Feathercrown

I do think it's reasonable-- although certainly not the only valid approach-- to be aware of historical misinformation and emphasize certain facts more prominently to counteract it. It could skew the emphasis the other way in the long term, but the more immediate benefits of combating misinfo actively seem justifiable.

Hope your night works out well in the end.

Using reserved space is still using space. Creating a folder is using up some portion of the reserved space until it will need to be expanded and take up more free space on the disk. Preemptively allocating that reserved space doesn't make the folder not take up space. If I create a file on my desktop, is it not taking up any space because I haven't yet had to expand my partition size or get another disk?

AI prose everywhere. Disappointing for something that should be a labor of love.

It seems unwise not to implement sandbox measures just because the chance of misuse has gotten lower.

I find the way the author communicates with the LLM fascinating. For example:

> However, I didn’t just want any result; I wanted something that pulls me.

> Initially, I asked Claude:

> Me: which unsolved problems in the Surreal Numbers research program pull you the most and why?

Note the switch from "pulls me" to "pull[s] you". What is the author's perception of the relationship/boundary between them and the LLM here?

1. Are they using it to find things it flags as interesting in hopes they might also find it interesting?

2. Do they consider "interesting" to be a universal (observer-independent) trait and are using the LLM to find things that are interesting?

3. Have they delegated their desire to find something interesting to the LLM so that it can instead find something that it flags as interesting, regardless of how the author feels?

4. Do they see it as a part of their thought process, and so do not distinguish "you" from "me"?

5. Do they see it as part of them, and are referring to the combined entity in the second person?

I would love clarification on this.

I don't know if this necessarily qualifies as "accelerating their learning". The user appears to know what the proof is doing, but not how or why.

I got a temporary license and received the real one in the mail later. Yes, you can keep the old one.

"For non-photographic images, the argument that “they should be vector images” doesn't hold up because many images could be vector images but aren't, and they can't be vectorized perfectly. “The world should be different” is not a justifiable defense against optimizing for the way the world actually is."

This is a good paragraph. I see people forget to apply that last sentence all the time.

AGI and superintelligence are not the same thing

Given "dirty" would make a strange (although valid) imperative, it would likely be referring to the state of the dishes

Black is more common, judging by the description at the bottom

Surely you understand that this is impossible in the general case?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but weren't pencils ruled out by NASA because of the dust they create when they write? The toilet engineering could be a similar situation. These people are professionals, we should not assume they built it like this for no reason.