MathWizard
Good things are good
No bio...
User ID: 164
MathWizard
Good things are good
17d ago
Has anyone done work for Data Annotation or other similar online AI labeling jobs? I have a PhD in math, and have spent the past few years doing mathematical modeling in Postdocs only to realize that I don't really like writing and publishing papers. Some combination of not feeling like the work matters, getting bored of working on the same project for a long time without any feedback, and then eventually finding out that nobody thought my paper was interesting. Mehhhhhhh. And then I lose motivation and do lower quality work and my next paper is worse. I need to get out of academia. But I also don't really know what else I want to do. I'm good at math. I'm decent at programming, but I don't have experience making truly functional consumer-facing apps, all of my coding has been mathematical models that I run myself and keep tinkering with to add features whenever I want to experiment with what happens when different features or parameters of the model get tweaked.
I'm also settled down in a medium-sized town with existing but limited local career options. I have a house, and a wife who is very attached to her job and family, so remote work is vastly preferable. I'm also pathologically terrified of getting stuck in a boring 9-5 office job that eats my life away. I very much like the flexibility of working from home.
So... at least for now, Data Annotation looks promising? The advertisement claims that it pays $40/hr for Math and Programming talents, which I think I can do (unless they're super ultra competitive and only give the good work to people better than me?). The internet consensus seems to be that it's not a scam, but you might have trouble getting enough work to do it full time. And I could work my own hours, and work on discrete completable projects that feel more gamey and give feedback.
Does anyone have direct experience with this and can provide a more accurate and detailed account? Also, I think there are a couple of other similar companies that do this, so I'm not sure whether I should apply to one of those instead if they're better somehow. Or if I should apply to multiple and split my time between them in order to get a better pickings of the higher paying work? Or do you just anti-recommend the entire thing because it's not worth it? I'd like to hear thoughts and opinions from people who have either done this or know people who have done this, or know of similar remote work for someone with my talents.
MathWizard
Good things are good
18d ago
If it's well-designed then a good run that gets cut short only due to scaling should yield a huge amount of meta-currency and reward you with faster progression. There's nothing that kills a roguelite for me faster than winning on literally the first try because of some combination of luck and the game being too easy on the base difficulty.
I think the main problem is that Roguelites are appealing to two different demographics simultaneously. There are the hardcore gamers who want to challenge their wits and skills and slam their heads into a wall over and over again until they get it: people who play Souls games and lots of multiplayer PvP and brutally unforgiving games, and Roguelites are often good at that. And then there are more RPG-leaning gamers like me who want to grind out levels and currency and overcome challenges through a combination of skill and tenacity, with the ability to fungibly trade one for the other. Skill should be rewarded, but skill and progress should both grow concurrently until the sum combination is enough, so that I can take risks without failures being a literally pointless waste of time with nothing to show for it. And also have an endlessly increasing difficulty so that through progress and rewards I can eventually tackle and overcome higher and higher challenges that used to be literally impossible from the beginning of the game. If the hardest challenge of your game can be beaten in 1 hour by a player of sufficient skill level, then once you reach that skill level the game has no replay value. But if you never reach that skill level then you can never clear the game no matter how hard you try. In my opinion. I understand that lots of people have different preferences than me. But this is the weird sort of interplay, where roguelites are (trying or accidentally? not sure) appealing to both types of players at the same time under the same label. So a lot of roguelites throw some token but short and unimportant meta-progression in there and just scale it so the hardcore players can quickly unlock everything and then balance the game under that assumption, which partially satisfies but partially annoys both types of players.
MathWizard
Good things are good
23d ago
Treating people kindly and with love and trust is always the solution to any is-ought problem in any culture I've been to because it absolves yourself of the guilt of having acted unkindly or unlovingly and if someone interprets it incorrectly it is not because your underlying intentions were wrong.
This is only true if you tautologically define the term "kindly and with love and trust" to contain all of the complexities and nuances of the broader "is-ought".
Is it kind, loving, and trustful to lock your house or your car? Well, it's kind to the people inside the house, less kind to the thieves that want your stuff.
