The way it seems to work in Canada is that the government decides on a set of topics they want to fund that are fairly high level, and as long as your work falls in one of those categories, the grant gets approved. So the government doesn’t choose the specific drug to study. They choose which medical condition we want to try to treat, then they let the PIs tell them what they want to do and how it relates to those priorities.

I still can’t see it. I can recognize that the eyes are actually nostrils, but it’s not coming together in my head.

The other potential explanation is that it’s because the speed task increases in difficulty as you get better at it. I’m hoping that’s the real reason.

I don’t think lack of intelligence is the reason most people are fine with eating animal meat and not human babies. It’s usually that humans just value animal lives less than that of other humans.

How does this compare to other types of cognitive work? There are much more interesting things I’d rather spend my time on. It’d be nice to know if they have similar benefits.

Play your cards right and one of them might pay you to pull on it.

1. Learning something new is winning.
2. Your perspective is irrelevant when it comes to facts. It only matters when it’s about your personal experience, and there are no sources you can cite to contradict those experiences.

Monkeys at that time period were primed to pick up the first tool. If not that monkey, then another would’ve done it shortly afterwards.

One of my friends got a penicillin IV at the hospital, and the machine shortened it to “PENI5”.

With no additional context, if you said that “the balls in this glass are generally blue”, I would interpret that meaning every ball falls within the range of hues that can still be called blue by most people but may be questioned by a few. So 100% of the balls have to be “I can see why someone would call that blue”.

Financing is available for your $1 candy bars now.

Yes

So, did you do it?

I think they’re referring to random mutations. There’s no evolutionary pressure to get better at any of these skills, so at a population level, we’re unlikely to see any change. But at the individual level, it’s still possible through these mutations.

Not malicious in the sense that the intent isn’t to cause harm to us regular people. If buying those properties raised our prices and didn’t help them keep their money, they wouldn’t do it. If it didn’t raise our prices and helped them keep their money, they would still do it.

But does his boss have the authority to allow it?

You could say the same about people who used the early 2000s Google by entering full questions with natural language and clicking “I’m feeling lucky”. There are always going to be wrong ways to use a tool. But we’re discussing whether there exists a right way. And that right way includes verifying the information you receive, just like you would if you found it through a regular search engine.

The social and environmental costs are real. That’s not the criticism you gave and not what the responses are disagreeing with.

Willingness to look is a pretty important factor. LLMs reduce the personal cost incurred to look up information, similar to how search engines saved us from having to go to the library for every question we had.

We already had subreddit simulator for ages. This isn’t anything new.

Cloud housing when?