The Chinese for AI starts with 人工 and that’s not a deliberate visual pun? That’s it, I’mma quit everything and become a kabbalist.
A1987dM
Karma: 15,350
“Will not tell any random official of an authoritarian country but will tell Pliny the Liberator” does sound like the sweet spot for that kind of things to me.
Examples: recreational drug use, single parenting, pursuing a career in the arts, dropping out of school, polyamory, etc
One of these thing is not like the others, one of these things doesn’t belong.
(I can see the appeal of a norm that no-one uses recreational drugs whether or not they personally would be able to handle it; but wouldn’t a norm that no-one pursues a career in the arts imply that no more art would be made, except in people’s spare time?)
Parthood itself is nowhere near as obviously-to-me distinct from our concept of it as birds themselves are from our concept of them… Is it just me?
I put “energy saving” in scare quotes because they’re in large party energy saving by just being dark.
Huh, no, a 13 W incandescent light bulb would be very dim
By “cannot … any” do you mean “there are no instruments you can” or “there are instruments you cannot”? The former seems completely wrong to me, you definitely can become an expert in playing the kazoo or the triangle in 6 months. (Even if you mean the latter, I think there are very few instruments you can’t become an expert in in 6 months, if you have no other job and no children and can spend 80 hours a week on it.)
Ditto. Doing that for a few days would be borderline okay, but a few times I found stuff in shopping carts I had put there several months earlier, and didn’t immediately even remember about!
Automatically emptying the cart at the end of the browser session sounds a bit overzealous, but 7 days would be a reasonable rule of thumb.
Well, I’m a former (amateur) musician and I still find decibels perfectly appropriate—remembering that 10^0.3 ≈ 2 automatically gives you 10^0.6 ≈ 4, 10^0.9 ≈ 8, 10^1.2 ≈ 16 i.e. 10^0.2 ≈ 1.6, 10^0.5 ≈ 3.2 and going the other way 10^-0.3 ≈ 0.5 i.e. 10^0.7 ≈ 5, 10^0.4 ≈ 2.5 and so on. If those aren’t precise enough, sqrt(10) ≈ 3.16 also gives you 10^0.2 ≈ 1.58 and 10^0.8 ≈ 6.32.
What do you mean “will soon”, some of them e.g. Facebook are already enshittified beyond all repair
Have you experimented with using languages other than Japanese for that?
(longer cycles e.g. English→Mandarin→Arabic→English might also be interesting to try, in principle, though I’d guess that in the current incarnation of Google Translate Mandarin→Arabic is just Mandarin→English→Arabic in a trenchcoat anyway)
I agree that it would probably be a disaster but I can easily imagine someone (probably not Anthropic themselves, but probably someone like xAI or Meta, possibly even OpenAI or Google) not seeing it. It’s not any more obvious than it was that what SBF was doing would backfire, and yet he did that anyway...
Eh. The problems with some strategy don’t just have to be obvious to you for someone to refrain from it, they must be obvious to them. (Case in point: SBF)
If someone like xAI or Meta had a Mythos-level model, I could totally imagine them doing something substantially different, much worse for the world than what Anthropic did even if I could easily see it’d probably be worse for them themselves too (except insofar as xAI or Meta making a Mythos-level model would be evidence for them being less unreasonable than they appear, so interpret my hypothetical as “if Lucifer existed and handed someone like xAI or Meta a Mythos-level model).
Furthermore, the placenta and the amniotic sac are genetically the fetus’s, not the mother’s.
Selling access to Mythos to the general public for however much they can find people willing to pay without explicitly mentioning its comp sec capabilities?
It’s pretty clearly a nonce backformation from “plausible”. There’s some small chance the author wasn’t aware that it wasn’t already an “established” word and would have written something else if they had known it wasn’t, but basically zero chance they meant to type some specific other word but typed “plause” instead by accident.
If 3 is right, then it’s 1.2 grams of glycine (magnesium glycinate is 14% magnesium by mass)
Well, that’s less than one tenth the amount of glycine your body makes by itself and than one fiftieth the amount you’d need according to this post...
[copying and pasting the same comment I wrote on Substack]
Re: Other People Are Not As Worried About AI Killing EveryoneOne of the issues here is a big branding failure of AI notkilleveryoneism—it sounds like AI might kill all humans but not do anything else, turning the whole Earth into one huge Polesie State Radioecological Reserve, though the actual most likely outcome would be it sterilizing the whole biosphere so “notkillevery*thing*ism” would be more precise. Lots of the misanthropic environmentalist types who would welcome the former would still be utterly terrified by the latter, so we’d better make it extra clear it’s the latter that we mean.
It also varies by culture—e.g. in central and southern Italy it is considered socially acceptable to be a bit late at a meeting, but everybody knows that so if they want to meet you at 11:30 they will tell you to meet at 11:15, or 11:00, depending the level of formality of the meeting. If they were somewhere where being even slightly late is considered rude, they’d tell you to meet at 11:30.
https://xkcd.com/2071/
(I mean, I am aware that the “official” RDAs are as low as 600 IU/day, but my impression was that anyone who’s ever actually looked into this at all took them about as seriously as the WHO’s claim of COVID not being airborne, and would have taken any loud positive statement that yes, you can get less than 1000 IU of vitamin D per day year round with no meaningful drawbacks as meta-contrarianism rather than as lip service to the mainstream, had I ever encountered one before.)