roystgnr
2d ago
Just to round out the space of anecdotes a little more: when I've called out LLMs in the past I've sometimes had them "correct" their incorrect answer to still be incorrect but in a different way.
(has anyone seen an LLM correct their correct answer to be correct but in a different way? that would fill the last cell of the 2x2 possibility space)
They're still very useful in cases where checking an answer for correctness is much easier than coming up with a possible answer to begin with. I love having a search engine where my queries can be vague descriptions and yet still come up with a high rate of reasonable results. You just can't skip the "checking an answer for correctness" step.
roystgnr
6d ago
I also can't imagine "somewhat subhuman", but everybody is in a bubble on these things. The percent of Americans who say that "sex between an unmarried man and woman" (not specifically prostitution! just sex!) is "morally acceptable" is at an all-time high ... of only 76%. If that also seems surprisingly low to you, then you're probably in a liberal bubble (93%) rather than in a conservative one (57%), and you might also be in a younger bubble (I'm seeing conflicting polls for the 1970s, but they're in the 30%-45% range). I'd bet polling results for the moral acceptability of prostitution would be lower: support for decriminalizing prostitution is still only around 50%, and presumably that includes people who still think it should be shameful but just don't think shameful things should all be illegal.
And as for "damaged goods" ... to go back to OP's example, Aella has been publicly looking for "someone to get happily married to" while aware of the issues there for about 5 years now, still fruitlessly. IMHO the phrase "damaged goods" is going too far, but "typically incompatible with marriage-minded men" might be fair, right? She's helped other married men break their wedding vows "over and over, with small variations on the amount of years and the guilt they brought with it", and though she makes a sympathetic case for them, making that case strengthens the conclusion that wedding vows just aren't her thing. It's understandably hard to find someone who will swear "for better or worse" if they fear "for better or else" in return.
That's not necessarily the end of the world. It sounds like she's made a lot of friends and a lot of money, and obviously she doesn't have trouble finding sex (or presumably short-term relationships) either. She could probably be happy with all that. And if she can't ... well, too many of her critics seem to be cruel or stupid or both (yes, I am aware of the irony here), whereas she seems to be a smart person who at least tries to be kind, so hopefully if it turns out that her decisions really needed to be criticized, she'll eventually get around to joining in on the criticism.
roystgnr
6d ago
That sets a single national standard for benefits
How do they take cost-of-living differences into account?
roystgnr
7d ago
The theoretical justification for it is something analogous to the idea of a Universal Turing Machine, though obviously not rigorous.
If we come up with any other test to determine "human-level intelligence", a test that can't be beaten by a "spiky" non-general intelligence that outperforms in unexpected areas (I'm old enough to remember when chess performance was a generally-accepted sign of intelligence!), then someone judging a Turing test can just use that other test. If it turns out that for some reason an AI really can't understand how to respond to a weird hypothetical about upside-down tortoises, then the judge can ask them about upside-down tortoises. If computers had sucked at chess, a judge could have asked the AI to play chess. Computers only start to beat a Turing test reliably when there's nothing a judge can come up with that they can't beat.
roystgnr
8d ago
Here of all places I should find it easy to remember to avoid oversimplification and overconfidence, but after a perfunctory "I'd bet" I pretty much dropped all expression of uncertainty, and you were right to call me out on that.
I'm not even saying you're wrong
It wouldn't be crazy to go that far. I (sadly, under the circumstances) think I've described the most likely explanation, but that doesn't mean it's more likely than not, because there's only one way for it to be right and there's at least a half dozen ways for it to be wrong. Even if every alternative I can think of seems much less likely, their sum (plus the sum of alternatives I couldn't think of) might be more likely.
roystgnr
8d ago
I'm making a lot of soup from very little meat here, I admit. The LAPD chief later said "I know that situation you’re referring to, with the member of the media. We saw that, we’re very concerned about it and we’re looking into that.", so hopefully there'll be more context later; I'm not finding anything in a quick search now.
