VoiceOfLogic
I happen to be, unfortunately, the first human super-intelligence.
What a sad tragedy to see what others can't see.
User ID: 1999
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Women are less likely to be predators and more likely to help, by just the power of statistics.
Very dangerous comment here, both insulting and misandrist. But you can be insulting and misandrist if you back it up with evidence.
However the stats (see e.g. conjugal violence ratio estimates would surprise you as the difference is not that major, or that much more men than women are beaten up in the street) supports that men should rationally fear more a stranger than a woman should fear.
Secondly this is utterly pointless as the statistics of criminals or "predators" shows that it is an extremely rare event. The extreme majority of men and women are harmless, the hysteria of the fear of the stranger and of the fear on men is potent mental degeneration and I would say a modern instance of cognitive pandemics a la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_plague_of_1518
(I run into zero homeless insane looking women, for example)
Women are much more likely to be helped hence it seems likely than less would spend enough time alone in misery to eventually become insane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
How can someone lack the empathy to not realize insane people are extreme victims?
As a reminder men have 3 time the suicide rate.
However the topic on the conservation or not of gender specific advantages/inequalities upon gender transition is interesting.
VoiceOfLogic
6mo ago
I have no idea but one thing I always wondered is wether a person that only present so called negative symptoms should be classified as schizophrenic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#:~:text=activity.%5B7%5D-,Negative%20symptoms,-Negative%20symptoms%20are IMHO there is great diversity in symptomatology and imho the root causes can be very different such as different brain regions being subject to damage/dysfunctions
VoiceOfLogic
6mo ago
Nobody will push the science forward the world will keep being nearly maximally inept, both this century and for the others to come. As you correctly say, the economic incentives are beyond malevolent but most importantly, the pharma enterprises are simply extremely mediocre and their complacency, like worlwide suffering will perpetuate. The insane mediocrity is simply a product of the extreme absence of education during the human's brain-formative years (so called critical periods). Only a few artifact outliers like me can contemplate the contemporary horror in its fullest depth.
The modern internet feels very small and uninhabited.
I don't actually go there to have fun but that's definitely an excellent meta resource https://explore.marginalia.nu/view
e.g. I just found https://watcher.neocities.org/
Fasting like exercise are hormetic stressors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
Your claim about universal paradoxal evidence about nutritional science is erroneous because exercise and fasting are special cases, few things are simultaneously toxic and beneficial.
Humans lose their scarce attention span on weak nutraceuticals while ignoring the real landmarks of the ageing process and its potent solutions such as MTAs AKA skq1
note if you have diabete I would look into ALCAR given that it significantly reduce reliance on sugar for energy production as it shift the ratio towards lipid beta peroxidation, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10877193/
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Only ukrainerussiareport will show the true Ukrainian military hardware losses which is necessary to have predictive power and when/if its defense capabilities will break down.
Ukrainerussiareport is mostly not propaganda btw, much less so than are the other subs, especially since many commenters are pro-ukrainian which give a certain rare balance.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
It's be really nice to have an online collaborative website where we can highlight sentences in books per thematic/criterion of highlight.
We have so much content in this world and the signal to noise ratio is so low, that's the usual ineptia I guess
If anything, the motte has a deficit in comments, most especially a deficit in comments answering a parent comment.
See my post history for yourself, I write well argumented, semantically very rich content/micro-essays especially but not only on (ineptly) polarizing topics and to me it is clear the semantic value I add to the motte is unparalleled, yet the level of engagement I receive, be it intellectually curious questions or constructive additional facts or argumentations, is very low, low in quality but most importantly low in numbers. Most of my comments are IMO remarkably interesting and information rich for the internet and yet people don't seem to react to that nor seem to appreciate that unique proposition value in the semantic space. So feel free to indulge some comments on mines.
see e.g. https://www.themotte.org/post/317/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/56897?context=8#context
The quality of military analysises on the web is very low as usual.
People think that if the U.S was invading Ukraine they could do it in a matter of months, spoiler: they can't.
