Paedor

My issue with dynamic pricing boils down to price discovery and information asymmetry.

When I buy something, I really don't know what it's supposed to cost. Barring atypical levels of research, I know how much it's worth to me, and how much it usually costs, and that's it.

But my supermarket knows almost exactly how much eggs are worth to me. If it can show me, and everyone else, a different price at different times of day, I'm no longer confident in my ability to "bargain" effectively with the supermarket. So while I can see some strong economic arguments for dynamic pricing, especially in cases like power or water usage where there's a very inflexible supply, I basically just don't trust that we won't get screwed.

Fixes could be possible. Maybe with a third party system for monitoring prices, quality, etc. But it's hard, and pretty obviously not solved in the current market, much less one with even more price complexity.

It's becoming obvious that essentially every public-facing organization needs to change. Short story, poetry, essay submissions, comments, reviews, conference paper and journal submissions, polling, job apps, etc.

At this point, I think it's an open question whether there's a scalable way to filter for human effort, that isn't just another layer of AI (e.g. Pangram). I'd love to see something practical come out of this, since the default is probably for public interfaces to just cease to exist, and convert to referral only systems or pure noise.

20000 moles of length 45 nucleotides is 306 metric tons? Spread out over millions of years, that does seem completely feasible.

This only really applies in a world of complete information. Pesticide side effects were an enormous externality, which only the company was aware of. And they obviously worked hard to keep that information out of the public consciousness. Perhaps there could be nuance to producing the pesticide, weighing food prices against health impacts, but that’s no justification for lying about what it does.

The second objective is easier than the first. It may be easier to find any M1 and M2 that collide, than to find an M2 that collides with a specific M1.

For 1) The asymptotic best for sorting is O(n log n), if you're only allowed to compare the size of elements. If you allow operations like array indexing with elements, which is possible for integers, it gets as good as O(n) with radix sort.

Pretty nice satire once you realize it's a joke. My favorite quote is definitely "(where by curiosity," of course, we do not mean to imply that anthropomorphic categories or judgements should be applied to machines, but merely that the machines have a desire to learn).

Is there a physical difference between using the resistance device, and just breathing through a narrow straw? It seems a lot cheaper to just jury-rig something.

It can, admittedly, be a bit of a problem when you need 5 pistachios per second to survive and you're tripping over the shells trying to collect them fast enough.

I'm doing a comp-bio PhD right now, and the more I learn about the process of playing with genes, the further I think we are from expanding intelligence with them.

In the current state of the field, we simply don't know how cells work (in enough detail). We can't predict what cells do when genes are mutated, we definitely can't manufacture new genes that slot into the cell's existing machinery, and, for a lot of the proteins related to neurons in particular, we don't even know what they do.

If there is a breakthrough, it'll take luck at this point, and probably be something stupid, like realizing we can double production of some cell type without hurting the child *too* much. We're really not close to engineering anything, which might be a requirement for producing more intelligence without some very clumsy side effects.

Given the level of trial and error required for a lucky breakthrough, and the human cost of that error, we might just give up on this until the singularity anyways. That said, there's so much undiscovered now that there could be a perfect mechanism that just isn't known yet. And, indirectly, by just making sure people don't have allergies or a pre-disposition to heart disease... we might increase intelligence just by making people healthier.

Conceptually, every step of applying a Kalman filter in the simplest case is just updating a Gaussian prior representing position with a new datapoint sampled with (assumed) Gaussian error. The result is equivalent to convolving a Gaussian representing position with a Gaussian representing noise.

In the frequency domain, that's equivalent to multiplying one Gaussian by another one with zero mean, which will always put higher weight on low frequencies. No matter what the gain is in the Kalman filter, that'll still be true as far as I can tell. As the gain varies, the cutoff within the low-pass filter will change though.

It gets harder to analyze when you start using non-linear models to update position though. Generally, I think the same logic applies.

The best tradeoffs for humans are also different from the best for plants. Even fully domesticated ones like wheat still have to put energy into completely regrowing themselves every year, fighting pathogens, reproduction machinery... I'd put decent odds on synthetic production being massively more efficient.

Wow, it's uncanny how well this post mirrored my own thoughts, down to the phrase "consciousness is observer independent". I ended up rejecting the conclusion though, for the roughly same reason Maxwell's demon doesn't actually reduce entropy. Normally I wouldn't expose people to my armchair philosophy, but here goes:

1. Consciousness, if present, should depend on dynamics. E.g. frozen snapshots of a conscious being probably shouldn't be conscious themselves.

2. (Building on 1) Because a full definition of consciousness requires dynamics, a measurement of consciousness can't just give one "conscious" snapshot. It needs to dynamically continue to measure consciousness, which is much stricter than Joe's original requirement.

3. If measurements of an iron bar are dynamically changing in order to find consciousness in random spins in the iron bar, then picking the correct measurements actually requires immense computation. In fact, it would require simulating a conscious being, while also simulating the dynamics of the iron bar. I'd argue the consciousness you're measuring is then real, but not a property of the iron bar at all.