paytonjjones

Yes, memory loss surrounding the hours/days of the treatment is the major side effect.

Care to share the meta-analysis? How does 1/39 compare to the base rate of those with severe depression who did not receive ECT?

That does sound rough. The initial shock, without sedation, could cause mild to moderate pain and would certainly be a scary experience.

Even then, though, it's a far cry from being the antiquated mental lobotomy that many people wrongly assume it to be.

Do you think a potential bad actor would change their behavior if they took, say, a 12 hour course instead?

I am of course biased, but I have often been exasperated by the various "trainings", IRB processes, ethics classes, etc, that are required to run even basic psychology studies such as surveys.

Meanwhile, down the hall, the medical department is opening the skulls of mice, implanting electrodes, giving them supercancer, and then euthanizing them en masse. Often with less approval burden.

The hard truth is that it's tricky to decide what's ethical in science; we mostly allow or disallow things because they've been done that way for years, and all the added "process" is nothing but paper pushing and ass covering to quiet concerned outsiders.

I don't know the details here but I am a psychologist.

The "electric shock" normally used in psych studies is tiny, it's like the equivalent of one of those little toy prank buzzers. You couldn't possibly hurt someone with it, this is really a non-issue.

Related side note: Electroconvulsive therapy uses much larger electric shocks but, administered safely by a clinic, is extremely safe, has relatively minor side effects compared to e.g. SSRIs, and is very effective for severe depression. It's a huge shame that it's undeserved reputation prevents it from being more popular. Blame "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" for its inaccurate portrayal.

No, it's still separate. I don't know what that exploit was though, so possibly they just patched that.

> I believe ChatGPT Work sessions are billed against your Codex allowance, while ChatGPT Chat Sessions get their own, separate allowance. This may help explain the model availability differences

That's correct, and also why ChatGPT Work is DOA for me personally.

I need 100% of my Codex budget for Codex.

Too bad, it would have been nice to have a few extra features for the chat interface.

It's a good point, but in practice it depends on how easy those customizations are to implement / maintain, and how much money and effort you save. At some point the compute cost can disrupt even the nicest scale story.

I think the path forward is that websites offer one path for humans, and another for scrapers. But the huge catch is the path for scrapers must be _genuinely_ and _reliably_ the more economical and scalable path (either through something like PoW arms races, or through fear of litigation). Otherwise they will continue to ignore instructions and intrude on the human path.

In this case, because there's a vastly more efficient economic path for the adversaries (cloning).

They're not trying to engage in an arms race, they're trying to channel a racing river into its natural course.

I've had the same observation that Luna will quickly fill up its context window with reasoning, but it surprisingly hasn't been a problem really.

It will cycle through like 3 /compacts, complete the complex goal successfully, and cost me like 1% of my weekly usage on the $20 plan.

Edit: this is me using Luna directly, not Sol as the taskmaster

Your point is well taken, but one thing stood out to me.

> A classic management failure is not paying enough attention to something. This is usually not a problem for computer systems.

This is actually my #1 problem with frontier LLMs. They are plenty smart, but they have no true long term memory, and their context window is not nearly enough for a complex system like a corporation. When my project gets big enough and I'm using a lot of /compact, the LLMs always have the same failure point: they fail to pay attention to something.

When they figure this out, I think it's going to be a very, very big moment.

The closer comparison would be 5.6-Luna. On DeepSWE at Xhigh it's 57% at 1/6 the cost of Sol M, on Max it's 67% at 1/3rd the cost.

Still an advance, I just thought it worthy to note Sol isn't nearly as impressive on the cost/performance frontier as discounted Luna.