Is it kind, loving, and trustful to guard your wallet from pickpockets in a crime-ridden area and stop one if you catch them mid-theft?
Is it kind, loving, and trustful to punish someone for a crime? You can argue that it's kind to the victim, but unkind to the perpetrator being punished. Or you can make a complicated argument about how it's ultimately "kind and loving" to the perpetrator because the punishment will help them learn the error of their ways and become a better person which will ultimately be for their own good.
I'm not saying generally acting with kindness, love, and trust is wrong. They're good guidelines when to look to when trying to ground your decisions, but those words alone do not automatically solve all of the potential ethical dilemmas and tradeoffs inherent to the complexity of the real world.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2mo ago
The courts should do their jobs and not do someone else's job. There's no contradiction here. It's not about the total magnitude of their power, as if there's some number that should be summed up over all the things they do and try to make sure the sums line up, it's about jurisdiction. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law as written and intended, and apply it to individual cases, which are frequently weird and contain many facts and details that might make them edge cases or involve multiple laws that need to be combined together.
If the law doesn't say a thing and an activist judge pretends that it does by inventing new definitions for words that clearly were not what those words meant when the law was written, then they are legislating their own new laws, not actually judging. If judges go to some agency run by unelected non-judges and asks them to interpret the law for them, then those people are the judges, and the elected judges are not actually judging. They're supposed to judge, not legislate, not outsource.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2mo ago
I am not a legal expert. I don't know the actual legal technicalities of "reasonable articulable suspicion". But at least taking a common sense definition of the words, "There is a serial killer drowning babies in wicker baskets, this man is on the marina with a wicker basket" is trivially "articulable", and seems eminently reasonable to me given the circumstances. Who uses wicker baskets? If the officer had no reason for suspicion then why did he call you in the first place? My understanding was that this was to prevent officers from searching people because "I dunno, he seemed kind of suspicious", not "I have a clear reason to suspect this guy in particular of a specific crime (and being the perpetrator of the same crime multiple times in the past) for a specific reason".
MathWizard
Good things are good
27d ago
On an economic level, I agree. This is a very very hard problem. In the case of orphans, you can resolve it by sending them to foster families or other forms of government housing instead of just handing a check to reward every kid that runs away from home. The state still pays lots of money, but the kids don't directly benefit because they get substitute parents instead of just money. But you can't really do that with single parents. You can't realistically assist single mothers with state-funded foster-fathers who come and act as the missing parent for the kid. Because she's an adult and has rights, there's a lot less coercion and control that you can't use to force compliance in the same way you can with a runaway teen (and if you tried it would turn out horribly dystopian). So we're kind of stuck handing out checks and trying to make them exactly the right size: not too small or the kids suffer poverty and neglect, not too large or the mothers have more kids and avoid marriage.
On a social level, there is so much more we could be doing to incentivize marriage. Stay at home mothers used to get respect and praise for their parenting. Single mothers used to be shamed and looked down on. Now we do the opposite. People respond to economic incentives, but they also respond to social ones too. Even if money incentivizes more single mothers, turning the dial on the social pressures in the opposite direction could help mitigate this.
MathWizard
Good things are good
27d ago
Do you believe that it's actually truly subjective? As in, it's okay for someone to kill someone else as long as they don't consider the victim to be a person? There's absolutely nothing wrong with people slaughtering "non-persons" as long as the non-person is sincerely believed by the slaughterers, and if people go around doing that you will have no complaints?
Or do you perhaps have a more nuanced and less genocidal belief about personhood grounded by something beyond mere subjectivity?
MathWizard
Good things are good
19d ago
Is $200k the limit on the amount that Keith's insurance would cover? If not then Keith is entirely in the right here, and the bankruptcy judge should not have required the limit of 200k in the first place. There's no reason the amount should have been relevant for this ruling except if it would be dis-chargeable via the bankruptcy.
If it is the insurance limit then the best outcome would be the $1.6 M being the official amount awarded and the $1.4 M being retroactively discharged by the bankruptcy.
