ItsMattyG

FWIW, my rationalist friends were warning about Covid before I had heard about it from others, and talking about AI before it was on others radar.

But if you have an AI then all that's needed to implement an api is documentation

For now

Francois'(the creator of ARC-AGI benchmark) whole point was that while they look the same, they're not. Coding is solving a familiar pattern in the same way (and fails when it' s NOT doing that, it just looks like it doesn't happen because it's seen SO MANY patterns in code). But the point of Arc AGI is to make each problem have to generalize in some new ay.

Because it empirically doesn't lead to as good hires as asking about past experiences.

ChatGPT does this. You just click an arrow and it will show you other branches.

Interesting, for me this is only true as long as the AI generated content is worse.

There's some things I really care about the human experience for, but much content it just matters to me if it's a joy to ride.

Eventually models will likely get their creativity by:

1. Interacting with the randomness of the world

and

2. Thinking a lot, going in loops and thought loops and seeing what they discover.

I don't expect them to need humans forever.

This is literally what the whole article was about. Not only does the quote itself contain that context "and the lego group", but the very next paragraph is "And then… nothing. The Tintin votes dried up, and Lego rejected both his fan-favorite Avatar and Polar Express ideas. The company never says why it rejects an Ideas submission, only that deciding factors include everything from “playability” and “brand fit” to the difficulties in licensing another company’s IP."

oh hmm, the penguin/giraffe one when I first saw it I was like "that looks like an upside down penguin, where's the giraffe?" Whereas others I immediately saw what it was trying to be.

My understanding is that they trained a separate model to specifically estimate when they have enough context to begin translating, as a skilled translator would.

Right, but techniques like chain of thought reasoning can build concepts on concepts. Even if "the thing that generated the text" isn't creating new concepts, the text itself can be, because the AI has learned general patterns like reasoning and building upon previous conclusions.

I also like to surprise my friends, family, and aardvarks with the occasional lamp post.

Not so. He shows an example of the 10 he chose from, basically all were good.

Let's just keep moving those goal posts.

I didn't consider Mother of Learning to have logical, well-structured magic. Curious what gave you that feeling

It's not on the NYT to help him, he's already managing fine on his own, it's on the NYT to not try to punish him by breaking the anonymity that's allowed him to both continue his job and practice his free speech without affecting that.

The original comment was assuming his partner more often did the laundry, which could explain the difference...

It's especially egregious here in a hit piece that deliberately makes the things he said horrible.

But even if it was an accurate representation, the media has to ask "is it our job as a powerful outlet to literally punish this much less powerful person because they have opinions we disagree with".

If it wasn't "opinions we disagree with" but like "has killed 3 people" sure appoint yourself judge, jury, and executioner. But in other cases yes it makes you an asshole to think that you should enforce your will by punishing someone who disagrees with you.

. I just don't understand why his preferences bind on anyone else.

I mean, they don't bind like a physical law or something. Ignoring people's requests for anonymity and getting them harassed or fired is certainly physically possible, it just makes you an asshole and there are ethical considerations about the effect on speech and discourse.

It's sort of similar to not wearing a mask out, it's certainly not illegal or impossible to go out without a mask and cough on people who would prefer you didn't, but it still makes you an asshole and there are ethical considerations about you putting others' lives at risk.

his is ad absurdum at its finest. Proving whether an idea is correct using statistical analysis makes sense for many empirical matters. But proving whether proponents of extreme views (e.g. in the article, the idea that women are biologically not as capable as men to work as programmers) by using statistical analysis is a moral failure driven by scientificism. (I'm going to decline rehearsing the debates about whether women are biologically or culturally inhibited from programming.)

I can almost guarantee this is Cade misrepresenting what Kelsey Piper said.

allows people to decide for themselves what the intentions of Scott Siskind may be.

Except that he clearly throughout misrepresents or misunderstands things like above. I can only assume it seems accurate because you haven't looked into the relevant quotes or peope.

This is exactly the sort of thing you manage to convince yourself of when you don't want to be a part of the people calling themselves the good guys, but also don't want to throw in with the sorts of people comfortable with being called the bad guys. Everybody in the Blue Tribe is going to precisely see the toxic nature of this statement.

This is Cade Metz deliberately stating positions in an inflammatory way and getting you to fall for it. Reading the article you see the careful position of trying to tease out correlation from causation.

You're not the target market. The target market is people who don't want to give up meat.

Although previous studies have basically been "listen to music with a tripsitter" and have had little ill effects.

Ok so why are there not upside down tracks in formula 1 this just seems like the obvious next step.

It may be that this is true of people who use google but less true of people who use Bing.

CBT is not something you can start doing by yourself without an external catalyst.

Sure it is. Self-therapy is useful, getting a therapist is useful.

Why is everyone shitting on other people's vibe?

Underrated comment.

I was expecting to find it there, but older people who I've walked through these interfaces would expect it to be under something like "settings" or "switch account" rather than "this account".

Also, it's really a stretch to say that an action related to account x is "switch to account y."

I mean, are you advocating for the policy that people shouldn't be allowed to say this?

Would you have also advocated that people shouldn't say "mold cures disease"? How would we have then come to a consensus that in fact this mold does cure bacterial infections if we couldn't discuss it because it was considered "too dangerous to ever discuss"?