jshutler
1yr ago
I suppose 100 IQ writers can't write 200 IQ characters.
I think this is a get out of free card for the writers. here is a video from Brandon Sanderson on how he writes characters smarter than him: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YyaC7NmPsc0
His point boils down to a big part of smart characters is there ability to make difficult decisions well, quickly. But as the writer you can take all the time in the world to come up with the best action, allowing the writer to write characters much smarter than himself/herself.
All urls containing "facebook.com" are banned.
Ok, I'll admit, I didn't realize it was that severe a block. That is definitely going overboard on the block, if it was simply posts that had the appearance of: Follow me on Facebook at: foo_profile. Then I think my argument stands. You are absolutely right, that the restriction as currently implemented kills the ability to post content that might have substantive information from entering the discourse from one of the given sources and that is certainly too far a ban.
If my model of Elon's vision for Twitter is accurate, then this overreaching implimentation can potentially be explained by a lack of resources from Twitter right now. And will later be scaled back into something more reasonable on a per post level by implementing AI anomaly detection to pick up flagrant posts that are antithetical to good discourse.
If I'm not correct, well I'll be sad cause a Motte style discussion board at the scale of Twitter sounds like a dream. And I'd have to do some serious re-tuning on my model of Elon Musk.
I feel a strong desire to steel man this decision by Twitter. While the obvious "Elon hypocrisy!" applies here to some degree, based on the discussions so far, I think many have forgotten or don't understand what Elon's goal for Twitter is: A well functioning time square for proper discourse (to make it look more like the Motte perhaps?). I believe Elon bought Twitter cause he saw the potential for Twitter to be a powerful center for civic discourse, but thought that its previous management's propensity for censorship and allowance of bots to run wild failed to provide the platform to have good civic discourse.
I want to emphasize it again: Elon wants to make Twitter into a place with better civic discourse and engagement. Think the Motte, but at scale.
And while at first glance, this censorship runs counter to his sub-goal of free speech, but I think it does facilitate better civic discourse on the platform. As a hypothetical, if someone replies to a post on the motte with "Check out my Facebook!" It doesn't add anything to the conversation, at best it's nothing, at worst it sidetracks good conversation. And the same applies to Twitter. So this change doesn't strike me as being antithetical to Elon's main goal here based on my understanding of his goals are.
jshutler
1yr ago
I think this argument gets more fuzzy as AI like ChatGPT gets better at writing code from English text. (I asked ChatGPT to do exactly as written above and attached the output as an img here). As it Chat-bots like this get better, the clever hacks as you call them will get much more intertwined with general sit down and read coding books. Cause a simple translation into the Chat-bot will generate you the code you want to see.
jshutler
1yr ago
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Face ID completely a software change. So theoretically couldn't apple have put that same software on the iPhone 5? Or would the specs of the iPhone 5 not cut it to run whatever ML model they are running?
jshutler
1yr ago
2 claims here:
-
Your argument makes sense theoretically, but can you name any MAJOR innovations by companies that are known to use this model? Cause I can't think of one.
-
I understand your argument about diminishing returns on investment, but I'm now reminded of the Ford quote,
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
And I think that the continuous release cycles reemphasize feedback from people saying they want faster horses, so people make faster horses. You don't get the larger POV that their are fundamentally different ways of approaching a problem which occasionally come with far better outcomes. I don't want to make any claim that continuous development and agile have no place, but it seems to me that it doesn't contribute to larger innovations that can update the fundamentals of society the way the car did.
jshutler
1yr ago
Does anyone here actually get extra tangible uses out of the new iphone versions?
I have owned the 4, 5, 6, 8, and currently 11. Upon recent reflection, I that all the iPhones past the 5 have added nothing of meaningful value in terms of new features only minor quality of life updates like a better battery and camera, but nothing that has actively changed how I use the product. For this reason I won't be buying any of the newer versions of the iPhone.
So I'm curious if anyone here has an experience where there WAS a new feature added (past the iPhone 5) that has actively changed how they use their iPhone in some tangible way.
jshutler
1yr ago
I will caveat this with this seems to have come at a cost with their in person services. When I was applying for a credit card for the first time I went into Chase cause I wanted an employee to walk me through it, but they kept "promoting" that I could just do it online which I didn't feel comfortable doing cause this was a first time for me. So it took some real insistence from me before they just walked me through the process in person. Once they did it was pretty smooth, but it really bothered me how stubborn I had to be to get the bankers there to help me in person
jshutler
2yr ago
Well EA (at least in theory) is designed to deliberately and thoughtfully think of the best ways to offer aid to foreigners. One of the main ways they do this is by supporting and advertising programs like GiveWell (https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities). Which is a program designed to properly evaluate the effectiveness of given charity based on metrics like QALYs (Quality of Life Years: https://www.healthanalytics.com/expertise/what-is-a-quality-adjusted-life-year-qaly/). The system then ranks the top charities based on how much good they do based on these rigorous statistics. It's system's like these that EA is really about here, using math and the tools of rationality to find the best ways to give aid to the world at large.
jshutler
2yr ago
This is an interesting argument. But what I wonder is can there be "professional conspiracy theorists" in the ilk of Alex Jones who would perform due diligence in finding potential fake tragedies if they didn't have to publish these egregiously false reports. In this case, Alex Jones did some level of research on the topic (how much real research I have no idea), but then reported obviously false claims and really did do massive harm to the victims of an already grieving family.
In an attempt to have the cake of your argument and eat it too. Alex (or others of his kind) would need to do this verification research, but not publish unless they find real evidence. But my understanding is that these Alex-like people get most of their income by being loud and boisterous, so idk if they could substantiate good evidence without parading around the falsities like Alex did in this case.
And moreover, I'm curious if you (or anyone else here) can think of an example where a conspiracy theorist in this modern internet age has actually uncovered a real faked tragedy before. Cause if Alex and his ilk are 0/n on cases. It doesn't really prove their track record, and the cost of their proceeding wouldn't be worth the peace of mind that your outlining here.
This is a complete tangent. But I want some more opinions on this matter. I understand the general two themes of
lower birth rate = Less young people to take care of old people
less young people = less productive working people
I these negative consequences of a lower birthrate; however, resources in any country (or planet) are necessarily finite. So even if there is space now for there to be a higher birthrate in most of these countries, at some point there won't be. At some point it will be NECESSARY to have a lower birth rate (Alternatively a higher death rate, but i don't like that alternative) to account for the resource constraints. And the first issue issue is also a transitory one in many respects as long as the birth rate is at or above replacement, the number of people in the space will eventually stabalise to a consistent level and there will once again be enough young people to support the old. And both could potentially become obsolete someday with the increase in mechanical automation of labor.
TL;DR Can someone give me an argument against the fact that at some point we will eventually need a lower birth rate in at least some parts of the world at a given time.
More options
Context Copy link