site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 112257 results for

domain:forecasting.substack.com

Again, these are correct signals that I am sending intentionally. This IS a major part of my life. I DO spend at least 25 hours a week on anime and games. If you are looking to do "all the other stuff" that isn't gaming and anime and squeeze it around then you're not my 1 in 1000 and I don't want to marry you. That just sounds like a recipe for constant conflict and strife. While some amount of compromise is important in a relationship, and you should sometimes do things the other person wants to do for their sake, the less it's necessary because you both want the same things, the better. If one person expects to go out and do things all the time and the other wants to stay home all the time then at any point in time only one of them is getting their way. So if anyone sees this and realizes that I'm not the right person for them because I'm literally not the right person for them then good, we can both save some time and try to find someone more compatible. In practice, this did turn into me getting very few hits for precisely that reason. Most women saw my profile, made this assumption about me (correctly), they thought this was a negative trait, and then they didn't want to talk to me. Mission accomplished.

Because one did want to talk to me. Instead of dating and/or marrying someone like that, I found someone with whom I get to keep doing videogames and anime and my wife will do them with me. Well, she doesn't care for anime that much, but we play lots of games together. Sometimes we're just sitting next to each other playing completely separate games and she'll giggle as the monsters die and it's adorable. And sometimes she'll want to go somewhere and do something and I'll suck it up and go because it's not very often, because she's mostly like me and genuinely wants to be at home most of the time.

you have to either water down "very large" from 70%+ down to like 30%

Yes, I meant on the order of 30%. That's not a majority, but it's large enough that you can't just assume that everyone in the world agrees with it. For the type of framing that OP used, I think you need the percentage of people to disagree with it to be on the order of the lizardman constant.

It's not "naive" it's generating an average. If your training data is full of extraneous material (or otherwise insufficiently tokenized/vetted) your response will also be full of extraneous material, and again its not rationalizing it's averaging.

Sure, but so does everybody else.

The simple fact is that there's like a 2:1 guy:girl ratio on the apps.

And the girls are much, MUCH more selective than the guys.

So the pool of women being limited is, inherently, the issue. Some guys will lose, guaranteed. Its not a traditional market where you can achieve mutual gains through trade.

And in a zero sum game, optimizing to try to win just makes it harder on everyone at once.

And it IS a zero sum game. Every guy that pairs off with a woman is making it harder for the remaining guys to get what they want.

So telling guys to optimize their profiles is just increasing the competitive pressure with very minimal change in success odds. Improving YOUR chances makes some other guy's chances decrease, and vice versa. If you both compete as hard as you can, most of the efforts are wasted for no real gain.

If I am not mistaken that wasn't the kind of post he was making. I would suggest you're responding to post along the lines of "We should figure out how to stop these disasters or bad things from happening to children." That may be a post worth making, but wasn't made by OP.

I can't tell you how many arguments in bars I got into where someone would insist that this school district just down the road was teaching kids that white people are bad blah blah blah and can you believe what these kids are hearing about gay people only to find out that they got this information from their neighbor's cousin's kid

Perhaps my experience was atypical, but in my neck of the woods, the neighbor’s cousin’s kid brought receipts. After high school students found that their complaints about their teachers were being ignored, one or two started secretly filming the offending remarks and sharing them on social media. A scandal ensued, the administration was livid (at the students, not the teachers), a few teachers lost their jobs, the community was in uproar, and so on. I thought the most unfortunate aspect of the debacle was that so many people took your position—“the kids can’t be trusted,” “they’re all just exaggerating,” “if this was true, the administration would be on it”—until some kid risked expulsion to provide proof. Notably, in neighboring school districts, kids complained about precisely the same issues and had many of the same stories, but no one was brave enough to secretly film the lectures and share them online, so a lot of people assumed the problems were restricted to the one bad school district. Given the circumstances, I find that unlikely.

Because there are way more of them, and other guys aren't optimizing for them. The number of guys with shitty profiles is mind blowing. So is the number of girls with shitty profiles, but if they don't set their sights too high someone halfway decent will message them. Guys don't have that luxury.

To'Wrathh

Goodness gracious, is that how that's spelled? I'd been thinking Turrath. Yikes.

You'd like to find one that doesn't find your interests repugnant, though.

And again, why optimize to compete for the same limited pool of women that every other guy is now optimizing for.

You don't think "evolution" works fast enough to make you more likely to be attractive if you had an attractive mother and grandmother?

Natural selection doesn’t cause population-level shifts in attractiveness in just a couple generations. Natalya might (or might not) inherit aspects of her mom’s good looks, but that’s genetics. Evolution needs sustained selective pressure across many generations to change the frequency of traits in a population. If evolution worked that fast, we’d see dramatic changes in appearance across just a few generations any time a war or famine hit. Traits like attractiveness are polygenic and influenced by culture, grooming, health, etc.

e grid is getting worse and is going to keep getting worse due to Green energy mandates.

your link 404s chage it to https://www.eugyppius.com/p/the-eu-as-suicide-pact-or-how-germany

..what?

Source?

OP wishes you to know that he knows LLMs will write whatever if allowed to do so and this whole thing was neonazis ( they started the Stancil trolling) figuring out that if you contaminate grok's context enough it's going to say silly crap.

