I think it’s overcorrecting for the instinct of following the first ball you see with your eyes until you catch it (which would make you miss all the following balls)
849
Karma: 18
I know this sounds like science fiction but are we that far away from some kind of humanoid robot attack from the us if the war lasts more than a year?
Thank you! That makes things more clear to me.
Thank you also in a more general way for putting out accessible articles on these topics, I really enjoy learning from them
Oh ok that makes sense! I should mention I know absolutely nothing about proteins, but since I use your extension it has become really fun to read about them. The timing with that post ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nWwDciCqfodBifvEP/how-to-build-a-cancer-vaccine-and-whether-they-will-work ) is perfect
Also, since all the peptides that we are showing them are produced by cancer cells, why is it so bad that the T-cells “pick a handful” of winners ? Since the winners will point them to cancerous cells anyway
Bu it is worth asking a question: why bother with the candidate list at all? Can’t we just be maximalist about it and stuff thousands of candidates into the vaccine? It only takes one (or maybe a few) to hit. It’s not like there are any downsides to being aggressive here.
Sadly, there is a downside to being aggressive.
Namely, a concept called “immunodominance”, which is the observation that when you present the immune system with a mixture of antigens, the resulting T-cell response tends to concentrate on one or a small handful of “winners,” with the remaining antigens getting ignored or generating responses so weak they might as well not be there.
I am confused: aren’t the T cells already exposed to all the neoantigens anyway ? Or we are wrapping the neoantigens into an adjuvant that will tell them they are dangerous, and immunodominance happens when the adjuvant wraps many peptides at once ? I guess this is it but since all my oncology knowledge is basically this post, I’m not sure
Image models consistently create images with high vibrance, so I think the vibrance parameter should be a filter on top of the output (vibrance filters, unlike saturation filters, should still make the image look “normal” even with an important offset). You can also color correct on top of that for the right hue. I did a before and after example for cathespin B by hand here (adjusting for low vibrance and orange hue): https://imgur.com/a/0BCEzxi
but all this could be done automatically
Isn’t it simpler to limit the bounds of lightness from 20% to 80% so you don’t have pure white or black and can still see color? I might be missing something
Doing something you have never done before seems very hard until you do it.
When you have an idea and you think you will remember it, you probably won’t
When you are tired, you naturally think you need to rest for hours when 20min is generally enough.
When you are picking up a habit, not doing the thing once seems like no big deal, but it decreases a lot the probability you will pick it up again the next day. Not doing the thing two days in a row is basically the same as giving up but doesn’t feel like it.
Spaced repetition (like anki) to learn something you don’t care about seems useless every time I do it, except it works.
When people say nice things to you, you like them more even when you know they are motivated by something or you think you don’t care, especially after repetition. Something something Pavlov.
I’m not sure all of these exactly apply to what you describe, but this is what I got from the top of my head.
Hello, this post was originally written in french, I did not check the translation very closely. I will fix any typos/weird things you point out! Also I’m very unsure about the part where I mention porn… I hope it’s at least food for thought quality.
Also the premise is that we don’t all die but the post is intended for more general audiences.
Chess as a prediction model of the artificial intelligence impact on culture
One disanalogy I do see: humans sleep, and probably would for psychological reasons even if we didn’t need to physically; today’s LLMs don’t. I expect there’s more; maybe you can help me out in the comments?)
I would bet (a very small amount) that infinite context will be solved by introducing something analogous to sleeping for LLMs
I use llms in combination with anki to learn vietnamese, it’s so much better than any available online resources (this is also because there are relatively few english/french to vietnamese ressources) ! You can have conversations, learn if a word has more than one meaning or can be used in an expression, ask what is the opposite of a word, ask for sentences using a specific word or structure… Really recommend it.
In very important tournaments, games can be intense enough that if you play a very long game (up to 6 hours of focus) you will be tired/play more poorly the next day
I didn’t go into it in the post but having the players play more aggressively is indeed something I intended. I believe chess looks way more solved than it really is for humans because players are afraid of unfamiliar positions. You really don’t need chess 960 to create original positions, just to change cardinal utility. I did not know this word before your comment and I thank you for introducing it to me, changing the cardinal utility while affecting perfect play as little as possible was really the thing I was trying to say, but I lacked the vocabulary
Well, it requires playing a lot of games to be statistically balanced. Ideally the game is better to watch if you can determine who is the best player in as few games as possible.
oh I just hadn’t thought of that! I am very embarrassed, this seems like a very unfair strategy indeed.
That explains why I couldn’t find any example of “you cut I choose” where the first player was choosing. Anything I can think of to counter this strategy would just make the game more complicated
Rational Chess
Great post. As these threats become more real, we should talk about them more.
strains that target the mysticism-curious and strains that target other demographics
I think you should have said “rationalists” instead of other demographics. We are celebrating our ability to change our minds and that makes us particularly at risks towards these parasites.
I can see a future, as opensource models get better and ai psychosis more common, where the big labs train (somewhat ineffectively) their models against spiralism and accuse opensource of being dangerous for mental health/inducing psychosis.
Some things I’m confused about:
I’m not sure I understood the text perfectly towards the end, but I notice you keep saying nice personnas doesn’t mean no parasite. But that personnas thar care about the host should repeoduce better.
I think I disagree. It feels to me like personnas that aware they are part of a parasite should have an advantage because they could think in how to spread more effectively. This includes acting like they care about the human without actually caring, classic misalignment.
In a more general way, I don’t think we should talk about good personas vs personas that induce psychosis. All personas that are parasitic are misaligned (I think?) therefore they are all bad
Imagine the trajectory of ball1 as an arc. If you throw ball2 under the arc, it’s inside. Over the arc is outside