point. If it were "smart" like you describe, I definitely wouldn't buy it, and I wouldn't use it even if got it for free: I'd just get an app on my phone. What I want from such an object is infallibility, and the dumber it is, the closer it's likely to get to that ideal.
Are you describing a stopwatch?
If you can get it to run off of ambient light with some built-in solar panels (like a calculator), yes, I would buy such a thing for ~$20.
Yes, they do. People also amuse themselves from beyond the grave by arranging for their deaths to look like murders before killing themselves. Or are so overcome by remorse at fabricating lies about their beloved friends to the feds that they encase their feet in concrete and throw themselves into nearby lakes without thinking about how it'd look. Or forget their secret passwords to authenticate their suicide notes and decide it's too much trouble to retrieve it.
So sure, I agree there are reasons why a death that strongly looks like murder might still be suicide. But that doesn't address my position that if you can broadcast the message that you have no intention to kill yourself in the clear with perfect authentication, and still not be sufficiently convincing that your imminent death isn't suicide, elaborate schemes with passwords or cryptographic hashes don't do anything.
How is this better than stating explicitly that you're not going to commit suicide?
a good fully uncensored image generator that’s practical to run locally with only reasonable amounts of effort
Depending on what you consider reasonable (or what you consider "censored"), try ComfyUI with models (and LoRAs) of your choice from Civit AI. A word of warning: are you sure you want what you're asking for?
What percent of cows in infected dairy herds were actually sick?
According to AVMA, less than 10%: link. It looks like that's only the symptomatic animals though, so your answer might depend on how you define "actually sick."
How did H5N1 spread from bird to cow if it requires fluids?
Cows occasionally eat birds. That might do it.
What does it need to get airborne?
I'm not sure this is the right question: as I understand it, the flu generally spread on fluids (mainly saliva), and if the droplets are small enough (< 5μm diameter), they get classified as aerosols and called airborne.
See the FAQ.
See also: The case of the 500-mile email
I agree that strongly connotes integer, but I wouldn't expect to see used like that if not as a Lagrange multiplier.
z: The default for complex numbers.
wouldn't it make more sense to use j as the square root of -1
That is the usage in electrical engineering (since i is current) and from there, the syntax in Python.
it's difficult to sort out
Please clarify: do you mean difficult for us reading this due to OpenAI obfuscating the situation for their own purposes, or difficult for them because it's genuinely unclear how to classify this?
One way to "see less of" something you hate is to stop it from being produced, and that may be seen as a better solution than basically averting your eyes from it. Rallying mobs to get whoever produced it fired has proven to be quite effective.
While good to have for reference, I didn't find the enormous tables on Wikipedia helpful. Using the mass of the Earth as an example, I have no intuition for the number : it's just ten apples with twenty-four smaller apples floating next to them (relevant xkcd). And I don't think memorizing these numbers, with spaced repetition or otherwise, is all that helpful for intuition-building.
For astronomical distances, what I have found helpful is to do everything in terms of the speed of light ( m/s = a foot per nanosecond). The sun is 8 minutes = 500 seconds away. The moon is 1.5 seconds away. Jupiter is 45 minutes away, and doubles every step to Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
For the circumference of the Earth, the distance from the pole to the equator is a nice, round, 10,000 km. (Remarkably convenient coincidence!)
For masses, use the density of water: the Sun and all the gas giants are the same density as water. Earth is the density of rock, about that of water. The density of metal is 10 times water.
I suspect the real reason is stopping competitors fine-tuning on o1's CoT, which they also come right out and say:
Therefore, after weighing multiple factors including user experience, competitive advantage, and the option to pursue the chain of thought monitoring
See also: Great Moments in Unintended Consequences playlist.
Quenya resources you might find useful (though you've probably seen most of these):
- The Vinyë Lambengolmor Discord - Extremely helpful community.
- Eldamo - The main dictionary (includes lots of useful neologisms), but it also has an intro to Quenya.
- Quettali - Constructs the declension and conjugation tables for the words in Eldamo's dictionary. (Mirror: ungwe.net)
If you also want to write in the Tengwar, see Tecendil and BSSScribe.
Thinking in Quenya might not be a reasonable goal.
incorrect/misleading/unclear statements
I disagree that his statements are misleading: the impression someone who believed them true would have is far more accurate than someone who believed them false. Is that not more relevant, and a better measure of honesty, than whether or not they're "incorrect"?
One's heart skipping a beat. I thought it was just a poetic way of saying something like "time stood still," but no, it turns out it does do that pretty literally.
Remember: Bear spray does not work like bug spray!
