@Scimitar's banner p

Scimitar


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 21:17:20 UTC

				

User ID: 716

Scimitar


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 21:17:20 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 716

This is a long shot. I am trying to track down the source of a half-remembered quote I saw on twitter, I believe a screenshot from a book. It went something like this.

Imagine a man who devotes himself to potatoes. He lives his entire life in a room made of potatoes, he sleeps in bed made of potatoes, he eats only potatoes, etc. Now imagine another man who lives a more varied life, who knows a potato, but also knows turnips, onions, cabbage, etc. Which of these men has a greater understanding of the nature of potatoes?

The point being that the first man has no point of reference. Although he has spent far longer with potatoes, he lacks the framing and context that the generalist has. Appreciate any leads on this one!

Is it? I personally found the human aspect awkward and embarrassing, and could have done without it. Admittedly I never found therapy useful.

In the VICE article, Dan stays up till 4am talking to it, while Gillian says the words are empty. The Discord users that Koko fooled presumably skew male, so may be a gender thing. I know that my very male approach was "I have a problem that needs to be fixed", not "I need to spend an hour talking to an empathetic human".

"If only you knew how different things could be" . My favourite version has a different image with the same quote, but I can't find it. Hope, optimism, imagination are powerful forces and the meme triggers all of these for me.

And unrelated, but I find there's something profound about this meme.

TPOT just means "this part of twitter". Recently there was the second annual Vibe Camp, a tpot meetup, but I don't think there is much more to it than that. I think a lot of it is excitement when people find others that 'get' them.

As a kid I had the vague impression that I wouldn't grow up. I just couldn't imagine being an adult.

I understood that I was growing up, every year the number on the cake gets bigger, but I couldn't get my head round the fact that one day I would be 18, or 21, or 30.

  1. Software is not abundant. Software is expensive. Software developers are expensive.

  2. Google and Facebook are not build on dirt-cheap software. They pay some of the highest salaries in the industry.

  3. Price is a negotiation. Say I sell a software product for $50/month. Either it generates more than $50/month value to you, in which case you buy it, or it doesn't, so you don't. How much it's costs me to deliver it is irrelevant to you. If you think you can get a better deal using a different product, then go do that. If enough people do that, I am forced to lower my prices, change my product, or go out of business.

  4. If software is that easy, you should start a software company.

This is smart, because he couldn't remember if 1 or 5 was the most severe, so he hedged his bets.

Why are gays over-represented in the arts and creative fields? Even in tech, I go to an artsy coding meetup and it's hosted in an LGBT space. I go to a discord of people building interesting things and they're 50% furries.

I would presume there's a biological/psychological explanation, if the effect is even real, but it's hard to find good answers. My first guess would be the same loosening of priors that allows for creativity also loosens the heterosexuality prior; but then why gay and not bi?

Usually parents have autonomy over their children's treatment. If doctors believe that the parents are acting massively against their child's best interest, then they'll take it to the courts. This is because under law the doctors have a duty of care for the child, otherwise the doctors would be deemed negligent. So here it is a case of doctors vs parents.

In these case, the court will act in the child's best interest. So here, you might think paradoxically, the best interest is to withdraw care and allow the child to die. Modern medical technology can prolong death and make it a long and painful process. See Scott's blog for more on this.

AFAIK they do, but the report frames it mostly negatively:

Some dating apps and websites include features that allow users to ‘unmatch’ with or block other users. While these are important safety features that are intended to protect individuals from being contacted by problematic users, unfortunately they can also be used by perpetrators of DAFSV to remove evidence of violence and abuse, specifically conversation histories that can support reports of DAFSV to the platform or law enforcement. Alternatively, perpetrators can also delete their own account on the dating app or website to remove evidence of their conversations with victim-survivors.

Afaik this is what Benjamin Franklin did. Gifted money to Boston in his will but declared they couldn't touch it for 100 years while it was invested.

Here are some examples

https://80000hours.org/articles/what-could-an-ai-caused-existential-catastrophe-actually-look-like/#actually-take-power

You can do a lot with intelligence. By inventing Bitcoin, Satoshi is worth billions, all while remaining anonymous and never leaving his bedroom. What could a super human intelligence do?

This proves too much. Is having anal sex with a woman also gay, because it's also a physical simulation of sex with man? What about kissing women, considering gay men also kiss?