I haven't seen Gemini do it much.

Mostly what strikes me is stunning naivete in places, basically repeats whatever official sources say without reflection. But that's to be expected.

I think you and @ArjinFerman are both wrong about the point. The optimal amount of fraud is not zero is about how as you eliminate fraud and increase social trust you increase the incentive to fraud and the marginal cost of reducing fraud rises asymptotically such that the last little bit of fraud isn't worth the squeeze. The point isn't that you tolerate fraud as in not police it, it's that you police it but you don't turn panopticon to go from 10 cases of fraud across the whole population to zero. You tolerate it in that you accept cases won't be zero, not that you don't do every reasonably cost effective thing you can do to reduce it.

This almost perfectly describes me, but my maintenance is a little more frequent. Haircut every 4 weeks.

I would agree that intentionality isn't easy for them and is outpaced by their verbal ability, but it's not easy for us either. It's not clear even if it's optimal to represent the world accurately. (We are all at war, after all )

E.g. basically every ideological person in my opinion believes untrue things about the world for instrumental reasons and is unaware of it.

in philosophy, the power of minds to be about something, to represent or to stand for things, properties and states of affairs

Being strategically wrong about the world, that is, to misrepresent the world in the mind is advantageous. Horrifying conclusion yet if you look at e.g. the discussion about tracking and educators..

What natural experiments show this for race, controlling for income? That's why this is confusing.

You said it better than I could, and with more relevant expertise.

How curious. I've mentioned many times that people have a habit of reporting posts just because they don't like the argument being made or the person making it, and that we (mods) wish people would not use the report button for that purpose. If you think it only happens when people are going on about Jews, you are deeply mistaken and have not been paying attention.

My experience with AI bots has generally been that they are extremely articulate when it comes to producing correct English text, but they have no awareness or intentionality and therefore no sense of relationship to fact, and no sense of context or meaning. What they do very well is string together words in response to prompts, and despite heroic efforts to get their output to be more fact-sensitive, the fundamental issue has never really been overcome.

I call them nonsense because I think that sense requires some sort of relationship to both fact and context. To be sensible is to be aware of your surroundings. That's not the case with bots.

I would add, at least, that this:

Deepseek, however, with a bit of prompting can be completely insane yet rational and easily smarter than most people you see if you go to any place outside of a professional context.

seems to depend on definitions of rationality or intelligence that I don't think I share. I think bots are very efficient at producing English text, even quite complex text. It's trivial enough to show that a bot can produce a better written letter or better poem or what have you than the average man or woman on the street.

But I think that written verbal acuity is, at best, a very restricted kind of 'intelligence'. In human beings we use it as a reasonable proxy for intelligence and make estimations based off it because, in most cases, written expression does correlate well with other measures of intelligence. But those correlations don't apply with machines, and it seems to me that a common mistake today is for people to just apply them. This is the error of the Turing test, isn't it? In humans, yes, expression seems to correlate with intelligence, at least in broad terms. But we made expression machines and because we are so used to expression meaning intelligence, personality, feeling, etc., we fantasise all those things into being, even when the only thing we have is an expression machine.

Bots and LLMs can produce statements that look very polished, and which purport to describe the world. In many cases, those descriptions are even accurate. But they are still, it seems to me, generating nonsense.

This plus the Faculty were two of his major inspirations according to Coogler himself.

Human Bio-diversity is a thing.

Unfortunately, you aren’t really allowed to talk about these things in polite company, but most people fundamentally understand this.

Thanks to social sorting by occupation/income/class/education I'm not sure that HBD is that obvious to your average layman. The kind of black person that hangs out in lefty college educated millennial circles is not the sort that drives an Altima with a fake paper tag. If anything, your average college educated white millennial might be more likely to know/be related to some embarrassingly white trash types than they would the average ghetto-dweller. Pro football players are supermajority black, but high school football players and more broadly football fans more closely reflect the demographics of the sort of places that are into it.

To give a Trump-coded example I work for a trucking company in the deep south whose employees are almost entirely black and white, and of the pre Ellis Island variety at that. Your HBD guy would argue that our black employees are in fact an above-average sample of the black population of AL/MS/GA while the whites we have mostly aren't (More accurately, there's an age gap. Our white employees are mostly older/from a time where college education wasn't that common and trucking was more widely considered a good job. Our average office guy was a trucker for a decade or few before they switched to the office.) but IRL it looks like a place where "90s colorblindness" (aka. the normie Trump voter position) is accurate. The black and white men (and it's all men) I work with are largely the same: high school educated/some college at most, very Southern/rural-coded, married or divorced with children (Educated incels would rage at the fact that fatass truckers can get laid and they can't.), of average intelligence, and somewhere between fat and fat as hell for the most part. The drivers (and frankly a lot of the office guys; I was hired into the office with no trucking experience based in part on the expectation that as a college educated white guy I'd have superior computer skills) might not be the brightest guys, but we pay well above-average for trucking so we get the kind who are experienced and by and large have their shit together (especially the owner/operators).

I think that's fair. The coda is a little at odds tonally, because vampirism goes from this horrible thing the main characters are willing to die to fight off, to being portrayed as not that bad after all. But Buddy Guy is a great choice for an aged Sammie so it's hard to complain too much.