It's hard to imagine what any exculpatory context will look like, though. I am somewhat sympathetic to anyone who tries to enforce Niven's Law 1a ("Never throw shit at an armed man.") but ends up accidentally enforcing Niven's Law 1b ("Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man."), but I'd be surprised if that applies in this case. There's about 4 or 5 seconds after she's hit before we hear the sound of anyone (not necessarily the original cop; the camera has turned by this point) firing a second shot, and in the brief bit of that we have on video her assailant is lowering his gun barrel, not trying to adjust his aim or get another round ready, so he at least doesn't seem to think he's in any kind of imminent danger.
It's possible that he legitimately thought he spotted some danger before the shot, but realized it was a false positive and calmed down immediately afterward? That may be what happened in the famous Austin case from 2020: the video of a kid standing by himself harmlessly and getting his skull literally caved in by a beanbag round looks pretty damning, but the kid was apparently repeatedly throwing shit at the cops earlier, and the cop who shot him had just gotten multiple (incorrect) verbal reports that the kid now had a large rock in hand. The exculpatory evidence has a bit of a "cops closing ranks to protect a cop" vibe to it, and even the police report noted that there was no way the kid had a large rock as claimed, but the DA who dropped the case is so famous for conflict with the cops ("ran on a platform of ending prosecutions for low-level drug possession to focus on violent crimes, holding police officers accountable for misconduct, and pursuing restorative justice ... advocated against cash bail and promoted diversion programs to prevent felony convictions ... was asked to leave the funeral of fallen Austin Police Officer ... due to Garza’s history of prosecuting police officers") that I can't imagine him dropping this case unless he was confident he couldn't win it.
roystgnr
8d ago
Having grown up in a snowy place, I instinctively dislike white cars, because they scream "hard to see against the landscape" and "please deposit mud here."
Ha!
My city has hit 105F to 110F for 9 out of the last 10 years, yet I still see black cars here, which seem like an insane purchase choice to me.
roystgnr
9d ago
Player of Games and Use of Weapons have a somewhat similar dark vibe, and I could definitely see someone disliking those while liking other parts of the series. Maybe try Excession if you want to give the series one last chance? But frankly it sounds like the series just isn't for you, and you should switch to something else, and IMHO that's perfectly fine. It's a culturally influential (rimshot) series, but it's not the only or the best sci-fi book series out there.
in general the Culture kinda looks pretty assholish to me at this point, not sure if it was the intention of the author or my biases
The contrast between the general "which party should we go to next" culture of the Culture and the "what asshole tricks are we going to need to pull next to keep these people's parties from being ruined" culture of Special Circumstances is definitely intentional by the author, as is at least some of the way the assholishness "leaks" out of that supposedly self-contained organizational apparatus. IMHO the series would have been insufferable if you took away its insufferable characters, though; with just the external conflict it would have come across as just another Mary Sue "look how the universe becomes more awesome when more people think like me" Utopia story.
roystgnr
9d ago
They're already highly useful as a Super Google
If you're careful, they are. But that care requires twice as much checking: instead of just having to verify that the web page you find knows what it's talking about, you have to verify that the AI correctly summarized what it's talking about, and God help you if you just believe the AI about something for which it doesn't cite sources. But even Google's cheap "throw it in every search" AI seems to be much less likely to bring up unrelated web pages than the previous Google option of "let the search engine interpret your query terms loosely", and it's much less likely to miss important web pages than the previous Google option of "wrap most of your query in quotes so the stupid engine doesn't substitute unrelated-in-your-context words for your actual query terms", so it's still very useful.
The one thing I've repeatedly found to be most useful about current LLMs is that they're great at doing "dual" or "inverse" queries. If I knew I wanted the details of Godunov's Theorem, even a dumb search engine would have been fine to bring up the details of Godunov's Theorem - but when all I could recall was that I wanted the details of "some theorem that proves it's impossible to get higher order accuracy and stability from a numerical method for boundary-value problems without sacrificing something", but I didn't even recall the precise details, I wrote a wishy-washy paragraph for Claude and in the reply its first sentence gave me exactly the name of the theorem I wanted to search for. I can't imagine how much longer it would have taken to find what I was looking for with Google.
