chemotaxis

> I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization.

I mean... you can say that about most of things in life. Behind every social movement or policy, it's always a mix of good faith, cynical fearmongering, and opportunism by people or organizations who stand to gain something from it. Does it matter?

If you think that social media and smartphones are harmful to the youth, you (a) should probably be glad that someone is doing something decisive about it; and (b) you get a large-scale experiment that will hopefully prove or disprove that.

Probably because AI appears to work, more or less, and now it's just a race to make it better and to monetize it.

Before ChatGPT, I'd guess that the amounts of money poured in both of these things were about the same.

I've known quite a few people who went to therapy and I'm not sure that's even the right question to ask. I don't think they were paying to get helped as much as they were just paying to have someone to talk to. To be clear, there are people who genuinely need help, but for most, a therapist is probably just a substitute for a close friend / life coach.

And say what you will about this, a paid professional is, at the very least, unlikely to let you wind yourself up or go down weird rabbit holes... something that LLMs seem to excel at.

This wouldn't ban the behavior, just the disclosure of it.

I think the author is speaking authoritatively about things they may be less familiar with, or where they really want to push a particular doomsday / degrowth agenda (the only prescription at the end the article is that we need to stop technological progress). This paragraph in particular caught my eye:

> Bah! Who needs copper anyway, when we have so much aluminum?! > Have you thought about how aluminum is made? Well, by driving immense electric currents through carbon anodes made from petroleum coke (or coal-tar pitch) to turn molten alumina into pure metal via electrolysis. Two things to notice here. First, the necessary electricity (and the anodes) are usually made with fossil fuels, as “renewables” cannot provide the stable current and carbon atoms needed to make the process possible. Second, all that electricity, even if you generate it with nuclear reactors, have to be delivered via copper wires.

This seems to be trying to say that we can't make aluminum without copper, but that seems nonsensical. First, power can be delivered by wires made out of aluminum and indeed, it often is - I don't think that much of the transmission grid is copper. Second, the comparatively tiny amount of material needed for electrodes is a completely wacky argument. And renewables not being able to provide "the stable current" needed for smelting?

I'm not cherrypicking here, there's a lot of assertions of this type in the article. Essentially, everything is doomed and there's nothing we can do, because we're going to run out of copper. And fossil fuels. And there's absolutely nothing that can replace them, ever. And therefore, we shouldn't build AI datacenters? That's what it says...

This is not necessarily a fundamental limitation. It's a consequence of a fine-tuning process where human raters decide how "good" an answer is. They're not rating the flow of the conversation, but looking at how complete / comprehensive the answer to a one-shot question looks like. This selects for walls of overconfident text.

Another thing the vendors are selecting for is safety / PR risk. If an LLM answers to a hobby chemistry question in a matter-of-factly way, that's a disastrous PR headline in the making. If they open with several paragraphs of disclaimers or just refuse to answer, that's a win.

It's really getting in the way of all the daily AI opinion pieces I come here to read.

More seriously, there are tens of thousands of people who come to HN. If Fourier stuff gets upvoted, it's because people find it informative. I happen to know the theory, but I wouldn't gatekeep.

4562, 8825, 1065

I think that's common in most places. What's different in the US is that the IRS forces you to proactively provide a lot more information about it, though. I have a rental property and need to enter the same information about the same income and expenses on three different forms, breaking it down in different ways. It's tedious and error-prone, and I guess the philosophy is that it's easier to spot fraud if the numbers on all the different forms don't add up to a coherent story.

Other countries presumably rely on other fraud signals. They might have more visibility into your day-to-day financial transactions, or there might be more of a culture of leaving an anonymous tip if you suspect your neighbor isn't paying a fair share.

> I think the biggest mistake people make when thinking about mathematics is that it is fundamentally about numbers. It’s not. Mathematics is fundamentally about relations.

Eh, but you can also say that about philosophy, or art, or really, anything.

What sets mathematics apart is the application of certain analytical methods to these relations, and that these methods essentially allow us to rigorously measure relationships and express them in algebraic terms. "Numbers" (finite fields, complex planes, etc) are absolutely fundamental to the practice of mathematics.

For a work claiming to do mathematics without numbers, this paper uses numbers quite a bit.

I think that sort of goes hand-in-hand. "Normal", well-rounded people don't decide that software licensing is the most important thing in the world and don't devote their entire life to that. A normal person would be content with a 9-to-5 software engineering job at Sun, IBM, or Microsoft.

I think you see that with a lot of other revolutionaries. They often take unreasonable positions and behave in unreasonable ways. RMS' tragedy is probably that his side more or less won, so now he's just a weirdo without a cause.

> The number of people you want to follow is much smaller than that 0.1%.

We're talking about bloggers reaching their audience. The audience they can reach via Mastodon is much smaller than on Twitter, even if you factor in the consequences of algorithmic feeds.