The Northen Ireland Assembly works this way, at least for some things.
But, in general, the U.K. does not work that way. A particular political party sometimes gets a big majority.
The Northen Ireland Assembly works this way, at least for some things.
But, in general, the U.K. does not work that way. A particular political party sometimes gets a big majority.
I think its more likely its the transgender—autism correlation....
some forms of autism come with higher iq (and other forms, really really dont)
and there’s the transgender autism correlation
which together would seem to predict transgender high iq people
(and also transgender low iq that you arent seeing due to ascertainment bias)
This sounds like a terrible idea.
Though, if you’re going to be put under sedation in hospital for some legit medical reason, you could have in mind a cool experiment to try when you’re coming around in the recovery room.
i was sedated for endoscopy about 10 years ago,
they tell you not to drive afterwards (really, don’t try and drive afterwards)
and to have a friend with you for the rest of the day to look after you
i was somewhat impaired for the rest of the day (like, even trying to cook a meal was difficult and potentially risky … e.g. be careful not to accidentally burn yourself when cooking)
I drew a bunch of sketches after coming round to see how it affected my ability to draw.
Ever since NIST put a backdoor in Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator, they have the problem that many people no longer trust them.
I guess it might be possible to backdoor AI Safety Evaluations (e.g. suppose there is some know very dangerous thing that National Security Agency is doing with AI, and NIST deliberately rigs their criteria to not stop this very dangerous thing).
But apart from the total loss of public trust in them as an institution, NIST has done ground-breaking work in the computer security field in the past, so it wouldn’t be so unusual for them to develop AI criteria.
The whole dual elliptic curve fiasco is possibly a lesson that criteria should be developed by international groups, because a single country’s standards body, like NIST, can be subverted by their spy agencies.
It’s astonishing, but yes, that is the reason why that form of string theory takes place in a 26 dimensional space-time.
wait till you see E8*E8 heterotic string theory,
Watching the poly/mong argument on Twitter, my best guess is that sex has a very different personal meaning for these two groups of people. They certainly seem to be talking past each other.
I am not a Bayesian, so I have philosophical objections to giving probabilities to things that are not a distribution you can sample from.
The survey just assumes that everyone is a Bayesian.
I am not convinced by the second part of this, because you looked at a lot of points and then chose one that seemed interesting to you.
i will admit that something a bit like this sometimes happens in computer science (grant application to cover the cost of something you’ve just done; you know it’s possible, because you’ve just done it)
some years ago, I am giving a presentation to some senior honchos from our own Ministry of Defense, and afterwards I get asked about exactly this,. “so, you’re saying it’s like how people handled the Five Year Plan in the Soviet Union?” asks military dude who knows about Russia. Me, who knows how the sausages are made in academic research: “Basically, yes.”
so, maybe. Happens sometimes.
P.S. Was actually MoD, rather than DoD. DARPA principal investigators can also encounter a tough crowd.
P.P.S. And then theres the EU ones, where as PI you get a questioning that feels like a combination of your thesis defense and being audited by the tax authorities, and you gave no idea which type of question might be next,
You sometimes hear an argument like this in conspiracy theory groups. It gos something like this:
“My own pet conspiracy theory is sensible! But all the other conspiracy theories on here, they’re completely stupid! Nobody could possibly believe that! In fact, I think they’re all undercover agents sent by the government to make conspiracy theorists look stupid. Oh, wait, that’s also a conspiracy theory, isn’t it? Yes, I believe that one.”
And the really funny bit is NIST deliberately subverted the standard so that an organization who knew the master key (probably NSA) could break the security of the system. And then, in actualt implementation, the master key was changed so that someone else could break into everyone’s system And, officially at least, we have no idea who that someone is. Probably Chinese government. Could be organized crime, though probably unlikely.
The movie Sneakers had this as its plots years ago.. US government puts a secret backdoor in everyone’s computer system .. and, then, uh,, someone steals the key to that backdoor;
But anyway, yes, it is absolutely NISTs fault that they unintentionally gave the Chinese government backdoor access into US government computers.
(With a nod to SBF). What kind of criminal mastermind creates a Signal chat group called “wirefraud”? are you going to try and tell me there was a perfectly innocent explanation?
There is an argument to the effect that if you can write down in advance what you’re going to discover by doing an experiment, then it is not, in fact, scientific research....
There is story, possibly apocryphal, that the first person to isolate fluorine gas died in the attempt.
=====
In an introductory course on stained glass.. “some watercolour painters like to lick their brushes to get a good point. When you are painting toxic heavy metals on to glass, do not do this.”
some time later...
“hmmm.. looks like the particular kind of glass you have chosen for this project doesn’t take silver nitrate very well. Let’s try antimony instead....”
I think I’m going to put a low probability on “within 10 years AIs will be able to disempower humanity”.
i think merely being good at science is in no way sufficient to be able to do that; would require a bunch of additional factors (e.g. power seeking, ability to persuade humans, etc etc)
but on the other hand, I think Yann Lecun is way too complacent when he imagines that intelligent AIs will be just like high IQ humans employed by corporations. At a slight risk of being constraversial, i would suggest that e.g. Hamas members are within the range of human behaviours within the training set that an AI could choose to emulate.
Alternative theory (which, to be clear, I dont actually believe, but offer for consideration)
Many of the high iq people are too autistic to be successful
but female hormones protects against the autism somehow, without impacting iq too much
so the successful high iq people tend to be trans more often on average
https://cacm.acm.org/research/technical-perspective-backdoor-engineering/
for example. Although that paper is more about, “Given that NIST has deliberately subverted the standard, how did actual products also get subverted to exploit the weakness that NIST introduced.”
A Japanese guy I used to work with had a very serious genetic alcohol intolerance. (Like, a single drop of wine would probably be ok but anything more than that would likely put him in the hospital).
I guess if you have a known inability to metabolise alcohol, such that you’re already having be very car3fuo that anything you consume doesn’t have alcohol in it, you might want to be a little bit cautious here. but … maybe the quantity you get from the bacteria is so small it doesn’t matter.
This depends very much on how well debugged the compiler is...
* gcc on llvm on Intel hardware … very unlikely to be a bug in the compiler
you’re on some less well exercized target like RISC-V … ha, you are in for so much pain
it is so much fun debugging on experimental hardware where any of (a) your program (b) the compiler (c) the actual hardware are all plausibly buggy.
oh, I forgot (d) the tool used to convert the hardware description language (used to specify the chip design ) into logic gates, used to build the hardware, is itself buggy
A guess—most compounds are not that toxic, but LSD is potent in very small doses. So that if chemists are routinely exposed to small enough not to kill you doses of whatever they’re working with, when they work with LSD they will notice.
like, chlorine is not that toxic, and a routine step in analysing an unknown compound is to add acid and take a quick sniff to see if chlorine is coming off.
( and one time, the unknown compound we were given to analyse was some benzene derivative, and what you get a sniff of is way, way worse than chlorine).
I am an old person. They may not let you do that in chemistry any more.