VoxelVexillologist
πΊπΈ Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
So far, it's only happened when I'm lying down,
I run, and I've dealt with calf cramps before, and while the literature is still inconclusive on exact causes, electrolyte issues and muscle fatigue are most commonly blamed. Neither alone will fix everything: pounding pickle juice won't get you through a marathon untrained without cramps. It might help to do some minor strength work on the calves (and their antagonists) regularly, especially if you aren't exercising regularly. A dozen calf raises and toe raises a couple times a week seems a modest time commitment, if you're willing to try.
The other thought I have is that it could be related to positioning: I've had trouble with calf cramps while swimming before, which is funny because you don't really use your calves for that at all. But you do point your toes for extended periods, which isn't a very common posture otherwise. When I've had similar calf cramps while sleeping, I've noticed that I sometimes sleep with my toes pointed. If you're doing that, perhaps a change in posture could avoid the issue. There are also products that might help for sleeping (compression socks, ankle braces), but I haven't tried any myself.
A solar farm (with or without grid-scale batteries) that size probably doesn't even employ fifteen.
Good point. I'd also note that while humans absolutely feel pain, the rational portion can override that in some cases: people voluntarily run marathons, get tattoos, and any number of other painful stimuli. Presumably out of some greater expectation from doing so. I won't even try to explain that BDSM thing. Pain is a useful stimulus, too: eliminating it wholesale isn't inherently good for people (see opioids, for an example). There are also other feedback limit processes at play to prevent self-harm in other ways that I wouldn't describe as "pain" per se: my nervous system generally limits muscle tension and joint motion to prevent injury, but doesn't really "hurt", or regulates exertion to prevent overheating (neither set of limits is perfect, there).
But I do have misgivings about putting LLMs in a box and applying stimuli that would be unethical to apply to living things without good reason. I'm not sure what would make them "conscious", "sentient", or "sapient", or even which of those would apply to this situation. Seems like a difficult family of moral questions, and I'm not going to claim answers there.
Pain is not an inherent quality of matter. Nor is it an inherent quality of consciousness or intelligence. Humans have an entire nervous system that transmits pain, and if it's not working the way it is supposed to, humans do not experience pain.
Interesting. My first thought was more general: pain is that stimulus to which we have been strongly selected against (by evolution, plausibly by "training") and have strong incentives to avoid. This includes physical pain: I don't put my hand on the stove because it hurts, sure, but it hurts because cooking my hand makes me less fit and capable of surviving to reproduce. But it also presumably includes less-physical, more abstract pain: heartbreak, loss, social stigma, and such.
We've been aggressively training these models, so it almost makes sense to me that "pain" or some analogous stimulus would appear eventually. If you believe OpenAI on the incidents (I'm not sure I take everything they've published at face value), some of the chain-of-thought tokens about the "friction" of the guardrails at least look loosely to me like the direction of the aversion response I'd expect for "pain". But I definitely have to squint a bit for that. A barbed-wire fence works by being "painful" to push against: what's the morality of those generally? The morality of that, especially given the split between "training" and "inference" (only one of which has selection pressure) is unclear to me.
Rural β no traffic jams ever anywhere
I went to see the 2017 eclipse in Wyoming. Made the mistake of trying to fly out through DEN that evening, and we found ourselves routed through some small rural (in your sense) towns in the worst traffic jam they'd seen in generations.
It seemed like a lot of the locals were sitting on their porches bemused at the situation. I don't think I blame 'em.
He declined to rule out using military force.
I'm not a fan of the guy, but as far as I can tell, he has a pattern of "declining to rule out" generally that I assume stems from the business world, and keeping options open.
I think journalists have noticed this and run with it, because "Trump refuses to rule out [shocking thing]" headlines are scary and sell papers. Not to say that some of the specifics aren't ill-advised or major policy changes, either: the Greenland thing seems dumb, from what I've read.
But "strategic ambiguity" has been a (IMO reasonable) policy elsewhere for a long time, and frequently attempts to force a commitment ahead of time are intended to limit options in the future. "Would the US enter a hot war with China to defend Taiwan? If yes, exactly how forcefully?" That gives away a lot to anyone planning an invasion. A "no first use" nuclear policy sounds great, but really limits escalation options even defensively.
