domain:nunosempere.com
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
1d ago
One thing I’ve found absolutely fascinating about these sorts of “live like it’s X year” experiments is just how surprising and even interesting the “analog” real world is once your brain adjusts to it.
Any links to examples? How far back are some of these people successfully resetting their clocks, as it were?
GBRK
1d ago
Have you heard of the types of fun? If not, See: https://essentialwilderness.com/type-1-2-and-3-fun/
As a descriptive generalization, all complex activities are composed of all three types of fun. The exact ratio of each type of fun changes activity by activity and person by person. Typically speaking, everyone wants to maximize type 1 fun and minimize type 3 fun. In the meantime, they will tolerate type 2 fun in proportion to they ability to delay gratification as an investment to produce more type 1 fun in the future.
Now, gamification, in this context, is best understood as a means to transmute type 3 fun into type 2 fun. The mechanism by which this happens is through providing consistent feedback and rewards so that the gamer later associated a particular misery with a positive outcome. In games, for example, killing the first 3 orcs in a questline might be type one fun, but killing the next 197 would be type 3 fun if it weren't for the xp and gold you get at the end. Similarly, in martial arts you might enjoy the first minute of getting punched in the stomach while being in horse stance, but you're not going to enjoy the next five unless you come to associate it with improving your capabilities and social status.
Gamification isn't always-- or even usually-- helpful. If an activity has a super high proportion of type 1 fun, you just do it to do it. And generally people don't have many issues doing activities they feel are predominantly type 2 fun, though they might have to get motivated first. I'll procrastinate doing my laundry, but I don't need to gamify it before I do it-- I know exactly how much I like clean clothes. Meanwhile, people should and do avoid activities that are mostly type 3 fun. I think I'd briefly enjoy falling out of a building, but I would definitely hate hitting the ground.
Where gamification helps most is at the margins, when an activity is favorably disposed toward types 1 and 2 intellectually, but at any given moment can feel emotionally tilted toward type 3. Think of this as the cold lake effect (you know you'll have fun if you just take the plunge, but you can't help but tiptoe in miserably). So if you're looking for it in mountan biking, don't expect to find it everywhere. As a hobby, mountain biking is probably dominated by the kind of people who find it type 1 fun. But if you find someone that's always a little reluctant to get on the trails. And seems mostly motivated by buying new gear, obsessively tracking their health statistics, and posting images of themselves completing on difficult trails... That's what gamification looks like for mountain biking.
FtSoA
1d ago
The AI does allow for an automated police state at scale.
Works for the internet police mods too.
Legibility comes with trade offs, and limiting freedom is usually one of them.
I believe there's going to be a whole slew of court cases and societal fights over this kind of thing. In the US, at least. Places like the UK seem to be ok with police state mods.
Quantumfreakonomics
1d ago
Protip: If you ever find yourself out of medication and the pharmacy says they are out of stock of your prescription, tell them that you are about to call your insurance company to inform them that their in-network pharmacy is unable to provide nessesary medical care to patients. Suddenly, "it's 3-4 days out," and, "this is just our procedure," becomes, "I'll check the stockroom," and "we'll have that ready for you sir," in about 2 minutes. Dangerous professional voice is a superpower. Obviously you must only use this power for good.
Gaashk
1d ago
If I'm really disregulated, I can just keep refreshing this and DSL over and over (operator error, I know).
crushedoranges
Can Marx explain the used panties market?
1d ago
Being a warlord has a certain skin in the game that you are staking your life and fortune on your own martial prowess, while a poet can write crappy poems for the rest of their lives and only be slightly risking their lives against the outrage of the literati.
faceh
1d ago
Yes, I'm making this precise point.
If becoming decent at a given skill set or activity won't win you many status points, what's the motivation to keep doing it aside from autistic fixation?
faceh
1d ago
One thing that is handy about having the weekly threads so self-contained, at least you can reach the actual end of it, there's no infinite algorithm.
erwgv3g34
1d ago
Go ahead and finish episode 3; it has a real bite to it.
The three episode rule was largely established in response to Madoka.
ThenElection
1d ago
For tattoos in particular: it entirely depends on context. On a ski trip back during Covid, we had a mixed gender group, and all the girls had tattoos of various sorts, and none of the men did. That led to some teasing: all the men are squares etc. But the idea that they indicate some latent violent criminality in the women is laughable: all of us were well-educated and had highly paid corporate jobs, and I would be surprised if any of us had gotten into a violent altercation in our lives. It functions more as a piece of jewelry or clothing to show off how cool and stylish you are, which women care about and men don't.
