A bit of a tangent but I loathe the Chesterton's fence argument. Not only does it shift the burden of proof to proving a negative ("show me this thing is not actually beneficial") but it straight up demands you to make the conservative argument for them. Before you get rid of this bad thing, please demonstrate your understanding of why it's good actually!
LLMs are so notoriously terrible at telling truth from lies that "AI hallucination" is a household phrase at this point, for better or for worse. But surely they work even better when asked to rate the truthfulness of things that are not in their corpus to begin with.
I would have expected JS standard library to contain something along the lines of random.sample but apparently not. A similar thing exists in something called underscore.js and I gotta say it's incredibly in-character for JavaScript to outsource incredibly common utility functions to a module called "_".
Language bashing aside, there's something to enjoy about these credulous articles proclaiming AI superiority. It's not the writing itself, but the self-esteem boost regarding my own skills. I have little trouble doing these junior dev whiteboard interview exercises without LLM help, guess that's pretty impressive after all!
It's wild. This thing running on computers, abstracted dozens of layers upwards, can do things a computer can, but a couple hundred million times slower.
The next stage of transportation isn't faster, greener, more efficient, more afrordable, or more pleasant cars, buses, trains, or planes; it's crawling.
I didn't suffer through all these chapters wishing for the payoff that never lived just to let Dr. Verres get slandered with a possession worth being interested in.
If you think you can point to an unnecessary sentence within it, go ahead and try. Having a long story isn't the same fundamental kind of issue as having an extra sentence.
How about the second sentence1?
Every inch of wall space is covered by a bookcase. Each bookcase has six shelves, going almost to the ceiling. Some bookshelves are stacked to the brim with hardback books: science, maths, history, and everything else. Other shelves have two layers of paperback science fiction, with the back layer of books propped up on old tissue boxes or lengths of wood, so that you can see the back layer of books above the books in front. And it still isn't enough. Books are overflowing onto the tables and the sofas and making little heaps under the windows.
Each bookcase has six shelves, going almost to the ceiling.
The exact number of shelves is superfluous for the point being made, as is specifying that the bookshelves almost go to the ceiling. We get it, there's a lot of books. Enough books to contain even the longest Yud tweets.
[1]: Excluding a full page long spiel of self-promotion, metatext and a paragraph of what I assume is supposed to be foreshadowing for spooky things to come.
Joking, but only after the bluechecks are done writing their circlejerk fanfic and someone ratios him.
It's got the cadence of a joke and I guess the humor is supposed to be him being self aware of how contrived the plan is. But couldn't you just ask the magically persuasive AI to write a letter to VISA telling them to unblock AI doctors? I dunno why every problem needs to be solved like soft modding a PS2.
Or maybe it's supposed to be a joke on credit card companies who refuse to serve AI doctors? Owning VISA by paying not only the doctor's fee you'd have paid anyway, but also for an AI doctor and oration instructor in cryptocurrency.
Dude just make your AI god-king decriminalize drugs and you can do all the amphetamines you like.
realistically, the attendees are likely not going to fully recover their eyesight.
Seems inappropriate to laugh about this. People spending a fortune on a worthless ugly monkey png deserve ridicule, but not permanent eye damage just because they went to a party with their fellow marks.
Being a LessWrong hater around here doesn't feel like a hobby worth setting up a whole event for, but if any of you regulars happen around western Finland I can offer a pint in exchange for a basilisk joke.
I like deadpan humor and often have to clarify that some quip was a pun, a reference or sarcasm, but I don't blame the listeners whenever they don't get them.
If I were a self-identified contrarian habitually posting controversial hot takes in flowery prose, I'd hope to be a little less belligerent and defensive if people mistake an ironic joke for a sincere belief.
It sometimes hurts that people believe you'd actually mean the dumb joke you said but you either have to suck it up and take the L or start marking up your irony.
When you actually work in STEM things you often get to work and spend time with people outside STEM as well and often end up realizing their work is challenging, valuable and not something you can do better than them just because you still remember the quadratic formula long after high school.
Not like he's ever been a competent physicist but he has always had the attitude of STEM chauvinism down pat.
Everything obeys the laws of math and logic, right? Let's just Russel&Whitehead everything out of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Or better yet, something I personally came up with based on vibes and NIH.
This also informs his anti-empiricism. Why bother actually looking or listenging when you can just work everything out from a handful of assumptions.
bitofhope @ bitofhope @awful.systems Posts 28Comments 958Joined 2 yr. ago
A bit of a tangent but I loathe the Chesterton's fence argument. Not only does it shift the burden of proof to proving a negative ("show me this thing is not actually beneficial") but it straight up demands you to make the conservative argument for them. Before you get rid of this bad thing, please demonstrate your understanding of why it's good actually!