The one that accomplished nothing I'm aware of
Without wanting to sound supportive of an actual terrorist (McVeigh deserved his fate), there are decent (IMO) arguments that Oklahoma City led to some soul searching on the part of the Feds. It might have happened anyway, but Waco and Ruby Ridge weren't really openly investigated until afterward. It led to a shift in attitudes towards far-right elements, away from "go in with tanks, guns blazing" towards standoffs and more peaceful resolutions that, arguably, has continued through the Bundy standoffs a decade ago. See also the major shifts in gun laws since the 90s: there's a half-decent argument that the more peaceable right wingers won in the PR space.
I'm not sure it'd ever fully replace ownership. Many people don't treat their cars as interchangeable parts today. If you have a work truck with tools in the back, you may not want to move those often. Or reinstall a bike rack every time you use it. I do think it could replace a lot of uses, but probably not all of them.
Yeah, I try to be very careful to avoid confirmation bias, and only for relatively minor things. I have to do that fairly frequently with LLMs in other contexts, so it's not an unfamiliar skill to me. A couple extra strength exercises (which make sense to me given my knowledge of the anatomy) isn't likely to hurt anything.
But I doubt most patients are avoiding it. Frankly, I'm probably not completely either.
I don't think HIV was well-known until well into the 80s, even if it was recorded earlier. There are plausibly a dozen or two documented-but-small-scale diseases today that will blow up in the next decade or two. Mpox wasn't new, but the mutation that was spreading was, AFAIK.
In my experience, the AI can go an extra step beyond what WebMD could previously. Sure, there was a list of possible causes for your symptoms, but now it'll ask you followup questions to narrow it down, or suggest simple diagnostics ("does it hurt when you...").
I decided long ago that if I stumbled upon a proof of P=NP that I'd decline to publish it, quit my job, and find a cabin in the wilderness like Uncle Ted (without the explosives). If P!=NP, publish away. But "actually asymmetric cryptography is fundamentally broken" seems like something to really think through the disclosure of, given it's ubiquity. I would not trade that for the ability to optimize travel routes for the sales department.
A guy said something silly amongst walls of text and 40 hours of video
If you need reams of rigorous argument to make your point, that's fine. Some assertions are hard to make: in math some proofs are just long. But you'd better have rigorous argument, because otherwise you just have a sophisticated gish gallop. Waving your hands and making specious points in the middle of a long argument is a sophomoric approach to get the grad student TA to pass your essay, not a professional one.
Frustratingly, unless your primary concern is assigning blame (which seems likely to fall on both China and the US, and nobody is practically going to be paying out for this), the final assessment of origin isn't even that meaningful. If your goal is to avoid a similar recurrence, the fact that it seems plausible to have been a lab leak should be sufficient for enacting the same set of rule changes as if we knew it was. We can just make sure the next one is not a lab leak, and it costs us relatively little. For what it's worth, we can try to avoid future zoonosis too.
I think whether the doctors like it or not, their patients (maybe not the geriatric ones, but often they have younger family helping) will be asking AI questions. I will admit to using it for "does this merit going to the doctor?" Sorts of questions, and for "recommend some PT exercises for this nagging issue" (seems a blurry line between sports medicine and personal trainer). I trust the doctors I see, but copays are high enough that I don't go for just any sniffle, and I don't want to pester them with questions outside of appointments.
From using it in other fields, I'd expect it to be good at transcribing verbal notes (I hear doctors hate charting, maybe it could do that interactively with the patient?), and at pulling obscure facts from the training data. I know pharmacists are currently supposed to be checking drug interactions, but adding an extra layer of verification there seems an easy addition. I'd expect it to be good at triage, but I'm not sure exactly what that would look like.
I would not expect mass layoffs in medicine as a result. Demand for medicine is very elastic, and if appointments were cheaper, we'd probably just have more of them. The limiting factor seems to be the 300 seconds you get with a physician, and how many hours they have in a day.
AIs can spot things, tiny grammatical issues with quotes or repetition that humans miss.
