I don’t understand what you’re getting at with your response to the question of personal evil.
You’re right about trading.
Seeing an Onion headline say “X did Y” is teeny evidence that X didn’t Y.
...
I think that’s doubtful.
In which direction? Do you mean to say that it’s no evidence, or it’s strong evidence? You speak of “a strong prior against the event”, but the strength of the prior doesn’t have any necessary relation to the strength of the evidence.
Nice. Is there some post about dath ilan that establishes that (I don’t see it in Yudkowsky’s original AMA), or did you just make this up?
Thanks, but that’s deliberate. Revived-archaic synonym of “because”.
I intended the latter. Ideally, instructors would start teaching students that in an act of educational reform, but that’s harder and very unlikely from what I see now.
there are no widely-accepted models of how history works that are detailed enough to let you predict the outcomes of unfamiliar historical events
We don’t need such a model. The students would be figuring it out for themselves, and we don’t expect them to predict in great detail. There’d have to be a lot of partial credit in this.
in the few cases where students are asked to give causal explanations in current classes, their work is graded as a persuasive essay rather than as a factual claim that can be held to some objective standard of correctness.
That’s exactly the issue.
What did you think the right word would be?
(It’s deliberate. Synonym of “because”.)
When you actually do these never-ending simple tasks, do you dislike/suffer-from the process itself? Or is this just the stress of having to do them sometime, when you’re not doing them?
(Sorry if you already explained this, but it’s not very clear from the question)
Neither. Long-lasting deliberate idiosyncrasy, based on Shakespearean English.
What word is sufficiently Levenshtein-close to “sith” as to get there from a typo whilst also fitting grammatically into the sentence?
1 and 2 are absolutely correct, but for specific subsets. Outside such subsets, this optimisation still applies.
3 is correct sometimes as reversed advice. I see your point in 3 often (usually implicit). My post reverses that in response to it sometimes going too far.
It seems I went too far. Hence the expanded original:
Adjust how much to omit based on the concentration and domain-intelligence of the listener. Your starting point should probably err more on the side of “omit more redundancy” than it currently does.
是年龄的影响，还是标识的影响？
机译
Clever, but
to the point that I can’t predict it
not further. If you increase redundancy, still unpredictable, as here, you probably went too far.
Just did it. Paradox.
Fixed, thanks. I implicitly assumed that all ChatGPT use we cared about was about complicated, confusing topics, where “correct” would be little evidence.