faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
No bio...
User ID: 884
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3d ago
Well the correct answer to people claiming the use of DU ammo constitutes the use of "nuclear weapons" is to encourage them to speak directly into the microphone, not to try to tailor your own communication to ensure that malicious misinterpretation at that level is not possible.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3d ago
I don't doubt that Trump is uncouth, nor do I have strong opinions about whether Trump is the most uncouth president. The thing I doubt is that being uncouth is all that's going on with Trump.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3d ago
suppose I say I'd change my mind if Trump used nuclear weapons -- that lever will be used to abuse me.
See this is exactly the sort of lever I would really, really hope you expect wouldn't be used to "abuse" you, because you expect Trump wouldn't use nuclear weapons. If you expect Trump to pop a nuke I don't understand why you support him and what he's doing.
Or are you saying that people would claim that using DU ammo is using "nuclear weapons"?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3d ago
I think the most costly progressive belief is something like "we should not punish antisocial behavior if we can tell a story where that antisocial behavior is downstream of prejudice around race, gender, or class". While Trump has obviously been acting like a petulant toddler lately, it's not like handing uncontested power back to the progressive "adults in the room" is likely to go particularly well. Probably less badly but that's not a very high bar to clear.
Ideally, I don't do anything to convince you. Ideally, you will have a mental model of what the actual physical world will look like, and then you will notice what that model predicts about the physical world, and then you will look at the world and at those predictions and see whether they align with each other. The world in which Trump is crashing out and likely to lash out in counterproductive ways looks different from the one in which he's playing six dimensional chess. I am asking you to determine, in advance, what you think each one looks like. What will Trump definitely not do?
You don't even have to write it down. But if you find yourself resistant to making those advance predictions, even in the privacy of your own head, I think you should interrogate that resistance.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3d ago
To me Trump definitely seems more unhinged and less grounded now than he did during his first term or even the start of this term, and I've never particularly been a fan of him.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3d ago
What future observations would change your mind?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3d ago
... that does not make it better.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
17d ago
The US could be substantially harmed by the closure of the Hormuz Strait if we decide that it's a good idea to short crude oil futures and then the market moves against us.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
23d ago
What would you expect to see, looking back from 2030, in worlds where the war went well and accomplished what you were hoping it would? What would instead make you think the war was a mistake, in retrospect?
Obviously on the flip side of that, the modal "no war, and it went badly" world probably looks to me like "Iran got nukes, and used them".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
24d ago
... man, why can't the executive just say that. If this is a considered decision to embroil ourselves in a shitshow because the alternative is worse, that's understandable. What worries me is when the Trump admin doesn't show signs of awareness that it's going to be a shitshow.
Or maybe Trump posted something coherently explaining the reasoning on Truth Social and I just missed it.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
24d ago
I for one would be quite interested in why you support the war. The information environment is bad right now, so I value getting perspectives which disagree from my own that I am quite confident aren't from a bot.
There are several justifications for this war that strike me as plausible, but I have no idea which ones (if any) are load-bearing among supporters e.g.
- Iran was getting quite close to nukes, and negotiations were not working.
- Iran killed a lot of protestors recently, and the delay in military action was just because it takes time to get carrier groups across the planet.
- We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they would be easy (or even "actually, we still think it'll be easy").
- Iran has been a destabilizing factor across the middle east for decades, and we'd have to deal with it eventually, and now is a better time than most because [reasons]
- We are allied with Israel, and Israel attacked Iran, therefore we had to enter alongside them in order to maintain the alliance.
- Something else entirely.
Are any of these close?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
26d ago
That's not true.
We've got at least half a million outer space aliens in the enclave.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
If Glock and the government had already entered a contract containing such a clause, and the government demanded a change to the contract to remove that clause under penalty of trying its best to destroy Glock as a company (not just exit the contract), I think that'd reflect pretty poorly on the government.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
There was once an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day, his horse ran away. “Such bad luck!” his neighbors said. “Maybe,” replied the farmer. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it two other wild horses. “Such good luck!” his neighbors said. “Maybe,” replied the farmer. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the wild horses, was thrown off, and broke his leg. “Such bad luck!” his neighbors said. “Maybe,” replied the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army to fight in a war. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. “Such good luck!” his neighbors said. “Maybe,” replied the farmer.
Maybe this is not a good week to be working at Anthropic.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
Yeah I'm not at all concerned about chemical weapons.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
Please do not try to bait people into explaining in detail why this particular thing is easier than it looks.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
I expect quite positive. Having actually-good arguments for politically radioactive positions in the training data means the models will at least be aware of these arguments. With self-elicitation improving in every model generation, it matters less how frequently text in a basin made it into the training data - if that basin made it into the training data at all it'll be elicited when useful.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
Oh I agree that the effects are here, if that was the point you were making. I didn't realize that was controversial - even in my more mainstream bubbles (non-tech friends and family) people have been freaking out for about a year (in my tech bubbles they've been low-key freaking out since AlphaGo and high-key freaking out since GPT-2).
I do agree that mainstream society is not sufficiently pricing in the magnitude of the coming changes. I think that the tech bubble is doing a better job of estimating the magnitude of the changes, but frequently getting the sign wrong in terms of the anticipated effect on any particular metric.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
That is a $60 billion question.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
However, where LLMs differ from most classical deterministic algorithms is that they are not stable, a small change in the input might result in a big change in the output.
This is not unique to LLMs. This happens to pretty much any algorithm that feeds its outputs back into its inputs without converging. Probably the simplest example is that, if take a degree 3+ polynomial, and you use Newton's method to find the complex roots, and you plot which root was found by the initial value, you get a fractal (Newton's Fractal) rather than a smooth diagram. There's a great 3blue1brown video on this actually.
But yeah, that generalizes to a surprising number of iterative processes (e.g. neural net training)
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
and the stock soared
30% of those gains have already evaporated and we're only 3 hours past market open. Maybe wait and see a little to see how the market prices this in with more time to consider.
[conflict of interest disclaimer: I have a modest short position in XYZ (Block) as of a couple hours ago]
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
Do you have any specific binary targeting such an arch you'd like decompiled? I expect this plays to the strengths of today's models.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
chrome --remote-debugging-port
All frontier models know how to competently drive a browser using CDP.
Around here?
More options
Context Copy link