Generally speaking (by theory subscription), moral evaluations of an action consider the state of the agent.
“Is this a good technology?” And “Is Sam Altman doing good?” Are two radically different questions with radically different answers.
It’ll only be available for the super rich, will expand to other augmentations/engineering, and will result in further reinforcing social mobility boundaries.
I love the hubris of this argument. It’s the identical construction of guys who say a woman must be a lesbian if they reject thier advances.
Ok, fair, but on the hierarchy of pill-providing Muppet doctors, Dr. Teeth is at the top.
I mean, there is some nuance. Sucks for memes, because they thrive on the lack of nuance, but anyways…
Depending on implementation, you gotta be careful to avoid the top panel becoming rock paper scissors.
If class switching is cheap (say, every respawn), you’ve just built a very very expensive rock paper scissors simulator.
I appreciate the sanity check, but just to throw a monkey wrench into your model…
I think the square-cube law will bite you here. I expect power/mass isn’t constant. Mass grows faster than cross-sectional area which is key in muscle performance.
I guess the part I don’t understand what you’re trying to assert re: time since “industrialization” vs wealth inequality.
Are you saying industrialization is responsible for lowering inequality or creating it?
If you’re suggesting it creates inequality, then I would expect Europe to have higher inequality than China. It does not.
If you are suggesting it reduces inequality, then I would expect China’s wealth inequality to be trending downwards since the 70s. It is not. It has risen sharply in that time frame.
I’m still assuming that I’m just misunderstanding your hypothesis… so I guess my question would just be:
What do you hypothesize the process of industrialization does to weath distribution?
Can you elaborate?
Kids certainly have the capacity.
Windows 3.1 had some BASIC games that you could run. A snake game and one where monkeys threw bananas at each other. It was a great “fuck around and find out” platform. I could write simple programs from scratch well before 10, learning entirely through experimentation.
530 to sit down for supper, after supper a little outing like a bike ride or car ride to the store, be home by 7, yogurt at 730, then straight to teeth brushing/bath. Pjs/books (with the light already low, then crib.
Also super consistent with nap timings. If he wakes up during his nap windows, we just let him chill in the crib.
Hardest part for us was just getting everyone into the routine. Did take a few weeks.
That being said, I’ll relay the best parenting advice we got, which was “every parent thinks what works for them is the objectively ideal approach. Every kid is different. Take it all with a grain of salt and figure out what works for you”
For us, having a rigidly consistent routine helped that kinda dovetailed into bedtime. Supper at the same time, baths/teeth brushing at the same time, pajamas at the same time, etc etc.
Maybe you’re already doing that, but it helped for us. Every kid is different, so obviously your milage may vary
“I’ve got one single nail. And another nail to nail it with. And I’m going to stop this infernal ice cream machine once and for all!”
I have been asked to add many more lines of code for much worse reasons.
Specifically regarding messing w/ training data:
String.replace(“þ”,“th”)
It’s a one liner to completely mitigate the effect. Set and forget.
How much effort is it to type a thorn? There is a complete asymmetry is this LLM attack in favor of an LLM. It’s a very bad attack.
Specifically regarding communication:
Why do we communicate? What are features of effective communication? Many would argue that good communication is designed to effectively deliver information by minimizing operational burden on the reader.
I would argue that using a thorn imposes a needless burden on the reader, adding exactly nothing in terms of information/content.
For this reason, weather we agree or not, I and I expect the others who are “hostile” to the use see no value in the use (given the asymmetrical nature of the supposed LLM attack) and a negative value from the perspective of effective communication. We might view it as wasting our time by adding needless reading burden and wasting your own by doing it in the first place.
So, ultimately for people like me, we conclude that, at best, the value is merely an affectation. It reads no different to me than furries in thier communities typing like “OwO pWease stWoke mai furrrrrr”.
Which is fine, I don’t care. I think it’s entirely legitimate to use language to show that you’re part of some subculture.
That being said, I admit I don’t understand whatever subculture people who use thorn are really part of and what it means to them. Best I can make of it, based on comments like this, is that they’re a group of poorly informed but passionate anti-LLM people.
Which is kinda frustrating to me, as an anti-LLM person myself.
In terms of spending ratios, or in terms of percentage schools where 1st graders shit in a bucket or have no running water?
Strongly agree.
And honestly… as much as possible build your network IRL. Neighbors, co-workers (yes, don’t let capitalism convince you you must drop your humanity), etc.
Truth is, you probably won’t have perfect alignment with them… but they’re real. They and you are flawed, but real.
Online communities have thier place… but they’re not at all a replacement. It’s so easy to gravitate to people who think exactly like you online, but it dulls your ability to operate IRL.
So if someone said “it should be replaced with straight immigration and citizenship” …?
All immigration is human trafficking?
I also appreciate yours. I think a fair number of opponents to h1B are just purely rooted in racism/xenophobia.
This is a case where I wanna hear “what do we replace it with?” From someone before I decide if we’re on the same page or not.
For those specific questions usually like 1 second.