AI is extremely helpful for my job; anyone who says it isn't is probably just using it wrong (skill issue).
I'm currently not allowed to use a top-of-the-line model for my job (even though I mostly work on things that aren't ITAR or classified, we've got a blanket limitation to an in-house model for now), but I'm definitely worried that I'll have a skill issue when the rules get improved. What do you do to get AI help with a large code base rather than a toy problem? Point it to a github repo? Copy-and-paste a hundred thousand lines of code to make sure it has enough context? Paste in just the headers and/or docs it needs to understand a particular problem?
roystgnr
9d ago
Wait - do you get a lot of melee-only battles in Myth II? I only recall playing the first game, and that was a quarter century ago, but I vaguely recall there being enough ranged area-of-effect attacks (dwarf molotov cocktails, some fireball and lightning magics, an exploding suicide unit) that you had to keep your units spread out more often than not.
I do remember our Myth I multiplayer games getting up to some very weird tricks, though. Like: you'd have a dwarf throw a bomb, and then you'd quickly hit the ground below the airborne bomb with another unit's lightning, and the shock would accelerate the bomb high into the air and let it hit units practically on the other side of the map. We may have been evolving our tactics for Rule of Cool rather than for maximum victory rate, now that I think about it.
roystgnr
9d ago
it looks like the cop shot her on purpose, though I can't imagine why.
I'd bet that, ironically, the root cause is the same as the root cause of the protests becoming riots in the first place: because we're violent apes, and we evolved to rely on our own little groups' capacity for violence to protect us from all the other little violent groups, we therefore excuse even unprincipled violence by guys on "our side" rather than cracking down on it and risking intra-group conflict undermining our inter-group conflict. This gives sociopaths opportunities just as soon as they join whichever group gives them the most opportunities for their particular flavor of sociopathy.
When he saw someone who annoyed him, he got to make her suffer with no immediate consequences. It probably felt pretty sweet! The cops surrounding him didn't even turn to look and see what the hubbub was about, and he didn't even glance around to double check on that. He had about as much expectation of being punished by the other cops as the car-torchers had of being punished by other protesters. This asshole is doing more to undermine the support for aggressive law enforcement than the protesters are, and the jackasses waving Mexican flags in front of their barbarian pyres are doing more to undermine the opposition to mass deportations than the ICE and cops are, but because they're all superficially signaling commitment to their groups' cause, they don't get called on it by their other group members.
In general I'd guess police sociopaths are much smarter than rioter/arsonist sociopaths, because they found a group that will pay them overtime while they get to fuck around. Perhaps shooting a woman while a camera was pointed at her may have been going too far, but it is the LAPD, so even if some minor discipline eventually occurs we'll probably never know the details.
roystgnr
9d ago
roystgnr
12d ago
It looks like you only get taxed on the gains on your assets when you expatriate; you don't get re-taxed on anything that's already part of their cost basis.
roystgnr
12d ago
The first big unambiguous attack I recall was Tesla getting shut out of Biden's joke of an "EV summit" ... but the first big conflict I recall was that Musk was heavily opposed to Covid lockdowns, back before being opposed to Covid lockdowns was cool. Not sure who you would say was doing the alienating in that case.
roystgnr
12d ago
The "save a trillion dollars by rooting out fraud" overpromise wasn't one of Musk's usual sort, though. Sometimes he disappoints by fulfilling a promise in a half-assed weasel-worded way ("full" self-driving?), and usually he disappoints by presenting an improbable if-nothing-at-all-goes-wrong timeline for progress that eventually takes at least twice as long, but this time the promise was something that obviously was never going to be possible at all. Many voters were dumb enough to believe it, though, so it's not entirely unlikely that Trump's inner circle believed it too, and even Musk consistently kept acting like he was drinking his own ketamine koolaid.
roystgnr
12d ago
The time to become fiscally responsible by just cutting expenses was 30 years ago. Today we'd need to become fiscally responsible by cutting expenses and raising taxes. We won't voluntarily do that now either, so barring a miracle we'll eventually be forced to do it later (when lenders no longer imagine getting paid back for US treasuries and stop covering our deficits), and we'll grossly inflate away the US dollar too.
roystgnr
12d ago
I'm living the dream!