It's unfortunate that the laws aren't smart enough to do the obvious thing.
MathWizard
Good things are good
25d ago
The ideal temperature for human comfort is around 20C, which is why people set their thermostats around there. Anyone setting their thermostats to anything meaningfully distant from ~20C is doing it to save money. If you're outdoors, you maybe want a bit more if it's windy, or a bit less if it's sunny or you're doing a lot of physical activity, but you want the sum of all effects to average you back so your individual subjective feeling is around 20C.
Whatever combination of sunny/cloudy/rainy gets you closer to 20C is the ideal weather for your region.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
I broadly agree with you, with the caveat that I think there's a little more room for charity/empathy/forgiveness for people who are being harmful by accident rather than on purpose.
A murderer knows that what they are doing is wrong. They know that they are going to inflict a huge harm on others (both the direct victim and everyone who knows them), and they do it anyway. They are evil and they know this and they do it anyway because they are angry/selfish and care more about themselves than others. It's an issue of bad morality.
Aella believes that she is doing good. She has a distorted view of society/psychology in a way that makes her think that her lifestyle will make the average person more happy instead of less happy. She does what she does partly in order to make herself more popular and justify her lifestyle, but in part because she genuinely thinks it will make the world better. Now, likely some of this is cognitive dissonance: maybe somewhere deep down inside she knows its wrong but doesn't care, but I think the majority of the issue is a question of bad objectivity.
Now, from a consequentialist perspective Aella is probably worse and so, if necessary and in isolation, we would be willing to inflict a higher cost in order to stop her. But the norms of "have harsher punishments for people who hurt others on purpose than those who do it by accident" is useful in general, as is "have harsher punishments for people who hurt others in unambiguous ways than those who hurt others in ambiguous and indirect ways". This makes it easier for people to know what to expect and adjust their behavior ahead of time (decreasing the rates of bad behavior) instead of doing it anyway and then getting punished randomly and unexpectedly afterwards. It also decreases the ability of people to apply punishments to good behaviors by making convoluted arguments about indirect harms. It also gives more opportunities for forgiveness and redemption. There's a non-negligible chance that at some point Aella will observe more of the effects of her actions, realize her mistake, and then change and start genuinely helping people and undo the damage she's caused. Because her underlying motivation: wanting to help people, doesn't need to change, she just needs to reconcile it with the desire to be popular and slutty and realize they're opposed instead of synergistic. I suppose murderers can also change and become better people too, but it's a different kind of change and it's impossible to undo the harm they've already caused.
This is entirely consistent with the principle of "shame Aella and jail murderers" rather than the other way around. But the shame on Aella should be tempered by education and a hope that she herself learns from her mistakes instead of just having the shamers by maximally cruel to make her suffer and hate them and reject what they say.
MathWizard
Good things are good
18d ago
No, it's the limit on the amount that Carlos's insurance would cover.
My bad, that's what I meant to ask but got their names mixed up.
To clarify: This situation arose solely because Keith was impatient. He asked the two judges to impose the 200-k$ limit because he wanted to get his money ASAP, without waiting for the bankruptcy proceedings to finish.
But why was that necessary? Shouldn't there have been an option to do the thing he tried to do? That is, have his case proceed but, because the accident occurred prior to the bankruptcy, anything that exceed the insurance value can retroactively be voided by the bankruptcy? Or is that not possible because it would make him a creditor and the bankruptcy has to figure out how to pay those out?
Wouldn't it make more sense to put a hold on the bankruptcy proceedings and handle the lawsuit first?
MathWizard
Good things are good
3mo ago
Not politically viable, but if the issue is the economy then the obvious solution is to just make worker visas that let them bypass minimum wage laws. Get a bunch of workers to come and work for the cheap jobs that nobody wants to do for low money, but they still have to pay taxes, don't get to have anchor babies, and they eventually leave when it expires and return with piles of money to their families back home.
