truculent

Reading AI dialects feels similar (though somewhat easier) to reading Middle English text; the words individually make sense, but you’re much more aware of the communication medium and you have to concentrate a bit to pull out the meaning.

> It doesn't. It's model. All models are wrong (including quantum mechanics and attention) but some are useful.

Sure, but what if you don’t understand the model?

> Using a 0-100 scale for anything is a bad idea

Even a probability?

> the difference between brute forcing and cognition

There’s not really a clear distinction between these things, in my opinion. Problem solving (and intelligence?) is a mix of search and compression. We like solutions that are elegant (high compression, simple search). But often what appears elegant to some is harder to appreciate for those without the same background knowledge or even the same amount of mental bandwidth (if you’ve ever worked with someone simply much, much smarter than you, you may intuit this!).

IIRC, this was a deliberate choice from the creator who originally wanted the project to be hard to find!

> the problems with the dating market are not a matching problem but a clearing problem.

> In markets, it can mean buyers and sellers aren’t being matched at the expected price/quantity.

Why regulate gun ownership, if homicide is already illegal ?

The problem here is that you still have to do some pointless and tedious conversion between generated data structures and your domain data structures. Maybe with LLMs, some of that tedium goes away, but you still have to test, maintain and understand that part of the code.

> These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things.

That agency or free will exists outside of our subjective experience is an assumption; does any given theory need to explain agency, or is it sufficient to explain that we feel we have agency?

The point is that if you have a 10% chance of frying motherboard, at 10 a week, you might expect 1 fried p/w, but it could easily be more which may be catastrophic.

At 1000, the number of fried boards will be more predictable and therefore the risk to the business is lower, even if the long-run averages are the same.

Hypothetically speaking, if people in the last group were right, and that is the logical conclusion to be reached from careful evaluation of the evidence, wouldn’t the other positions indeed be ones of wilful denial of the state of the climate?

> This isn’t some hipster nostalgia trip or a flip phone for people who think the 90s were peak civilization. This is something way cooler. A phone that gives you back something we didn’t even realize we’d lost. The ability to actually, truly, shut the hell up.

> As an example: I'm autistic and I learn inside-out, building larger new concepts out of smaller existing ones; those with Asperger's on the other paw, learn outside-in instead, breaking down larger existing concepts into smaller new ones; both are part of the "autism spectrum", but differ very fundamentally.

This is a really interesting observation - can you expand on this a bit more, please? How did you first notice this distinction?

When, for example, learning a new concept in math or physics, what would outside-in look like vs inside out? Would you characterise neurotypical learning in one way or the other?