amatic

I don't know if I can "will" myself to go on autopilot. It seems like if there is a conflict in some meta-reasoning level, in values, life principles or general beliefs, I might be experiencing more depression-like symptoms until I try to resolve the conflict. Sometimes I can resolve the conflict myself, reflecting or journaling, and sometimes I need a professional therapist to guide the process. So, I'd say it's not that reflection leads to depression; more likely it is depression that leads to reflection, or some internal conflict that causes both depression and increased reflection. Then reflection by itself does not consistently solve the problem, but only a specific kind of reflection.

At the moment, Deep Think is only available with the ULTRA subscription ($250 per month).

There is a mistake right in the beginning, not sure how it affects the conclusions yet. The variables given are S - System variable (some kind of disturbance), Z is the outcome ( a controlled variable) and R is the action of a controller. The causal relations between them are S affects Z, S affects R, and R affects Z.

> The archetypal example for this is something like a thermostat. The variable S represents random external temperature fluctuations. The regulator R is the thermostat, which measures these fluctuations and takes an action (such as putting on heating or air conditioning) based on the information it takes in. The outcome Z is the resulting temperature of the room, which depends both on the action taken by the regulator, and the external temperature.

The problem here is that the regulator R does not measure external temperature. It just measures the controlled variable - the temperature Z, so the causal arrow should go from Z to R too, and the arrow from S to R does not exist.

> Not seeing the revolution here. Most of the ideas here have been seen before. Did I miss something?

The reviewer is a psychologist, with some interesting opinions and criticisms of psychology. My impression is that applying control theory to study human behavior should be the revolutionary thing, for psychology.

I'm not sure I had the same issue, it is a different laptop, but it would not go to sleep. The current solution is to make it hybernate instead of sleep.

Every time you order an "expresso", an Italian falls off a vespa.

The scientific community, or the ministry of science of some country, or a university - might find that paying for peer review, for example, might be more effective in promoting good science than paying for publication.

This sounds amazing! Are there any metrics on how often different models pass tests? Has someone used a similar process to finetune an LLM?

Where is the author's name? Strange editorial. Neuroscientists should "involve participants"? What if they cannot speak, like that guy Broca's area was found in?

>>Without a doubt, human neuroscience is entering a new and important era. However, it can fulfil its goals of improving human experiences only when study participants are involved in discussions about the future of such research.

I think it's just that bouba has o, and kiki has k. Also the b is half-round, and I is more spiky. Visual differences, not auditory. edit: You make a round shape with your mouth in o

In a controlled environment - where the object to pick up, for example, is always in exactly the same location - you could do that. If there is any variation in the location of the object, you need vision to localize it each time. You need a camera, maybe two, and probably some kind of 3d perception, which is an unsolved problem at the moment (well, not solved in a general way, there are some solutions for specific objects).

That is also a difficult problem - how do you know beforehand, that a problem is worthwhile? That someone else thinks it is important? Or how high is "ambitious" if you never tried to do a thing? There is a lot of luck in that system.