MathWizard
Good things are good
4mo ago
The self-doubt in Empire Strikes Back and The Last Jedi always felt really weird to me. Like, Luke is never actually tempted by the dark side. There is nothing the dark side ever has to offer him that he wants, he never struggles with his darker tendencies. It's just people warning him "Darth Vader used to be on our side, then he turned evil, and you remind me of him". There's never actually any reason for him to turn, and never any threat that the audience could take seriously of it happening, even without plot armor. Even if he did obey the Emperor and strike down Darth Vader in anger, there's no plausible reason he would switch sides, he'd just strike down the Emperor too.
I think it's mostly just there to make it more cathartic when he does it the other way around and converts Darth Vader. But it's still weird how everyone in universe takes it so seriously.
MathWizard
Good things are good
4mo ago
As a general rule, actions which are immediately and directly harmful to others should be outlawed by the state. Actions which are generally anti-social but via some combination of indirectness, mildness, or fundamental to freedom or other universal human rights are not appropriate targets for the State's jurisdiction should be shamed and shunned but technically permitted. Actions which are neutral or have primarily personal impact (no externalities) should be tolerated. Actions which are positive but indirect should be socially praised and encouraged. Actions which are strongly positive, and have direct and objective measuremes should be subsidized, funded, or directly done by the State.
I see no reason why actions being done related to sex or done by women should be exceptions to this rule one way or another. Harmful actions like rape should be illegal. Anti-social actions like spreading STDS or having children outside of marriage should be shamed. Non-diseased non-procreative sex should be mostly ignored/tolerated. Having healthy happy relationships should be celebrated. Having reproductive and well-run families should be subsidized.
Half the problem is society and the media shaming housewives and celebrating career-obsession and promiscuity. If that just stopped a lot of people would have nicer relationships and families of their own volition, no compulsion required. Just stop digging the hole deeper.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
(which is were they roll the credits and probably marks around 30% of the games content)
For real? Or are you exaggerating here? I stopped playing after the first ending on the assumption that I had seen most of what it had to offer and the remaining puzzle threads that I had discovered but not yet solved seemed pedantic and annoyingly completionist and I didn't think I would have the patience to grind through them just to get a "true" ending.
But if there's literally more than half the game remaining (in terms of actual content, not merely playtime spent grinding runs hoping to get lucky) then I might pick it back up.
MathWizard
Good things are good
3mo ago
The issue, as they point out, is that outcomes are heterogeneous. If the outcome is a combination of your decision and random noise and circumstance outside of your control, then outcome will be weakly correlated with the actual value you provide. Half of punishments and rewards will be deserved, and half will be simply responding to the whim of fate.
If your punishment/reward mechanism is long-term enough, like say the profits of a company that can accumulate over time and wash out the negatives with positives, then risky but positive expectation behaviors will work. If your mechanism is "fire any CEO who has a year with negative profit, no matter why it turned out negative" then you're likewise going to incentivize conservative behavior that guarantees the bare minimum at the cost of unlucky but smart people who take risks with positive expected value.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2mo ago
I think this is typically handwaved away by assuming that if we, as humans, manage to solve the original alignment problem, then an AI with 100x human intelligence will be smart enough to solve the meta-alignment problem for us. You just need to be really really really sure that the 100x AI is actually aligned and genuinely wants to solve the problem rather than use it as a tool to bypass your restrictions and enact its secret agenda.
MathWizard
Good things are good
6mo ago
I don't think I mind the mythologizing all that much. There were a lot of brave people who helped slaves before and during the civil war, they deserve credit. As long as it's directionally true (Harriet Tubman did actually help slaves), I don't mind her being a stand-in for the credit that they deserve.
What I do object to is attempts to elevate her beyond that, especially in the role of a political leader, which she was not. Andrew Jackson was the President of the United States. He's on our money because we put Presidents on money (And Benjamin Franklin, because he was important in founding the nation). All of the leaders in Civ games are Presidents, Kings, Chiefs, etc: actual historical rulers, because you as the player are making the decisions controlling your nation. Harriet Tubman was not. Every single thing she said could be true and she still wouldn't belong on money or in Civ because, despite being a good person, she wasn't actually a political leader. It's a category error.
