kanzure

There's no reason that ultrasound imaging equipment needs to be expensive. Overall the parts are pretty cheap. I think everyone should have one next to their toothbrush. Whole body ultrasound scans would also be useful, although harder to place inside everyone's homes.

your body forms and kills tumors all the time. The false positive rate is ridiculous.

Um, that's still a tumor.

I haven't found that to be an issue. Just say what revisions you want. Once you're done, paste it into an LLM to clean it up into a usable prompt.

It's a lot easier to write long messages on a phone with something like Whisper.

I've always been worried about their backend changing and somehow named tags with a previous commit hash working for an attacker to give something you didn't expect for the commit hash.

I like the idea of donating money instead of tokens. I think django contributors are likely to know how to spend those tokens better than I might, as I am not a django core contributor.

Some projects ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46730504 ) are setting a norm to disclose AI usage. Another project simply decided to pause contributions from external parties ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642012 ). Instead of accepting driveby pull requests, contributors have to show a proof of work by working with one of the other collaborators.

Another project has started to decline to let users directly open issues ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46460319 ).

There's definitely an aspect here where the commons or good will effort of collaborators is being infringed upon by external parties who are unintentionally attacking their time and attention with low quality submissions that are now cheaper than ever to generate. It may be necessary to move to a more private community model of collaboration ( https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CABaSBax-meEsC2013zKYJnC3ph... ).

edit: Also I applaud the debian project for their recent decision to defer and think harder about the nature of this problem. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47324087

It would be nice if more businesses embraced email instead of requiring phone calls for basic tasks. Imagine how much more productive we could be if we could just send off a quick email with the information and questions.

Instead, what we're likely going to get are "voice agents" calling each other when we could have just used email instead...

Anyone can generate an alternative chain of sha256 hashes. perhaps you should consider timestamping, e.g. https://opentimestamps.org/ As for what the regulation says, I haven't looked but perhaps it doesn't require the system to be actually tamper-proof.

Having multiple different distribution channels can solve that problem. Advertisers cannot monopolize all distribution channels simultaneously because of the costs involved (it would be like someone trying to buy the whole economy).

Another option instead of using identity is to use proof of work or hashcash such that anyone who thinks a comment is valuable can use some hash rate to upvote it. It doesn't matter how the content was generated, only that someone thought it was important, and you can independently verify this by checking how much hash effort went into hashing for that comment. This also does not require any identity either.

Another project simply paused external contributions entirely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642012

Another idea is to simply promote the donation of AI credits instead of output tokens. It would be better to donate credits, not outputs, because people already working on the project would be better at prompting and steering AI outputs.

That's interesting; another project stopped letting users directly open issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46460319

Wait, is abliteration actually just a branding trick? That doesn't sound correct.

I proposed something similar for bitcoin: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CABaSBax-meEsC2013zKYJnC3ph...

Oh it's much older than 8 years... here is one such proposal from 2011: https://groups.google.com/g/enzymaticsynthesis/c/6GZT8zFNOfo...

I myself was bitten by a radioactive grad student in 2008 that was obsessed with this idea at the time, and have since learned that almost every major household name lab PI has thought about this in one form or another.

To me this sounds like a computer-generated voice for obvious pro-privacy reasons for this kind of project. If it bothers you, then maybe work on better voice synthesis tech! I assume it sounds not-leading-generation because it was locally rendered but I could be wrong.

You can also switch between models with aider https://aider.chat/

Why stop at software? Open-source software is a good idea in election systems. The principle could be better generalized as an "open" (copyleft licensed) process for the entire system, regardless of whether the election system is implemented as software or not.

Anyone who talks about election security should be required to spend at least a few moments walking around Defcon in the election machine hacking village. Even absent electronic voting machines we still need to apply that same level of rigor to security across all domains of the election system no matter what format is used.

More fundamentally, the epistemic meaning of a ballot, a vote, or an option on the ballot, how options are even decided for inclusion or their exclusion, which outcome deciding algorithms are used, and how "the result" is interpreted by society or implemented by a political agent is deeply confused. The vote itself has very little resemblance to what actually happens. Such things likely cannot be formally specified anyway. Massive amounts of ambiguity, noise, error rate, and insecurity are to be expected in these kinds of systems. So what then are we even doing with all this? I am not referring to what we say we are achieving, or what we say we are intending to achieve, but rather what kind of actual outcomes be can supported by careful engineering of all these components?

Blockchain is no solution here. See:

"Going from bad to worse: from Internet voting to blockchain voting" https://www.dci.mit.edu/s/VotingPaper-RivestNarulaSunoo-3.pd...

Here are some other anti-lesswrong materials to consider:

https://aiascendant.com/p/extropias-children-chapter-1-the-w...

https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2023/02/06/ineffective-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-03-07/effective...

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23458282/effective-altrui...

https://qchu.substack.com/p/eliezer

https://x.com/kanzure/status/1726251316513841539

Huh, weird. I don't think I have ever wanted to login to Stripe and take manual actions. Usually I hook up Stripe events to actions in my applications, like "The user subscribed, wire them up to the drip lifecycle" or "The user unsubscribed, remove them from a certain marketing list and try to schedule an exit interview" or other hook-ups.

Hi, your docs say that users don't need state syncing, but when using Stripe you do need state syncing or to ingest the Stripe events. I also don't see any information in the docs about handling e.g. chargebacks or other events and listening for (or otherwise syncing against the history of) those events. I'm a little confused - why would I want to not have that? I could be misunderstanding this project though!

possibly something like https://github.com/romansky/dom-to-semantic-markdown could also help for this use case.