It's a silly fad (and I'm sure some will regret getting one when the fad dies), but whatever tattoos might have once indicated about a person (besides wanting to be perceived as cool) is gone since they've been normalized. At least for most tattoos: face tattoos still provide a useful signal.
faceh
1d ago
Yeah.
I often start off a post intending to just make a quick, lowish-effort reply, then find myself drafting a mini-essay just so I can fully justify the point I'm making.
Effort feels like it is rewarded because people will usually respond with similar effort rather than just troll or dismiss you with a joke.
NYTReader
1d ago
I'm a bit surprised by how visceral the anti-tattoo sentiment is in the comments. I wonder if it's a product of the average age being higher than I thought (maybe early to mid 40s?) and less interaction with the working class, specifically people younger than them.
I agree that in the past tattoos could be a valid barometer for anti-social traits, but nowadays they're so ubiquitous among young people that I don't think there's a strong correlation at all. The nature of tattoos is different as well. My impression is that they tend to be smaller than they were in the past and thus people, especially women, are more likely to have more than one. Interestingly, I've noticed that a lot of younger police officers have tattoos, usually in the forearm area. I tend to view police officers fairly positively, and so I don't have nearly as negative of an association.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
Your contributions on AI are always interesting and worth reading (not that I agree with them, but I enjoy reading them). But as much as moderation here has been accused of running on the principle "Anything is okay as long as you use enough words," it did not escape me that you used a lot of words to basically say Jane you ignorant slut!. No, burying the insults (repeated) under a lot of words does not make it okay to be this belligerent. And on a topic that should not require this much emotional investment. Your lack of chill is a you problem, but your lack of civility is a Motte problem. You do not win the argument by plastering as much condescension and disdain as you can between links.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
1d ago
ENTJ
I just did the Meyers-Briggs a few months ago at the suggestion of some people I work with. Unknown to me at the time, the office consensus had settled on ENT already and was only undecided on J or P.
Once I got my results, J seemed pretty obvious to me, but I guess I hide it well or come off differently to people in real life.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1d ago
It might have been the friend I was doing it with, and how the trails were rated in our area. It was 15+ years ago, so I'll probably get all the details wrong. But there was some sort of rating system that didn't seem dissimilar from rock climbing ratings, and he was really into getting to the next difficulty, and mastering X, Y and Z skills necessary for doing so, and upgrading his bike with fancy brakes and tires and shocks. Where as I just had some dinky street/trail hybrid bike with none of those things and found myself completely incapable of keeping up. I just enjoyed doing the same trail or two when I could.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
1d ago
do you like to categorize people because it's another interesting data point about how they work
This is basically the thing that got me interested in psychometrics. My problem is I have a bad tendency to categorize people in my head as lab rats with identifiable characteristics and try to predict what they’re going to do. It can make it a little hard to actually connect, because I’ve already formed an impression of what box someone fits it, and my box is oddly specific.
That said, what you said earlier about the most interesting part of Meyers-Briggs being the type functions is also my view. I think the categorizations are bogus, but I’m definitely the sort of person whose most conscious experience is thinking through things like I’m making a logical argument, pulling in information from the environment to try and enhance that logic, and then dragging my feelings along.
Except when anxiety hits and the processor gets interrupted by the amygdala. That’s when things go off the rails.
Gaashk
1d ago
Sure, it's good advice. It's just good advice in almost all contexts, hardly anyone gets enough exercise nowadays. It's worse for the purposes of differentiating various personalities.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Despite having already signed a contract to have a custom house built, I remain obsessed with designing houses. On Monday, I managed to get my coworkers to participate in a house-design contest by offering prizes for the winners (a one-ounce silver coin for first place, half-ounce for second, and quarter-ounce for third). Is anybody interested in having a contest on this website as well?
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d ago
Call me crazy, but I think bring advised to get more exercise is quasi-universally applicable, and beats the advice given by the average horoscope. Just because something is universally applicable doesn't mean it's worse!
rae
1d ago
It comes across as a bitter nasty commentariat incredulous that someone would dare to have a different opinion from you.
I don't think the issue is OP's opinion. The issue I had was listing off credentials before making completely incorrect technical explanations, doubling down instead of refusing to admit they made a mistake, and judging researchers based on the fact that they don't hold any US or EU patents.
Ioper
1d ago
you know full well you'll never enter the top 10% in most activities
Yes I will.
Top 10% is nothing though. Even top 1% is nothing.
Practically nothing I do recreationally will mean anything to anyone outside of my immediate family, regardless of how good I am.
