domain:papyrusrampant.substack.com
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
9m ago
While I'm sure you're a perfectly smart chap, I'm also sure that neither of your ideas is worth patenting. If you don't actually work in data storage research or linguistics, the chances of your ideas being useful, or unacknowledged by domain experts, are low.
That's not to say they aren't interesting ideas for you to explore, or things that are worth investigating for your own curiosity. But absolutely what's happening here is that Claude is telling you that your idea is the greatest thing ever, which it's doing because your text prompts are incredibly excited and intrigued by these new possibilities: "You have no idea how desperately I want to share the details of both of these."
It's just mirroring that, and glazing you. And Claude won't "push you off of them" because that wouldn't be an appropriate AI response; it's trained to continue your conversation and explore the ideas you want it to explore, not to tell you "you should stop exploring this." Imagine if it did that when you asked it a question!
Hey, Claude, what's the capital of Venezuela?
Claude: Obviously this is a dumb curiosity question, just Google it if you really need to know.
Not a very helpful AI assistant! Now imagine the inverted behavior: "Sure, the capital of Venezuela is Caracas! Let me tell you some fun facts about Caracas..."
And then imagine that behavior amplified by your obvious curiosity and fascination with these ideas you've come up with; of course it's going to tell you they're the best ideas ever!
So, stay curious, stay fascinated, but don't believe an LLM when it tells you you've squared the circle. You almost certainly haven't.
anti_dan
22m ago
No, you posted leftist propaganda, the equivalent of me posting a Glen Beck video from his crazy 2010s era, as a source.
The Cato study you linked isn't focused on some sort of EA evaluation of QOL/$ because doing something like that for an anti-poverty program is hopelessly confounded. This is why you should easily know the "40 billion dollars for 18 billion in spending" is ridiculous propaganda. Also, it appears to understate actual spending on these programs by between $9 and $80 billion depending on the source.
I have now read the main report from Rockefeller, and it is just full of conclusory language. So now I must read the model. The tech report is similarly full of just conclusions with no evidence to support them. They say the lunches save people in poverty money by calculating the cost of producing the same meals for a private household. This is, of course, absurd. They attribute greater future earnings to the recipients of school lunches AND reduced criminality. Again, just bald assertions. The claims continue in this fashion.
The whole exercise of fisking my priors has just been a waste of my time, as my prior that the Rockafeller report would be leftist nonsense was proven correct via a painstaking process of reading an incredibly poorly prepared report and technical supplement that should have gotten a failing grade in and freshman statistics course. Of course, in other fields it would be given stellar grades, because those other academic fields are just about producing things that re-enforce the narrative, which this "study" certainly does.
NIH has done a study that shows that any study (like the one above) that assumes kids are even eating the meals is dubious. Some are, some aren't. There is no evidence that the ones that are, are the one's whos parents wouldn't have packed a meal, which IS an essential element of proving the efficacy of the program. You need to prove there are lots of kids who have parents that cant afford an apple and a sandwich that are eating, as a result of the food program, something healthy. If they discard the broccoli you give them and eat the chips you've proven nothing. If my kid or someone like him eats the broccoli you have again proven nothing.
Overall, a government spending program needs to prove its effectiveness to a much higher degree to be justified in its continuance. School lunches aren't getting close. Its not a mystery why school lunches are a big push: Public schools are already a giant left wing boondoggle, but they are also a 3rd rail so they aren't going away. Why not append another couple hundred billion of subsidies into that ecosystem? It just pours back into the right coffers after all.
Imagine arguing with this kind of evidence in favor of free ammunition program. You'd be laughed at by yourself. But at least the ammo isn't going to be thrown away and make kids fat.
That heuristic goes way too far into the point of absurdity. Sometimes they say could just because they don't want to appear like psychics with 100% accuracy when they aren't that. Especially since policy can always change. You don't wanna say something will happen only for the underlying causes to disappear underneath your claim.
More options
Context Copy link