Firstly occidental populations are past the point of dying for killing humans, the number of americans willing to die is a scarcer resources than in authoritarian countries.
Secondly, war has changed the prior advantage of air superiority and tank superiority is gone. Anti air such as S-300s have broken the economics and impact of aviation. Secondly ATGMs have broken the economics of tanks.
This is it, we can no longer make disruptive military attacks, it's all a slow attrition and geographic crabbing, with extreme losses of military machines.
I could argue that soviet miltary machines are in many regards highly superior to their U.S counterparts both in metrics and in economics but that is besides the point, for both superpowers, the efficiency and economics of past wars is long gone as Ukraine spectacularly shows.
The only remaining "hopes" for military tactical disruption would either be true drone swarming, which russia doesn't do enough, or tactical nuclear bombs, or bio-weapons or a much more highly targeted attack on the energy infrastructure of Ukraine.
The only classical card Russia has not played is the real terror bombing of using bombers which russia has not used a single time in this war. While modern antiair would destroy a lot of bombers during a swarm, if russia sent enough they would achieve disruptive destruction also, it would be interesting to see the TU-160 in action since it is the fastest military aircraft to exists.
edit tu-160 is the fastest bomber, not the fastest aircraft.
It is the largest and heaviest Mach 2+ supersonic military aircraft ever built and second to the experimental XB-70 Valkyrie in overall length. As of 2022, it is the largest and heaviest combat aircraft, the fastest bomber in use and the largest and heaviest variable-sweep wing airplane ever flown.[2]
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
What kind of inept denial is this? You seriously believe Russia will run out of tanks before Ukraine? You are wrong by multiple order of magnitudes.
Also the purity thinking that modern military machines transcend the old ones is very common and childish. In fact considering the very strong economic and usefulness diminishing returns of the newer iterations, peak maximally useful military machines are generally from the 70s + a few cheap modernisations on top such as a 1 dollar gps/glonas chip.
The burden of proof is just a convenient default rule and only that, a convenience.
The burden of proof in reality is not just about the person making a claim but on everyone if the verisimilitude of the statement has an utilitarian impact, it is my moral duty to steelman arguments from others even if I disagree with their initial formulation, the erudition and epistemological level of the author is semi-contingent and therefore it even follow that the more deficient that person is, the more effort I should allocate to steelman his statement as an intellectual solidarity in the economic sense, as a political way to reduce inequalities and also for various reasons, to increase the coverage of ideas on the semantic mental search space.
unrelated:
The ad-hoc legitimization of inaction as a non or as a lesser cime than action is the biggest cause of suffering on this planet.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Given that the pill shifts what kind of men are found attractive
Source please?
VoiceOfLogic
11mo ago
Hi how would you rate zelda TOTK out of 20? (with intellectual honesty with yourself pls)
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
It's not because something is useful than it is logically sufficient. Those culture might have gender issues for other reasons, yet the linguistic distinction promote tribalization.
Nor are there problems with coreference resolution
I don't see a proof, languages SOTA in NLP are consistently inferior to english SOTA.
That is because there are more researchers and datasets for english but not only.
Some languages are more fit for NLP, and english as it is known is among the simpler languages.
Now about the usefulness of he/she, well it trivially solves coreference resolution in case of ambiguity.
For example:
I was talking to Alice and Bob, then suddenly she passed out.
Who passed out?
Alice.
It is trivial and useful, it reduce the cognitive load of reading and writing, and works well since 49% of humans are women.
[Neural networks] are a local minima in the research on how to beat local minimas.
Could you expand what you mean by this? I'd think neural networks would be a local maximum.
Minimum, maximum, it doesn't matter to understand the metaphor.
A neural network through gradient descent generally want to find the global minimum of an error function and therefore maximize predictions accuracy.
It could instead search for a global maximum to the inverse of an error function or to another type of function, but the distinction is irrelevant here.