We don't have them often enough, since my youngest isn't as big a fan as the rest of us, but variety is good too.
Mandatory spending (mostly social security, medicare, pensions, and welfare), plus interest, now exceeds total federal revenues. We could eliminate every discretionary budget item, shut down everything from NASA to the Army, and we'd still see the debt continue to increase.
The debt is about to hit $37 trillion. If we cut all spending in half, everything down to Grandma's social security check, that would give us a $1 trillion surplus, and it would still take half a lifetime to pay everything back.
If we eliminated all spending, including collecting social security taxes but paying no more benefits, it would still take around 9 years to pay off the debt, not just a few.
roystgnr
12d ago
But Trump's election was specifically a repudiation of the Republican establishment's weakness on illegal immigration, wasn't it? Even his eagerness to be obnoxious to opponents was seen as insurance against the possibility of him becoming yet another Republican who would go weak-kneed and try to thread the needle between "grr, we hate illegal immigration" among their voters and "oh, but what can we do about it in a divided government? better trade another sweeping amnesty for some minor hypothetical enforcement concessions" in DC. The Democrats' only difference from the repudiated Republicans was that they were supporting the same outcome overtly rather than dishonestly, and Trump's base was centered around opposition to that specific outcome, not principled opposition to dishonesty, so there wasn't a lot of room for collaboration there.
The Democratic strategy of "help get people pissed off at an opponent who's pretty good at pissing people off" would have been a great one (for their own strategic interests; perhaps not for the country as a whole), if only they'd been able to field candidates and policies that weren't also pissing everyone off in different ways.
roystgnr
13d ago
I'm pretty sure the part where Elon started insinuating Trump is a pedo wasn't staged:
Time to drop the really big bomb:
@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.
Have a nice day, DJT!
roystgnr
13d ago
Most ironically, he was too liberal. This was the characteristic of Joe Rogan that was damning to them and that elicted the reaction that was damning of them. He may never have been too immoderate for them in the modern sense of "liberal"=="leftist", but he was far too much for them in the older sense of "liberal"=="open minded". While the modern left was discovering the delicious joys of shunning and deplatforming, Rogan was still stubbornly letting any idiot with any wacky or problematic ideology come to him and make a case for it to him and his audience. The last straw for them in 2024 may have been that, when he offered to let their idiot take advantage of his liberalism, at a point where she clearly needed it, she simply chose not to accept!
It's possible that she was doomed either way, that she had good reason for insisting on an hour interview surrounded by her staff rather than multiple hours one-on-one in his studio like all his other interviewees, but if that's the case then what they needed instead wasn't a liberal version of Joe Rogan, it was a didn't-finish-at-the-bottom-of-the-Democratic-primaries version of Kamala Harris.
roystgnr
13d ago
I think that's normal. Right? It's normal for every day to be an MMA cage fight against a little monkey.
Were you also a little MMA monkey, long ago?
Turns out that it's normal for your kids to be like little mixtures of how you and your spouse were as kids, rather than for them to be like kids in general.
That sounds banally obvious when I put it into words, but before I had kids I'd never really put it into words, so I never thought of myself as a person who would end up really liking kids. Turns out that, although I still don't especially like kids in general, I really like my wife and I really like myself so I really like my kids in particular. As a slightly-less-obvious bonus, it turns out that kids make friends more readily with other kids who they have things in common with, so I like all my kids' friends and I really like most of them.
My son would never have kicked me in the balls, but he will gleefully launch a massive suicidal invasion against my in-first-place-until-then Civilization V nation, thereby distracting me long enough to let my wife win our family game while he gloats, which I guess is the nerd version of a balls-kicking (I don't think I've ever won one of our family Civ V games...). But because it's the nerd version I feel proud rather than upset. Even when he shows me up at sports, it's popular-among-nerds sports like rock climbing and "ninja" obstacle courses that he gravitates to.
