dnnehgf

it's interesting to watch a bunch of iq-worshipping rationalists learn in real time that above some threshold greater intelligence does not matter much to people, except insofar as it allows them to spend less time doing the thing they hate: working, that is, any activity where the whole point is to be done with it. most of life is not like that. work is like that. so work is where greater [1] intelligence could in principle be valuable.

[1] to use this "greater" we have to imagine we live in the fantasy world where we can measure it in one dimension.

good list.

if you were to send me an article containing a new one of these each day, with citations, i would pay you $1 per day.

but if you were to send me an article containing a new one of these each day, with citations, plus a bunch of econ theory rationalizing it, i would pay you $0.

ai marketing slop, running the old financial playbook of burying a simple, undecidable thesis beneath so many layers of inflated numbers and opaque jargon that you cannot understand their plan without first getting the vague impression that they know countless small things that you do not know about something very big that everyone knows. but they don't. they don't know sht.

that's a large number

lfg lads. throw that weight

figures 10 and 11 in the paper are interesting.

i suppose at a high level this works because it is much easier for the evaluator to generate tests with fuzzing than it is for the model to probe.

this method somehow clarifies the way in which code generation is curve fitting, where the output curve is some linear transformation of the inputs.

kind of satisfying that when all is said and done, and we have a machine that can fit curve descriptions as well as or better than humans, we won't be any closer to explaining how anything really works.

satoshi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=show...

adam back: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101601;sa...

page through each of those profiles and search for the following strings:

")." "(i" "(e" "nor"

you find:

1. adam back is constantly writing full sentences in parentheses with a period standing outside the end parenthesis. so, for example: "To review it will be clearer if you state your assumptions, and claimed benefits, and why you think those benefits hold. (Bear in mind if input assumptions are theoretical and known to not hold in practice, while that can be fine for theoretical results, it will be difficult to use the resulting conclusions in a real system)."

that is non-standard, and satoshi never does it. when he (very rarely) uses parentheses for full sentences he either (a) (in a few cases) does not use a period at all (which is also non-standard), or (b) (in a single case) he puts it on the inside of the parentheses. back can barely get through a single long post without a full-sentence parenthesis. satoshi very rarely uses a full-sentence parenthesis.

2. back uses "(ie" and "(eg" very often. satoshi never uses these.

3. satoshi never uses "nor." back uses it very often.