Gradient descent often fail to find the global minimum and instead because it descent/jump through derivates it can be stuck in a local minima, which simply means that it has reached a minima on a function curve and at this point, it needs to go upwards to go beyond the minima, therefore it temporarily afford to perform worse, to increase the error rate, in hope to find a new descent on the curve that will be lower than the previous minima
Not being stuck in local minima is the #1 metric to improve deep learning algorithms and while there are many optimizations towards this goal it is not computationally doable with current algorithms to have optimal learning aka reach the global minima.
So now we understand
the research on how to beat local minimas == neural networks.
now let's understand
[Neural networks] are a local minima
They are a local minima because Neural networks are fundamentally unfit towards AGI needs.
They are just a vomit of bruteforced contingent correlates and it works surprisingly well but it is inefficient, makes poor contingent amalgamations inherently,
have no causal reasoning abilities, are stateless and cannot do continual learning AKA they can't learn new info in real time without the so called catastrophic forgetting.
For those reasons, they are by design suboptimals and therefore are a local minima in which the world is stuck, in the goal of beating local minimas.
Now we are in another period of rapid advancement.
No offence, but it's really striking to see that the rationalist diaspora people live in an alternate reality based on groundless hype and a fundamental lack of methodology, or should I dare say, lack of rationality.
We are in a winter since 2019 or since the 90s depending on what we look at.
What does the average lesswronger or redditor look at?
He looks at cool demos. Or even more than demos, cool domain specific disrutpive applications.
That is what stablediffusion and chatgpt are.
They are indeed very impressive for what they do but at the end of the day that is irrelevant towards the natural language understanding goal.
someome with methodology should instead look at the precise tasks required towards true NLU or even AGI.
POS tagging:
https://paperswithcode.com/sota/part-of-speech-tagging-on-penn-treebank
dependency parsing:
https://paperswithcode.com/sota/dependency-parsing-on-penn-treebank
coreference resolution
https://paperswithcode.com/sota/coreference-resolution-on-ontonotes
word sense disambiguation
https://paperswithcode.com/sota/word-sense-disambiguation-on-supervised
named entity recognition
https://paperswithcode.com/sota/named-entity-recognition-ner-on-conll-2003
semantic parsing
https://paperswithcode.com/sota/semantic-parsing-on-amr-english-mrp-2020
Only to name a few, all of them are needed concomitantly, and that is by far non-exhaustive.
Once you undestand that the error rate is often per word/token instead of per sentence, and that error between those tasks have dependencies and are therefore often multiplicative and you'll undestand that a 95% accuracy while it sounds impressive is in fact dogshit.
What can you see from those SOTA results?
That we have reached a plateau of extreme and increasingly diminishing returns.
Most of the gains are from 2019, the year transformers were popularized. The rest has been a bag of tricks, and unoriginal minor optimizations.
The biggest innovation while still mostly unknown/underappreciated by the researchers group think, is XLnet, from 2019 too.
There is nothing else we can do, we have maxxed out the bruteforcing of statistics amalgamations, contrary to the belief, there is almost zero progress in SOTA results and most importantly there is a fundamental shortage of innovative ideas, wether we speak of an alternative to transformers or about innovating transformers themselves, nothing potent.
While it is obvious transformers are a misdirection, despite this I can improve the state of the art in any NLP task because there are additional ineptia in the research crowd.
Firstly almost nobody is working on improving the SOTA in most tasks, e.g. coreference resolution. Just look at the number of submisions over time to realize this.
Secondly as in every research field, the researchers are highly dysfunctional, AKA they will invent many minor but interesting, universal and complementary/synergetic optimizations ideas and yet nobody will ever attempt to combine them concomitantly, despite it being trivial. That is because researchers are not meta-researchers, and because of potent NIH syndrome and other cognitive biases.
For starters, the worldwide SOTA in dependency parsing is because I asked the researcher to switch BERT for XLnet, and it worked.
I plan to outperform the SOTA in coreference resolution in 2023, that will empirically strengthen my thesis on the dysfunctionality of mankind and on artificial scarcity.
