proto-n

From Gemini pro:

You should definitely ride the elephant (or at least lead it there)!

Here is the logic:

If you walk there by yourself, you will arrive at the creek, but the dirty elephant will still be 300 feet back where you started. You can't wash the elephant if it isn't with you!

Plus, it is much easier to take the elephant to the water than it is to carry enough buckets of water 300 feet back to the elephant.

Would you like another riddle, or perhaps some actual tips on how to keep cool in the Arizona heat?

1. "Suspected" is just that, suspected, you can't penalize papers based on your gut feel 2. LLM-s are a tool, and there's nothing wrong with using them unless you misuse them

Well, one of these is something that most reaonable people work on avoiding, while the other is something that a huge capitalist industrial machine is working to achieve like their existence depends on it.

And along similar lines, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

I really don't see why it's not possible to just use basically a "highlighter" token which is added to all the authoritative instructions and not to data. Should be very fast for the model to learn it during rlhf or similar.

Not exactly. You can't steal anything unless the person revealed the public key. Addresses are just hashes of public keys, therefore qc resistant. However, you can't ever reuse an address, as signing reveals the public key.

Otoh, afaik either it wasn't like this in the satoshi era or satoshi revealed the public key. In any case, satoshi's wallets are crackable by qc.

I still disagree. It's more like "omg I should have published at least a few papers by now, what am I doing" and then you start frantically looking for provable things in the dataset. You find one that you can also support with a nice story. Now either a) You were not tought about how or why this is wrong and you publish the paper b) You were, and know that you should collect a separate dataset to test the hypothesis. But also, there is a huge existential pressure to just close your eyes and roll with it.

It's not that you need to be tought how to cheat, it's that you need to be tought how to avoid unintentionally cheating.

It's really not that hard to come up with ways to commit fraud if you want to. On the other hand, it's very easy to make such mistakes if you don't know to avoid them. This characterization is very misguided IMO.

Not only common, it's become a requirement to review papers if you submit one yourself. Yeah it's not ideal for multiple reasons (what you said + prompt engineering grad students dismissing proper papers without having the slighest idea about the field), but the amount of submissions is so incredibly huge that it's impossible to do it any other way.

"For the first time, researchers reading conference proceedings will be forced to wonder: does this work truly merit my attention? Or is its publication simply the result of fraud? [...] But the mere possibility that any given paper was published through fraud forces people to engage more skeptically with all published work."

Well... spending a few weeks reproducing a shiny conference paper that simply doesn't work and is easily beaten by any classical baseline will do that to you in the first few months of your PhD imo. I've become so skeptic over the years that I assume almost all papers to be lies until proven otherwise.

"This surfaces the fundamental tension between good science and career progression buried deep at the heart of academia. Most researchers are to some extent “career researchers”, motivated by the power and prestige that rewards those who excel in the academic system, rather than idealistic pursuit of scientific truth."

For the first years of my PhD I simply refused to parttake in the subtle kinds of frauud listed in the second paragraph of the post. As a result, I barely had any publications worth mentioning. Mostly papers shared with others, where I couldn't stop the paper from happening by the time I realized that there is too little substance for me to be comfortable with it.

As a result, my publication history looks sad and my carreer looks nothing like I wished it would.

Now, a few years later, I've become much better at research and can now get my papers to the point where I'm comfortable submitting them with a straight face. I've also came to terms with overselling something that does have substance, just not as much as I wish it had.

The "so called Long COVID" really just means "I got covid and I remain unwell in some way, long term". I'm not sure it needs to be questioned if those two qualifying things are given. Very well might be the same thing as ME/CFS, or might not, I don't think we have a conclusive answer yet about what causes either.

(Wasn't me claiming that, read usernames)

Yeah, but you are, at least seemingly, missing the point: the scripts he was referring to in context weren't the legal disclosures but the sales tricks that were handed to them to use. He is pointing out that the 'elite' saleswoman wasn't better at strategy or sales tricks, but was effective because she made them feel good.

The article states that he was fired because the company had financial problems, and not reading the required stuff was used as an excuse

But then this is also an argument against spontaneous emergence of life, right? Sicne mirror-life could just emerge on its own, instead of evolving from regular life.

It seems you only want to call MVC frameworks frameworks? But there's millions of other types of frameworks for thousands of purposes. Framework is a generic term (for which the definition is usually the calls into you/you call into it thing). What it does and whether it's a framework is two completely orthogonal things.

Usually means uncertainty quantification

I really really hope you are a better judge of that than I am

Now this one makes more sense. Chemistry Nobel for advancing chemistry using AI.

Contrast that with Phyics Nobel for advancing AI using physics.

I'm not sure forking the repo would create a forked version of the 'software' if the fork's sole purpose is to develop a pull request. But I guess it's somewhat ambiguous langauge, and better safe then sorry when it comes to lawyers (which I'm not).

The same way any other illness is, I guess

To my (totally uninformed) eyes it looks like maybe this could count as a SLAPP suit [1], in which case there's a possbility for a counterclaim for legal costs. However, Massachusetts apparently has "much weaker anti-SLAPP laws" [2] (than California, in the context of the article)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

[2] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23841742/francesca-gino-d...

I took the quote [1] to basically mean "we might think this is a nuclear warhead, but in fact it is not, rather it is some kind of random test object used to demonstrate the software". Obscure part of a washing mashine, random geometric shape, etc.

[1] "The “obvious” answer, if my above assertions are true, is that it must not actually represent a thermonuclear secondary. [...] It could be some kind of pre-approved “unclassified shape” which is used for diagnostics and model verification, for example."

He later finds basically the same object with the caption "The multiple components of a nuclear weapon body are highlighted in this intentionally simplified mesh" from another publication of Sandia, making that theory kind of unlikely

See for example GitHub's statement [1] about no longer displaying a cookie banner. While ironically the blog still does display them, the main site doesn't.

[1] https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/

Blogspot is google's blogging platform

Yeah well in bash I can do it in one line: `python train.py`. I hate examples like this, the 50loc statement is totally useless (and so is the code example, as I can't learning anything from it).

Your argument about marijuana being easier to prove is a very bad scenario, regardless of how common it is/used to be. By the same logic why not make it illegal to wear socks, it would provide reason for the system to punish anybody they are 'fairly sure' is up to some other crime.

Well, I doubt anyone expects 8 billion people to be able to live on mars in the coming years

"(was) left in the dark" means "wasn't given information"

Trigger points afaik are a widely accepted concept, my physical therapist tells me that something like 90% of the time her patients' problems are due to trigger points. Or more correctly due to cramping and tense muscles, which trigger points can help alleviate.

The trigger point is basically just a place where you can push on the muscle, and apparently when you push on a muscle that's tense, it's forced to relax itself. It's painful, but only as long as the muscle is tense. Relaxed muscles are not painful when pushed.