MathWizard
Good things are good
5mo ago
Pop is a verb. It means things. People use it to talk about non-beverages, creating potential collisions in language usage. While collisions in language happen all the time and are manageable, it's still a point against.
Coke is a horrible term to use, because Coke is a specific beverage. Use of brands for generics, like saying "Kleenex" for tissues only works when those things are interchangeable. If you ask someone for a Kleenex and they bring you a Puffs tissue you can just use that instead. You might not even notice. If you ask someone for a Coke and they bring you a Sprite you're in for a rude surprise
Soda is clearly the superior choice. The only collision is for things like Soda Water, which is just carbonated water that they use in soda, or sodium compounds in chemistry (which the majority of people don't talk about).
You have been Culturally Imperialized, by the correct and dominant Empire. You are welcome.
MathWizard
Good things are good
4mo ago
Who is the best, most sane, and intelligent, centrist or left-leaning commentator/podcaster you can recommend for me to listen to? I'm a bit worried that as the Motte trends further rightward that I'm in too much of a filter bubble, and most of the stuff I naturally listen to is right-leaning, because the stuff that's explicitly leftist is braindead and infuriating. I don't want someone ranting about how Trump is Hitler, I want people good, calm, and reasoned defenses for their positions that I don't already agree with so I can understand their position and maybe find some insights that I previously dismissed as braindead because I only heard the stupid version of it before. I used to like Sargon of Akkad for this, because he was in a nice centrist zone: left on some issues but right on others, but every year he drifts further right and I don't think he serves this purpose anymore.
I like to listen to people talk about stuff while I'm playing casual games that don't take up too much brain power or require audio themselves, so multi-hour broadcasts with a lot of backlog are ideal. I do read things sometimes, obviously since I'm here, but I'm mostly looking for audio right now.
MathWizard
Good things are good
3mo ago
I have been using Suno AI to make music about silly events and inside jokes that amuse me. I have a song about my favorite character in Gloomhaven, a song about how much I hate snow, a song about my wife being a loot goblin in a game, a song making fun of some redneck who harassed my brother, a song about a tiny plant my wife got in a toilet-shaped pot that we put on top of our toilet, etc...
Most of them sound like real songs you might hear on the radio. Nothing super profound, but not terrible. Well, actually probably 80% of the time it's terrible, but as usual with AI you discard the garbage and retry and reprompt until you get something good. Occasionally I write the lyrics myself from scratch, but most of the time I prompt Chat GPT on a topic and then tweak the lyrics to fit the context better before giving them to Suno to make a song. It's wonderful, and I am gradually accumulating a playlist of actually good songs that mean something to me.
MathWizard
Good things are good
11mo ago
I’m unpersuaded by the typical religious argument that life is so sacred we cannot take it. We do take it, all the time, in war and executions.
How do people keep ignoring the actual argument? Killing good people is bad, killing bad people is good. This has been more or less the justification for war and executions from religious and non-religious people alike for thousands of years. And within the past 40 years the majority of people not only stopped believing it, but completely and utterly forgot that this is what other people believe. Just because some people believe in a constant function: "killing people is always bad", does not mean everyone who disagrees with them believes its pure negation: "killing people is always good." There's a ton of room for nuance.
Given that the vast majority of potential euthanasia recipients are "good people" according to most sane definitions, ie they are not mass murderers or foreign soldiers that represent an existential threat to the life and liberty of your nation, any belief system that believes "killing good people is bad" and doesn't make exceptions for the will of the person will think that killing them is bad. Sophistication is not hypocrisy.
MathWizard
Good things are good
10mo ago
This overtime proposal is interesting since it only rewards people who are already working more than 40 hours a week.
Policies like this always take too static/naive of a world view. You imagine how people currently behave, and This rewards people who are "working" more than 40 hours a week after all of the employers and employees update their behavior to exploit the new system. Instead of offering a 40 hour week at $20 an hour, companies can offer $10 an hour for 40 hours and then with 10 $30/hour "overtime hours" of make-work to make up the difference. Maybe they'll have people be "on call" so it counts as overtime but doesn't actually add work.
