Magic not needed… someone sees that SBF offers 3 billion to buy a piece of twitter, gets spooked and aggregates it on the prediction market → this raises the probability that it’s doing something shady (then any other assessment will be aggregated) now when FTX offers EA some money, we know the probability of them doing something shady… have some info to make a better decision (I noticed Scott Alexander writing about this)
I don’t think it’s quite a mystery as you think… if you do the same overleveraged high stakes bet and you come out winning ten out of ten times, it’s likely you will continue doing it (this is the nature of a ponzi scheme.) I think they could have easily find investors if they could have sustained the bank run and prevent the balance sheet leak.
The latter, I think, is the real mystery.
SBF probably knew at all times the dollar value size of a bank-run he could sustain until having to forcedly lock withdrawals, plus which whales could dump FTT at any given time (one of this being the CEO of Binance.)
While most people are thinking that Binance’s CEO Changpeng Zhao made a huge move dumping all of FTT, I think it’s terrible for him—it highlights the fragility of the entire enterprise and shifts all eyes on the remaining centralized exchanges (I imagine SBF’s line of thinking going something like this, he didn’t think that Zhao would martyr himself, but he did and thus we’re here)
We need better prediction markets
hehe Inadequate Equilibria is one of my favorite books ever, so I’m really glad that this study came up. It proves not only the SAD-specific section of the book, but the overall point.
I would recommend to only focus on the object-level problem you’re trying to solve.
for programming, things like more monitors, a better IDE (or extensions, knowing how to navigate it by traveling back and forward, having a section with last opened files, last refactored functions, etc...) will help.
for conversations, you can apply some heuristics at different points of the conversation: what are talking about again? what did they mention? are we at the midpoint, ending, etc…
In mathematics, notation is basically a solution to the small working memory that we have, you just have to find the analogue for whatever you’re trying to solve. I doubt something will permanently fix low working memory in the long-term (e.g. dual n back) you can of course try some acetylcholine release agents or reuptake inhibitors which will make you more vigilant (e.g. the mildest one being coffee.) There’s also some evidence pointing to fasting, sleep deprivation, niche nutritional protocols such as carnivore diets (or rather, strict exclusion diets where you remove some foods progressively until you find the one that does not suit you.)
This is an excerpt I want to highlight for everyone in this forum:
> I agreed and said I was planning on doing it next Monday… anyway, 2 years later on <some> Monday I finally found the time.
Write your thinking, expand on your comments, even if it takes 2 years!! I think there will always be someone which will derive value from it.
PredictIt is closing due to CFTC changing its mind
This type of honesty is very unheard of and I appreciate this a lot from you. Please, just take it step by step, I can assure that no one is out to get you and no one thinks that you’re being childish; all the contrary, you are quite honest and smart in your account.
I feel like many members of this community have had very similar experiences, I know that Scott Alexander, Eliezer, lukeprog , and Aella for example have had to make massive updates to their beliefs, and they’ve luckily written about it. I think you would get value from reading their accounts.
You don’t have to make immediate updates, these take a time, and only when you’re ready you can do so. In the end, your self-preservation, and self-actualization are the most important things you can optimize for.
I didn’t read any bad intent from P on his/her comment. And I also got the general sense from the post: of looking for help rather than us telling how you can help LW, and I’m guessing that was the nature of the comment.
I feel like you are quite a smart person (and still very young) but with the wrong assumptions that may be blocking a very meaningful self-development that is key to life (being independent/belonging to a group that cares about you) and I think you will be benefit greatly from trying to accomplish these goals however hard they may seem to you.
While you’ve had a very unique experience growing up that may have wired you in a certain way, this is not basis to the fact that you cannot live in any other way or change your mind (e.g. how sure are you of not having a job because you can take “another person telling me what to do” as opposed to just being plain afraid of doing something that you have virtually never done before?) I think navigating this reversal in assumptions will bring the most value to you and your content here.
I really enjoyed the post, and I appreciate reading about your experience and honesty. This unique experience in life that you had will bring unique insight, and I think this is how you can help others.
There’s also this video where Rhonda Patrick goes in depth about this
The main chemical compound in broccolli and other cruciferous vegetables is sulforaphane, which has various health benefits, it’s syntetized by an enzime called myrosinase which is very heat sensitive; this paper https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.01.002 has a table showing the different and optimal boiling temperatures.
Not to mention the fact that different foods have different cooking times, and if you overcook one (e.g. broccoli) you risk losing all nutritive properties.
I think he was running the same algorithm he used when the LW community “failed” to buy bitcoin in bulk. Here’s the response if you are interested in reading about a similar case as this.
I didn’t mean to discuss sentience here, I was looking more into the usefulness/interestingness of the conversation: the creativity/funnyness behind the responses. I think that everyone I’ve ever met and conversed for more than ~30 mins showed a very different quality to this conversation. This conversation didn’t make me think/laugh ever the way conversing with a human does.
For example, if they quote Les Miserable or any other book it would be via the way it relates to them on a personal level, a particular scene/a particular dialogue that has struck them in a very particular way and has stayed with them ever since, not a global summary of what it’s via scraping who knows what website. If I were to believe this A.I. is sentient, I would say it’s a liar.
If someone has the response that this LaMDA had, I would bet they hadn’t actually read the book, would never claim to have done that, and would never bring this into conversation in the first place. This differs from every single one person (e.g. everyone will give different answers) and it’s not something I would ever find by searching Les Miserables on Google.
This is to say that I have gained nothing from ever conversing to this supposed A.I, the same reason why no-one converses with GPT-3, or why people actually use DALLE or GitHub Copilot. I’m not asking it to write a symphony, just make me laugh once, make me think once, help me at some problem I have.
“Universal love,” said the cactus person.
“Transcendent joy,” said the big green bat.
“Right,” I said. “I’m absolutely in favor of both those things. But before we go any further, could you tell me the two prime factors of 1,522,605,027, 922,533,360, 535,618,378, 132,637,429, 718,068,114, 961,380,688, 657,908,494 ,580,122,963, 258,952,897, 654,000,350, 692,006,139?
“Universal love,” said the cactus person.
“Transcendent joy,” said the big green bat.
Boom, LaMDA is turned off… so much for sentience.
Someone ran the same questions through GPT and got similar responses back, so that’s a point towards this not being a hoax, but just a sophisticated chat-bot. Still doesn’t avoid editing or cherry-picking.
Now, while I feel this article being a bit interesting, it’s still missing the point of what would get me interested in the first place… if it has read Les Miserables and can draw conclusion on what it is about, what else has LaMDA read? Can it draw parallels with other novels?
If it would had responded something like, “Actually… Les Miserables is plagiarized from so and so, you can find similar word-structure in this book...” something truly novel, or funny that would have made the case for sentience more than anything. I think the response about being useful are correct to some extent, since the only reason why I use copilot is because it’s useful.
So this point would actually be more interesting to read about e.g. has LaMDA read interesting papers, can it summarize it? I would be interested in seeing it ask difficult questions… try to get something funny/creative out of it. But as this wasn’t shown I think they were asked and the responses were edited out.
Good comments, thanks for sharing both.
Journal about your thought processes after solving each problem
create a way to ‘get to’ that memory somehow;
’d love to hear more about practical insights on how to get better at recalling + problem-solving.
What books are you reading? Podcast you are watching? Talks/articles to recommend?
Thank you for being a temporary asshole, that is a great comment. Does it occur to you how it can be done?
the first prediction market about this was in 8 november on polymarket and surprisingly it was 94 percent probability on them not halting withdrawals