jawarner

Interesting, in my experience Astra is a marked improvement over both Sol 5.6 and Fable 5.1. Its output feels a lot more natural, and it is just less "dumb." But individual experiences may vary.

Looks like this may have received the HN Hug of Death. I'm getting "Too Many Requests" error trying to load the images.

Is this AI? You've copied the best comment and put into AI-speak.

Mawson et al. 2017 (two papers) – internet survey of homeschoolers recruited from anti-vaccine groups; non-random, self-reported, unverified health outcomes. Retracted by the publisher after criticism.

Hooker & Miller 2020/2021 – analysis of “control group” data also from self-selected surveys; same methodological problems.

Lyons-Weiler & Thomas 2020, 2022 – data from a single pediatric practice run by one of the authors; serious selection bias.

Joy Garner / NVKP surveys – activist-run online surveys with no verification.

Enriquez et al. 2005 – a small cross-sectional study about allergy self-reports, not about overall neurodevelopment.

Large, well-controlled population studies (Denmark, Finland, the U.S. Vaccine Safety Datalink, etc.) comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children show no increase in autism, neurodevelopmental disorders, or overall morbidity attributable to recommended vaccines.

Take a look at the next sentence from your linked article.

“I am pro-life personaly [sic] but it wasn’t those,” he said, using the jail’s internal messaging system. “I will just say there is a lot of information that will come out in future that people will look at and judge for themselves that goes back 24 months before the 14th. If the gov ever let’s [sic] it get out.”

I think for this to be interesting to an outside observer, it should at least address the bulk of the debate around the topic. If the GP is right and it's missing the key points of the anti-abudance critique, then I'm afraid it's missing the forest for the trees and misleading to a general audience.

Insofar as "the problem" is sifting through pages and pages of documentation to find the relevant information for an answer, I think that current-day LLMs are actually quite capable at this.

Real world systems are complicated. In theory, you could do belief propagation to update your beliefs through the whole network, if your brain worked something like a Bayesian network.

Isn't that Edwin T. Jaynes example just p-hacking? If only 1 out of 100 experiments produces a statistically significant result, and you only report the one, I would intuitively consider that evidence to be worth less. Can someone more versed in Bayesian statistics better explain the example?

Yes, the possible programs are enumerable, and you can start searching with the least complex programs and work your way up in complexity. Once you find a program that explains the available data, you cannot guarantee it will continue to explain possible future data, unless, like you mention, you constrain the program space to a finite set. What you're describing is generally how people make models of the external world.

I don’t know if it’s fair to say that revolutionary wealth redistribution movements, like Occupy, are failing because everybody is distracted with social justice movements. The Left is a coalition for social justice and also for wealth redistribution, to varying degrees. That’s why I’m saying that I’m not seeing a direct connection where a success in one area subtracts from progress in another.

If you're just saying that rainbow capitalism is in alignment with capitalists' interests, and anti-capitalism movements are not, then that makes sense.