DecaDeciHuman
No bio...
User ID: 3518
DecaDeciHuman
1d ago
Unfortunately, it has become increasingly obvious that a context window of X bytes is not the same as a general-purpose working memory of X bytes.
DecaDeciHuman
1d ago
If someone can look at a machine that is better at all of {math, coding, medicine, astronomy...} than the average human and then claim that they're not intelligent, what can you really say at that point.
"I need better metrics."
But when the McNamara discipline is applied too literally, the first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured.
The second step is to disregard that which can't easily be measured or given a quantitative value.
The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important.
The fo[u]rth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.
-- Daniel Yankelovich
DecaDeciHuman
1d ago
How is it even possible in principle to solve code questions, write out hundreds of lines to perform a specific task if you can't reason?
Arguably all compilers do this. Just from a very specific set of input jargon.
DecaDeciHuman
1d ago
must have at least 110 g of protein (I'm a lifter ok?)
Be wary that 'protein' is a catchall, and over-optimized diets can be lacking in particular essential amino acids which we cannot synthesize ourselves.
This doesn't normally come up that often, but can pop up in heavily optimized diets.
DecaDeciHuman
1d ago
Pushing for 'my rules, unfairly' also invites 'your rules, unfairly'.
It can be better to stay at 'my rules, fairly' for this reason.
DecaDeciHuman
1d ago
I was calling out the problem with the following assertion:
Can you tell me what views you think have been banned?
Namely that if someone believes that a given view is inexpressible without a ban, they are not going to express that view if they don't want to be banned.
As such "no-one has told us that a view has been banned" is irrelevant, as it would be true regardless of if there were any such views (people who don't care about being banned notwithstanding).
And as such your response of "Can you tell me what views you think have been banned?" was disingenuous at best.
For the record there are views that I self-censor here, generally because of the following pattern-match:
[post that gives apparently-valid reasoning leading to a conclusion]
[ban post whose justification appears to be that the conclusion is consensus building of a view, completely ignoring that the reasoning exists]
...from which my takeaway can only be to avoid the particular topic altogether if I do not wish to be banned.
Bonus points if the original post was upvoted and the ban post was downvoted, as - for so long as the site keeps them aggregated and anonymous at least - this is one of the few ways that people can express that a ban wasn't the right call that doesn't result in bringing unnecessary mod attention upon themselves in turn. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down and all that.
[For the record: I am being vague, as I will not state said views, because I do not wish to be banned for stating them.]
DecaDeciHuman
3d ago
Also in practice there tends to be a fair cost / friction in doing things like changing religions.
DecaDeciHuman
3d ago
Why do you think I would ban you?
Do you not see the catch-22 associated with this?
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
I am not going to invite a ban, no.
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
Now do the same calculation while sending profits home over a lifetime.
Or with dependent visas.
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
Was this a conservative party view or was this a conservative constituent view?
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
hetero conversion therapy
This would be outright illegal in many areas.
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
Russia's nuclear arsenal is somewhat split in two.
There's a bunch of older systems which went through the fall of the USSR. Older systems can be fine when well-maintained; the likelihood of things remaining well-maintained through the fall of the USSR...?
Post-USSR there have been 0 (zero) nuclear weapons tests by Russia. (Yekaterinburg fireball notwithstanding). If you still have expertise and documentation, it's certainly plausible to build new warheads and simulations building on older test info; the likelihood of such expertise and documentation being maintained through the fall of the USSR...?
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
There is a distinction between:
"you should be allowed to argue in your own defense, with everyone aware that the outcome personally affects you"
and
"you should be allowed to be a supposedly-neutral third party in your own defense"
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
It mildly bugs me that game theory 101 isn't a common senior year topic.
Far too many arguments miss the game-theoretical aspects of decisions which nominally have a particular effect in the short term, but which have a very different effect once other actors shift their strategies in response.
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
I mean, the rational solution to “it’s not clear who is doing actual science” is taking some time to figure it out, and then making changes.
Only if time has no cost - a common blind spot of rational solutions.
If I am driving a car and a car appears to be unexpectedly pulling out in front of me, I should react immediately, even if I am unsure at this moment if they will actually hit me or not.
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
If I have a company that for every dollar in revenue is currently spending $1.05, and is currently spending 10c on something utterly unnecessary while the other 95c is going towards making said revenue, I am absolutely going to point them towards cutting said unnecessary thing even though it's less than 10% of the total.
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
yes
Something implying falsehood implies either the argument is wrong or at least one of the inputs is false.
If revealed preference decrees that a person attempting to chase a better-overall solution at their own potential expense is wrong, to me this would imply that the concept of revealed preference is itself invalid.
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
That may not have been your intent, certainly.
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
while [the US is] doing the exact opposite on the other end of the globe
I thought I covered that:
in ways the US cannot unilaterally repair.
The US is not doing the exact opposite here.
DecaDeciHuman
4d ago
I just don't know how one would consistently distinguish between tourists and immigrants just from hearing them speak in public.
You can have 2000 groups of ten tourists come and speak a foreign language for a week, and that ends up being roughly equivalent to 1 (one) group of ten immigrants who come and speak a foreign language. Exact numbers depend on age of incoming immigrants and such, of course.
The children and grandchildren of immigrants also lose their ancestral languages so quickly that it doesn't seem like that big of a problem in the long run.
This is true for immigrants who assimilate - which is precisely what we aren't talking about here.
DecaDeciHuman
5d ago
Weirdly though, isn't this exact same logic one that would advocate in favor of increasing economic coupling with China and/or Taiwan, in order to prevent China-US conflict?
China has been busily pulling away from said coupling in ways the US cannot unilaterally repair.
DecaDeciHuman
5d ago
This is one of the reasons why the moves of countries away from US dollar as reserve currency have been watched so closely.
DecaDeciHuman
5d ago
Essentially you’re arguing that this is for revenge
I did not read it this way.
Read it moreso as "just because you're a healthy cell in a gangrened limb doesn't mean the correct decision isn't to amputate if necessary".
Unfortunately, which scenario between 1/3/4 you're in then hinges entirely on if a decision is bad, which often splits across partisan lines...
More options
Context Copy link