nirmel

I have read it. Everyone must read it! It's highly convincing that we see the deadly wall in front of us and we're accelerating toward it.

Must have missed your point. My mistaken interpretation was that you were dismissing the claims because you dislike the person making the claim.

Maybe you should at least care what the deceased's parents have to say. It's not gossip. This is real life.

Ah yes, projection. The device of the innocent. All he had to do was say, "I will be the first to call for a thorough independent investigation of what was obviously suspicious circumstances." I'll let you watch the interview to see what he actually said and how he behaved.

Building [any learn] [dot ai]. Ostensibly a course-maker, it's in the genre of quora/wikipedia/udemy but completely AI generated based on any prompt.

Yes, rescue makes no difference. I don’t know that nature rewards anything. But with our power to make moral judgments comes a response to do so. Yes, you could make the same argument for humans. I’m an antinatalist and so should everyone be too.

I would just like to comment that if you love animals, you should hate pets. The amount of animal factory farming (killing of animals often more intelligent than your canine) required to nourish a domesticated animal over the course of their lives is gross in all senses of the word gross.

I would submit my own for consideration: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FRR76YK In it, I write every out-of-the-mainstream thought I've had in the form of written standup bits.

I'll mention that I made what could be described as a AI-generated Wikipedia alternative, where you can generate articles on anything with text links on terms that link to new articles that get generated considering the context of the the article path that got you there. I reckon Wiki-enthusiasts won't be disappointed: https://anylearn.ai

I made this article for you to learn more! https://anylearn.ai/topic/introduction-to-periodical-cicadas...

Of course it matters. Would we let a legal defendant put forth AI generated evidence as an alibi? No. In this case there are serious concerns of a coverup.

I wrote hundreds of essays based on content from my hobby of performing offensive standup comedy. I put this all in a filterable website www.urrong.com and self-published it in an illustrated book, Correct Me If You're Wrong (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FRR76YK), the full PDF is here, free: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ujpr5klpwtmxve/book%20-%20DRAFT.p.... I'm a YC alum. Over.

Good catch. Will modify the prompts to make it produce the desired content.

I made https://anylearn.ai, an education app built on OpenAI. if you click the settings icon, then the teach tab, it will generate a teaching guide on any topic. Try it!

I'm building an AI learning app, and I asked it your question. Here's how it proposes teaching you hacking. https://anylearn.ai/course/VTJGc2RHVmtYMTg2YSsxUCtOaFV1bUxaU...

Am I the only one who thinks the US didn't actually achieve this achievement, which indeed would have been "insane" if they had? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxW__ZtZApo Of course they faked it. It's too damn hard, and they weren't about to risk the lives of astronauts.

Pretty cool. I feel like it asks too many questions, making it take too long for it to provide value. However, it did give me some ideas on where my career could go! I think this is an interesting meta-idea: to create variations of ChatGPT that guide a user through a particular thought process. And honestly, it probably would be more effective than real career/life/fitness/etc. coaches.

This is also not true. Their uncapped MFN note assumes the terms of the lowest-capped safe (or other investment) after their investment. So if founder accepts $3.75m capped safe soon after YC’s investment, then later raises an equity round at $10m valuation, YC gets 10% more, not 3.75% more at that time. There may be dilution from the equity round but that’s a different matter.

They don't provide feedback if you don't get an interview. If you do get an interview and are rejected, usually, they provide feedback.

Here's a bit I wrote about drinking games.

I enjoy drinking but I hate drinking games. I mean, talk about a way to disguise your drinking problem as laughing matter, as a veritable vocation of which to be proud. If you enjoy drinking games, that’s fine in the same way that it’s fine to have a drinking problem.

As I observe it, flip cup competitors are not so much vying for victory as they are crying for help. You have to hear the irony as they encourage their fellow addicts to, and I quote, “chug, chug, chug, yeahhhh!” All I hear is, “help, help, help uuussssss!”

So let’s reach out to this community with the love and support they need. In fact, let's advertise a support line for this troubled community with posters that read:

Do You Enjoy Beer Pong,

Quarters, And the Like?

Call Anonymously: 1-800-PONG-NOMO.

I wrote a book of comedy/philosophy-hybrid essays. I will mail you a paperback copy if you ask.

100 million is cumulative, not annual.

Right, often the guarantee of future payments can be treated as collateral to make getting a loan much easier. At a minimum it can be used to show proof of future income.

I've recently been researching the structured settlement (annuity) industry. It seems like as soon as someone has a guaranteed set of future payments, you will get structured settlement brokers reaching out, offering to buy out their future payments for a (often low-ball) lump sum today, and many will take it. Will you permit these kinds of side deals?

I think if you are able to generate a lot of capital you should focus on doing that, as Gates did, and then donate it all to where you believe it will do the most before or when you die. That's at least what I'm trying to do.

Appreciate your citing this fallacy. We certainly can complain about problems that exist, regardless of their severity, perhaps because they affect us or people we care about.

But I think there is a real problem when worrying about one problem comes at the expense of caring about another more severe problem.

Contrived thought experiment: You have the magical power of either curing your own toothache, or curing the world of AIDS. You choose to cure your toothache because it affects you. I would argue you should have considered the alternative.

The problem is not that you can't care about problems that are less severe than others, but given finite availability of "care" in your own mind and in the world, it is better to direct our "care" to where it can have the biggest impact.

I'm one of those people who say that almost all people in America have it really good, and everyone should stop complaining. I'm trying to understand why I'm wrong about the following:

- Most people in America are struggling

- Most people outside America are struggling much, much more, to a degree not fathomable by Americans.

- Therefore, people in America should acknowledge they have it really good and stop complaining.

Related: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-old-subur...

Despite these facts, the availability heuristic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic) ensures that our perception of probabilities is proportional to how dramatic (and thus memorable) an event is and not to how likely it is.

I think of dribbble designers as who you hire when you know what the thing is going to do and how it's going to be organized. All else equal, I think there's something to be said about a product looking good. Hiring a painter to build your house makes no sense, but hiring a painter to paint your house does make sense.