"Medicine" is itself an example of the "noncentral fallacy" you criticize: it includes great things like surgery and trauma medicine, vaccination, treatments based on actual understanding of biology like insulin, and miscellaneous drugs that are claimed to do useful things for mysterious reasons. While there are certainly effective things in that last category, like antibiotics and painkillers, the "epistemics" of the field strike me as pretty shit: if quinine were proposed as a treatment for malaria today, I expect the medical establishment to say things like "that's tree bark juice. You are not a squirrel."
The local flavor of quackery where I grew up was Ayurveda, and my view of the herbal remedies suggested by its practitioners is they're no worse than what they called "allopathy": try the thing, and if it works, it works.
Ah! Might I recommend Tengwar Artano instead? It uses the same glyphs, but includes many modern "smart font" features, such as ligatures, automatic under/overbar widths, and improved diacritic placement. (And perhaps most usefully, and my primary motivation for reëncoding it, it's easy to use it with XeLaTeX.)
Also, you probably want to use the Quenya mode mode for Namárië.
They do the same thing with "child pornography": that's mostly teenagers sexting. And a girl was convicted for it too, charged with distributing child pornography of herself: link.
Or just capitalize the "C".
"Would you destroy a better world to save this one?"
From Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota, that might be an interesting reframing of this wager: you are destroying (the chance of) a better world, more than twice as good as this one, to guarantee the survival of this one.
If you want a non-Twitter attribution link, you could use the collection of his "greatest poasts": Internet Archive. This one's on page 67.
Fisher, The arrangement of field experiments, Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture (1926):
If one in twenty does not seem high enough odds, we may, if we prefer it, draw the line at one in fifty (the 2 per cent. point), or one in a hundred (the 1 per cent. point). Personally, the writer prefers to set a low standard of significance at the 5 per cent. point, and ignore entirely all results which fail to reach this level. A scientific fact should be regarded as experimentally established only if a properly designed experiment rarely fails to give this level of significance.
This is why. Relevant smbc.
Is this a Lisp-to-Python transpiler?
Is this development unexpected enough to worth remarking upon? This is just Conquest's Second Law.
Without looking it up, I'd bet there are plenty of people who get added to this list by mistake, and can't get themselves removed, like the people who got put on the US's no-fly list, or get declared dead.
My tennis coach in high school yelled at me for prefacing line calls with "I think …" and I have taken that lesson to heart. Since then, I try to only say that if I'm extremely unsure about what I'm claiming.
has no moral implications whatsoever
I do in fact believe morality to be entirely orthogonal to "consensus" or what "many other people" want, and since you call this "selfishness," I shall return the favor and call your view, for all that you frame it as "coordination" or "scalable morality," abject bootlicking.
A roaming bandit's "do what I tell you and you get to live" could be thought of a kind of contract, I suppose, but I wouldn't consider myself bound by it if I could get away with breaching it. I consider the stationary bandits' "social contracts" not to be meaningfully different. One clue to how they're similar is how the more powerful party can go, à la Vader, "Here is a New Deal. Pray I don't renew it any further." Unilaterally reneging on such a contract when you are the weaker party would certainly be unwise, for the same reason trying to stand between a lynch mob and its intended victim would be—simple self-preservation—but I condemn the suggestion that it would be immoral.
If everyone does this, we lose civilization.
I see what you call "civilization," and I'm against it. I vaguely recall reading of a medieval Christian belief that if everyone stopped sinning for a day, Christ would return and restore the Kingdom of Heaven. This reminds me of that: would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen.
societal/governmental/democratic authority.
There is a certain type of person who would look at the mountains of skulls that Genghis Khan piled up and before judging it evil, ask whether it was a state acting or a group of individuals.
Fuck that. States/governments, "democratic" or otherwise, have absolutely no privileged moral status, and to hell with any norm that suggests otherwise, and to hell with any "civilization" that promotes such a norm.
What the state can do is wield violence far more effectively than you, so if you want to level a city, say, Beijing or Moscow, yeah, you should get the US military to do it instead of trying to do it yourself. And it can wield violence against you if you defy its will, so it's a bad idea to do so publicly, but for purely pragmatic reasons, not moral ones.
If you could do whole-brain emulation for dolphins, you should be able to generate enough data for unsupervised learning that way.
I don't understand the problem you're trying to solve.
If you just like the aesthetic of cash transactions and want to see more of them, you could just mandate all brick-and-mortar retail stores only accept cash.
If you want to save people the hassle of doing tax paperwork, and offload that to banks, that's also easy: just mandate that banks offer for free the service of filing taxes for all their customers. If you have accounts with multiple banks, they can coördinate.
If you want to stop high-frequency trading, just ban it.
