FearandLoathingintheMotte
No bio...
User ID: 4101
I got halfway through typing an angry rant about how the unholy alliance of progressivism+neoliberalism has hollowed out western society and then realized a large % of what I am pissed off about and attribute to fertility decline, etc to is happening in China which is not experiencing a lot of the same issues we are.
Thank you, I am going to have to dig into this more later, but I was immediately suspicious as well.
This topic is just too perfect for everyone to project their pet issue onto it as the "dominant factor" and everyone gets so deep into motivated reasoning to get there. And its so complex no one can prove anything more than handwave vibes and because it's so complex, no one can be totally "wrong" while still failing to explain the issue in a useful way.
Personally, I think it's all because housing
Has anyone found LLM performance to actually improve with memory on?
I turned this off within 5 minutes of the feature releasing, and haven't turned it on since. Your input context is precious, and it's already so full of system prompt-slop and the like
I keep going back and forth on how powerful I think these models are
They're both. They are both really powerful and really fucking stupid.
Trump himself is a victim of the same bubble, so he gets excited like a baby by videos of big explosions
Such a good article
Most futures are liquidated before delivery and settled in cash.
I'm concerned you don't understand prediction markets because you are not betting against the house, you bet against other users. There is no "house".
It is absolutely nothing like scratch tickets.
Yes?
Id assume "worse at reading people" does most of the heavy lifting therr
This is the ideal bedtime routine I'm working towards, and it doesn't even work great?!
At first I thought you were being kind of presumptuous but the more I think about it, the more I agree
That is a crazy thing to say, and a well calibrated one at that
This doesn't address my comment or question at all. But I believe you.
We're talking passed each other
-
you barely addressed it you just said "muh Hamas" and moved on. That was a single sentence lmao. Do a Marshall plan + AI police state then. The Chinese seem to be chugging the Uighurs okay with this process.
-
no part of "effective solution" involves my blessing. Just because I don't support genocide (lol) doesn't mean it wouldn't work
-
I'm not sure why you slipped in the word "fair". I'm answering based on "effective" i.e. ending the conflict.
-
"Either provide a workable alternative you'd actually support, or do not complain when the only reasonable course of action is taken."
There are so many different ways this is flawed.
I have provided a workable solution, make Gaza not a shithole disaster, and stop fucking with the West Bank. Or just rip off the bandaid and commit to that.
The current course of action is a disaster. We have nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS of the "current course of action" completely failing to fix this. Untold amounts of suffering, absolutely no end in sight. How many times have the Israelis been surprise attacked, swore "never again" and then dropped the ball and been surprise attacked?
Finally, "you must propose a reasonable solution, as judged by me, or you cannot complain" is a thought terminating cliche. This actually isn't my job, and asking someone to solve one of the most complex geopolitical/historical conflicts (again, as judged by you lmao) is a silly ask. It takes about 7 seconds of thinking about this issue to arrive at things like "wait how many years has this been going on for , unresolved?" "How many people have died? Including how many under the age of 20?" and realize the status quo is attrocious.
Frankly, I've done quite a lot of explaining, and you've essentially just said "erm, no". So why don't you justify why the current Isreali paradigm is such a great solution, given it's complete failure to fix this so far?
I think you could resolve the worst of gerrymandering with a few simple rules.
I'm also a huge fan of mega-congress because I think it's fun, but I agree the problems are immense (although Congress in its current form can't get much worse, so...).
Anti gerrymandering rules:
- each district must have no more than X people, or less than Y people (adjust to taste)
- each district must have a permiter to area ratio of Z (idk, something more forgiving than a pure "4/s" square but just a bit), meaning that you have to force districts into relatively even squares, while being able to account for geography that doesn't run on right angles.
You had an probabilistic compiler assemble what would be the most probable completion to a prompt you wrote. There was no real data outside of what you offered in your own prompt.
You know they search the internet right? They've had this capability for ~2 years at this point. You can literally click the little reference button after its sentence to see if the "most probable completion" is accurate or not.
You are 100% correct it's so futile. Also the false-positive rate on detecting AI writing is going to keep rising as people unintentionally adopt LLM-isms the more they read LLM output
The ultimate Turing test is getting someone to drop an n-bomb
If anyone makes money, by providing a service that clearly has both utility and high demand, it's legitimate
Bernie Madoff was not providing a service, Polymarket is
I strongly dislike gambling. Especially sports betting. Im usually a libertarian/"let people enjoy things" kind of person but society is clearly barely able to handle online gambling, and it's fucking with young men especially. I hate it.
However, the prediction markets have found a good straddle, and I would like you to try and draw a line. How do you separate gambling from futures contracts/forwards? Where do we draw the line? It's really hard. Obviously from a "know it when you see it" perspective, "who will win the hockey game" does not provide the same economic benefit as "I would like to lock in the price of wheat 6 months from now".
But, in a world where we banned all sports/online gambling but Robin Hood allowed trading of fractional wheat forwards, and all the men aged 20-30 started being degens in the wheat futures market, what do we do?
Is it a meme if it's true?
I would also even change "racism" for "hate" in general. The demand for hate of all kinds vastly outstrips the supply in the west.
Well so far DOGE.... didn't do much, so even if there is lots of fraud out there, we can happily doubt DOGE by its total lack of accomplishment
How's the defect doing again? Oh right, bigger than ever
What amazing news, thank you for sharing
I so happy that when I was ~12, my teachers thought it was wise to teach me and my entire class the world was doomed.
I provided the two viable options I see before us.
To be clear, I do not think it is possible to achieve a "realistic and fair" solution that both parties will agree to. There's so much hostility and bad blood and history that I genuinely do not think this will ever end.
The Palestinians will suffer and occasionally lash out, the Israelis will crush them and keep them contained/mow the grass.
I anticipate, barring some black swan event, that when I die the status quo will be similar to now
the people who want intelligent reasoned discussion are the same people who come to the correct conclusions on most topics.
This is kind of lazy "boo outgroup" content
This is like one baby step above the endless front page Reddit articles saying shit like "new studies show that Republican voters don't have object permanence and hate your dog"
Also I largely have center left positions on things and think they're more right than their center right counterparts, so checkmate
This is cannibalism with better vocabulary.
One of my favorite works of your writing
Sorry, I know I'm angry.
Don't be sorry. We need to get more rage bait in your algorithm.
ChatGPT doesn't follow anywhere near the same formula for paragraph structure
Would love to hear your thoughts on AI writing style/structure
Trying to sharpen my "AI tells" repertoire
"Where I'd push you"
Didn't realize I had PTSD for this phrase until seeing it outside of the ChatGPT app

60% is counting pairings, not people.
For example, population 100 men and 100 women.
Top 10% men and 20% women each have multiple partners between each other, create 120 sets of "pairings". This is 10% men sleeping with avg 12 unique women and top 20% women sleeping with avg 6 unique men.
Other 90% men (0.89 partners each) and 80% women (1.0 partner each) create 80 pairings.
More options
Context Copy link