How do you know it's not selected because it's the one with the most paid ads? Or reddit fake reviews? Or llm generated seo articles about it?

These questions apply to any review or recommendation, from anyone, not just LLMs. How did anyone find out about the product at all? Did they do rigorous testing before they made a recommendation? Is there shared understanding between the recommender and recommendee about desired level of quality or what the user intents that need to be satisfied are? Are they even speaking the same language? Is their concept of "red" the same as ours?

At some point, you have to make a decision and buy with imperfect information, and treat it as an experiment. If it's not right for you, then return it for a full refund from Amazon. This is unfortunate. It costs money, time, and adds lots of friction to the whole process.

Maybe advertisers or manufacturers should post quality assurance bonds for their products, in addition to money-back guarantees or easy returns. Upon receiving a lemon or dumb product, you would return the item and activate the arbitration/bond clause and possibly get money out of the posted quality assurance bond.

You can also directly pull in the emulation state and map back to game source code, and then make a script for tool use (not shown here): https://github.com/pret/pokemon-reverse-engineering-tools/bl... Well I see on your page that you already saw the pret advice about memory extraction, hopefully the link is useful anyway.

Generally speaking, when it comes to _Brave New World_, the answer is no - people did not read the same book: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/crispr.2019.0046

I would use something like inboxchat.ai, sort of. What I want is to get proposed labels based on my usual labeling activity, and then I want to periodically login and review recommended labels for the activity (unlabeled unread pending email) in my inbox, where I would either speed edit some of the suggestions or accept the recommended labels.

While I have hundreds of auto-label filters already setup, there's always constantly more activity to consider. So having label recommendations could save a lot of time. Or proposed new filters based on common obvious labeling activity already occurring in my inbox.

I don't think I have ever seen a correctly implemented data deletion request system that worked well with the company's backups. If it's backed up, it's likely not getting deleted.

Instead of directly scraping with GPT-4o, what you could do is have GPT-4o write a script for a simple web scraper and then use a prompt-loop when something breaks or goes wrong.

I have the same opinion about a man and his animals crossing a river on a boat. Instead of spending tokens on trying to solve a word problem, have it create a constraint solver and then run that. Same thing.

A few people have pointed out that Sandor at the Zoo was more likely a reference to someone else, of course: ""The Zoo" etc. was a reference to Henry Spencer, who was known on Usenet for his especially clear posts. He posted from utzoo (University of Toronto Zoology.)"

from http://extropians.weidai.com/extropians.3Q97/4356.html

The bobble is a speculative technology that originated in Vernor Vinge's science fiction. It allows spherical volumes to be enclosed in complete stasis for controllable periods of time. It was used in _The Peace War_ as a weapon, and in _Marooned in Realtime_ as a way for humans to tunnel through the Singularity unchanged.

As far as I know, the bobble is physically impossible. However it may be possible to simulate its effects with other technologies. Here I am especially interested in the possibility of tunneling through the Singularity.

Why would anyone want to do that, you ask? Some people may have long term goals that might be disrupted by the Singularity, for example maintaining Danny Hillis's clock or keeping a record of humanity. Others may want to do it if the Singularity is approaching in an unacceptable manner and they are powerless to stop or alter it. For example an anarchist may want to escape a Singularity that is dominated by a single consciousness. A pacifist may want to escape a Singularity that is highly adversarial. Perhaps just the possibility of tunneling through the Singularity can ease people's fears about advanced technology in general.

Singularity tunneling seems to require a technology that can defend its comparatively powerless users against extremely, perhaps even unimaginably, powerful adversaries. The bobble of course is one such technology, but it is not practical. The only realistic technology that I am aware of that is even close to meeting this requirement is cryptography. In particular, given some complexity theoretic assumptions it is possible to achieve exponential security in certain restricted security models. Unfortunately these security models are not suitable for my purpose. While adversaries are allowed to have computational power that is exponential in the amount of computational power of the users, they can only interact with the users in very restricted ways, such as reading or modifying the messages they send to each other. It is unclear how to use cryptography to protect the users themselves instead of just their messages. Perhaps some sort of encrypted computation can hide their thought processes and internal states from passive monitors. But how does one protect against active physical attacks?

The reason I bring up cryptography, however, is to show that it IS possible to defend against adversaries with enormous resources at comparatively little cost, at least in certain situations. The Singularity tunneling problem should not be dismissed out of hand as being unsolvable, but rather deserves to be studied seriously. There is a very realistic chance that the Singularity may turn out to be undesirable to many of us. Perhaps it will be unstable and destroy all closely-coupled intelligence. Or maybe the only entity that emerges from it will have the "personality" of the Blight. It is important to be able to try again if the first Singularity turns out badly.

and: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jgz/aalwa_ask_any_lesswronger_anythi...

"I do have some early role models. I recall wanting to be a real-life version of the fictional "Sandor Arbitration Intelligence at the Zoo" (from Vernor Vinge's novel A Fire Upon the Deep) who in the story is known for consistently writing the clearest and most insightful posts on the Net. And then there was Hal Finney who probably came closest to an actual real-life version of Sandor at the Zoo, and Tim May who besides inspiring me with his vision of cryptoanarchy was also a role model for doing early retirement from the tech industry and working on his own interests/causes."