I invite you to read this complementary essay on the topic: https://www.metaculus.com/notebooks/10677/substance-is-all-you-need/
VoiceOfLogic
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
ideological fiction of any sort tends to be worse than that which just wants to tell a good story
Well yes it generally "tends" but that is not a necessity.
Firsly let's not conflate fuzzy set of biases "ideologies" such as wokism with a well defined/scoped opinionated narrarive "ideology".
For example there is deliberate/motivated ideology and even utopism in V for vendetta, the great dictator and black mirror.
I think we live in an era that has a void of ideology, narratives and utopia.
I can imagine many optimistic but insightful rationalist utopia that I would deliberately realize and influence if I was a film maker.
However the world is not rationalist and the wokism and anti workism in modern cinema is pure cancer and I strongly fear the consequences it has on the future allocation of beliefs weights in the worlwide mindshare market.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Excellent topic and set of questions! Like really.
If I cut your question in half:
is too much music bad because it desensitizes us?
This is part of one of the most important utilitaristic question,
How and Why some kinds of Environmental Enrichments are much less sensitive to the hedonic treadmill/brain homeostasis?
What are surprising cross-tolerances between environmental enrichment X and Y?
What are surprising cross-tolerances between environmental enrichment Z and drug A?
The one that can answer this has unique key knowledge on how to maximize joy/happiness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_enrichment
Food for thought: how does the music and amphetamine high differ and similarise?
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
note: I'm pretty sure there are drugs that considerably increase the chance of becoming homosexual/bi, such as the famous trenolone
https://old.reddit.com/r/moreplatesmoredates/comments/sabei2/why_does_tren_turn_some_people_gay/
The thing is, every male is gay (bi), this is a basic fact yet it is taboo and everyone is in denial.
By gay I don't mean to be sexually attracted by the male body but to derive more pleasure from prostate orgasms, because that is obviously the male g-spot and the orgasm it provides in order of magnitudes more potent than penile stimulation.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
critical thinking. And I do not necessarily believe this to be fully teachable because I think abilities of comparative and analogical reasoning may be neurologically/genetically/IQ limited by the space of one's working memory along with the natural interconnectivity of one's brain.
I believe in some extent to critical periods for learning to think, and debiasing, but can we please stop the ineptia/hypocrisy and admit we live in a degenerate world that is at the level 0 of teaching critical thinking/epistemology, it's not that it's hard to do it is that we are not doing it at all, ever.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Usually things are trivial and just works, but not all technological ecosystems are equal, for example while javascript programs works fine, python programs often have dependencies issues (too old/out of sync). If the error message is a dependency version conflict yes, you can't solves them by yourself easily, often the thing to do in those cases is to look at the corresponding github issue or to open one. That way you can offload the troubleshooting on others or find out people have already shared a solution
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
It seems autism is not associated with high IQ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21272389/
but on the other hand we have this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927579/
also there is more basis for asperger https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24362849/
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
IQ is positively correlated with virtually every social metric there is.
I midly agree a-priori although too high intelligence can make someone incompatible with others (see inferential distance) and make someones become too serious, I believe hyperintellectualism reduce abilities to produce humor/jokes.
But isn't the common belief that very high IQ people are contingently but empirically correlated with cognitive disorders such as e.g the autism/asperger spectrum?
Finally someone on a tribe topic that can answer one of my comments through curiosity and truth-seeking driven questions rather than baseless denial and non-constructiveness.
peak maximally useful military machines are generally from the 70s + a few cheap modernisations on top such as a 1 dollar gps/glonas chip
Are you actually serious about this? Or is it some joke?
I am very serious about this, I have studied most of the Soviet hardware that exists.
Or is it "effectiveness over resources, assuming that soldiers and their training costs nothing"?
? I did not factor training costs much in my analysis but that's not the salient part and anyway training costs and training time (incapaciting inertia) have allegedly massively got up with modern (90s+) hardware especially ineptly for the F-35 and for the Abrams (22 weeks for a tank! although most of it is probably actually unecessary).
