reader5000

I think his argument assumes the existence of pseudorandom generators which map a small amount of "true" random bits to a large amount of bits that look random to any polytime observer. The "derandomization" is that we just have to check all possible states of the seed bits which hopefully will be logarithmic in the size of the problem so you can do exhaustive checking.

Mainstream corporate media is at least an order of magnitude more toxic than anything on the internet.

My intuition would be that both text and fingers are high frequency parts of the image and most image patches across most images don't have that amount of frequency. Text and fingers are relatively rare in images compared to e.g. clouds and textures on surfaces. Because of the rareness and difficulty of text image patches the models just don't dedicate that many parameters to it.

This could be entirely wrong however.

It would be interesting what would happen on a dataset with nothing but text.

Visual reading of dense papers also leads to failing to understand concepts or distractions.

Theres all sorts of statistics about the increasing amount of men that are virgins into their 20s and beyond, declining marriage rates, declining birth rates, "inceldom" etc. etc.

Its certainly plausible that at least for some subset of people becoming porn addicts when they enter puberty is disrupting their ability to form relationships as an adult.

Having said that its not really clear censorship is the answer. Probably over time phenotypes overly sensitive to porn addiction will just go extinct.

How is "stereotype" different from "statistical reality"? How does Google get to decide that its training dataset -"the entire internet" - does not fit the statistical distribution over phenotypic features that its own racist ideological commitments require?

I think in the modern era a very good piece of advice, particularly for those of us without gorilla-like stamina to comb through a math text, is to go on your favorite video website and watch through multiple videos on the topic.

I'm not sure why they don't charge per usage.

> I think one missing step is to fuse training and inference regime into one, just as in animals

It's not clear it is one. Sleep is training (replay from hippocampus). Wake is inference.

People who avoid the sun are less likely to care about health overall and therefore less likely to take vitD supplements?

I think 8 months is a little short for the utility of a new tech to be fully realized and utilized. I'm pretty sure there were still horses on the roads long after 8 months after the Model T first went on sale.

The ai censorship is of the modern "social justice" form, which does not find roots in "waspy Protestants".

I've somewhat had this phenomenon, with the added observation that if I listen to the recording multiple times it will "click" and will sound good again. Then I wonder if it actually sounds good or what.