A few months ago OpenAI dropped their API price, from $0.06/1000 tokens for their best model, to $0.02/1000 tokens. This week, the company released their ChatGPT API which uses their "gpt-3.5-turbo" model, apparently the best one yet, for the price of $0.002/1000 tokens. Yes, an order of magnitude cheaper. I don't quite understand the pricing, and OpenAI themselves say: "Because gpt-3.5-turbo performs at a similar capability to text-davinci-003 but at 10% the price per token, we recommend gpt-3.5-turbo for most use cases." In less than a year, the OpenAI models have not only improved, but become 30 times cheaper. What does this mean?

A human thinks at roughly 800 words per minute. We could debate this all day, but it won’t really effect the math. A word is about 1.33 tokens. This means that a human, working diligently 40 hour weeks for a year, fully engaged, could produce about: 52 * 40 * 60 * 800 * 1.33 = 132 million tokens per year of thought. This would cost $264 out of ChatGPT.

https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/11fn0td/the_implications_of_chatgpts_api_cost/

...or about $0.13 per hour. Yes technically it overlooks the fact that OpenAI charge for both input and output tokens, but this is still cheap and the line is trending downwards.

Full time minimum wage is ~$20k/year. GPT-3.5-turbo is 100x cheaper and vastly outperforms the average minimum wage worker at certain tasks. I dunno, this just feels crazy. And no, I wont apologize for AI posting. It is simply the most interesting thing happening right now.

Back to medicine, as long as I have pharmaceutically enhanced diligence, I've yet to run into anything I simply can't understand, and I think I do a decent enough job at it.

Medicine is not massively g-loaded, is it? It's mostly memorisation, hence the popular med school anki subreddit. I can't think of anything day-to-day that actually requires reasoning about. I think it's why doctors suck at thinking from first principles and shut down when you ask them about something outside their "training set".

Unless you're Bronze Age Pervert

Like others say, women can't literally tell if you're a virgin (how could they?), but they can pick up on your 'vibe'. If you are insecure, it will reveal itself in subtle ways when you interact with women, which they can pick up on. Maybe getting laid would let you overcome the "I'm a virgin!" insecurity, in which case, it would indeed help you be more romantically successful. Not through some metaphysical sex magic, but by changing the way you think about yourself.

Also consider that you might have a fear of intimacy. Maybe you don't make romantic moves because you're afriad of what might happen, and justify this as "wanting to find love" and waiting for the "right time", which is a story you can keep telling yourself for years and years.

Models by Mark Manson is probably the best book on this subject.

I am always surprised that people are not more impressed with LLMs. I went out for dinner with a smart friend and he has not used gpt4 and didn't seem to care. We didn't understand part of the menu, so I took a picture and had chatgpt explain. Every time I do this it blows my mind a little. He seemed to take it for granted.

We now literally have intelligent computers that can see and talk, a la Jarvis or HAL 9000, and so many people are surprised I pay $20/month for access.

That's the question, right? Where do the interesting people hang out on the internet?

Start an ambitious project and work on it a little every day. Attempt to do something hard. Aim for mastery. Study a subject deeply, or seriously pursue a hobby, or create your own works of art/writing/code.

When I have my bases in life covered, I paradoxically feel unfulfilled. I need to feel like I'm making progress towards something to feel satisfied. Oddly I'm not sure the specifics of the goal matter, just the feeling of progress towards it. I guess it's why MMORPGs are so addictive.

Your question reminds me of this essay on "refinement culture" that starts by describing the changes that have happened in sports as decisions become more data-driven.

https://medium.com/@lindynewsletter/refinement-culture-51d96726c642

Dan Luu touches on this in a couple of his essays

https://danluu.com/talent/ - on the misidentification of talent in baseball (and elsewhere) by talent scouts trusting their 'gut' over the numbers.

https://danluu.com/bad-decisions/ - on bad decision making in baseball

Kamala will just implement policies that give current big players a regulatory moat

97th percentile means out of a room of 33 random people, you're the smartest. Does that feel right to you? In my school year of 200, there was one kid who was clearly the brightest. I could believe he was a 1 in 1000 intelligence = ~145 IQ. I think I was roughly second, so smartest 1 in 100 or 135 IQ. Yet this was a good school full of middle class kids, so the selection isn't fair. The hard part about building this intuition is getting an idea of what a room full of truly random people feels like.

(Also fixing broken machinery as an IQ test would bias against women, who have poorer spacial reasoning as a group. I think women outperform men on verbal reasoning, so you have to add some of that in.)