Thinking that people would care if you were a bit better at some skill is autistic delusion. No-one gives a shit.
anon_
1d ago
Of course. But it goes to who is at fault -- the siege ends when Hamas surrenders. That Hamas has constructed itself to make that impossible to surrender doesn't change the fact that the lack of surrender is the but-for cause that perpetuates the siege.
International law can't make anyone do anything -- but it does assign normative responsibility based on the practices of nations. Doubly so when there the construction that prevents the resolution of the conflict based on that practice is itself against that practice.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
I really haven't entered a pissing contest (typo).
I find OP's text exceptionally bad precisely because it is designed as a high-quality contribution but lacks the content of one; what is true is not germane to the argument and what little is germane is not true, its substance is mere sneer, ideas about reactivity and perceptivity are not thought through (would we we consider humans modulo long term memory formation unintelligent?), the section on hallucinations is borderline incoherent. This is LLM-like in the worst sense possible. I've said many times that superficial adherence to the letter of rules of polite discussion while ignoring its spirit is unacceptable for me. Thus I deem it proper to name the substantial violations. If mods feel otherwise they should finally give me a time out or a block. I am not a very active participant and don't intend to rely on any residual clout.
Multiple people in this post were able to disagree with OP without resorting to prosaic insults in their first sentence.
Multiple people should be more motivated to call out time-wasting obfuscated bullshit before wasting their time. I am grateful to @rae for doing the tedious work of object-level refutation, but the problem is that the whole dismantled section on word2vec math is not relevant to OP's argument about lack of reactivity (which isn't supported by, well, anything), so OP doesn't feel like it is anything more than a nitpick, a pedantic challenge to his domain-specific technical competence. Why should anyone bother with doing more of that? Let's just get to the meat of the issue. The meat is: are LLMs intelligent? I've shown that rigorous, good faith objections to that have a poor track record.
At the risk of getting into it with you again. What did you think of this when it made its rounds 2 months ago: https://ml-site.cdn-apple.com/papers/the-illusion-of-thinking.pdf
I think I've already responded to that but maybe not. The meta issue with Apple papers is that their DL team is coping about repeated failures to build a competitive system (it may be that such philosophical handicaps get in the way). The object level issue with their tests is covered in this series of posts on X. One relevant piece:
- If you actually look at the output of the models you will see that they don't even reason about the problem if it gets too large:
"Due to the large number of moves, I'll explain the solution approach rather than listing all 32,767 moves individually"
- At least for Sonnet it doesn't try to reason through the problem once it's above ~7 disks. It will state what the problem and the algorithm to solve it and then output its solution without even thinking about individual steps.
Does this mean “0% accuracy”? I guess for people who believe “LLMs create billions of value by doing stuff like autonomously optimizing CUDA kernels, agriculture creates value by growing wheat, ergo wheat is as intelligent as an SWE? heh” is a clever dunk, it does.
There is a massive gulf in efficiency of understanding between people who approach LLMs with some rigid preconceived notions and people who can fucking look at the outputs and think about them. The gulf is so large that the former group can go through the motions of "empirical research" and publish papers proving how LLMs inherently can't do X or Y and not notice that they can, in their own setup, moreover that the setup is nonsensical. It's no longer a matter of polite disagreement, it's pure refusal to think, hiding your head in the sand. It's on par with paranormal research and homeopathy and should be treated as such: pushed out of the field and into self-funded fringe journals to die in obscurity.
3472094371
1d ago
There has been a discussion of Death Note lately, and I feel obliged to shill my favorite fanfiction of it: Silent Partner, Unfinished Business, which is the best thriller novel I've ever read, including original literary works. And a few days back one forum participant was disgusted by the canon's treatment of Naomi's death — here she survives Light's sadistic execution, and... well, that would be spoilers. But to that forum participant (I honestly don't remember the name): it could be to your liking, and wouldn't even require knowledge of the original series past the episode with Naomi.
Because surveillance drones are small and practically invisible in a wide angle view from distance. Realtime (or near realtime) computer vision operates at surprisingly low resolutions and only ”zooms in” once it has identified the area that has the target object.
I did a quick test with a camera and assuming a 20 MP sensor (possibly slightly optimistic) and typical DJI drone lens, a drone size target at 100 meters away would fill roughly an area around 20x20 pixels size - and that’s when fully digitally zoomed in!
You know how the stereotypical bird photographer carries a huge ass lens that resembles a bazooka in size? There’s a reason for that and it’s called ”small target far away” (except no bird photographer would imagine getting a good shot from 100 meters away even with a massive lens)
More options
Context Copy link