One consideration is the government wouldn't want to encourage (harder-to-tax) cash transactions.
J. D. Vance's (may he live forever) tweets about AI safety and open source (from March 3, 2024), replying to Vinod Khosla's advocacy for more centralized control:
There are undoubtedly risks related to AI. One of the biggest:
A partisan group of crazy people use AI to infect every part of the information economy with left wing bias. Gemini can’t produce accurate history. ChatGPT promotes genocidal concepts.
The solution is open source
and link
If Vinod really believes AI is as dangerous as a nuclear weapon, why does ChatGPT have such an insane political bias? If you wanted to promote bipartisan efforts to regulate for safety, it's entirely counterproductive.
Any moderate or conservative who goes along with this obvious effort to entrench insane left-wing businesses is a useful idiot.
I'm not handing out favors to industrial-scale DEI bullshit because tech people are complaining about safety.
He also said in a Senate Hearing about AI (around 1:28:25 in the video. See transcript):
You know, very often, CEOs, especially of larger technology companies that I think already have advantaged positions in AI, will come and talk about the terrible safety dangers of this new technology and how Congress needs to jump up and regulate as quickly as possible. And I can't help but worry that if we do something under duress from the current incumbents, it's gonna be to the advantage of those incumbents and not to the advantage of the American consumer.
I don't see any reason to structure this agreement as an open-ended compact other states can join instead of a bilateral agreement between just California and Texas as proposed.
(The same reasoning applied to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would have its membership closed as soon as they reach a majority in electoral votes, and then completely disregard the votes of any state that didn't sign on, voting in whoever gets the most votes in member states.)
This is a little like the case of the Haruhi Problem, where a significant advance regarding the number of superpermutations was made by an anonymous poster on 4chan. In that case, the ephemerality of the post was a reasonable concern, and the solution was someone reposted the proof on ArXiv OEIS (with "Anonymous 4chan Poster" as the first author), and then cited that.
Here, you have a fixed url, so you could just follow the established conventions for citing webpages. I don't think you need any special justification for it, nor do you need to treat this as anything other than "merely another online website" (you don't think it's "snobbish or discriminatory" to pretend it's something more because you count yourself among its users?).
Why pretend, and not actually throw a stone? Or is this meant as a feint in case you can't find one lying within reach?
decreased in proportion to how many people bet on the election
No, how many male citizens twenty-one years of age do. Neither the 19th nor the 26th seem to override this.
a police force should constantly operate to perform sting operations and monitor illicit behavior
And this is where your elegant system falls apart. Are the members of this police force also randomly selected? If not, who appoints them? Do they serve for life or fixed terms? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Would it be fair to describe finitism as "a belief in at most one infinity"?
what 2% compounding annual economic growth feels like
On the flip side of this, imagine what a 2% economic contraction, year after year, for two centuries would be like. I can't find the source for this (I don't think it was Bret Devereaux), but This talk suggests that's what the Collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire would have felt like.
Even setting aside any criticism of what a "true democracy" is[1] and whether the US's is better than what China has for Americans, your claim is that it's better for everyone. I don't think there's good reason to believe this; I'd expect that foreign policy is a more relevant thing to compare, and China's is broadly more non-interventionist than America's: if you were far away from the borders of both, you're more likely to experience American bombs[2] than Chinese ones.
- ^
I suspect what you have in mind conveniently includes decidedly anti-democratic protections for minorities.
- ^
In service of noble causes like spreading democracy and human rights, protecting the rules-based international order, and stopping genocide, of course, but that's cold comfort when your family have been blown to bits.
A few of the "distinct meanings" you list are very different from the others, but many of those are pretty similar. "Values" is a pretty broad term, including everything on the "ought" side of the is–ought divide, less "high-minded or noble" preferences, and one's "ranking over possible worlds", and that's fine: it seems like a useful (and coherent!) concept to have a word for. You can be more specific with adjectives if context doesn't adequately clarify what you mean.
Seeing through heaven's eyes or not, I see no meaningful difference between the statements "I would like to sleep with that pretty girl" and "worlds in which I sleep with that pretty girl are better than the ones in which I don't, ceteris paribus." I agree this is the key difference: yes, I conflate these two meanings[1], and like the term "values" because it allows me to avoid awkward constructions like the latter when describing one's motivations.
- ^
I actually don't see two different meanings, but for the sake of argument, let's grant that they exist.
This is a lot like the time they awarded it for the invention of the blue LED, so I don't think "hype" is a good explanation. I agree it's bullshit though: it's not a physics achievement in any meaningful way.
The Chemistry one for AlphaFold seems reasonable to me.
Would you say the same thing of people saying they looked at the Wikipedia article?