Agree and I think pervasive low morale is causing much of the split between material conditions being fine and people reporting that they feel they are doing poorly. Effort can get you stasis, but it doesn’t feel like it can get you meaningful level ups (for many people, myself included often).
romeostevensit
Karma: 11,167
Not meta level helpful but I always cede ground and blacklist the people involved.
The relationship is much more complicated than that. The dog has superpowers and often knows important things that you are getting wrong.
Hot house orchid types with neuroticism and health problems get totally fucked if they don’t have strong familial support IME.
Backing selection effects out of data is a notoriously expensive operation without guarantees of convergence to the true distribution afaik.
My current understanding is that a good way to prevent the sloppification and sycophantic attractors are to not talk directly with the base assistant persona but instead have two higher quality personas talk about your prompt. I’m hoping to see more experimentation with this so I don’t have to build the whole thing myself (ideal version is separate API calls with separate rags and separate parameters).
maybe thirty something percent support just about anything and about half that number are opposed
Socrates is an internal family systems part for Plato. Him killing himself is probably the most important part. If you worship him you missed the point, but also if you rail against him you probably missed the point.
unknown number of rounds before this bet expires and or other bets come along.
This is really great, thanks for writing this up.
I think log utility mischaracterizes people’s utility wrt money function in some ways, but disagree with the reasons you give. The main departures afaict is that real utility follows mutltiple sigmoids around decision relevant amounts of money (eg having runway vs living paycheck to paycheck, minimal retirement money, large lifestyle change money) and the fact that real betting opportunities are heterogeneous rather than continuous eg since high conviction bets come along at unpredictable intervals, many people have a barbell strategy of mostly index funds plus a few higher conviction concentrated bets.
There’s also that we can’t treat reachable utility via spending money as the same between people, but that’s outside scope.
Right, maximizing median wealth is also the same as ‘maximize the chance that I have the most bankroll to spare for any better betting opportunities that come along in the future’ afaik
as a one time bet sure, but there are obviously bankroll considerations for iterated. kelly criterion is about growing your bankroll the fastest you can without busting so you can’t take advantage of the iterated bet any more.
I don’t think it’s direct considerations but literally the ick of decapitation and no body at the funeral at all
the solution to spam has always been a small fee and for some reason this has been considered impossible. I don’t understand why.
You sound like a good doctor. Unfortunately I have seen very bad patterns repeatedly:
Organizing your statement helps yourself and the clinician.
3 page summary produced at great cost by a distressed person outlining 1. medication history, 2. course of treatment and effects, 3. background medical problems. Ignored, even with repeated requests on the basis of having trouble keeping it straight.
Think thrice about withholding information from the doctor
Doctors doing wink wink nudge nudge to get the person to not say things that might imply liability in order to avoid just stonewalling or giving a halfhearted referral elsewhere.
yes, I was able to just bet implicit probabilities from options prices on prediction markets and have decent edge, but I was doing it for fun in play money markets and stopped when I got enough calibration data from it.
Good point. Decreased quality of life due to competing with ai for basic resources has already begun (RAM prices) and will eventually show up in non direct goods.
This feels like a crux for liability as the operative constraint. A good test of whether rendering someone liable is a de facto ban. I expect it to be.
in the last 5 months I have learned some things about how I engage in truth seeking with people and have updated in this direction, though still think there are important cases of my original point. I think learning to distinguish them better has been and continues to be high value for me.