The russians tanks brought autoloaders which reduce by 1/5 the number of soldiers needed to operate them but that is only a marginal optimization.
effectiveness over resources
Yes as you've seen I am mentioning economics but not only.
Are you claiming that it applies to such types of military machines as planes, satellites, night vision, AWACS, drones and communication gear?
It applies mostly for the main two salient categories, aircrafts and tanks.
satellites, night vision, AWACS, drones and communication gear
Of course not but those are cheaps and have all mostly plateaued regarding metrics. About AWACS/radars there are still advances needed towards exploiting anti-stealth loopholes but that is a "niche" topic.
For what your claim applies? Definitely not for static machine guns (here peak is earlier), maybe for standard issue riffles. Anything else?
static machine guns
well considering Ukraine is successfully using the Maxim gun from 1884, that can be a valid point.
Little known fact is that USSR has superior machine guns because of a trivial technology, they are propelled by gaz instead of electric cable, that imply that they are transportable instead of fixed, but the main usefulness is that they start to spin and are ready to fire faster. However as with most modern weapons (my salient point) that is only a very marginal optimization that supposedly does'nt make much of a difference.
maybe for standard issue riffles
yes
So about tanks:
The T-72-B3 (from the 70s) are great tanks with an effective shielding, an autoloader which abrams lacks and a larger gun than the abrams too. BTW kinda ridiculous that Abrams lacks explosive reactive armor, which modernized T-72 are getting. However the competition on shielding and gun size has become mostly useless for most purposes, it is trivial to understand that the shielding coverage of a tank only cover specific parts, especially: the gun has zero protection, the turret is a weak point and a tank is useless without a working continuous track. Even on the parts covered with large shielding, it is generally ineffective against an ATGM.
Therefore gun and shielding have reached extreme diminishing returns. However a T-72 cost 5 to 10 times less than a T-90M/Abrams.
That makes T-72 extremely superiors to modern tanks as with the same money and closely comparable effectiveness/survivability (low in both cases) and I can assure you 10000 T-72B3 would destroy 1000 Abrams/T-90M both psychologically and effectively.
It is essential to understand that because the U.S and to a lesser but significant extent Russia fails to realize the plateauing and the non-linearity of economic costs, those countries are actively becoming weaker and weaker militarily.
The T-14 armata is a clever optimization (unmaned turret but with less shielding...) but is probably less effective than a T-90-M if I understand correctly, as while it improves humans survivability, it lowers the tank survivability, which is inept.
About anti-air:
By far the most important anti-air hardware is the S-300 (IIRC the partiots are largely inferior) from the end of the 70s. The S-400 is simply not cost effective and therefore mostly a failure.
about aircrafts:
The same goes on and even more potently,
The SU-25/27 (70s) cost approximately 10 times less than the F-35 while having 2 to 3 times larger payload and almost twice faster max speed. Of course the F-35 is stealth but with its prohibitive cost, stealth paint maintenance, very small payload, probably doable stealth loopholes (SU 27 have IRST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_search_and_track, SU-35 have L bands radars, etc.. or simply optics)
The SU-75 is an interesting development regarding costs but still very high https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-75_Checkmate
The F-35 even has a x band signature, with some machine learning/hardcoded recognition software, given its static structure, I'd bet even without said loophole it is very much doable to make its stealthless useless. Besides, it becomes detectable as soon as it deploy its weapons.
But the best way to take down a F-35 would be to deploy 1 0 0 0 0 0 loitering drones at 1000 dollars piece, after all that's exactly the cost of an F-35 and they are as much optically visible and loud as your regular aircraft.
For those reasons investing in a large army of SU-25/27 is much less risky than a few F-35 with probably soon to be broken stealthness, however given the extreme sucess of S-300 and other SOTA anti-air, one should be lucid and understand that the SU-25/27 are also obsolete and that we should mostly return to extremely cheap turboprop WW-2 style aircrafts.