I know exactly zero men who would choose to get kicked in the balls even once to have a child
I'm also a counterexample here. Personally I thought that the months of sleep deprivation during newborn care were worse than a more-acute-but-more-brief testicular injury (which I haven't suffered since I was a teen, thankfully), but each of the kids were still a net positive before they turned 1. Maybe I've just never taken a hard enough hit to the balls.
roystgnr
13d ago
Shunning used to be something cults did, but wokeness mainstreamed it as part of its attacks on free speech.
Is this the setup for a Mitch-Hedburg-style joke?
"Shunning used to be something only cults did. It still is, but it used to be too."
roystgnr
13d ago
My wife and I agreed to stop after 3 kids, and she got a tubal ligation during the birth of our third.
With hindsight, I think this was the right decision - her births went from "C-section" to "with minor complications" to "with emergency post-op surgery", and one of my worst memories is of scouring medical journals on my laptop to try to figure out her survival odds while she was in that last surgery (around 99%, which sounds high now but sure felt terrifyingly low then).
With more hindsight, she now disagrees with me. She utterly hated being pregnant, and she doesn't have a death wish, but even in the hypothetical case of "what if the odds kept getting worse and you'd have been down to 90% next time" she thinks that would have been worth it for a fourth.
Her sister once had a kid who lost your game of Russian Roulette, with a severe mutation expressing both physically (he had stubs instead of lower arms or hands, legs he couldn't walk on, and cardiopulmonary problems that the doctors thought would kill him by age 3 or 4, and he eventually died of the flu at age 11) and mentally (at age 11 years he was mentally closer to 11 months). She still thought having him was worth the ordeal of caring for him.
I'm not sure what a good upper limit is, though. That sister has been raising (or completed raising; there's a wide age range) 4 other kids happily - but that might be partly due to good fortune in most of their lives? My father was the oldest of 6 young kids when his father died, and though his mother was a saint there's a limit to what a single parent on a limited survivor's pension can do to raise such a large family well.
I think that's the only reason I'm still glad we stopped at 3. As a terminal value I'd consider a 4th kid like our first 3 to be worth much more than a 10% chance of me dying, so I can't tell my wife not to feel likewise, but there's also the instrumental value of our lives to consider. If she had died then even our first 3 wouldn't be "like our first 3", they'd be in a sorrier state if they'd had only me (with a couple of her nearby relatives to help) raising them.
with reliable genetic screening to make sure they were healthy
Nucleus Genomics just launched their "Nucleus Embryo" product yesterday, if you want to do IVF to get improved odds on the kid's genes. I'm not sure what their process is or how reliable it is, though.
I do think lots and lots of women would have at least one kid if it wasn't so scary and risky and painful
Mean desired total fertility rate among young women in the USA is still over replacement; it's only the actual fertility rate that's now under 1.7 and still falling. But the biggest issues that have women delaying kids until it's too late to reach their desires aren't anything about the risks of pregnancy or difficulties of child rearing, it's the rapidly increasing difficulty of finding a spouse (especially difficulty finding a spouse while still young), combined with worry for their economic future.
"Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not."
It must have still felt glorious enough to the people behind the machine guns, or they and their immediate successors wouldn't have been so eager to fight in a war where both sides had heavily mechanized.
From a pragmatic point of view there clearly should be, but in practice Rosie The Riveter etc. don't get glorified until the battles have already begun, at which point it's too late to do more than merely expand a winning system that's hopefully already been created unheralded. Even this year, when we're all arguing about tariffs and protectionism and such left and right, the arguments from the left are mostly of the form "why wouldn't we want to make Pareto trades?" with no hint of awareness of the systemic military implications, and the arguments from the right are mostly of the form "why are we letting them take all our super-valuable green pieces of paper?", focusing on competing long-term allies and on non-dual-use production even when the effects of that undermine industries with security applications.
More options
Context Copy link