ekelsen

Reminds me of this classic line from the 1973 movie The Sting:

"What was I supposed to do? Call him for cheating better than me in front of the others?!"

Said in response to being out-cheated at a high-stakes poker game.

Except in this case, it sounds like that's exactly the path they have chosen.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/7612c4ce-1077-479f-a7bf-617dbc6...

Truly curious - why did you choose to work at a content farm?

I get a 404 not found?

See the discussion on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48837460

You can absolutely still tell.

I used a placeholder for X ELO, but my point was the community should pick one value that makes sense and then not change it.

Yeah, I don't understand why the metric isn't "complete chess engine that achieves X ELO" in yyy bytes or something.

Instead it seems to have been "minimal thing that kinda looks like chess in yyy bytes"

I think you're relying far too much on an econ 101 idea to analyze a situation that's far more complicated.

At least for me, even income taxes as high as 53% have not discouraged me from trying to make more money. They have made me consider moving.

At some level, certainly at 90%+, the most rational thing to do to make more money is to spend time lowering your tax bill, which is not a particularly beneficial way (to society) of making more money.

But I can't image anyone at an income tax level of say 10% is being actively discouraged from making more money? Like you need it to survive, so choosing to make _no_ money because of taxes seems like a very bad strategy.

The test of "if it disappeared today, we'd all be fine", would eliminate most of the economy.

Data centers have negative externalities which is why people don't think anyone should just be able to buy land and turn it into one.

Once of those negative externalities is water usage. The parent was commenting on the also high water usage of golf courses.

Perhaps that's the connection you've missed.

If the clubhouse is your idea of the valuable public good we can provide without 18 holes of grass.

Golf courses don't do that either...

How is this different from farming?

It takes the limited resources of land and water from a community and sells the result for profit as food or fuel. The vast majority of profit is made downstream and outside the community.

Golf courses being a traditional green place where people gather seems a bit far fetched to me when most of them are elite private clubs.

All of her books seem to be children's books and many of the 13 are illustrator credits.

I found this blog from late 2021: https://medium.com/grimhistorian/coffee-the-sexiest-drink-in...

I can only see the beginning of it, but to me the style is obviously different from the thread's linked article.

I would believe she wrote it in this style if you can point to any of her writing pre 2022 that is similar in style.

Does that exist? Genuinely curious.

It matters because I don't like the style. I wouldn't like it if a human wrote it. I don't like the style so much that I won't read things written with it.

So maybe she had something interesting to say, but it was not communicated to me because I bounced.

Seems like yours is?

FWIW, on your own blog, the most recent post also reads as at least AI helped "Navigator Theory". This sentence in particular sticks out: "They affect what the person notices, what they dismiss, what they measure, what they trust, and what they do when reality pushes back."

The one earlier post I read does not ("toxicity of ideas").

And fwiw, online detectors seems to agree with my own judgement here.

It's clearly written by AI. I find it interesting that some people recognize it immediately and others do not. I don't know what to make of it.

The actual experiment is basically training a relatively large RNN (1000 units) to do a very simple copy-esque task. The weight values are constrained to be either positive or negative at the beginning of training. The RNN could probably be way smaller and still be made to solve this task.

It isn't even a spiking model.

It seems really hard to go from this experiment to "we've learned anything useful about how brains actually work."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.17.562828v2....

I don't think the argument is necessarily against the use of the tools entirely. My interpretation is that it's against delegating to them all understanding.

Humans can only usefully steer LLMs if they have some understanding or context the LLMs do not.

Jeff Dean has a paper in 2007 that has proto scaling law plots for ngram language models.

https://aclanthology.org/anthology-files/anthology-files/pdf...

That's not how it works in most other countries and it seems fine?

Might matter a lot to sandy. I think it says a lot that decades later one of the things he remembers is someone he (or the larger company) hurt.

Ah, tyranny of the majority, the best form of government.

I've done it multiple times. Everytime I wanted to do it, it was possible.

If you offer to sign a 5 year lease at current prices, then yeah, can see why they might not go for that.

You could sign a longer lease and get the stability you desire. Negotiate a five year lease and stability is yours.

Except it's not free. It's free to you but not others.

I don't think the first position is steel manned by assuming those holding it actually believe there are no potential problems or ways to use the technology badly.

But that belief does not imply the doom rhetoric is necessary or the best way to approach those issues.

Because it makes them feel important because they are developing something so dangerous everyone else ought to listen to what they say.

It's about ego, not profits.

If only we could all get free protection from economic forces we don't control.

That kind of insurance is usually pretty expensive. Why should you get it for free?