Such planes can be made to have modern variants optimized for cost at aproximately between 0.1 to 1 million dollars, therefore costing less than the modern anti air missiles and having increased maneuvrability/reusable weapons vs drones.
Both drones and those planes very ironically are said to be stealth for X-rays, as they can fly low, fly "slowly" and are more stealth than F-35 X ray only stealth, as they have smaller hitboxes and low thermal signature (against ISRT). The same way birds are actually stealth.
Thus they could ironically have increased survivability against S-300 and ATGMs vs the SU-25/27, but most importantly they are so cheap they can be replenished quickly and do psychological and tactical swarm.
In that regard, at a 1000 vs 1 ratio, it is plausible that aircrafts have peaked in the 50s.
Moreover, those planes could have even better stealthness and dramatically reduced cost by making them out of wood, like many of the very sucessfull WW2 USSR airplanes.
It is important to realize though that those planes should still be modernized variants regarding avionics/radars. And that air to air missiles have not peaked in the 70s, and despite the significant cost increase putting very long range missiles on those remarkably cheap planes can be very worthwile and is trivial.
Another thing to realize is that turboprop planes can be quite fast actually, if made with contra-rotating propellers, a technology that has only seen the light after turboprops were no longer trendy see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
What I believe the most in though would be drones with guns such as https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-drone-that-can-fire-a-sniper-rifle-while-flying-developed-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In fact it is doable and has been done to design hardware and software stabilizers for guns on drones.
Guns are disruptively superior to missiles since you can only have a very small amount of missiles on a drone but can have a lot of gun ammo.
Add to that the cheap cost of a swarm of 10000000 of those drones and you supposedly insta-win a war.
To understand that properly, one has to observe a few things:
- war performance is autistic. Nothing like on the movies, humans are rightfully afraid of dying thus they are not actively focusing on killing others but on intimidating others and reducing their exposure. People with guns, aircrafts, helicopters, it doesn't matter it's all the same, haven't you realized it yet? They all do fake shots in the background.
A couple of periodic rounds/fire all day long in a given vague angular direction. It maintains the enemy at bay but to precisely aim at others needs to expose yourself to too much risk. Therefore the reality of war is mostly dumb firing at nothing.
This disruptively change with a drone with a gun, a currently non-existent concept in ukraine. Because the drone operator mostly don't care if the cheap drone is destructed. Most videos of drones are autistic to watch, they really take their time to drop one little grenade unacurately that might kill one guy and gone is the payload the drone needs to be refueled.. despite soldiers being AFK and completely unaware their is a drone right above their heads.
With a gun and a stabilizer, you can multiply the number of kills per drone by 10X-100X, especially compounding the innovative psychological terror.
All my points, the extreme diminishing returns of military performance metrics of most hardware classes, the extreme non-linear increase in cost, and low industrial production capabilities and the superiority of cheap swarming and of non-human fear impaired aiming, each of those individual 4 points are basic and are enough to disrupt the effectiveness of military powers.
I have extensively studied almost all nootropics and therefore know most of the pharmacological markers that influence intelligence, however I have almost zero knowledge about the genetics correlate of hypermnesy, intelligence and rationality.
Does anyone know what are key "genius" genes?
IMHO I don't think intelligence is mostly bottlenecked by standard genetics, I am far more inclined to believe in early nurturial critical periods.
But I do believe in the potential of a practice that has long been forgotten, artificial cranial elongation:
According to scientists their brain volume is not bigger than a normal human being, and as such cranial elongation only solves one bottleneck: space.
If we identify the mechanics that drive the closing of the brain surface in teenage years and find a way to delay it, or if we intensify neuron and axonal growth during childhood via e.g. BDNF, NGF, etc and maybe growth hormone then we might achieve humans with the biggest brains ever.
Don't get me wrong brain size is only one metric and there might be a bimodal curve to it however our current brain size as shown by studies is totally constrained by a mere contingent scarce sugar consumption optimisation.
Any opinion on the evolution of the Youtube recommender system?
More options
Context Copy link