burst neurons in the brainstem wire directly to the optic motor neurons, and essentially only have an on-off switch, with no intermediate level of control. Again, this can be demonstrated to yourself fairly intuitively–just try to move your eyes slowly in one direction, instead of in jumps.
I can’t consciously move my eyes smoothly, but it’s easy if I’m tracking a moving object. How does that work?
I think the Mac Mini is actually running the LLM in that hypothetical, not just querying an API. Apple Silicon Macs are better at this than most comparable-$ hardware. A RasPi would be far too slow.
I think the pattern might be narrower. People create nastier weapons, hoping that they will somehow prevent war, but they don’t. Instead, they make war nastier.
I liked that bit. It made the ceremony feel like a closed container, so it was OK to “wake up” and talk normally with my friends. As you point out, there was in fact some lingering symbolism, but that’s OK.
If the counts weren’t public until after voting were closed, do you think people would vote significantly differently?
My instinct says they wouldn’t.
What was this image?
Insufficient data for meaningful answer
Nothing?
I don’t think these examples are quite security theater. A good bike lock makes your bike harder to steal; a “theatrical” bike lock would mostly just make it look harder to steal. Even a skinny cable lock, the sort you can cut with fingernail clippers, keeps it from being stolen by passers-by who don’t have fingernail clippers.
(Of course, the same argument applies to the TSA, so maybe I’m just wrong about what “security theater” means.)
Exceptions (which I think is what you mean by edge cases) DO indicate that a rule is incomplete or not universal.
Yes! But rules don’t have to be complete or universal to be acceptable.
Rules about people should be more formally correct than is implied by this post.
I think I see what you’re getting at. My instinct kinda runs the other way, though: if people don’t fit neatly into categories (and you care about the edge cases), it might be better to throw out the rule entirely rather than formalize it and categorize those edge cases. Could you give an example of where formalizing would be helpful?
Could you expand on this? What are the fnords?
How do you avoid bug bites?
That makes sense. I guess I’m mostly reacting to the last sentence, which adds a moral aspect.
(I’m also not 100% sure how much the last sentence is a joke, or deliberate exaggeration?)
lest we see anyone waver in their moral resolution to internalize most externalities.
If I find out that internalizing externalities is harmful, I don’t want to do it! It might be harmful to moralize this, in case it makes it harder to change our minds?
I’m planning to participate, if I can find some folks to work together in person!
I’m in Redwood City.
What is this trick? The video seems to be gone.
I think this might conflate “science” with something like “statistics”. It’s possible to study things like personal experience, just harder at scale.
The Hollywood-scientist example illustrates this, I think. Dr. Physicist finds something that wildly conflicts with her current understanding of the world, and would be hard to put a number on, so she concludes that it can’t and shouldn’t be reasoned about using the scientific method.
I don’t get the punchline. Do they plan to capture and use the AGI rather than killing it? Spread more zombie plague, for some reason? Did they start it in the first place? Does the briefcase have vaccines in it?
I think there is some legitimate comfort here. Trucks, rifles, and gravity bombs have been available for decades. We know roughly how often, and how effectively, terrorists use them. “Trucks are deadlier than drones” means “drones are less deadly than trucks”!