And then the salaried people will all want to be "hourly" so they can get two thirds of their pay count as "overtime". Your $80k/yr Secretary and your $300k/yr chief engineer are going to become hourly employees whose total yearly pay just happens to coincidentally always adds up to approximately $80k and $300k respectively, but technically half of it is overtime. A lot of the more highly paid people already work more than 40 hours per week anyway, so it wouldn't be too hard for the business to fudge the values around and count their pay as overtime. And for the people who don't, again I'm sure the business could just make make-work for them to technically count as overtime, while shuffling the numbers around to keep their total pay the same, or even less, since if the employee is paying less taxes their effective pay is higher even at a lower nominal value. And that's why the companies would go through the effort of doing this. Why pay $60k for an employee when you can pay $50k to one who gets to evade taxes via loopholes?
I get the sentiment of wanting to pay blue collar workers more in a way that doesn't enable welfare leeches. But this isn't the way to do it without some serious modifications to fix the incentive structure.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
I see where you're coming from. On a gut level I immediately want to retort that punishment and forgiveness should be equally affected by your smallness and anonymity. If you're just one of many people such that your forgiveness barely matters, then your punishment barely matters too, especially since the external outcome of your forgiveness would be the cessation of your punishment/shaming.
But since it's also the case that
A: Punishments are applied in a decentralized way, with each person using their own individual criteria for what should receive shame
B: The impact of punishment via shame is nonlinear. Getting 20 death threats doesn't actually feel twice as bad as getting 10 death threats, so reducing the number of shamers by 50% doesn't actually help all that much.
Your point probably stands. Aella could repent and change her ways, and maybe 50% of people would forgive her and the shame would go down, but the other 50% would continue And also probably a bunch of sex-positive people would start shaming her and it might even end up worse. So then she's paid the massive social and lifestyle costs of repenting without actually solving the shame. Without a near-universally recognized authority who can forgive her and enforce other people's forgiveness (in deed, even if not in belief), she has no incentive to repent (beyond a genuine realization of being wrong and a self-sacrificing desire to do the right thing despite the costs).
Which in turn massively decreases the pro-social utility of shame. The point of punishments is to disincentivize the punished behavior, both on the part of the person being punished, and other people who witness them. But we've essentially lost half of that. If we make her miserable enough maybe we'll scare others away from following her example, but sometimes young people are stupid and do stuff before they realize the consequences. And anyone who does and then changes their mind is just stuck in a world where they can't be forgiven. Or more likely, doubles down on the side they're already on because they know they can't go back.
I don't know that we can do anything about that. But it still kind of sucks.
How do I accurately evaluate my worth? I'm too heavily confounded by impostor syndrome that I can't tell where it ends and my true value lies. I'm definitely below average for a Math PhD in terms of accomplishments. None of my grad-school work ended up getting published, and I've published 1-2 papers per year in my postdocs which have gotten ~5 citations each. I seem to work a lot less than my peers, and my advisor/bosses have been too busy and/or easy-going to push me, so I've kind of been coasting. That said, I am smart enough to learn stuff when I do try, and got a Math PhD, and know how to hack code together into something that compiles. I don't know what that's worth. What I do know is I'm not willing to put in the 60+ hour per week that the professors I've worked under seem to do writing grants and managing grad students and whatnot. At least not consistently, I would put in a couple long weeks if I really had to.
And I don't want to move, which drastically reduces my options. But on the other hand, the cost of living is not very high, and I'm currently DINK, so technically could survive on just my wife's job, but that wouldn't really be fair to her. On the work-life balance front I heavily lean towards the life part. Work is there so I don't starve and can afford people to do stuff like house repairs that I don't want to do.
I'm sure someone with my intelligence plus work ethic and ambition that I don't have could easily be making loads of money. However, given my constraints, is $40 an hour still an insult? My ideal position is remote, high pay per hour, few total hours, and meaningful/satisfying/moral, (I'm not phoning it in on a job that my employer expects more from), but I'm not sure what that is or if that's too many variables maximized simultaneously and I might need to compromise on some.
More options
Context Copy link