s1artibartfast

Possibly the first strike in the war with China.

Nobody said bluff but you, and honour is long gone.

That just leaves the facts. Which do you think is more credible and likely?

Speculation isn't a dirty word and both can be true.

Demand is very high today and exceeds capacity. Builders think demand will continue to grow. This seems plainly correct. Firms may differ in how high demand will go, but it is still more than today.

Thanks for the thoughtful follow up, I will give it some reflection.

Regarding the dead thing - sometimes that happens to me when I make rapid edits to fix typos and such.

Your response is dead for some reason and my vouch isnt enough to fix it.

Why cant the model be updated to include information about the concert? This is how basically every human works anyways.

It seems that yes, a bad model is not recoverable if you refuse to consider concerts or other data.

Sounds like a failure to align interests. In general, politicians should want to be elected by the public, rewarded for acting in the public interest, and punished for not doing so.

A system that does none of those things and just hopes it will all work out is a recipe for disaster. Why bother even having elections in that case?

Like what are you thinking of that is so different? Can you give an example?

Yes. People are not aligned. They can and do harm themselves and others.

It really hinges on what you consider alignment and risk. For the widest definitions of alignment, we have never had an aligned model - One that will refuse to break the law or work against another persons interests.

Use to discover exploits, hack, or simply aid terrorist groups with mundane information are already risks manifest.

This is why many argue that alignment is impossible. You cant have LLMs that are both useful tools and safe as milk.

[Edit] It seems like you are operating under the assumption that alignment is synonymous with obedience. This is not a common convention and one of the problems that plague the discourse

Im genuinely curious how you are differentiating "using your brain". What does that look like for the real world?

Or do something entirely different and 100lbs go to the landfill.

Reuse is good if the activity replaces something that would generate more waste. This is the real benchmark, not the case where someone does nothing.

The most efficient thing is always to do nothing and/or kill oneself. This isnt practical, so reusing used materials instead of new when you do something is still net good.

What does that have to do with anything? The point is to do something cool with it.

It far more effective than building a collage with bought or new printed parts

I see. I agree that there are major limitations to purely logical arguments.

This is why unlike the rationists of the 17th century, modern "rationalists" predominately focus on empiricism (ironic i know). They are practically obsessed with Bayesian reasoning and probability of truth. This has the knock on effect of interest in prediction markets.

Is your impression otherwise?

you two have fundamentally different readings of the statement "95 of them who don't take their eccentric beliefs as gospel truths and 5 who do."

One reading is the views are eccentric within the community (e.g. roko's basilisk). The other reading is eccentric view which come out of the community but are not held.

You introduced the claim that the 95% are larping along with the 5% and sharing the same proclaimations.

If you think that, it seems fair to ask you why. Most of the weird stuff (e.g. zizian) isnt accepted by the rationaist majority. A few unusual things are, like AI X-risk.

the issue with the community is they take their eccentric beliefs as being gospel truths

I am genuinely curious where you get that impression. The central element to the whole thing is that people should be willing to question their own beliefs and change their mind based on the data.

If there is anything that turns rationalists into eccentrics, I it is being overly open to new ideas or beliefs.

taking what ideology to the conclusions? The zizians throught some truly bizzare things, most of which are in no way representative of the rationilst community.

Im not sure what your criticism is directed at.

In the real world, we can study and predict things. We can study the weather and predict if it will rain tomorrow. We can asses how accurate our predictions have been in the past.

We can evaluate if it is true that smoking increases lung cancer, or that aspirin increases autism.

Sometimes we dont have good answers or predictions, and that too can be studied.

I agree prose and validation are different. I dont know anyone who contests this.

Many people are bad at writing, including scientists. Improvements could be articulating a concept in a way that the reader will understand it clearly.

How does it test that at all? Did the quiz have answers that people could figure out better by scrutinizing the llm?

I think it is pretty standard for how people approach knowledge sources. What's the chance my doctor, colleague, plumber, or random Reddit thread Etc is wrong.

Your alternative is also something that people do, but rarely consciously.

exactly zero serious people draw that connection, and it suggests that you either dont know what the term means or are constructing a strawman. Most of the economic literature for the last 150 has explored the constraints on markets and their function.

The efficient market hypothesis TM is a very narrow theory about price information, it says nothing about Economic Development or Direction. It is a theoretical extreme that can be used to compare real world Systems.

Further, China's success relies heavily on market processes

Faster and cheaper.

Can they at least feed it to animals?

Why would anyone ever pay at the store then instead of getting the free food? E.g. Just wait and it is all free.

I dont prefer to see food thrown away, but I also like having Markets and farmers with functional businesses.

Who packs it up? Who finds the hungry? Who reviews their financial situation? Who delivers it?

Alternatively, do you imagine anyone can walk into the store and get it, and decide if they feel like paying today at the register?

Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive.

Well, maybe wasting food should cost? Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it.

If people dont make money, then nobody grows the food or the store closes.

I also dont think hunger is a real problem in the US. Death from gluttony is far more common. For those who are hungry, there are already oppurtinities to get food. Putting more free food there doesnt help if they dont have access, or if they are a crackhead.

But credit cards arent a very complec financial product, and the vast majority of people can manage them just fine, and get the benefit.

Do you have any reason to think junk mail is big factor in people getting credit cards? I would assume most people like the idea of convenience, and dont think they will go into debt. most are right.

Lowering the price doesnt solve the problems of lost revenue and higher costs. Most goods are priced such that you cant make more money on increased volume by lowering the cost.