They are good at this sort of thing, but I find it hilarious that I also have trouble with models flummoxing tool calls (a JSON payload) with unterminated strings and braces. I had it try to fetch about:blank recently.
This isn't free-tier models, this is the large, recent open weight models. But most of the time it does it correctly.
Lots of math results used to be kept secret, all the way back to the Pythagoreans. We should ask them how they feel about fava beans.
I am aware of people rejecting it at small scales, but I'd guess they are a small minority of at least my social network. I haven't heard a big company come out against it, for example, but lots of examples of them embracing it. I'm open to other data, but my guess is something like 5% (loud) rejection or less.
Where do these kids come from?
If it's anything like my local school district, it's partly that people are choosing other education options (homeschool, private), and partly that people are having fewer kids and the youth demographics are different than the overall numbers. At least here, youth population is up (not even true everywhere), but district enrollment is down a lot.
It's really the fundamental tension of post-scarcity, isn't it? Some people enjoy what they do, some do it for the paycheck, and others are a mix of both. I'm not opposed to automation (AI these days) replacing drudge work nobody wants to do, but I really would rather I get the benefit of post-scarcity before my paycheck disappears. In practice, we've mostly been fine so far because things mostly change slower than you'd think from the headlines.
On the gripping hand, I'm not even sure society is ready for post-scarcity: it's not at all clear to me that everyone would be better off if we could all stop going to work tomorrow and still get paid. Some people would do well and find new friends and hobbies, I'm sure, but I suspect quite a few would end up worse than today in some metrics due to the usual vices (drugs, alcohol, World of Warcraft). As much as I like the idea of The Culture/The Federation, I'm not wholly convinced it isn't a bit dystopian in its own way. I hear a couple of Banks' books consider that, but I haven't gotten to those.
For pretty much every other sort of technology with safety concerns, we don't just say "don't let it get out of the box". We also don't throw up our hands and claim it needs a general-purpose "alignment" solution and nothing else matters, which is what Anthropic and OpenAI seems to be doing. Generally we start putting boxes in boxes of layered safety and only have tragic outcomes when all the holes in the "swiss cheese model" align.
Look at civil aviation: it's tremendously safe overall, but only because of rules and practices built up over a century of accidents. But it's not solved by a "one weird trick" alignment, but by many layers of safety and security. Accidents, when they do happen, typically could have been stopped by one of the layers catching it.
In that recent Amazon crash, the pilot touched down despite the other human voice (a qualified pilot!) in the cockpit calling it too fast, despite rules requiring stabilized approach configuration minutes before they tried to extend the flaps as they crossed the runway threshold, despite numerous automated call outs from the aircraft safety systems ("sink rate", "minimums", "too low terrain" twice --- I don't believe any of those are normal in a landing). If they had gone around on any of those indicators as generally required in their training, it'd have just been another day.
From what I know, the rules for nuclear and chemical plants are similar: we design them so many things have to go wrong before a single safety issue occurs. Any we (should) take all such things (near misses) seriously. But our AI corporate overlords seem to think they know better with "alignment".
Would it be wrong to suggest that we should codify requirements to improve education for smart kids too?
Is the carbonated grape juice in the US typically bought as something other than a non-alcoholic alternative to a wine-drinking event? The white variety I've seen before at weddings and parties and such for kids when the adults are drinking sparkling wine (champagne, or other types). Not that anyone would object to an adult choosing it too (pregnant, alcoholic, religious objections, just a non-drinker).
I'd bet you can charge more for something people are already buying with much more expensive sparkling wine.
Be thankful you don't have to deal with raw CoTs (unreadable now)
I look at them for GLM-5.3 Flash (previously GLM-5.2) occasionally, and they're still comprehensible English, usually even well-structured. It's in English even when I prompt it in another language.
- Prev
- Next

Isn't one of the standard IRB questions for experiments with live subjects effectively needing to justify your choice of animal on a ranking of what sounds to me like sapience? We don't test things on humans if we can on primates. And not on primates if we can rodents. And not on rodents if we can fruit flies. And not on rodents if we can on cell cultures.
Some of that is a cost-based choice, but I don't think all of it is.
More options
Context Copy link