daymanstep

The bug doesn't mention MPTCP, is MPTCP required for the bug to be exploitable?

Is this meaningful? Aren't frontier models MoE anyway? If you issue a StarCraft query they will probably just route to their StarCraft optimized model.

But unemployment is a more easily measurable metric.

Let me put the question to you: what metrics do you use to verify whether elite overproduction is happening or not?

Elite overproduction I think refers to the unemployment rate of people who graduated from elite universities. I think that rate is probably still not high enough to be concerning for now.

A human lifespan doesn't have that many decades in it either...

Is command and conquer considered casual?

I feel like whether a game is considered sweaty or casual is more dependent on the game mode (e.g. ranked vs normal, UMS vs ladder etc).

Changing defaults has a tendency to break people's workflows e.g. for scripts that expect a fixed format output.

WireGuard is one of the easiest things to set up. The total amount of reading you'd need to do to set up WireGuard amounts to half of a page. I spent more time figuring out what firewall rules are needed for WireGuard traffic than actually setting up WireGuard, it's so simple.

Doesn't every display technology have issues with burn in? I have a VA monitor that has burn in as well, even though many have claimed that VA doesn't get burn in

Same goes for drugs, tobacco, alcohol etc. oh look how that ended up. There's a reason why Prohibition has been repealed in every major country that tried it.

> As someone who literally studied consciousness and perceptual neuroscience in grad school, and ran studies on real-life blindsight patient GY, you couldn't be more mistaken about the Chinese Room's relevance.

> The original formulation is awkward to modern ears, but the heart of the problem remains: How does/can consciousness emerge from smaller unconscious parts?

> A single neuron can be modeled with a physics simulation, and is clearly not conscious. But at what size/configuration does a group of neurons become conscious?

This is clearly not the Chinese Room Argument. The Chinese Room Argument was supposed to prove that computers will never be capable of consciousness simply by following rules written down in a book. It was directed at symbolic AI systems that literally were just computers following rules in a book. Modern deep neural networks as well as human brains clearly don't function anything like that.

The idea that computers can't think is clearly based on irrational prejudice against electronic technology. Why can't a computer gain consciousness by simulating a human brain? John Searle himself said that consciousness requires "organic substrate" without any elaboration. Taken in context it's clear that the Chinese Room Argument was fundamentally clearly and obviously just motivated out of an irrational bias and prejudice against electronic/non-organic substrates.

I agree that Blindsight is highly overrated. Peter Watts devotes much of the book to ridiculous dialogue about the Chinese Room Experiment (astronauts in space apparently have nothing better to do than poorly discuss undergrad philosophy apparently).

The treatment of the Chinese Room Experiment is shallow and Watts clearly does not possess a more than rudimentary grasp of the philosophy, nor of computer science apparently.

It also felt shoehorned in. As was the vampire subplot, as other commentators have already discussed.

Felt like Watts just wanted to add in the Chinese Room Argument to make the novel seem "deep", when in fact it accomplished the exact opposite. No computer scientist that I know of takes the Chinese Room argument seriously, Scott Aaronson had a Quora answer where he mentioned how when he presented it to his undergrad class none of the students found it convincing, even after he tried to present arguments for it.

I don't like most of John Searle's work in general, but his Chinese Room Argument is obviously one of the worst pieces of philosophy of the 20th century, on par with the worst of the works ridiculed by Sokal et al.

In my personal experience, religiosity correlates with the appearance of kindness but not the actual act of kindness.

I feel like you're arguing against your own point?

You are asking people to reduce their highly complex internal evaluation process into a very small number of variables that you ask them to enter such as height preference.

The whole point of Gale Shapley (imo) is that it bypasses the need to reduce people's preferences down to single variables such as height. The idea is that you just give people a list and let them rank the list using whatever internal hidden black box process they want, the algorithm just operates on the output ranked list.

Trying to reduce people's internal evaluation process to a small number of variables (such as height) is where you run into problems, of the kind that you mentioned.

To run gale shapley you need a fully ordered full list ranked by preference. If you have 10K people, asking every person to fully order a list of 10K items is not practical.

Whatever they're running, it's not gale shapley.