presumably perfect competition defects from perfect price discrimination
‘how-level’ would be easier to parse
In general a language model will ‘know’ the sentence related to the single occurrence of a rare name. I don’t think you learn much here if there are enough parameters available to support this memory.
Perhaps GPT-3 has more parameters than are probably needed to roughly memorize its very large training data. This would be good since the data contains some low quality garbage, false claims, etc (can think of them as ‘noise’). I believe GPT-n are adding parameters faster than training data Here’s my summary of a paper that suggests this is the right move:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzGguadEHOU Microsoft guy Sebastian Bubeck talking about seemingly overparameterized neural models being necessary for learning (due to label noise?). Validation ‘early stopping’ of training duration or size scaling is a mistake. after you’re over some initial hump that would trigger validation early stopping, overfitting is ‘benign’ [already known, dubbed ‘double descent’]. As soon as you can defeat adversarial attacks then you’re probably using enough parameters. He (+intern) proves that in order to perfectly memorize the label-noised data set such that small perturbations in the noise don’t change predicted output, you need a much larger parameter set than the data set (perfectly memorizing the training data set should be possible within some constant factor of its size). He predicts that ImageNet (image labeling task) could benefit from 10-100 billion parameters instead of the current sub-1-billion.
(obviously GPT- are language models but they can be thought of as having an output which is the masked word or the sentence-before-or-after or whatever they’re using to train)
Two reasons you could recommend boosters for vulnerable only:
global first doses first thinking
awareness that eradicating covid by rapid vaccination to herd immunity is futile given current effectiveness+adoption and hope to reduce the mareks-like adaptation of more vax-resistant strains so that the vulnerable can have more of the benefit preserved to them
It does seem that, temporarily supply shortages aside, you should advocate universal ‘vaccination’ (say w/ moderna) iff you also advocate ongoing doses until a real vaccine is available.
Your contrary cite notwithstanding, I predict Delta will end up less damaging on average and more cases will go uncounted due to its mildness. This may also drive some overestimation of its virulence. It does appear to spread well enough that is a question of when not if you’ll be exposed.
as always the legal term ‘minor’ is not really germane to the topic people really care about
Everyone wants fewer of these people.
If there’s a way there that involves an edit of existing people (including by invasive ‘minder’ future tech), fine.
Otherwise, prevent them being born or destroy them.
Holders of prepayable loans don’t really benefit much when rates drop, so I’ll assume you mean bond-like instruments (or ones that aren’t likely to be refinanced out of, or that pay some bonus in that event).
surely private installations of the facility will be sold to trade-secret-protecting teams
‘If this were true, where are the lawsuits against the vaccine makers?’
Surely they’ve been shielded from liability so there won’t be any.
To me, ‘evil’ means ‘should be destroyed if possible’. Therefore I don’t like to hand out the label recklessly, as it leads generally to impotent rage, which is harmful to me.
Is only 1⁄3 of Long Covid sufferers actually having had covid definitely a thing, too? I think it is (or maybe antibody tests give many false positives?)
That seems a bit overconfident. Immunity is one supposed long-term effect. Death is another long-term effect though obviously infrequent in approved vaccines.
In order to weigh about the possibility of long term effects of the MRNA covax (Pfizer, Moderna), we need some plausible categories of mechanism; my understanding is that a known-harmful spike protein is produced in some quantity (surely dose dependent; why do they dose large people the same as small?) which may cause some clots or other harms acutely, but then days later spike levels are back to zero at which point there’s nothing more to worry about except lingering cancer type damage that won’t heal fully, and autoimmune (more likely in case of response to covid exposure than broadly own-tissue-attacking which we’d have seen already after 100m doses). I’ve heard no specific evidence that the spike insult or the MRNA mechanism would cause either but those are the categories of risk as I see it, FWIW.
How much lower is the chance of being ‘infected eventually’ if you keep current on your annual (or whatever it ends up at) corona vaccination booster?
Convincing. Good question re: Disulfiram. Maybe drugs that make it easier to ride out physical dependency (+ alcohol withdrawal poisoning) are of greater practical use/demand—methadone seems popular [for rehabilitating opiate addicts, not alcohol, obv.].
Why? ‘EET-A will show temporary benefits as an anti-ageing therapy (70% as above) and will work “better” than* senolytics in that it will actually reverse ageing rather than needing to be taken at higher concentrations over time (40%).’
How would you obtain and how would you dose if you were performing a human study?
(and why 3 separate parts?)
This may have made sense to the author, but to me it’s unclear and unmotivated.